Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

I mean other than asking the mother with legal custody whether she wanted the child placed with other relatives.

Did they? I don't take their word for it, so I don't know.

The presumption standard you call for is actually not the one you've been operating under. It's something like "presume the worst." It takes no presumption of good faith to question the evidence, the record, what the lawyer said or didn't say.

I operate based on the past history of these people and this president. That includes remembering their extensive dishonesty and frequent glee with which they discuss being cruel towards others.

Just like their currently ignoring a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling they lost, which apparently Donald only learned he lost very recently because nobody apparently told him.

We don't know the basics of the father. Why he didn't have legal custody, if he was also in the country illegally

Quick reminder: Being in the country without documentation is not a criminal offense.

if he's wanted for anything else.

Or, what if he doesn't know? Not every is reading the news and he could be unaware.

Sorry, but news articles parroting what the lawyer says to the media or judges is insufficient.

Then the word of this administration should be equally as insufficient, yet you repeat it uncritically time and time again.

Curious, innit?

[SAY HER NAME]

Still very much reliant on "according to a lawyer."

The default should be that a mother of a 2 year old would of course want to be together with her young child. The rest of the factual record is not stated. The basic "what we know now" was that she stated her intent to have her minor children be with her, and was deported.

Untested claims otherwise by a lawyer aren't dispositive.

All kind of hearsay potential bullshit. Is he also subject to a due-process removal order? I gather what's unsaid is that the parents weren't together and weren't married, based on what was said about "legal custody." This is to say, if it turns out the mother had legal custody of her children, and wanted to be with them (very natural), it's not likely that a non-custodial parent could force her to part with her minor children.

Of course, if the situation were reversed, we would be talking about the malicious act of separating a mother from her children, just because the mother was in the country illegally. So, yeah, let's see further developments on why that father didn't have legal custody of his children, and all the things that a lawyer wouldn't bring up to sympathetic news outlets. The entire course of the last two months should establish that news outlets are acting as mouthpieces for immigrant lawyers.

I'll also add that child US citizens are still eligible to return, the provisions of a valid US port of entry and guardianship notwithstanding.

I mean the factual statements as is that ICE deported this child without even having the mother go in front of a court and state that she wants to take the child with her. Which is the major issue. You have seen the note in my post right? ICE literally had her write in a hotel notebook. This is despite the judge, the lawyers, the father of the child going through the process of having her stay in the country. The judge literally requested that ICE bring her to the court so she can say that she wants to take the child. Its a custody issue, an issue that ICE resolved by deporting an american child of 2 years old.

Like even if you dont have the lawyers statements, we have the statements of the judge and the note. The judge is literally going to open a case bc they suspect ICE skipped due process in deporting a US citizen

[Breccia]

(continues to avoid question about Trump wanting criminal investigation into negative polls)

Translation: I admit I am a traitor to my own country, and I admit it with pride.

[tehdang]

I mean the factual statements as is that ICE deported this child

What is all this gibberish? ICE deported his mother, and asked the mother if she wanted to take her child and leave it with the relatives. Seeing as how she had legal custody, it was her choice.

ICE literally had her write in a hotel notebook. This is despite the judge, the lawyers, the father of the child going through the process of having her stay in the country.

Her child is naturally welcome to return if something's been worked out with the consent of the mother. But ultimately it's her choice. And I'm seeing a lot of pure speculation that it wasn't her choice. Which is why it's nice to have her sign a document of her intentions.

Her child is a citizen. If there's green card holders or citizens that want to raise her, and it's ok with mom, that is still process. Lawful port of entry for a citizen.

The judge literally requested

If you read my post, you'll know that I'm not relying on what a judge requests. It's legal custody and her intention to take her child. Which is totally understandable given that the child is 2. Now, if you want shoot pure speculation on alternative facts into the wind, just acknowledge that.

deporting a US citizen

Pablum. A 2 year old in the care of her mother was not deported. The mother was. She has every right to take the child with her and i suspect we would be hearing about a marriage and shared custody if that was the case.

Did they? I don't take their word for it, so I don't know.

That's the whole post. Argument from ignorance. When there's contrary claims, I'm not going to dismiss a mother's signed statement or some lawyer's statement to a judge or media. Even if you are prejudiced against one or the other.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...es-lawyers-say

In a Thursday court filing, lawyers for the father said ICE indicated that it was holding the 2-year-old girl in a bid to induce the father to turn himself in. His lawyers didn’t describe his immigration status, but said he has legally delegated the custody of his daughters to his sister-in-law, a U.S. citizen who also lives in Baton Rouge.

