cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
man of steel
Senior Contributor

Re: caged kids

This is their second job. First is.....well maybe this is their first job.

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: caged kids

Havenot, do you think, even if that figure is correct, that the money is spent directly on the kids—new clothes, TV set, game station, steak every night.etc??? Do you really think they are living better than when they were In Their own home? Even the cage is big, it is still a cage and their parents are not with them! BTW I’m still waiting for you to tell me what law it is that requires this to happen. Trump keeps saying that it is a Democrat law but no one can Home up with the name of it!!
rodgersfarms56
Senior Contributor

Re: caged kids

Liberals just can’t wait to see these kids drug from the fun and safe camp into the tomato fields. Two of my kids cried the first night at Church camp. It’s normal. They were fine the second or third. And there were no reporters there slapping them around to get a photo op

Re: caged kids

fwiw while nothing to do with fruit, I’ve got 3 of them that add up to a considerable number of hours of a  month.

 

Folks write checks or wire money to me for them.  Take out taxes.  One even charges me union dues.  Good to stay busy in retirement.

 

 

rodgersfarms56
Senior Contributor

Re: caged kids

I can’t tell what you are saying. You are employing 3 illegal aliens? Just learned that Obama sent these kids most of which did not come in with parents, to “caretakers” in the interior. In other words PIMPS! It’s hard to believe he wasn’t getting a cut.
WCMO
Senior Advisor

Re: caged kids

I've been told it is within Public Law 107-296, Homeland Security Act.

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: caged kids

Well if that is where it is coming from, and I’m not sure that it is, the following says that act was passed in 2002 when there was Republican president and the senate was led by repubs.

Obscured in the meme was the full title of Public Law 107-296, “H.R.5005 — Homeland Security Act of 2002.” A primary claim of the meme was that the legislation in question was passed “by the Democrats”; in fact, the bill was passed by the 107th Congress in November 2002. The 107th Congress met from 3 January 2001 until 2 January 2003, during which time the September 11th attacks occurred in 2001. On the date of Public Law 107-296’s passage (25 November 2002), Senate.gov provided its majority as Republican, not Democrat:

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 – January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 2

Total Seats: 100

The bill’s sponsor was Rep. Richard Armey of Texas (a Republican). The bill had 118 co-sponsors, of whom 114 were Republicans and four were Democrats. Neither metric (majority or bill sponsors) indicated the bill was passed “by Democrats.”

Who passed the law was part of the meme, the other being a suggestion that Public Law 107-296 mandated the separation of children from their parents at the border. The screenshot featured depicted the tail end of the portion titled “Subtitle E—Citizenship and Immigration Services” (highlighted), and the following “Subtitle F—General Immigration Provisions.” The section depicted pertained to “SEC. 451. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES,” which broadly established a Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services” within the Department of Homeland Security:

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Department [of Homeland Security] a bureau to be known as the “Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services”.
In March 2003, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were formed to carry out the enforcement provisions of Public Law 107-296 (Homeland Security Act of 2002). The provisions of the law were broadened in scope after the bill was passed.

The snapshot displayed the “definitions” portion of Subtitle E (the italicized part was not shown in the meme):

(3) TRANSFER AND ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND PERSONNEL.—The personnel of the Department of Justice employed in connection with the functions transferred by this section, and the assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended balance of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, used, arising from, available to, or to be made available to, the Immigration and Naturalization Service in connection with the functions transferred by this section, subject to section 202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950, shall be transferred to the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement for allocation to the appropriate component of the Department of Health and Human Services. Unexpended funds transferred pursuant to this paragraph shall be used only for the purposes for which the funds were originally authorized and appropriated.

(g) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section— (1) the term “placement” means the placement of an unaccompanied alien child in either a detention facility or an alternative to such a facility; and (2) the term “unaccompanied alien child” means a child who—
(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(C) with respect to whom—
(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or
(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.

Simply put, Subtitle E of Public Law 107-296 (establishing the Department of Homeland Security, DHS) placed immigration and related functions in the scope of the newly established agency. Section G of Subtitle E defined the term “unaccompanied alien child” as a minor under the age of 18, lacking lawful immigration status in the US, and primarily, an individual for whom “there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States” or “no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.” This did not mandate that children be separated from their families, but instead, created a legal classification for children with no parent or guardian present or for whom no parent or legal guardian was available to provide care and custody.

Debate surrounding Public Law 107-296 was ill-defined, with many simply sharing the screenshot as a vague indication the policy of family separation came before the debate about it in May and June 2018. Many attributed its passage to Democrat lawmakers. However, the bill was passed in November 2002 under a Republican majority, and it simply defined an “unaccompanied alien child” as one with no available parent or guardian. It made no provision for separating a child from parents or legal guardians or for detaining any child separated by DHS agencies from their parent, and it was primarily passed by Republicans.
basset&co
Senior Contributor

Re: caged kids

who did the research for you schnur?

schnurrbart
Veteran Advisor

Re: caged kids

My two yr old great grandson and far better than any of you fools!
basset&co
Senior Contributor

Re: caged kids

say what you old fart?