Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 82
Thanks Tree21Thanks

Thread: Session - Says Domestic Violence Is Not Grounds for Asylum

  1. #31
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    55,060
    Thanks
    42575

    From
    CA
    Well for sure after today's ruling by Sessions, this women won't be getting asylum - but I guess she is one of the lucky ones?? Only separated from her kids for 9 months (I can't even begin to imagine)

    https://www.texasmonthly.com/politic...n-authorities/

  2. #32
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,821
    Thanks
    37366

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by HayJenn View Post
    So you think domestic and gang violence is regular old "violence"? Really? And you think country's in Central American government's are going to help these women and children?

    Ms. Cifuentes fled from Guatemala in 2005 and, according to the decision, she “suffered repugnant abuse by her husband” after marrying when she was 17. After the couple’s first child was born, Ms. Cifuentes said her husband beat her weekly, breaking her nose. He threw burning paint thinner on her and raped her.

    The appeals judges were persuaded that Ms. Cifuentes also met other requirements by showing that the Guatemalan government would not protect her. She went repeatedly to the police but was told they would not interfere in a domestic dispute, according to the ruling. Once when her husband bloodied her face she called the police to their home, but they refused to arrest him. When Ms. Cifuentes fled to another Guatemalan city, he hunted her down. She came secretly to the United States with her two children and now lives in Missouri.

    An immigration judge first denied her asylum petition. But the appeals board confirmed that she was part of a social group of married women in Guatemala who cannot escape their spouses. The board wrote that it was persuaded by evidence presented by Ms. Cifuentes that Guatemala “has a culture of machismo and family violence” and that the police routinely failed to respond. Lawyers for Ms. Cifuentes said the decision was not likely to open any immigration floodgates. For now, Ms. Musalo noted, it applies only to women from Guatemala, and abuse victims will still have to meet other rigorous requirements. In 2013, the courts approved a total of only 9,933 asylum cases nationwide.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/u...lum-in-us.html

    Seeking asylum in the US is a hard and long task all on it's own. The least we can do it take in some women and kids who have suffered violence you nor I could ever imagine.

    I stand 100% by my comment. This is shameful.
    Isn't the fact that 40% of the world lives on less than $2/day isn't shameful? Should we offer a place in our country for all of them? "Asylum" is a political concept, a solution for a political problem. Domestic violence is not a political problem, no matter how tragic might be any individual case you could bring to the discussion. And while seeking asylum in the US is a hard and long task, it's hard and long for the US, since we're obliged to keep people safe and reasonably well-cared for in the meantime.

    To really get to the heart of this discussion, we have to ask why we have asylum laws in the first place. We do it because we seek to help people achieve political self-determination. It's part of our identity as a nation to help others become politically self-determining. Feeding the world, making sure people around the world treat in other well in their domestic affairs, and quelling violence around the world are not part of our mission as a nation. We would beggar ourselves if we tried that mission on for size.
    Thanks from Crusher

  3. #33
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    82,735
    Thanks
    45619

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Then Congress can change the law. The separating of children and parents at the border is a separate issue from whether these women should get asylum.
    change what law? I asked what if the courts told Sessions to go piss up a rope. Immigration courts are under his authority. I'd imagine the only way to reverse this would be to either vote Trump out of office or a federal lawsuit. Are you saying that Congress should pass legislation to take the immigration courts from being under justice department authority? Or, some other kind of law? What I saying is the courts should object in some way. Rebel against this administration. Because, let's not forget, Trump likes judges that do that.

  4. #34
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    66,612
    Thanks
    34227

    From
    Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    What I saying is the courts should object in some way.
    Under what legal theory?

  5. #35
    Veteran Member Yetisports6 - Big Wave Champion, Bezerk Champion, All Ball Champion, Magic Gem Champion, Crystal Clear Champion, Flower Power Champion, Space Thieves TD Champion, X-treme Moto Idiot Cross Champion, Micro Tanks Champion, Race Horse Tycoon Champion, Railway Line Champion, Raju Meter 2 Champion, Metal Slug - Kill the Nazis Champion, Decoder Champion, 1 in 24 Speed v32  Champion
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    28,344
    Thanks
    8847

    From
    In Grace
    Domestic Violence is to be worked out by the local community / standards / laws... not a foreign entity ... aka the United States of America. We are not the world's police. This is not an international political/legal issue that were are to be solving. There is not some free pass to the U.S.A. because of domestic disputes.

  6. #36
    Veteran Member Goofball's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    51,296
    Thanks
    10368

    From
    United States
    Sessions finally got something right.

  7. #37
    The Deepest State Panzareta's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    34,202
    Thanks
    20970

    From
    On a happy trail
    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    Domestic Violence is to be worked out by the local community / standards / laws... not a foreign entity ... aka the United States of America. We are not the world's police. This is not an international political/legal issue that were are to be solving. There is not some free pass to the U.S.A. because of domestic disputes.
    No wonder Clinton's Foundation irks the right. Sorry I see it as native citizens of this hemisphere who have the sovereign right to escape arbitrary boundaries set up by those who do not share their concerns.

    And where's all those concerned Christians who are supposed to be helping other Christians?

    Phfffft!
    Last edited by Panzareta; 12th June 2018 at 07:31 AM.

  8. #38
    Veteran Member Yetisports6 - Big Wave Champion, Bezerk Champion, All Ball Champion, Magic Gem Champion, Crystal Clear Champion, Flower Power Champion, Space Thieves TD Champion, X-treme Moto Idiot Cross Champion, Micro Tanks Champion, Race Horse Tycoon Champion, Railway Line Champion, Raju Meter 2 Champion, Metal Slug - Kill the Nazis Champion, Decoder Champion, 1 in 24 Speed v32  Champion
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    28,344
    Thanks
    8847

    From
    In Grace
    Quote Originally Posted by Panzareta View Post
    No wonder Clinton's Foundation irks the right. Sorry I see it as native citizens of this hemisphere who have the sovereign right to escape arbitrary boundaries set up by those who do not share their concerns.
    "arbitrary boundaries"... ROFL!!!!

    That means we don't actually have a country and our laws are meaningless and so much more.

  9. #39
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    82,735
    Thanks
    45619

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Under what legal theory?
    freedom of speech.

  10. #40
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,821
    Thanks
    37366

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    change what law? I asked what if the courts told Sessions to go piss up a rope. Immigration courts are under his authority. I'd imagine the only way to reverse this would be to either vote Trump out of office or a federal lawsuit. Are you saying that Congress should pass legislation to take the immigration courts from being under justice department authority? Or, some other kind of law? What I saying is the courts should object in some way. Rebel against this administration. Because, let's not forget, Trump likes judges that do that.
    I'm saying that Sessions made a decision regarding how to interpret a law. He's allowed to do that within the constraints of current law. Immigration courts do not have ultimate authority in deciding what a law means--higher courts do that. If they interpret the law as broadly as some in this thread want them to, they should pass a new law that's not so vague and that does what Congress wants the law to do.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Decriminalizing domestic violence
    By The Man in forum Sexuality
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 3rd December 2017, 03:20 PM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 1st March 2017, 10:43 AM
  3. NFL: New Domestic Violence Consequences
    By boontito in forum Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 31st August 2014, 08:28 PM
  4. Domestic Violence
    By Gypsy in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22nd September 2010, 04:17 AM
  5. On Domestic Violence in the US
    By MisterE in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 24th May 2007, 03:42 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed