Biden wants to give out $450000 per person for separated illegal migrants

[kingarthur65]

@WuWei

Why should I know that? There are no asylum conditions in any of those countries.

If “Mrs. C” served a sentence, she is a criminal with a record. Do I need to quote the judge again?

“Given the large number of migrant families arriving at the border and the inherent limitations placed on CBP facilities at the border, defendants must be able to use criminal history as an objective metric not only to assess the parent’s fitness and danger to the child, but also risk of flight, danger to others and suitability for release into the community or placement in an [family residential center] with other families,” Sabraw wrote.

What do you think the relevance of your quote is to the conversation about family separation.

[johnwk2]

@kingarthur65

@WuWei

I’m not claiming anything, just quoting your link.

You should know that some of the members in the class legally claimed asylum at port of entry. Others, such as Ms C., who was also named in the Ms. L v ICE complaint, entered the country illegally.
Ms L. was separated from her child at port of entry with no determination that she was unfit.
Ms C. was arrested for illegally entering the country. She served her sentence and was denied the ability to be reunited with her children after completing her sentence. She was also not determined unfit.
Both were denied due process.

What does all that have to do with the estimated 2000 which the Biden Administration wants to give each a $450K payday?

JWK

[Roxiebelle]

@DougBH

They are a woke give away disguised as a propose settlement for a lawsuit.

And supposedly it only applies to illegals who broke our immigration/refugee laws during the previous Administration. So it’s all just political for future talking points for criminal leftist politician campaigns.

[kingarthur65]

@johnwk2

What does all that have to do with the estimated 2000 which the Biden Administration wants to give each a $450K payday?

JWK

As I’ve said before. That ain’t gonna happen.

[wiley8425]

Relevance? Who needs relevance when you can take a bunch of stuff completely out of context, throw it at the wall, and see if it sticks?

[WuWei]

@kingarthur65

What do you think the relevance of your quote is to the conversation about family separation.

defendants must be able to use criminal history as an objective metric not only to assess the parent’s fitness and danger to the child, but also risk of flight, danger to others and suitability for release into the community or placement in an [family residential center] with other families,”

[WuWei]

@kingarthur65

As I’ve said before. That ain’t gonna happen.

Yes it will.

[kingarthur65]

@WuWei

@kingarthur65

What do you think the relevance of your quote is to the conversation about family separation.

defendants must be able to use criminal history as an objective metric not only to assess the parent’s fitness and danger to the child, but also risk of flight, danger to others and suitability for release into the community or placement in an [family residential center] with other families,”

Do you think that conflicts to anything I’ve said?

[WuWei]

@kingarthur65

Do you think that conflicts to anything I’ve said?

Yes. Everything you’ve said.

[kingarthur65]

How so?

[johnwk2]

@kingarthur65

@johnwk2

What does all that have to do with the estimated 2000 which the Biden Administration wants to give each a $450K payday?

JWK

As I’ve said before. That ain’t gonna happen.

Common man! The fix is in and the ACLU expects the money laundering “settlement” to take place.

JWK

[WuWei]

@kingarthur65

How so?

It begins with “due process” was not followed.

[wiley8425]

Yes because as we all know, it’s perfectly legal to separate families prior to determining if a crime has actually been committed. As a bonus, after person has been illegally detained, the government simply needs to point to the illegal detainment as proof positive the parent is unfit. It all makes perfect sense.

[WuWei]

@wiley8425

Yes because as we all know, it’s perfectly legal to separate families prior to determining if a crime has actually been committed. As a bonus, after person has been illegally detained, the government simply needs to point to the illegal detainment as proof positive the parent is unfit. It all makes perfect sense.

“Mrs. C” served a sentence.

They were not “illegally detained”.

[kingarthur65]

@johnwk2

@kingarthur65

@johnwk2

What does all that have to do with the estimated 2000 which the Biden Administration wants to give each a $450K payday?

JWK

As I’ve said before. That ain’t gonna happen.

Common man! The fix is in and the ACLU expects the money laundering “settlement” to take place.

JWK

I’ll try to explain this again. These people, that have a valid claim, are not all injured the same. There are varying degrees of injury. This is not a class action. All of the plaintiffs will not be compensated the same.
My belief is there will be some matrix created that will take into account things like length of separation, if the parent had a valid claim of asylum, age of child… these are just examples.
Based on the matrix and where each plaintiff fits into that matrix, they will be compensated on a point system.
Will some get $450k? Maybe, but in my opinion, that would be at the high end of the scale.
Additionally, the 2,000 number of plaintiffs is very high.

[WuWei]

@kingarthur65

that have a valid claim,

None of them do.

[wiley8425]

And you have proof that every single complaint the same process was followed? Or is it just your fee fees talking?

[kingarthur65]

@WuWei

@kingarthur65

How so?

It begins with “due process” was not followed.

Tell it to the Judge. He disagrees with you.

[WuWei]

@kingarthur65

@WuWei

@kingarthur65

How so?

It begins with “due process” was not followed.

Tell it to the Judge. He disagrees with you.

There we go. Which judge?

[WuWei]

@wiley8425

And you have proof that every single complaint the same process was followed? Or is it just your fee fees talking?

I don’t need it. I’m not the plaintiff.