Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So apparently your president broke the protocol of meeting the Queen twice whilst he was over here. First he didn't bow and he then walked in front of her whilst they were inspecting the Queens Guard.
Americans don’t bow to any monarchy... we’re not subjects.
According to widespread reporting and Obama aides including vice-president Joe Biden, chief of staff Denis McDonough and senior adviser Ben Rhodes, Obama attempted to formulate a bipartisan statement on Russian election interference in September 2016, two months before the election, but saw the effort “watered down” by Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.
In a memoir, Rhodes called McConnell’s action “staggeringly partisan and unpatriotic in its disregard for a foreign adversary undermining our democracy”.
Wait... Obama felt that he couldn’t go after the Russians because the GOP Congress was mean to him? What a crock of gak. As POTUS he had wide latitude in foreign policy and he certainly could’ve thwacked Russia on his own.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/14 17:05:41
Americans don’t bow to any monarchy... we’re not subjects.
O Rly??
EDIT: I use the video of St. Ronnie bowing to say this: a quick search of the Ol' Google showed that this is nothing new, and that presidents DO bow to monarchs. . . .it's a sign of courtesy and respect, not because "we have to". So, Whem, you're only half right: we're not subjects. BUT, presidents, generally speaking, do bow to monarchs/heads of state where appropriate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/14 17:49:39
A Town Called Malus wrote: So apparently your president broke the protocol of meeting the Queen twice whilst he was over here. First he didn't bow and he then walked in front of her whilst they were inspecting the Queens Guard.
Americans don’t bow to any monarchy... we’re not subjects.
According to widespread reporting and Obama aides including vice-president Joe Biden, chief of staff Denis McDonough and senior adviser Ben Rhodes, Obama attempted to formulate a bipartisan statement on Russian election interference in September 2016, two months before the election, but saw the effort “watered down” by Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.
In a memoir, Rhodes called McConnell’s action “staggeringly partisan and unpatriotic in its disregard for a foreign adversary undermining our democracy”.
Wait... Obama felt that he couldn’t go after the Russians because the GOP Congress was mean to him? What a crock of gak. As POTUS he had wide latitude in foreign policy and he certainly could’ve thwacked Russia on his own.
I know the smoke of obfuscation may be a little thick over there, but surely you remember the frenzy leading up to the election when armed nuts were sure, absolutely 100% convinced Obama would somehow try to cancel the election and seize power?
I mean I know I'm a little more callous but the prospect of an armed uprising seems to have been a big check on any sort of action at that point in time.
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So apparently your president broke the protocol of meeting the Queen twice whilst he was over here. First he didn't bow and he then walked in front of her whilst they were inspecting the Queens Guard.
Americans don’t bow to any monarchy... we’re not subjects.
According to widespread reporting and Obama aides including vice-president Joe Biden, chief of staff Denis McDonough and senior adviser Ben Rhodes, Obama attempted to formulate a bipartisan statement on Russian election interference in September 2016, two months before the election, but saw the effort “watered down” by Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.
In a memoir, Rhodes called McConnell’s action “staggeringly partisan and unpatriotic in its disregard for a foreign adversary undermining our democracy”.
Wait... Obama felt that he couldn’t go after the Russians because the GOP Congress was mean to him? What a crock of gak. As POTUS he had wide latitude in foreign policy and he certainly could’ve thwacked Russia on his own.
I know the smoke of obfuscation may be a little thick over there, but surely you remember the frenzy leading up to the election when armed nuts were sure, absolutely 100% convinced Obama would somehow try to cancel the election and seize power?
I mean I know I'm a little more callous but the prospect of an armed uprising seems to have been a big check on any sort of action at that point in time.
Americans don’t bow to any monarchy... we’re not subjects.
O Rly??
EDIT: I use the video of St. Ronnie bowing to say this: a quick search of the Ol' Google showed that this is nothing new, and that presidents DO bow to monarchs. . . .it's a sign of courtesy and respect, not because "we have to". So, Whem, you're only half right: we're not subjects. BUT, presidents, generally speaking, do bow to monarchs/heads of state where appropriate.
Really. There’s no expectation from Americans to do that...when you become a US citizen you actually renounce your ties to the monarchy. I don’t believe Clinton nor Either Bushes did either.
