Advertisement
by Senkaku » Fri Dec 10, 2021 6:54 pm
by The Black Forrest » Fri Dec 10, 2021 6:54 pm
by Senkaku » Fri Dec 10, 2021 6:57 pm
Nationalist Northumbria wrote:Farnhamia wrote:You could just explain what the real answer is, instead of doing this guessing game dance.
The real answer is that the parties didn't switch and the idea of a "party switch" is a myth. But I want to hear Senkaku's interpretation, which they're not actually offering.Senkaku wrote:I don’t see how it possibly could be so in a democracy like ours, aren’t individual votes the fundamental unit of political analysis? :^)
I take it you don't actually have an answer, then. Would've been nice if you could have said that at the start.
by The Black Forrest » Fri Dec 10, 2021 6:57 pm
Senkaku wrote:Farnhamia wrote:You could just explain what the real answer is, instead of doing this guessing game dance.
They already explained there’s no evidence of any switch at all, I assume all those states that supposedly flipped were just implanted in our fecund imaginations by MSNBC subliminal conditioning and American geography is actually nothing like what we’ve been told
by Senkaku » Fri Dec 10, 2021 6:58 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Senkaku wrote:They already explained there’s no evidence of any switch at all, I assume all those states that supposedly flipped were just implanted in our fecund imaginations by MSNBC subliminal conditioning and American geography is actually nothing like what we’ve been told
There are a lot of long words in there, Miss; we're naught but humble pirates. What is it that you want?
by Nationalist Northumbria » Fri Dec 10, 2021 6:58 pm
Senkaku wrote:Farnhamia wrote:You could just explain what the real answer is, instead of doing this guessing game dance.
They already explained there’s no evidence of any switch at all, I assume all those states that supposedly flipped were just implanted in our fecund imaginations by MSNBC subliminal conditioning and American geography is actually nothing like what we’ve been told
Senkaku wrote:Nationalist Northumbria wrote:The real answer is that the parties didn't switch and the idea of a "party switch" is a myth. But I want to hear Senkaku's interpretation, which they're not actually offering.
I take it you don't actually have an answer, then. Would've been nice if you could have said that at the start.
“The influence of Nixon & Goldwater’s attempts to message to Southern whites is overblown” is a position you can argue for; “the idea of a party switch is a myth” is about as credible as saying the Moon is a wagon-wheel sized hunk of cheese seen from a distance of fifty miles suspended in the air by pixie dust
by Senkaku » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:00 pm
Nationalist Northumbria wrote:The party-switch narrative is the narrative that the parties exchanged positions, that the Democrats were the Republicans and the Republicans were the Democrats.
by Thermodolia » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:09 pm
by The Black Forrest » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:15 pm
by Farnhamia » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:17 pm
Senkaku wrote:Nationalist Northumbria wrote:The party-switch narrative is the narrative that the parties exchanged positions, that the Democrats were the Republicans and the Republicans were the Democrats.
I think you are the only one who thinks this; it’s really just that Dixiecrats tended to become Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans tended to become Democrats as the country realigned on social issues during the ‘60s and ‘70s (and as a result a bunch of states flipped), not that they LITERALLY swapped EVERYTHING with one another
I wouldn’t want to underestimate the stupidity of the American pundit though, so show me someone who believes that and I’ll venmo you a dollar or something
by Senkaku » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:21 pm
Farnhamia wrote:Senkaku wrote:I think you are the only one who thinks this; it’s really just that Dixiecrats tended to become Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans tended to become Democrats as the country realigned on social issues during the ‘60s and ‘70s (and as a result a bunch of states flipped), not that they LITERALLY swapped EVERYTHING with one another
I wouldn’t want to underestimate the stupidity of the American pundit though, so show me someone who believes that and I’ll venmo you a dollar or something
Are you sure? I know I saw a docudrama about that back in the late 70s. Pods were involved or something, I can't remember.
by Nationalist Northumbria » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:26 pm
Senkaku wrote:Nationalist Northumbria wrote:The party-switch narrative is the narrative that the parties exchanged positions, that the Democrats were the Republicans and the Republicans were the Democrats.