More a Ned funded thing, but the "induce the father to turn himself in" told me instantly that there's more to this story than the lawyer or the father are telling. If this is the case that mom and dad aren't talking/together/shared custody, then maybe she never was cool being separated from her 2 year old daughter. A lot rides on the thought that she went through due process, received a removal order, but failed to communicate who should raise her daughter (the daughter raised apart from her being her wish in that case).

Once you have that removal order, if you're the parent of a citizen, decide whether to keep the family intact, or leave them with people you can name to ICE when they effect the lawful removal order.

[Breccia]

Her child is naturally welcome to return

Translation: It's okay that we act in unConstitutional illegal ways that violate human rights. The two-year-old child can always come back for seconds.

[Edge-]

More a Ned funded thing, but the "induce the father to turn himself in" told me instantly that there's more to this story than the lawyer or the father are telling.

wait, i missed that bit in particular.

you're saying (well, NPR/the lawyer) that ICE is holding the girl to try to get the father to turn himself in?

that sounds like...i dunno...kidnapping?

if i'm reading correctly?

because it seems that the girl should be with the sister-in-law who appears like she would have legal custody and not with ICE?

if i'm reading correctly, feel free to correct if i'm not.

[Veggie50]

wait, i missed that bit in particular.

you're saying (well, NPR/the lawyer) that ICE is holding the girl to try to get the father to turn himself in?

that sounds like...i dunno...kidnapping?

if i'm reading correctly?

because it seems that the girl should be with the sister-in-law who appears like she would have legal custody and not with ICE?

if i'm reading correctly, feel free to correct if i'm not.

Nooo you got it allllll wrong, that’s not kidnapping!

…it’s a hostage situation, sure… but not kidnapping. The Trump administration is very particular about committing domestic terrorism against their citizens.

[draynay]

I'll remind you:

And consider that conservatives also get off on not doing anything, which they can fairly well accomplish if they hold any one of the three, whereas Democrats need all three to generally get anything meaningful done.

They [republicans] don’t do much regardless of who is in office [of the presidency].

I can see how my post could have been unclear.

[PhaelixWW]

They [republicans] don’t do much regardless of who is in office [of the presidency].

I can see how my post could have been unclear.

Ah, yes, I definitely misunderstood.

Mea culpa.

[tehdang]

wait, i missed that bit in particular.

you're saying (well, NPR/the lawyer) that ICE is holding the girl to try to get the father to turn himself in?

that sounds like...i dunno...kidnapping?

if i'm reading correctly?

because it seems that the girl should be with the sister-in-law who appears like she would have legal custody and not with ICE?

if i'm reading correctly, feel free to correct if i'm not.

A two-year-old, being a minor, is in the care of their parent, parents, guardian, whatever.

The hope, I think, for the anti-ICE side is that the mother wanted to leave her 2-year-old in the states, but some coercion or rushing happened when she declared to ICE that she would be taking her daughter with her.

Now, if I'm reading correctly, it sounds like you want to separate mother and daughter against the mother's wishes. I'm a little less happy doing that than you, with all we know now, but it's not like I can force you to change your mind.

[Doomcookie]

A two-year-old, being a minor, is in the care of their parent, parents, guardian, whatever.

The hope, I think, for the anti-ICE side is that the mother wanted to leave her 2-year-old in the states, but some coercion or rushing happened when she declared to ICE that she would be taking her daughter with her.

Now, if I'm reading correctly, it sounds like you want to separate mother and daughter against the mother's wishes. I'm a little less happy doing that than you, with all we know now, but it's not like I can force you to change your mind.

Why not just let them stay?

Or, do you simply hate minorities as much as you clearly despise women?

[SAY HER NAME]

What is all this gibberish? ICE deported his mother, and asked the mother if she wanted to take her child and leave it with the relatives. Seeing as how she had legal custody, it was her choice.

Her child is naturally welcome to return if something's been worked out with the consent of the mother. But ultimately it's her choice. And I'm seeing a lot of pure speculation that it wasn't her choice. Which is why it's nice to have her sign a document of her intentions.

