Comments by "Scott Farner" (@scottfarner5100) on "'That's A Bunch Of Bulls---!': Tom Homan Rips Karine Jean-Pierre At Major GOP Event" video.

  1. 8
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41.  @kathleenmoyer5478  "On April 18, 2023, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability held a hearing concerning the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s (ORR) unaccompanied children program. The witness, director of the ORR, Ms. Robin Dunn-Marcos defended the current system used to care for unaccompanied migrant children. However, congressmen from both sides of the aisle raised concerns and were critical of the vetting process and post release services the ORR offers. While there was consensus that the current system of care must be reformed, several arguments from both parties were highly polarized. Consistently, Dunn-Marcos was questioned about the 85,000 migrant children that were reported missing after receiving ORR care, and wanted to know what the ORR does to protect children after they are discharged. However, Dunn-Marcos made it clear that the ORR relinquishes all custodial authority once the child has been placed with a sponsor. She argued that these 85,000 children are not “lost”, but rather beyond the responsibility of the ORR to monitor or track children after discharge. Additionally, sponsors are not legally required to report back to the ORR about the whereabouts or situation of the placed child. The lack of knowledge beyond the walls of ORR care concerned all members of the committee, and Dunn-Marcos advocated for more funding to continue to expand post release and legal services. Many concerns were raised about the vetting process for sponsors of unaccompanied children, specifically citing the ORR’s move to remove the proof of address requirement for sponsors, as well as the exemption of a submitted background check for all other household members. While this helps mitigate the amount of time children have to wait to receive ideal care, members of the committee were concerned that this only increases unsafe sponsorship placements; they stressed the importance of prioritizing children over speed. Concerns over child labor, sex trafficking, abuse, whistle-blower worker violations and more were repeatedly mentioned. Dunn-Marcos indicated that the ORR is currently strengthening their relationship with the Department of Labor to help reduce the rising rates of child labor. However, she made it clear that the ORR is not a law enforcement agency and does not have the power to remove a child from an unsafe placement. Dunn-Marcos also referred to the available hotlines and education given to both children and sponsors, as well as temporarily blocking placements to certain zip codes, additional supervisory reviews, and more home visits to respond to concerns. Yet, several congressmen noted that we need to invest more into the system to help these unaccompanied children and bring innovative solutions to the table."
    1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50.  @rd-Scorps  Homan believes that by use of an immoral zero tolerance policy to charging legal asylum seekers with a crime for crossing between check points and separating their children, who were later lost by the Trump administration and not returned to the parents, that he is saving immigrant lives. It is legal for asylum seekers to cross between check points and request asylum (8 USC 1158). Homan continues to push the false narrative that asylum seekers must use a port of entry. The courts and our laws say otherwise. His policy was in violation of our immigration laws and international treaty. It was later reversed in federal court in East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. After this policy there was an increasing number of children being sent unaccompanied. Remain in Mexico was being used on asylum seekers who were using a port of entry. Under our laws an asylum seeker who has passed a creditable fear interview is to be detained in the US under our protections (8 USC 1125). This forced immigrants to wait out for their asylum court case where they would not have access to legal representation or notifications from the court. It also forced them to be at easy access to cartels and traffickers. When you see footage of children being tossed over border walls that is a direct result of Homan and Trumps policies. Title 42 was being misused to undermine asylum altogether. Placing immigrants in expedited removal or refusing their asylum claims at ports of entry. Title 42 also removed tile 8 enforcement of our border legal deterrent by suspending the use of 8 USC 1325 and 1326. Republicans continued to fight in court to keep title 42 in place to undermine asylum. How is Biden to secure the border when title 42 removes the penalty for crossing illegally? This caused more to cross multiple times and is why we have the number we have now. Biden is following the same laws that gave us a 11 year decline in southern border crossing before Trump dismantle the process and policies created a record high in border crossings in 2019, 2 years after a record low in 2017.
    1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88.  @amathonn  East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps zero tolerance policy on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations. Trump attempted to put a stay on this reversal that was denied. Page 19-21 of that decision. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
    1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. Homan believes that by use of an immoral zero tolerance policy to charging legal asylum seekers with a crime for crossing between check points and separating their children, who were later lost by the Trump administration and not returned to the parents, that he is saving immigrant lives. It is legal for asylum seekers to cross between check points and request asylum (8 USC 1158). That is what the Right call an open border policy. It's been law for over 40 years. Homan continues to push the false narrative that asylum seekers must use a port of entry. The courts and our laws say otherwise. His policy was in violation of our immigration laws and international treaty. It was later reversed in federal court in East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. After this policy there was an increasing number of children being sent unaccompanied. Remain in Mexico was being used on asylum seekers who were using a port of entry. Under our laws an asylum seeker who has passed a creditable fear interview is to be detained in the US under our protections (8 USC 1125). This forced immigrants to wait out for their asylum court case where they would not have access to legal representation or notifications from the court. It also forced them to be at easy access to cartels and traffickers. When you see footage of children being tossed over border walls that is a direct result of Homan and Trumps policies. Title 42 was being misused to undermine asylum altogether. Placing immigrants in expedited removal or refusing their asylum claims at ports of entry. Title 42 also removed tile 8 enforcement of our border legal deterrent by suspending the use of 8 USC 1325 and 1326. Republicans continued to fight in court to keep title 42 in place to undermine asylum. How is Biden to secure the border when title 42 removes the penalty for crossing illegally? This caused more to cross multiple times and is why we have the number we have now. Biden is following the same laws that gave us a 11 year decline in southern border crossing before Trump dismantle the process and policies created a record high in border crossings in 2019, 2 years after a record low in 2017.
    1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132.  @dannybird4996  Homan believes that by use of an immoral zero tolerance policy to charging legal asylum seekers with a crime for crossing between check points and separating their children, who were later lost by the Trump administration and not returned to the parents, that he is saving immigrant lives. It is legal for asylum seekers to cross between check points and request asylum (8 USC 1158). Homan continues to push the false narrative that asylum seekers must use a port of entry. The courts and our laws say otherwise. His policy was in violation of our immigration laws and international treaty. It was later reversed in federal court in East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. After this policy there was an increasing number of children being sent unaccompanied. Remain in Mexico was being used on asylum seekers who were using a port of entry. Under our laws an asylum seeker who has passed a creditable fear interview is to be detained in the US under our protections (8 USC 1125). This forced immigrants to wait out for their asylum court case where they would not have access to legal representation or notifications from the court. It also forced them to be at easy access to cartels and traffickers. When you see footage of children being tossed over border walls that is a direct result of Homan and Trumps policies. Title 42 was being misused to undermine asylum altogether. Placing immigrants in expedited removal or refusing their asylum claims at ports of entry. Title 42 also removed tile 8 enforcement of our border legal deterrent by suspending the use of 8 USC 1325 and 1326. Republicans continued to fight in court to keep title 42 in place to undermine asylum. How is Biden to secure the border when title 42 removes the penalty for crossing illegally? This caused more to cross multiple times and is why we have the number we have now. Biden is following the same laws that gave us a 11 year decline in southern border crossing before Trump dismantle the process and policies created a record high in border crossings in 2019, 2 years after a record low in 2017.
    1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps zero tolerance policy thst Homan heled to create on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations. Trump attempted to put a stay on this reversal that was denied. Page 19-21 of that decision. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
    1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps zero tolerance policy on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations thst Homan is lying about. Trump attempted to put a stay on this reversal that was denied. Page 19-21 of that decision. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
    1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1