I think you are the only one who thinks this; it’s really just that Dixiecrats tended to become Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans tended to become Democrats as the country realigned on social issues during the ‘60s and ‘70s (and as a result a bunch of states flipped), not that they LITERALLY swapped EVERYTHING with one another
I wouldn’t want to underestimate the stupidity of the American pundit though, so show me someone who believes that and I’ll venmo you a dollar or something
by Senkaku » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:32 pm
Nationalist Northumbria wrote:Senkaku wrote:I think you are the only one who thinks this; it’s really just that Dixiecrats tended to become Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans tended to become Democrats as the country realigned on social issues during the ‘60s and ‘70s (and as a result a bunch of states flipped), not that they LITERALLY swapped EVERYTHING with one another
I wouldn’t want to underestimate the stupidity of the American pundit though, so show me someone who believes that and I’ll venmo you a dollar or something
Oh, no, this really is something people think. I've seen it countless times from Democrats online, that the Democrats were the 'conservatives' once and the Republicans were the 'liberals' and then they changed positions on everything.
I don't think believing it makes someone stupid, it's just something people have accepted as fact over the years despite it being so far from reality. Steven Spielberg repeating it here, see transcript. On this forum, Celritannia repeating it just a few pages ago; plenty of NSers agreeing with him. Bunch more examples all over the place, search (with quotes) "Democrats were the conservatives" and watch the results pile in.
Though there might actually an emerging party switch of sorts, where the Democrats are becoming the party of the 'aristocratic' interest and the Republicans the party of the 'populist' interest, an actual reverse of their historic positions.
by Thermodolia » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:44 pm
by Shrillland » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:54 pm
The Republican Party in the second-largest county in the Texas Panhandle is planning to conduct its own election during the state primary in March, breaking away from a nonpartisan county election board in a highly unusual move.
The G.O.P. in Potter County, which includes Amarillo, plans to use ballots that will be marked and counted by hand, rather than employ the electronic systems that the county has relied on for decades. Election experts said the changes would confuse voters and create more potential for fraud.
Under Texas law, county parties are allowed to run their own primary elections, but the vast majority have contracted with local boards of election for decades. The decision, which was reported by Votebeat, an election news website, comes as Republicans nationally have continued to push baseless claims of fraud in the 2020 election and sow doubts about the reliability of election machinery.
Daniel L. Rogers, the chairman of the Potter County Republicans, said that he made the decision this week because “a lot of voters have concerns” with the electronic counters and “don’t feel comfortable with them.” He did not cite evidence of any problems arising under the current system, and studies have shown that hand counting leads to more inaccuracies. He argued that paper ballots would be more secure.
“The parties have become lazy and complacent, but the primaries are actually the party’s responsibility,” said Mr. Rogers, a real estate broker whose office was decorated with red Make America Great Again hats when a New York Times reporter interviewed him last year. “The counties are spending millions of dollars on electronic systems, but this way it’s a true secret ballot.”
He said that “the voters are smarter than our elected officials, than administrators — they don’t trust the voters. I do.”
Mark P. Jones, a professor of political science at Rice University in Houston, said the move “removes the Republican Party one more step away from the standard electoral procedure.”
He added: “The integrity of our electoral system depends on institutionalizing and professionalizing election boards. There will be more doubts about the overall outcome, or it will lead to more slip-ups and more potential flaws and problems than if the professionals ran it.”
Potter County has about 57,000 registered voters, and they are overwhelmingly Republican: Roughly 70 percent cast their ballots for Donald J. Trump in 2020.
Mr. Rogers, when asked if the election results nationally were valid, responded, “I don’t have any idea and that’s the problem — I don’t know if it was accurate or not.”
Under state law, the county elections board will still be responsible for absentee and early voting, which a majority of voters in Texas use to cast their ballots. But the two systems, experts said, could complicate the process and make it easier for voters to cast ballots twice.
“It opens the door wide to fraud,” Dr. Jones said. “It doesn’t close the door to fraud.”
The legal office of the Texas secretary of state, who oversees elections in the state and who was appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, raised several concerns about the move.
“Any time that a party conducts their own election rather than contracting with a county, it is more confusing to voters,” said Sam Taylor, the assistant secretary of state for communications. Still, he added that “ultimately it’s their decision to go at it alone.”
One risk, Mr. Taylor said, is that candidates in contested races could file election challenges to prompt a court to order a new primary election. “It’s not unprecedented,” he said. “But county parties usually do not invite that opportunity upon themselves.”
“They have every legal right to do so,” he added. “We can’t really intervene.”
Melynn Huntley, the Potter County elections administrator, said that she had been taken aback by Mr. Rogers’s decision and that she was most worried about the potential to make it easier to vote twice.
“The biggest worry I have is that those two systems will not talk with each other,” Ms. Huntley said. “His desire is to eliminate fraud, but there is a vulnerability in the plan. I am concerned whether this can function with high integrity.”
Ms. Huntley, who has served as elections administrator for eight years, said that when she took on the job, she pledged not to vote in either party’s primary so that she could maintain her role as a nonpartisan overseer.
“I am truly trying to figure out how this is going to work,” she said.
by Great Algerstonia » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:56 pm
Maricarland wrote:
If they have medically transitioned, they are actually biologically intersex.
Also, why the big deal over using the terminology "people with uteruses" instead of the terminology women (which is flat-out wrong, some non-women have a uterus) or female?
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by Maricarland » Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:09 pm
Great Algerstonia wrote:Maricarland wrote:
If they have medically transitioned, they are actually biologically intersex.
Also, why the big deal over using the terminology "people with uteruses" instead of the terminology women (which is flat-out wrong, some non-women have a uterus) or female?
Because it would probably offend every woman I know and be extremely awkward if I walked up to someone and said "hey uterus person". I genuinely have to ask if you talk to women like this upon meeting them for the first time.
by Great Algerstonia » Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:11 pm
Maricarland wrote:Great Algerstonia wrote:Because it would probably offend every woman I know and be extremely awkward if I walked up to someone and said "hey uterus person". I genuinely have to ask if you talk to women like this upon meeting them for the first time.
I refer to women as women. I refer to men as men. I refer to non-binary people as non-binary people.
I do not call anyone uterus person. I am merely pointing out that not only women get abortions, anyone with a uterus and able to get pregnant may get an abortion, and if you want linguistic accuracy and inclusion that just saying protecting a women's right to an abortion is not enough, as that language can feel excluding to people who are not women but may still be able to become pregnant.
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by Diahon » Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:38 pm
Shrillland wrote:Potter County, TX, including Amarillo, to have two separate primaries in March as County GOP votes to hold Firehouse Primary independent of the county election board using only hand-marked-and-counted ballotsThe Republican Party in the second-largest county in the Texas Panhandle is planning to conduct its own election during the state primary in March, breaking away from a nonpartisan county election board in a highly unusual move.
The G.O.P. in Potter County, which includes Amarillo, plans to use ballots that will be marked and counted by hand, rather than employ the electronic systems that the county has relied on for decades. Election experts said the changes would confuse voters and create more potential for fraud.
Under Texas law, county parties are allowed to run their own primary elections, but the vast majority have contracted with local boards of election for decades. The decision, which was reported by Votebeat, an election news website, comes as Republicans nationally have continued to push baseless claims of fraud in the 2020 election and sow doubts about the reliability of election machinery.
Daniel L. Rogers, the chairman of the Potter County Republicans, said that he made the decision this week because “a lot of voters have concerns” with the electronic counters and “don’t feel comfortable with them.” He did not cite evidence of any problems arising under the current system, and studies have shown that hand counting leads to more inaccuracies. He argued that paper ballots would be more secure.
“The parties have become lazy and complacent, but the primaries are actually the party’s responsibility,” said Mr. Rogers, a real estate broker whose office was decorated with red Make America Great Again hats when a New York Times reporter interviewed him last year. “The counties are spending millions of dollars on electronic systems, but this way it’s a true secret ballot.”
He said that “the voters are smarter than our elected officials, than administrators — they don’t trust the voters. I do.”
Mark P. Jones, a professor of political science at Rice University in Houston, said the move “removes the Republican Party one more step away from the standard electoral procedure.”
He added: “The integrity of our electoral system depends on institutionalizing and professionalizing election boards. There will be more doubts about the overall outcome, or it will lead to more slip-ups and more potential flaws and problems than if the professionals ran it.”
Potter County has about 57,000 registered voters, and they are overwhelmingly Republican: Roughly 70 percent cast their ballots for Donald J. Trump in 2020.
Mr. Rogers, when asked if the election results nationally were valid, responded, “I don’t have any idea and that’s the problem — I don’t know if it was accurate or not.”
Under state law, the county elections board will still be responsible for absentee and early voting, which a majority of voters in Texas use to cast their ballots. But the two systems, experts said, could complicate the process and make it easier for voters to cast ballots twice.
“It opens the door wide to fraud,” Dr. Jones said. “It doesn’t close the door to fraud.”
The legal office of the Texas secretary of state, who oversees elections in the state and who was appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, raised several concerns about the move.
