Trump Attacks Vote-by-Mail, Refuses to Wear a Mask: A Closer Look

1SG (Join to see) - OK. But I do have a question. When I show you the statute that says that they can present themselves at a port of entry, are you going to be in favor of prosecuting the INS, ICE, and USBP personnel that refused either entry or processing?

Capt Gregory Prickett - Presenting at a port of entry - which is not where any of the three facilities you cited are at, by the way - does not equal entry. If we close the gate, you can wait patiently in Mexico for it to reopen or try your luck at entering illegally. Either way, the President has undisputed authority for determining immigration policy.

I could GAF what the refugee statute says, because it is not germane to my assertion that there is no legal requirement to provide toothpaste and such - although we do anyway because it is the humane thing to do. Nor do I have a whole lot of patience for those who say we are denying people things that if they were important to them, they'd have brought it with them. They manage to have cell phones that are operational across at least Mexico and the USA... where did those come from?

But whatever. Nobody cares about this topic right now. Maybe it'll heat up closer to Election Day if the Covid threat dies down.

1SG (Join to see) - No, the president does not have undisputed authority, and many of the detainees were first encountered at a port of entry, requesting asylum.

Second, the government is bound by a court order, known as the Flores Agreement, from 1997. See https://www.aila.org/File/Related/14111359b.pdf That agreement provides that "the INS shall hold minors in facilities that are safe and sanitary..." ❡12, Settlement Agreement.

Next, on June 27, 2017, the US District Court held that the government had breached the Flores Agreement by not properly feeding the minors, by not providing clean water to drink, by not providing safe and sanitary conditions, including the provision of toothbrushes, toothpaste, and soap, and by depriving the children of sleep due to the conditions that they were held under. The government was ordered to correct these deficiencies. See https://www.aila.org/File/Related/14111359v.pdf

And in August, the Circuit Court ruled against the government, stating that the District Judge could make the determination of what was "safe and sanitary", stating:

"Assuring that children eat enough edible food, drink clean water, are housed in hygienic facilities with sanitary bathrooms, have soap and toothpaste, and are not sleep-deprived are without doubt essential to the children’s safety. The district court properly construed the Agreement as requiring such conditions rather than allowing the government to decide whether to provide them." See http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/08/15/flores.ruling.pdf

That's the law. Now the government has to comply, and the District Judge has indicated that if INS/ICE/USBP don't fix it, the court will order the immediate release of the detained children and their parents.

Randy, the reason you can't share it with me is that you've blocked me. There's nothing on my end that is stopping you.