Her child is a citizen. If there's green card holders or citizens that want to raise her, and it's ok with mom, that is still process. Lawful port of entry for a citizen.

If you read my post, you'll know that I'm not relying on what a judge requests. It's legal custody and her intention to take her child. Which is totally understandable given that the child is 2. Now, if you want shoot pure speculation on alternative facts into the wind, just acknowledge that.

Pablum. A 2 year old in the care of her mother was not deported. The mother was. She has every right to take the child with her and i suspect we would be hearing about a marriage and shared custody if that was the case.

I mean what the judge requests matters. Bc again, we dont really know if that is what the mother said. I have to insist that all the evidence that we have that this is what she wanted is that according to ICE, so we are already relying on their version of the facts, she wrote in a note that she wanted to have her child with her. And that note is a written piece of paper and we dont know the context in which she wrote that. Not to mention that the child was detained with her. Something that should not have happened you cant detain US citizens without cause!

And I agree the whole separation of children is a messy issue that is why the judge wanted to confirm some stuff. But instead of going through that process, ICE simply decided to deport a US citizen (she was deported alongside her mother) after unlawfully detaining her.

Lets put a pin on this however. There is a hearing on MAY 16 and there we can see the truth. I dont trust ICE given their extensive track record of "administrative mistakes". Who knows this might be one of those mistakes

[Edge-]

A two-year-old, being a minor, is in the care of their parent, parents, guardian, whatever.

The hope, I think, for the anti-ICE side is that the mother wanted to leave her 2-year-old in the states, but some coercion or rushing happened when she declared to ICE that she would be taking her daughter with her.

Now, if I'm reading correctly, it sounds like you want to separate mother and daughter against the mother's wishes. I'm a little less happy doing that than you, with all we know now, but it's not like I can force you to change your mind.

when we have word from the mother, let me know.

i don't trust ice showing a hand-written note and saying "trust us"?

was a lawyer present to affirm this?

if not, then her rights were violated as she was owed due process and that letter cannot be verified.

- - - Updated - - -

Why not just let them stay?

Or, do you simply hate minorities as much as you clearly despise women?

"the law said they had to go"

ignoring that the executive has broad leeway on executing said law in general as well as the power of the pardon etc. etc. etc. but we're slaves to the law and there's nothing we can do but follow its cruel letter (or something)

[tehdang]

when we have word from the mother, let me know.

i don't trust ice showing a hand-written note and saying "trust us"?

You can choose to doubt the signature of the mother all you wish. So long as you believe that she had the right and opportunity to continue to care for her child. And literally sign a document attesting to that.

I mean what the judge requests matters.

It obviously matters to you. I tend to look at what they write and why. Kind of like President Trump, for that matter.

Bc again, we dont really know if that is what the mother said. I have to insist that all the evidence that we have that this is what she wanted is that according to ICE, so we are already relying on their version of the facts, she wrote in a note that she wanted to have her child with her.

Welcome to not prejudging the situation without good cause. I'm glad to have you here, if you would just come to better terms with the uncertainty.

And I agree the whole separation of children is a messy issue that is why the judge wanted to confirm some stuff. But instead of going through that process, ICE simply decided to deport a US citizen (she was deported alongside her mother) after unlawfully detaining her.

The mother was deported, and she had the child in her legal custody. I'm not a big fan of separating the mother and child when deporting, because the state knows how to take care of the girl better.

Lets put a pin on this however.

That's all I was ever saying. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Templar 331]

A two-year-old, being a minor, is in the care of their parent, parents, guardian, whatever.

In the event that a child can not be cared for by the parents, usually in cases of law breaking, the child is under the care of the state. Not shipped to another country.

The hope, I think, for the anti-ICE side is that the mother wanted to leave her 2-year-old in the states, but some coercion or rushing happened when she declared to ICE that she would be taking her daughter with her.

The hope for anyone who's not a fucking sociopath is that the parents are naturalized seeing as their child is a citizen.

Now, if I'm reading correctly, it sounds like you want to separate mother and daughter against the mother's wishes. I'm a little less happy doing that than you, with all we know now, but it's not like I can force you to change your mind.

No, what you're trying to do is hide your bigotry by throwing accusations towards others who aren't trying to separate mother and child. This whole situation shouldn't be a thing and yet you are more than happy to defend it. We have citizens being deported and you're bending over backwards to try to justify it in any way possible.