“Any time that a party conducts their own election rather than contracting with a county, it is more confusing to voters,” said Sam Taylor, the assistant secretary of state for communications. Still, he added that “ultimately it’s their decision to go at it alone.”
One risk, Mr. Taylor said, is that candidates in contested races could file election challenges to prompt a court to order a new primary election. “It’s not unprecedented,” he said. “But county parties usually do not invite that opportunity upon themselves.”
“They have every legal right to do so,” he added. “We can’t really intervene.”
Melynn Huntley, the Potter County elections administrator, said that she had been taken aback by Mr. Rogers’s decision and that she was most worried about the potential to make it easier to vote twice.
“The biggest worry I have is that those two systems will not talk with each other,” Ms. Huntley said. “His desire is to eliminate fraud, but there is a vulnerability in the plan. I am concerned whether this can function with high integrity.”
Ms. Huntley, who has served as elections administrator for eight years, said that when she took on the job, she pledged not to vote in either party’s primary so that she could maintain her role as a nonpartisan overseer.
“I am truly trying to figure out how this is going to work,” she said.
by Kowani » Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:12 pm
Amid pressure from advocates, the Biden administration is reversing course on plans to implement Trump-era regulations that would terminate a long-standing court settlement designed to protect migrant children in U.S. custody, two people familiar with the matter told CBS News.
The 2019 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule was part of a pair of regulations designed to replace the landmark Flores Settlement Agreement, which has governed the care of children in U.S. immigration custody since 1997 through strict standards for government shelters and detention sites.
On Friday, the administration omitted the HHS rule from its fall unified agenda of regulations, despite including it in the spring agenda earlier this year. The decision to discard the Trump-era rule came after months of internal debate, a Biden administration official familiar with the deliberations told CBS News. For decades, the Flores settlement has allowed non-profit lawyers to inspect facilities housing migrant children, ensure officials are providing adequate care and services to minors in U.S. custody, and seek relief in federal court if they determine the government is violating the terms of the agreement.
It is expected that the Biden administration will now work on its own rules to codify the Flores settlement, which was always intended to be replaced by regulations. Advocates have called on the administration to set up an oversight mechanism to ensure migrant children receive adequate care before moving to end the settlement.
"Even when, as is the case now, leadership is committed to ensuring that children's rights are being upheld, independent oversight is essential," said Neha Desai, one of the lawyers representing migrant youth in the Flores case. "Through multiple administrations, our interviews with children have repeatedly revealed deeply concerning violations of the Settlement; violations that compromise the basic health and safety of children." The Trump administration strongly criticized the Flores agreement, calling it a "loophole" that encouraged migrant families and children to cross the U.S. border illegally. Officials were particularly critical of a ruling in the Flores case that generally bars the government from detaining migrant families for longer than 20 days. In the summer of 2019, the Trump administration published two sets of regulations to replace the Flores settlement, an HHS one to govern the care of unaccompanied minors and a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that would allow the government to detain migrant families with children indefinitely.
The 2019 regulations elicited strong criticism from advocates for immigrants and Democratic lawmakers when they were published by the Trump administration. Opponents of the regulations denounced them as an effort to gut legal safeguards for migrant children, and the rules were quickly blocked by a federal court.
In December 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially upheld a ruling against the regulations, blocking the DHS rules that would have allowed for the indefinite detention of families while their asylum cases were processed.
But the appeals court allowed the government to implement the rules published by HHS, which operates shelters and other housing sites for migrant children who enter U.S. border custody without their parents. As of Friday morning, HHS was housing 13,072 unaccompanied children, according to agency data.
In June, the Biden administration quietly announced it intended to implement the HHS regulations for unaccompanied children after making some changes required by the Ninth Circuit ruling, as well as a "technical correction."
As part of a deal with Democratic-led states that challenged the 2019 rules, the Biden administration would have been able to end the Flores settlement — as it pertains to HHS shelters — 180 days after issuing a final rule.
The termination of the Flores agreement would no longer guarantee non-profit lawyers access to HHS shelters for unaccompanied children or the ability to ask a federal court to enforce the settlement if its provisions are breached by the government.
The prospect alarmed advocates for migrant children, who staged a forceful behind-the-scenes push to urge the Biden administration to scrap the Trump-era rules and work on new regulations from scratch.
In August, dozens of advocacy groups implored officials at the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the HHS agency that houses migrant children, to create "robust oversight mechanisms" for monitoring shelter conditions before moving to end the Flores agreement, according to a letter obtained by CBS News.
