Uh, yes you are. I constantly see you arguing the right wing position against liberals in threads. No, you’re not a Trump supporter, but you regularly take positions right of center.
Nothing you are saying here makes sense. You go on about purportedly deleted evidence that cannot be faked. If it was deleted, then we can’t evaluate that. It’s deleted. It doesn’t exist any more. It would only make sense if there was some sort of leaked copy.
You’ve been asked to provide that evidence. What do you do? You link a Wordpress blog by a guy who just spouts off his opinion (while loftily acting like he’s the voice of Reason itself). And you do that in the face of links to more reputable sites that not only say that no evidence has surfaced, and no criminal investigation is ongoing, but point out that the supposed logic doesn’t work. To quote Snopes:
Given that Omar and her siblings all came to live in the U.S. under identical circumstances as refugees, and that Omar herself became a naturalized U.S. citizen while still a minor, how did one of her siblings end up with such a radically different immigration status that she would have needed to marry him in order to facilitate his U.S. residency application?
Also, if Ahmed Elmi were truly Omar’s brother, why would he have needed to take the drastic step of marrying her in order to secure a path to U.S. citizenship? U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies qualify immigrants as eligible to apply for permanent residency status (and later become naturalized citizens) if they are the “spouse of a U.S. citizen” or the “brother or sister of a U.S. citizen.”
You randomly bring up Deepfake, which is about replacing people’s faces in videos. But then you say that doesn’t apply because the evidence isn’t video, but documents and pictures. Those are much, much easier to fake. Photoshop exists. Faking screenshots is trivial–you just edit the page in place.
Then, after all that, you go on to hedge your bets, trying to move the goalposts to where if anything bad about Omar is found, you can claim a prediction win.
You know how in Spanish everything ends with an -o or an -a, designating everything in the world a gender? For instance, “shirt” is camisa. Ends with an a, therefore my shirt is a girl. Makes a ton of sense, right?
This is what is happening to the conservative worldview. Since they are required to be prejudiced against one and in favor of the other, they will all soon go mad.
I wouldn’t be surprised if one day they hold “liberal paper straw”-burning events, where people are told to bring any paper straws they have lying in the back of drawers, and throw them on huge bonfires.
They arrived on a flight from Mexico with an adult cousin. The cousin was denied entry despite having a tourist visa and forced to return, leaving them alone.
I’m thinking the idea here is that the “administration” doesn’t think these kids should be considered citizens since they were apparently IIUC born to undocumented migrant parents. This is the “administration” letting its base know that they are doing what they can to end birthright citizenship.
Maybe/maybe not. But that’s the business of the family and the airline. The CBP agents should have, at most, handed the kids off to the airline to figure out what to do instead of demanding somebody show up in person to collect them. The extent of their interaction should have been to clear them to enter the country or not.
This is textbook extralegal bullshit masquerading as concern.
They probably did, which is why she isn’t actually going to end up in jail. Now that Barr is in charge of the Justice department, I don’t think we are going to see any prosecutions or pressure to cooperate with investigations, like we did when Mueller was investigating.
I’m curious why you, and apparently others, think this. That’s why I said I learned something new today.
Because yesterday, if someone asked me “Do you think CBP should hold unaccompanied kids until a parent or guardian picks them up?”, I would have said “Yes. Of course” and not “Of course not, they should hand them off to airline personnel and then hope for the best!”
I see. So it’s the commercial airlines responsibility to ensure that kids, once in the United States, are not sent on their way without a parent or guardian being there?
CBP should only check they have valid documents to enter the country and then send them on their way?
Yes? This is something that’s done routinely every day. Border Patrol should be checking that the kids are citizens or RAs and deliver them to the airline’s office that takes care of unaccompanied until parents or guardians arrive. It’s not CBP’s JOB to hold kids that are documented. It’s the airline’s job, as the temporary in loco parentis. How hard is this to understand, really?
I am more and than a a little uncomfortable that we have CBP at airports demanding documents from people flying from specific countries…We all know there is a migration crisis around the whole…besides just here in the U.S. Many of us disagree on how to handle the crisis …but the idea that we are stormtroopering around like this …just feels wrong
If the children and their travel and supervision arrangements were properly documented, then no, they should not have been detained.
If the children and their travel and supervision arrangements were not properly documented, then they should only have been detained as long as necessary to cure the default, which would not have required personal attendance of a parent (notarial declarations and instructions should suffice).
If for some valid reason personal attendance of a responsible adult was reasonably required (e.g. if it were late at night due to a flight delay, or a child with an upset stomach, etc.), then an adult appointed by a parent would suffice.
If there was something beyond this that reasonably required the children to be taken into care, the appropriate action would be to place the children into interim care of child and protective services until a responsible adult under the notarized direction of a parent could receive them.
Of the many possible alternatives, none required the physical presence of the parents. In short, the CPB illegally detained the children.
Ethically, what the CPB did was no different than kidnapping children for ransom. Well, to be correct, it was worse than kidnapping children for ransom.
It’s not hard to understand, I just didn’t know. Not sure if you are aware of this, but if a person doesn’t know something, it usually requires asking people who DO know questions.
CBP demands documents from every traveler arriving from outside the US (including US citizens). This is pretty standard and has been for decades. It’s standard for just about every other country in the world as well.
There’s room for debate on how much documentation should be required and the level of scrutiny that should be involved (especially for members of certain ethnicities or religions) but I don’t think you’re going to find there’s a widespread sentiment to abolish these requirements altogether.
Seriously? You’re that dumb that you thought it was reasonable for what is basically outside security to basically hold kids hostage until their parents showed up? It’s actually kind of shocking that your first reaction was that this wasn’t unreasonable.