AI
Thursday, June 21, 2018 6:57:16 PM
Really ‘Walls … Made Of Chain Link’
June 21, 2018
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) really must insist: Don’t call the structures the U.S. government uses to house children after they’ve been apprehended at the border “cages.”
On Thursday, Cramer continued to protest that, no, the United States does not hold migrant children in cages.
He prefers the phrase “buildings that have, in some cases, walls that are made of chain link, so that it’s easier to observe and to protect them.”
Cramer is running for Senate against incumbent Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). Perhaps this will be part of his platform: Chainlink rooms aren’t cages!
It’s hard to think of something more tangible than a child incarcerated in a tent city or a former Walmart building—and yet as the story of families being separated at the border mushrooms, one of the central questions has been a semantic one: whether the migrant children are being kept in cages.
Here’s what no one disputes: When the children are separated from their parents, they’re sent to facilities where they are kept in chain-link pens they can’t leave. But are those cages? It depends on whom you ask.
For example, the Associated Press reported over the weekend: “Inside an old warehouse in South Texas, hundreds of children wait in a series of cages created by metal fencing. One cage had 20 children inside. Scattered about are bottles of water, bags of chips and large foil sheets intended to serve as blankets.”
The AP is an influential news source. Since most local outlets around the country can’t send reporters to the border, they end up relying on stories from the AP to deliver the news to their readers. In addition, the wire service studiously aims for impartiality in language and reporting, and outlets around the world often adopt the AP’s guidance on language and usage. For the AP to deem the enclosures “cages” means that language will spread.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-rep-cages-for-migrant-kids-are-really-walls-made-of-chain-link
------------------------------------
The Same Democrats Excoriating Trump’s Immigration Policy Had Nothing To Say About Obama’s Illegal Immigrant Family Detention Centers
If the Obama administration took its principles to heart, it would be closing its family prisons and abandoning its emphasis on border crackdowns in favor of greater efforts to connect Central Americans with pro bono lawyers and to provide family- and community-based alternatives to detention. Much money and effort have been spent to deter and detain them, to speed them through court, to hunt down those who are later found to be deportable.
The family detention centers the Obama administration has been operating in Texas and Pennsylvania have been an expedient way to handle the soaring numbers of Central Americans, many of them young children, who have arrived at the Southern border since 2014. They give a sense that Homeland Security has the border situation under control, and they supposedly send a message to other would-be refugees not to come.
These privately run, unlicensed lockups are no place for children. Or mothers. Their existence belies President Obama’s oft-professed concern for the humane treatment of people fleeing crime and violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
And the centers stand on dubious legal ground. Last year, a district judge ruled that the administration was violating a 1997 court-ordered settlement, called the Flores agreement, that governs the treatment of underage migrants who seek asylum or enter the country illegally. The judge said the children were being held for too long, and ordered the administration to release them as quickly as possible to the care of relatives or other guardians as their cases move through the immigration courts.
The Obama administration appealed, saying that the agreement applied only to children who had crossed the border alone, not those who were accompanied by parents or other adult relatives. On July 6, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed, upholding the district ruling that Flores covers all children, accompanied or not. But it said the administration could still detain their parents.
Read more: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/the-same-democrats-excoriating-trumps-immigration-policy-had-nothing-to-say-about-obamas-illegal-immigrant-family-detention-centers/
June 21, 2018
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) really must insist: Don’t call the structures the U.S. government uses to house children after they’ve been apprehended at the border “cages.”
On Thursday, Cramer continued to protest that, no, the United States does not hold migrant children in cages.
He prefers the phrase “buildings that have, in some cases, walls that are made of chain link, so that it’s easier to observe and to protect them.”
Cramer is running for Senate against incumbent Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). Perhaps this will be part of his platform: Chainlink rooms aren’t cages!
It’s hard to think of something more tangible than a child incarcerated in a tent city or a former Walmart building—and yet as the story of families being separated at the border mushrooms, one of the central questions has been a semantic one: whether the migrant children are being kept in cages.
Here’s what no one disputes: When the children are separated from their parents, they’re sent to facilities where they are kept in chain-link pens they can’t leave. But are those cages? It depends on whom you ask.
For example, the Associated Press reported over the weekend: “Inside an old warehouse in South Texas, hundreds of children wait in a series of cages created by metal fencing. One cage had 20 children inside. Scattered about are bottles of water, bags of chips and large foil sheets intended to serve as blankets.”
The AP is an influential news source. Since most local outlets around the country can’t send reporters to the border, they end up relying on stories from the AP to deliver the news to their readers. In addition, the wire service studiously aims for impartiality in language and reporting, and outlets around the world often adopt the AP’s guidance on language and usage. For the AP to deem the enclosures “cages” means that language will spread.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-rep-cages-for-migrant-kids-are-really-walls-made-of-chain-link
------------------------------------
The Same Democrats Excoriating Trump’s Immigration Policy Had Nothing To Say About Obama’s Illegal Immigrant Family Detention Centers
If the Obama administration took its principles to heart, it would be closing its family prisons and abandoning its emphasis on border crackdowns in favor of greater efforts to connect Central Americans with pro bono lawyers and to provide family- and community-based alternatives to detention. Much money and effort have been spent to deter and detain them, to speed them through court, to hunt down those who are later found to be deportable.
The family detention centers the Obama administration has been operating in Texas and Pennsylvania have been an expedient way to handle the soaring numbers of Central Americans, many of them young children, who have arrived at the Southern border since 2014. They give a sense that Homeland Security has the border situation under control, and they supposedly send a message to other would-be refugees not to come.
These privately run, unlicensed lockups are no place for children. Or mothers. Their existence belies President Obama’s oft-professed concern for the humane treatment of people fleeing crime and violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
And the centers stand on dubious legal ground. Last year, a district judge ruled that the administration was violating a 1997 court-ordered settlement, called the Flores agreement, that governs the treatment of underage migrants who seek asylum or enter the country illegally. The judge said the children were being held for too long, and ordered the administration to release them as quickly as possible to the care of relatives or other guardians as their cases move through the immigration courts.
The Obama administration appealed, saying that the agreement applied only to children who had crossed the border alone, not those who were accompanied by parents or other adult relatives. On July 6, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed, upholding the district ruling that Flores covers all children, accompanied or not. But it said the administration could still detain their parents.
Read more: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/the-same-democrats-excoriating-trumps-immigration-policy-had-nothing-to-say-about-obamas-illegal-immigrant-family-detention-centers/
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