However I do believe other old British colonies still defers to the Queen (Canada? Ausratlia?).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/14 18:14:05
*sigh*
Whembly, the point is that you're showing respect to the nice little old lady who has seen more crap than you would ever believe. You're not making obeisance to the fancy hat she's wearing.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
*Shrug* I would not bow to the Queen, as an Irishman. But I just would not go to meet her if it was a requirement. You either get the pomp and ceremony, and play by the rules, or you politely decline to meet her. Trying to have it both ways is boorish.
Really. There’s no expectation from Americans to do that...when you become a US citizen you actually renounce your ties to the monarchy. I don’t believe Clinton nor Either Bushes did either.
Not sure about the Queen, but G. W. Bush at least bowed to King Abdullah, the Pope, and Premier Jiabao.
That said, I don't really care if foreign heads of state bow to the monarch. I'd much rather they shook hands like normal people. Or bowed if that's the cultural norm, but not because it's what you do the office.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/14 18:29:35
A Town Called Malus wrote: So apparently your president broke the protocol of meeting the Queen twice whilst he was over here. First he didn't bow and he then walked in front of her whilst they were inspecting the Queens Guard.
Americans don’t bow to any monarchy... we’re not subjects.
According to widespread reporting and Obama aides including vice-president Joe Biden, chief of staff Denis McDonough and senior adviser Ben Rhodes, Obama attempted to formulate a bipartisan statement on Russian election interference in September 2016, two months before the election, but saw the effort “watered down” by Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.
In a memoir, Rhodes called McConnell’s action “staggeringly partisan and unpatriotic in its disregard for a foreign adversary undermining our democracy”.
Wait... Obama felt that he couldn’t go after the Russians because the GOP Congress was mean to him? What a crock of gak. As POTUS he had wide latitude in foreign policy and he certainly could’ve thwacked Russia on his own.
I know the smoke of obfuscation may be a little thick over there, but surely you remember the frenzy leading up to the election when armed nuts were sure, absolutely 100% convinced Obama would somehow try to cancel the election and seize power?
I mean I know I'm a little more callous but the prospect of an armed uprising seems to have been a big check on any sort of action at that point in time.
What on earth are you talking about?
I was answering your question - the issue with "going after" the Russians was a bunch of people who'd immediately take it as an excuse to start playing out their Red Dawn fan-fiction. There were more things to consider at that point in time than just whether the pres. has latitude to do something or not.
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
Tannhauser42 wrote: You're showing respect to the nice little old lady who has seen more crap than you would ever believe. You're not making obeisance to the fancy hat she's wearing.
I disagree. Bowing to the Queen is expected of her subjects, but it's inappropriate for non-subjects... for both parties. That's going to go more so for the President of the United States, who is an equivalent head of state. The people of the US do not expect their elected head of government to bow to foreign sovereigns.
I understand that some prior presidents have bowed, or sort-of-bowed in various circumstances. Those were incorrect and should not have happened.
If you want to be upset about breaches of royal protocol, lets settle for "making the Queen wait for you for 10 minutes" which to be honest is rude no matter who you are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/14 18:31:22
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Tannhauser42 wrote: You're showing respect to the nice little old lady who has seen more crap than you would ever believe. You're not making obeisance to the fancy hat she's wearing.
I disagree. Bowing to the Queen is expected of her subjects, but it's inappropriate for non-subjects... for both parties. That's going to go more so for the President of the United States, who is an equivalent head of state. The people of the US do not expect their elected head of government to bow to foreign sovereigns.
I understand that some prior presidents have bowed, or sort-of-bowed in various circumstances. Those were incorrect and should not have happened.
If you want to be upset about breaches of royal protocol, lets settle for "making the Queen wait for you for 10 minutes" which to be honest is rude no matter who you are.
Let me remind American dakka members that our immortal God Empress (praise be her name)
has known Churchill, every American president since Eisenhower, East European dictators, African dictators, a dozen British Prime Ministers, and more heads of states than we've played games of Warhammer. And I've played a lot of Warhammer in my time.
Trump? Queen Elizabeth could have phoned it in. That's how good she is.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
whembly wrote: Wait... Obama felt that he couldn’t go after the Russians because the GOP Congress was mean to him? What a crock of gak. As POTUS he had wide latitude in foreign policy and he certainly could’ve thwacked Russia on his own.