As part of the litigation mounted by Democratic-led states, the Biden administration agreed to suspend the most controversial provision of the HHS regulations: a rule that would give officials more leeway to strip the unaccompanied minor designation, as well as the accompanying legal protections, from children determined to have parents "available" to care for them in the U.S.
Under U.S. law, unaccompanied children are shielded from expedited deportations and allowed to seek asylum through child-sensitive interviews, as opposed to before an adversarial immigration judge.
Abolitionism in the North has leagued itself with Radical Democracy, and so the Slave Power was forced to ally itself with the Money Power; that is the great fact of the age.
by Great Algerstonia » Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:21 pm
Kowani wrote:Biden administration reverses course on plans to implement Trump-era regulations designed to end the Flores court settlement that protects migrant children in U.S. custodyAmid pressure from advocates, the Biden administration is reversing course on plans to implement Trump-era regulations that would terminate a long-standing court settlement designed to protect migrant children in U.S. custody, two people familiar with the matter told CBS News.
The 2019 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule was part of a pair of regulations designed to replace the landmark Flores Settlement Agreement, which has governed the care of children in U.S. immigration custody since 1997 through strict standards for government shelters and detention sites.
On Friday, the administration omitted the HHS rule from its fall unified agenda of regulations, despite including it in the spring agenda earlier this year. The decision to discard the Trump-era rule came after months of internal debate, a Biden administration official familiar with the deliberations told CBS News. For decades, the Flores settlement has allowed non-profit lawyers to inspect facilities housing migrant children, ensure officials are providing adequate care and services to minors in U.S. custody, and seek relief in federal court if they determine the government is violating the terms of the agreement.
It is expected that the Biden administration will now work on its own rules to codify the Flores settlement, which was always intended to be replaced by regulations. Advocates have called on the administration to set up an oversight mechanism to ensure migrant children receive adequate care before moving to end the settlement.
"Even when, as is the case now, leadership is committed to ensuring that children's rights are being upheld, independent oversight is essential," said Neha Desai, one of the lawyers representing migrant youth in the Flores case. "Through multiple administrations, our interviews with children have repeatedly revealed deeply concerning violations of the Settlement; violations that compromise the basic health and safety of children." The Trump administration strongly criticized the Flores agreement, calling it a "loophole" that encouraged migrant families and children to cross the U.S. border illegally. Officials were particularly critical of a ruling in the Flores case that generally bars the government from detaining migrant families for longer than 20 days. In the summer of 2019, the Trump administration published two sets of regulations to replace the Flores settlement, an HHS one to govern the care of unaccompanied minors and a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that would allow the government to detain migrant families with children indefinitely.
The 2019 regulations elicited strong criticism from advocates for immigrants and Democratic lawmakers when they were published by the Trump administration. Opponents of the regulations denounced them as an effort to gut legal safeguards for migrant children, and the rules were quickly blocked by a federal court.
In December 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially upheld a ruling against the regulations, blocking the DHS rules that would have allowed for the indefinite detention of families while their asylum cases were processed.
But the appeals court allowed the government to implement the rules published by HHS, which operates shelters and other housing sites for migrant children who enter U.S. border custody without their parents. As of Friday morning, HHS was housing 13,072 unaccompanied children, according to agency data.
In June, the Biden administration quietly announced it intended to implement the HHS regulations for unaccompanied children after making some changes required by the Ninth Circuit ruling, as well as a "technical correction."
As part of a deal with Democratic-led states that challenged the 2019 rules, the Biden administration would have been able to end the Flores settlement — as it pertains to HHS shelters — 180 days after issuing a final rule.
The termination of the Flores agreement would no longer guarantee non-profit lawyers access to HHS shelters for unaccompanied children or the ability to ask a federal court to enforce the settlement if its provisions are breached by the government.
The prospect alarmed advocates for migrant children, who staged a forceful behind-the-scenes push to urge the Biden administration to scrap the Trump-era rules and work on new regulations from scratch.
In August, dozens of advocacy groups implored officials at the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the HHS agency that houses migrant children, to create "robust oversight mechanisms" for monitoring shelter conditions before moving to end the Flores agreement, according to a letter obtained by CBS News.
As part of the litigation mounted by Democratic-led states, the Biden administration agreed to suspend the most controversial provision of the HHS regulations: a rule that would give officials more leeway to strip the unaccompanied minor designation, as well as the accompanying legal protections, from children determined to have parents "available" to care for them in the U.S.
Under U.S. law, unaccompanied children are shielded from expedited deportations and allowed to seek asylum through child-sensitive interviews, as opposed to before an adversarial immigration judge.
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
by The Jamesian Republic » Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:26 pm
Great Algerstonia wrote:Kowani wrote:Biden administration reverses course on plans to implement Trump-era regulations designed to end the Flores court settlement that protects migrant children in U.S. custodyAmid pressure from advocates, the Biden administration is reversing course on plans to implement Trump-era regulations that would terminate a long-standing court settlement designed to protect migrant children in U.S. custody, two people familiar with the matter told CBS News.
The 2019 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule was part of a pair of regulations designed to replace the landmark Flores Settlement Agreement, which has governed the care of children in U.S. immigration custody since 1997 through strict standards for government shelters and detention sites.
On Friday, the administration omitted the HHS rule from its fall unified agenda of regulations, despite including it in the spring agenda earlier this year. The decision to discard the Trump-era rule came after months of internal debate, a Biden administration official familiar with the deliberations told CBS News. For decades, the Flores settlement has allowed non-profit lawyers to inspect facilities housing migrant children, ensure officials are providing adequate care and services to minors in U.S. custody, and seek relief in federal court if they determine the government is violating the terms of the agreement.
It is expected that the Biden administration will now work on its own rules to codify the Flores settlement, which was always intended to be replaced by regulations. Advocates have called on the administration to set up an oversight mechanism to ensure migrant children receive adequate care before moving to end the settlement.
"Even when, as is the case now, leadership is committed to ensuring that children's rights are being upheld, independent oversight is essential," said Neha Desai, one of the lawyers representing migrant youth in the Flores case. "Through multiple administrations, our interviews with children have repeatedly revealed deeply concerning violations of the Settlement; violations that compromise the basic health and safety of children." The Trump administration strongly criticized the Flores agreement, calling it a "loophole" that encouraged migrant families and children to cross the U.S. border illegally. Officials were particularly critical of a ruling in the Flores case that generally bars the government from detaining migrant families for longer than 20 days. In the summer of 2019, the Trump administration published two sets of regulations to replace the Flores settlement, an HHS one to govern the care of unaccompanied minors and a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule that would allow the government to detain migrant families with children indefinitely.
The 2019 regulations elicited strong criticism from advocates for immigrants and Democratic lawmakers when they were published by the Trump administration. Opponents of the regulations denounced them as an effort to gut legal safeguards for migrant children, and the rules were quickly blocked by a federal court.
In December 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially upheld a ruling against the regulations, blocking the DHS rules that would have allowed for the indefinite detention of families while their asylum cases were processed.
But the appeals court allowed the government to implement the rules published by HHS, which operates shelters and other housing sites for migrant children who enter U.S. border custody without their parents. As of Friday morning, HHS was housing 13,072 unaccompanied children, according to agency data.
In June, the Biden administration quietly announced it intended to implement the HHS regulations for unaccompanied children after making some changes required by the Ninth Circuit ruling, as well as a "technical correction."
As part of a deal with Democratic-led states that challenged the 2019 rules, the Biden administration would have been able to end the Flores settlement — as it pertains to HHS shelters — 180 days after issuing a final rule.
The termination of the Flores agreement would no longer guarantee non-profit lawyers access to HHS shelters for unaccompanied children or the ability to ask a federal court to enforce the settlement if its provisions are breached by the government.
The prospect alarmed advocates for migrant children, who staged a forceful behind-the-scenes push to urge the Biden administration to scrap the Trump-era rules and work on new regulations from scratch.
In August, dozens of advocacy groups implored officials at the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the HHS agency that houses migrant children, to create "robust oversight mechanisms" for monitoring shelter conditions before moving to end the Flores agreement, according to a letter obtained by CBS News.
As part of the litigation mounted by Democratic-led states, the Biden administration agreed to suspend the most controversial provision of the HHS regulations: a rule that would give officials more leeway to strip the unaccompanied minor designation, as well as the accompanying legal protections, from children determined to have parents "available" to care for them in the U.S.
Under U.S. law, unaccompanied children are shielded from expedited deportations and allowed to seek asylum through child-sensitive interviews, as opposed to before an adversarial immigration judge.
Joe Biden just violated the U.S. Constitution by doing that
by Great Algerstonia » Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:31 pm
Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.
Users browsing this forum: The Huskar Social Union