[Edge-]

You can choose to doubt the signature of the mother all you wish.

Considering Republicans don't think signatures are enough verification for voting, I'll take it under advisement.

Imagine how much easier this would all be if her due process rights were observed and she had legal representation present to affirm these things.

Welcome to not prejudging the situation without good cause. I'm glad to have you here, if you would just come to better terms with the uncertainty.

How dare we use past events to predict future performance.

The mother was deported, and she had the child in her legal custody. I'm not a big fan of separating the mother and child when deporting, because the state knows how to take care of the girl better.

Clearly, there were zero other options. Holding the mother until arrangements could be made to have the child picked up by family? Actually observing due process rights that even undocumented immigrants have? No, that's outrageous. The laws says she must go and she must go.

Or something.

[Azadina]

You can choose to doubt the signature of the mother all you wish. So long as you believe that she had the right and opportunity to continue to care for her child. And literally sign a document attesting to that.

Prove that she wrote it, and not some janitor, secretary or random intern that ICEtapo pressured to fabricate the note.

[tehdang]

In the event that a child can not be cared for by the parents, usually in cases of law breaking, the child is under the care of the state. Not shipped to another country.

Luckily for us, the mother is willing to care for her child.

The hope for anyone who's not a fucking sociopath is that the parents are naturalized seeing as their child is a citizen.

If we're going hypotheticals, let's say both parents went through the immigration system and enter lawfully.

No, what you're trying to do is hide your bigotry by ...

We have enough accusations of bad faith in this forum for a decade. Just imagine that I'm slinging the same barbs back at you for the time being.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering Republicans don't think signatures are enough verification for voting, I'll take it under advisement.

Democrats think the signature itself is racist, so I'll leave the middle ground open.

Imagine how much easier this would all be if her due process rights were observed and she had legal representation present to affirm these things.

It's great that she had a removal order. Kind of like due process was observed.

How dare we use past events to predict future performance.

How dare we wait for the facts of the case to pass judgment on the case. Prejudice, based on past events, is apparently a guarantee!

Clearly, there were zero other options...

I've seen a systematic neglect of a US citizen to return to the US through a valid port of entry, so I think you should expand your options to include that. In fact, I think you should observe due process for removals. Let's see the factual record for when that was challenged in this case.

Prove that she wrote it, and not some janitor, secretary or random intern that ICEtapo pressured to fabricate the note.

Once you're at the Gestapo references, I tend to think your real point is that illegal aliens must never be removed. Bring 8-10 million into the United States, and pretend that only the Gestapo would seek removal. I tend to think the American people are over this game, but we'll see. I consider the political consequences to be an open question, considering the chaos of the administration tasked with enforcing the law.

[Templar 331]

Luckily for us, the mother is willing to care for her child.

No, this is not "luckily for us." This is traumatizing and damaging a life for the sake of racism in this country. Nothing else. There is no justice in these actions. There is no right here. The mother made a terrible choice in the few choices we as a nation gave her. All to sat the hatred you people feel for anyone other than yourself. That is all this crusade against foreigners is.

This choice should never have to be made in a civilized and lawful country, but you people keep making everyone else have to make it. You, no one else. It isn't the law forcing these people to make them, the laws can be changed. You choose to vote for demagogues who champion the removal of "illegals" while also making it difficult to be a citizen of this country. And any attempt by Democrats to update any immigration laws is seen as "getting illegals to vote for them!!!1!1!11"

This is on you, we're just calling you out on it.

[DarkTZeratul]

If you read my post, you'll know that I'm not relying on what a judge requests.

Yes, I'm well aware you have zero respect whatsoever for what judges or lawyers or frankly anyone says if it conflicts with the Almighty Infallible Trump Administration, Who Must Never Be Questioned. Because if the law is inconvenient to your fervent desire to kick every immigrant out of this country as quickly as possible, then fuck the law, and apparently fuck the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution in particular.

You can choose to doubt the signature of the mother all you wish. So long as you believe that she had the right and opportunity to continue to care for her child. And literally sign a document attesting to that.

Prove that it's really her signature. Prove that ICE didn't forge it, or force her to sign it under duress, or that she even knew what she was signing. Give me one single solitary shred of evidence that ICE's claims are in any way credible.

...the chaos of the administration tasked with enforcing the law.

This is an administration that, at every single fucking level, has openly taken the position of "I am the law."