Not exactly,he wanted to be bipartisian about it and the republicans wouldn't sign on to a statement about the investigation, while they were dredging up everything they could on any Hillary investigations.
Of course they deny it, but I'll believe the folks not capitulating to Trump at every turn.
It was to avoid the appearance of political meddling in the election. That thing the republicans gladly did. The assumption that people actually took trump seriously when he said the election was rigged against him would actually hurt people if they thought there was an actual bias against Trump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/14 21:44:29
Joe Manchin is going to vote to confirm, because he's 71 and no one can tell him what to do. That's a pretty objectively awful rationale.
What the democrats will probably do is be good with it, because if he can keep his seat, then you have a D where an R would usually be and it's better to have a D who votes with you sometimes than an R who won't ever. It's very smart thinking, which has led to the massive defeats that the Democrats now enjoy on virtually every level of government. :nods sagely:
If he won't vote no, then he should be primary'd. If he won't stand with the dems on a crucial vote like this, then you functionally already have an R, anyway. Change the value of the situation from "a D who sometimes votes with us" to "a message to the rest of the party". The latter is manifestly more valuable. That's what the GOP has been doing and as I understand it, it's been working out quite well for them so far.
Of course, I say this with the assumption they can pull Murkowski, Snowe or Collins, which they probably won't. We can safely assume that attention whore Rand Paul will vote with the GOP once he has gotten enough attention, just like he always does. So, there are a lot of angles here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/15 01:27:07
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Really. There’s no expectation from Americans to do that...when you become a US citizen you actually renounce your ties to the monarchy. I don’t believe Clinton nor Either Bushes did either.
Not sure about the Queen, but G. W. Bush at least bowed to King Abdullah, the Pope, and Premier Jiabao.
That said, I don't really care if foreign heads of state bow to the monarch. I'd much rather they shook hands like normal people. Or bowed if that's the cultural norm, but not because it's what you do the office.
W did (google images search). However, I could not find pics of HW Bush, or Clinton. It could be that W did it because he met the Queen on her home turf, while Bush Sr. only met her on his (I dunno, not gonna search all the times the heads of state have met in official capacities to find out).
I understand that some prior presidents have bowed, or sort-of-bowed in various circumstances. Those were incorrect and should not have happened.
Judging by the pictures I'm seeing, past president's bows to the Queen of England have been the equivalent of a bow before your arch rival immediately before an epic Kung Fu confrontation. . . As in, there's a "bow" but there's very little of it, and ya keep your eye on your opponent, lest they drop kick ya in the teeth.
The only "deep bows" I've seen, were pics of Obama meeting the Japanese Emperor, where in that culture the bow is (apparently) less required and more done out of respect itself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/15 01:47:37
Judging by the pictures I'm seeing, past president's bows to the Queen of England have been the equivalent of a bow before your arch rival immediately before an epic Kung Fu confrontation. . .
For some reason I read that and mentally pictured Teddy Roosevelt and Victoria standing there and then Shao Khan yells FIGHT in the background...
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Judging by the pictures I'm seeing, past president's bows to the Queen of England have been the equivalent of a bow before your arch rival immediately before an epic Kung Fu confrontation. . .
For some reason I read that and mentally pictured Teddy Roosevelt and Victoria standing there and then Shao Khan yells FIGHT in the background...
And now I'm thinking of a fighting game series with Presidents of the United States as characters. FDR has a robot chair, Teddy has a big stick, and Andrew Jackson donkey kicks his opponents.
whembly wrote: Wait... Obama felt that he couldn’t go after the Russians because the GOP Congress was mean to him? What a crock of gak. As POTUS he had wide latitude in foreign policy and he certainly could’ve thwacked Russia on his own.
Not exactly,he wanted to be bipartisian about it and the republicans wouldn't sign on to a statement about the investigation, while they were dredging up everything they could on any Hillary investigations.
Of course they deny it, but I'll believe the folks not capitulating to Trump at every turn.
It was to avoid the appearance of political meddling in the election. That thing the republicans gladly did. The assumption that people actually took trump seriously when he said the election was rigged against him would actually hurt people if they thought there was an actual bias against Trump.
Please, I beg of you and others to not feed the trolls... It would be really really nice to not have to scroll past the continous dumping of tired falsehoods every page.
Not every bow is a bow of subservience. Some bows are to show respect, like when two diplomats bow to each other.
It is a lot like shaking hands or nodding your head to another person as you pass. Now there are specific bows a president should never do to another head of state. I am sure if a future president does that to the queen(because she is never going to die) she would probably freak out. She is pretty calm and never loses her cool but that would be something to lose your cool about.
The discussion about whether Trump did or should have bowed to the Queen is a red herring. The Queen has had all sorts of rudenesses and breachers of protocol over the decades and takes it in her stride.
The real issue is that Trump began his first official "working" visit to the UK, nominally the USA's closest ally, by insulting the PM twice, and praising one of her chief opponents and rivals.
This is not 'diplomacy', it's plain utter rudeness and stupidity.
IMO May should have instructed the Foreign Secretary to call in the US Ambassador and tell him the visit is cancelled, and Trump isn't welcome in the UK until he makes a full apology.
Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), who rode the Tea Party wave to Congress in 2010 only to be voted out two years later (and now considers himself among the #NeverTrump crowd despite tweeting before the 2016 election, “if Trump loses, I’m grabbing my musket”) told CNN’s Michael Smerconish that he decided to tweet out details of his run-in with Baron Cohen after hearing Palin’s story.
Like accused sexual predator Roy Moore, who threatened to sue Baron Cohen this week, Walsh was invited to receive an award in Washington, D.C., for being a friend to Israel and while he was there sat for an interview in which a documentary crew asked him to endorse various Israeli innovations—including the idea of arming four-year-olds to defend themselves against terrorists
...
They had Walsh read off a teleprompter about a four-year-old child in Israel who, “when a terrorist entered his classroom, somehow he grabbed the terrorist’s gun and held the terrorist at bay,” he said, adding, “And that was an example of how Israel trains and arms preschool kids on how to use firearms, and boy shouldn’t we do that in America?”
As he read those words off of the teleprompter, Walsh thought to himself, “Well, this is kind of crazy, but it is Israel and Israel is strong on defense.”
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Kilkrazy wrote: The discussion about whether Trump did or should have bowed to the Queen is a red herring. The Queen has had all sorts of rudenesses and breachers of protocol over the decades and takes it in her stride.
The real issue is that Trump began his first official "working" visit to the UK, nominally the USA's closest ally, by insulting the PM twice, and praising one of her chief opponents and rivals.
This is not 'diplomacy', it's plain utter rudeness and stupidity.
IMO May should have instructed the Foreign Secretary to call in the US Ambassador and tell him the visit is cancelled, and Trump isn't welcome in the UK until he makes a full apology.
She can't/couldn't. She doesn't even have the political security to sack the people that insult her who she directly appoints.
Dreadwinter wrote: Not every bow is a bow of subservience. Some bows are to show respect, like when two diplomats bow to each other.
It is a lot like shaking hands or nodding your head to another person as you pass. Now there are specific bows a president should never do to another head of state. I am sure if a future president does that to the queen(because she is never going to die) she would probably freak out. She is pretty calm and never loses her cool but that would be something to lose your cool about.
It's just a set of standard protocols that happens in all countries. I'm sure there are protocols that other world dignitaries follow when they visit the US (for example I assume chatting through the national anthem is a no-no).
In fact there appears to be a whole US manual on ensuring protocol is met where it highlights that failure to abide by it can be perceived as an insult.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Well, Trump's leaving Scotland today, and good riddance to him.
We can do without protestors clogging the streets of our cities, taxpayers footing the £5 million security bill, and the First Minister, our 'state' governor,' being insulted.
Finland is welcome to him. This has been a PR disaster from start to finish for the White House.
It would be amusing if the giant Trump baby balloon follows him back to the USA.
He'd probably get Secret Service snipers to shoot it down
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement Is Budgeting for a Surge in Child Separations
The agency is planning to move funds for refugees and HIV/AIDS patients to cover the possible costs.
By MARK JOSEPH STERN
The Office of Refugee Resettlement is preparing for the possibility of another surge in family separations. Internal documents obtained by Slate show that ORR has modeled a scenario in which the Trump administration’s border policies could require the detention of thousands more immigrant children.
The ORR’s budgeting exercise is premised on the possibility it could need as many as 25,400 beds for immigrant minors by the end of the calendar year. ORR—an agency within the Administration for Children and Families, which is itself a division of the Department of Health and Human Services—was caught off guard by the family separation policy, the documents reveal. In April, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice would henceforth have “zero tolerance” for immigrants who cross the border without authorization. He expanded the policy in May by partnering with the Department of Homeland Security to prosecute immigrants for unlawful border crossing, a misdemeanor. Under zero tolerance, parents are imprisoned, and children are placed in ORR shelters, sometimes far from the border.
There are currently about 11,800 children in ORR’s care. Alex Azar, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, has stated that somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 of those children were separated from their parents at the border. The remaining children in ORR custody are unaccompanied minors—children who crossed the border without a parent or guardian.
In the documents obtained by Slate, ORR officials describe the budget implications of a potential surge in immigrant minors over the next three months. The ORR’s budgeting exercise is premised on the possibility that the agency could need as many as 25,400 beds for immigrant minors by the end of the calendar year. The documents do not indicate that ORR officials have specific knowledge that family separations will increase but do show that the agency is preparing for the possibility.
The internal documents estimate that if 25,400 beds are needed, ORR would face a budget shortfall of $585 million for ORR in fiscal year 2018, which ends on Sept. 30. Under this scenario, that shortfall would increase to $1.3 billion in the first quarter of fiscal year 2019, adding up to a total shortfall of $1.9 billion for the period between Oct. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018. The documents stress that these budget estimates represent maximum possible expenditures and that actual expenses may be lower. The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to multiple requests for comment about these figures or anything else relating to the documents.
To help cover these potential costs, the documents say, HHS will seek supplemental appropriations from Congress. The documents also indicate that HHS plans to pay for child separation by reallocating money from the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which, according to its website, “provides a comprehensive system of care that includes primary medical care and essential support services for people living with HIV who are uninsured or underinsured.” Per the documents, the process of transferring those HIV/AIDS funds has already begun.
In addition, HHS plans to reallocate $79 million from programs for refugee resettlement, a move that could imperil social services, medical assistance, and English language instructions for refugees in the U.S., as well as programs for torture survivors.
ORR’s budgeting exercise does not account for a federal court decision ordering the administration to reunify separated parents and children within 30 days, or within 14 days if those children are younger than 5 years old. Azar has stated publicly that he will attempt to comply with these deadlines.
The documents do, however, take into account the executive order that Trump signed on June 20 that purports to end family separation—and reveal that ORR does not seem to be operating on the assumption that the separation policy has truly ended. The budgeting exercise assumes that Trump’s order created a 20-day pause on family separations and that referrals would increase after that 20-day period—that is, after July 10—to 325 immigrant children per day for four weeks. If that estimate is correct, that means an additional 9,100 immigrant children would be detained and housed by the U.S. government in the four weeks beginning Tuesday.
At the end of those four weeks, the agency documents assume, the deterrent effect of family separation would again reduce referrals—that is, the number of immigrant children in government detention. There is no evidence that a resumption of family separation will deter parents from crossing the border with their children; the number of families apprehended at the border stayed flat between May and June as the U.S. government implemented the zero-tolerance policy.
The timeline laid out in these internal documents reflects a debatable reading of Trump’s executive order. ORR officials appear to think that the order allowed families and children to be detained together temporarily but that under the Flores settlement these children must be transferred to ORR’s custody after 20 days. Under this interpretation of the executive order, all children who are separated from a parent or guardian from this point forward must first be detained with that parent or guardian for 20 days.
While the executive order is ambiguous on this point, ORR’s interpretation is plausible. Moreover, not all of the referrals—ORR’s term for minors placed in its care—that are accounted for in ORR’s budgeting exercise would be children separated from their parents. Some of the additional beds would presumably go to minors who arrive at the border unaccompanied by a parent or guardian. But given the claim in the documents that referrals would increase after a pause on family separations, it appears ORR believes a substantial number of those beds would indeed go to children separated from their parents.
Mark Greenberg, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute who led the Administration for Children and Families—the division of HHS that includes the Office of Refugee Resettlement—from 2013 to 2015, told Slate the plans indicate an “enormous increase” in the number of minors that will be held in custody. “This envisions having further family separation cases coming to HHS—a lot of them,” he said. Greenberg also noted that the documents suggest the possibility of a vast expansion of federal expenditures on unaccompanied minors. “The entire appropriation for unaccompanied alien children this year was $1.3 billion,” he said. Now ORR is “seeking an additional $1.3 billion” for just the last three months of 2018.
Bob Carey, who served as director of ORR under President Barack Obama, told Slate that the documents also reflect the possibility that the agency may “keep children for much longer periods of time.” Under Obama, the average minor in federal custody remained in ORR’s care for 33 days before being released to a sponsor, usually a family member. Under Trump, that average has increased to 55 days, and stints in detention could grow longer as the administration creates higher barriers to sponsorship. Carey said the Trump administration has implemented processes that have a “deterrent effect” on sponsors. For instance, ORR now shares information about potential sponsors with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That policy could dissuade undocumented family members from sponsoring minors, potentially keeping children languishing in ORR’s care for months.
“That tactic represents muddying of mission,” Carey said. “ORR shelters were not established to care for children on a long-term basis. They were set to keep kids for as short a period of time as possible until the child could be released to a parent or other sponsor. Clearly [the agency] is creeping away from that.”
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/15 12:44:22
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A California-based company that sells "Make America Great Again" hats similar to the official hats sold by the Trump campaign says its prices may rise in response to trade tensions with China prompted by President Trump's tariffs.
David Lassoff, who runs the company IncredibleGifts, told ABC News that prices of the hat could double from between $9 and $12 to at least $20 if he is forced to abandon his Chinese manufacturers and make the hats in the United States.
The hat, Lassoff said, is his website's best-selling item. He claims to have sold hundreds of thousands of the hat.
"We usually sell the MAGA hats for around $9 to $12. But it could go up to $20 if we had to make them in the U.S. and embroider them here," Lassoff said.
"There might be a limited quantity [of hats] in the future. We’re trying to make sure we have enough hats in stock now, so if things change, we’re prepared," he added.
Lassoff's company is not involved with the official Trump campaign "Make America Great Again" hat, which, according to the campaign store's website, is manufactured entirely in the U.S.
Trump has battled China in recent months over trade issues, most recently announcing a potential $200 billion sanctions package targeting the country over what he says are unfair trade practices.
The package's size is roughly equal to China's total exports to the United States, according to White House officials.
China has responded to Trump's previous trade actions with reciprocal measures, including tariffs targeting soybeans, grains, and other exports that affect traditionally a number of states that supported Trump in the 2016 election.
good times.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
A California-based company that sells "Make America Great Again" hats similar to the official hats sold by the Trump campaign says its prices may rise in response to trade tensions with China prompted by President Trump's tariffs.
David Lassoff, who runs the company IncredibleGifts, told ABC News that prices of the hat could double from between $9 and $12 to at least $20 if he is forced to abandon his Chinese manufacturers and make the hats in the United States.
The hat, Lassoff said, is his website's best-selling item. He claims to have sold hundreds of thousands of the hat.
"We usually sell the MAGA hats for around $9 to $12. But it could go up to $20 if we had to make them in the U.S. and embroider them here," Lassoff said.
"There might be a limited quantity [of hats] in the future. We’re trying to make sure we have enough hats in stock now, so if things change, we’re prepared," he added.
Lassoff's company is not involved with the official Trump campaign "Make America Great Again" hat, which, according to the campaign store's website, is manufactured entirely in the U.S.
Trump has battled China in recent months over trade issues, most recently announcing a potential $200 billion sanctions package targeting the country over what he says are unfair trade practices.
The package's size is roughly equal to China's total exports to the United States, according to White House officials.
China has responded to Trump's previous trade actions with reciprocal measures, including tariffs targeting soybeans, grains, and other exports that affect traditionally a number of states that supported Trump in the 2016 election.
good times.
Well, after he took their 500m dollar bribe, I can't imagine why they might be upset things did not go their way. Trump can't stay on message let alone stay bought.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
You can't get rid of Trump until 2020, but you can neuter his abominable administration by voting a straight Democrat ticket and also by writing your Republican representative or Senator and threaten him with deselection if he continues to support Trump.
