The Right Side of the News

That's the problem you're denying. The conditions are inhumane and barbaric. I don't know how to solve it. Apparently nobody else does.But you still defend the conditions themselves. Do you think because the problem is intractable the conditions are therefore not inhumane and barbaric?Remember, the official position of the Government, as argued in court, is that yeah, they are holding kids without showers, without soap, without toothbrushes, without clean clothes, with restricted access to bathroom facilities, sleeping on concrete floors with the lights on and flimsy space blankets in cold cages, without hot meals, severely overcrowded, without access to medical care and legal representation, and held in those conditions for weeks longer than the legally allowed 72 hours.But the official Government position is that it's OK because those are "safe and sanitary conditions". And you agreeThe first step toward solving the problem is acknowledging the problem. You are arguing, without evidence or facts, that there is no problem.I really think you should live in those circumstances for couple of weeks and come back and tell us if you felt "safe and sanitary". I haven't made any lying accusations. I've posted an official Government report, including photographs of horrific conditions. I've posted quotes from Border Patrol officers detailing the horrors. I've posted a legal opinion that boils down to "What the fuck?" and is the law of the land (pending possible reversal by the Supremes).Those identify me as someone with a civilized attitude towards the illegal and heinous treatment of other humans, especially children, and not as anyone with any particular political philosophy.You are obviously scared shitless to address the real issue of the hellish conditions. You really, really want those kids tortured to satisfy your hate.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The Mueller report found nothing criminal to charge Trump with, which should have been the end of the investigation. That was its purpose to establish criminal guilt and they did not find any. They went on to say they couldn't exonerate him either because that was a way to insinuate the very criminal guilt they had been unable to establish. That is a sleazy manipulative thing to do. They could not establish anything criminal on the issue of Russia collusion nor the issue of obstruction of justice. So they resorted to insinuation. As far as the actual findings of the investigation go they FOUND NOTHING CRIMINAL WHATEVER. That was their job and that should be the end of it.

Yes you are accusing me. Based on nothing. If there is a cause of the problem that can be found, find it and correct it.ABE: As I recall the patrol said they weren't required to do something specific, change diapers or something like that? I didn't remember but you are making it sound like they aren't required to supply necessar4y things for health and comfort and we know that is not true.I don't know why you don't know or seem to care but I think it is a problem with funding. So get the funding.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Wrong on both counts. It's purpose was to investigate russian interference in the election and any other crimes they came across. Multiple criminal charges were brought against russian individuals and entities, as well as assorted people associated with the trump campaign. again a straight up lie. They found multiple crimes, people have been charged and have served/are serving time. They could not establish that the trump campaign actively colluded with russia, and they were prevented from following through with obstruction of jsutice charges because of DoJ policy.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

nope the government argued that soap and toothpaste aren't necessary parts of a safe and sanitary environment and that they get to decide what "safe and sanitary" actually means. Again their argument in court wasn't "we don't have the funding to do this" it was "We're not required to do this and therefore won't".

I meant TRUMP'S crimes, supposedly the investigation was into Trump. And they found no crimes concerning Russian collusion by anybody for that matter either, just personal stuff.Their "not being able to establish" a crime means they were unable to prove criminal involvement, period, you keep trying to make it sound like there was some impediment to establishing it, no there was only the fact that the evidence did not support it. I'm sure what you think is what they want you to think though. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

no the investigation was into russian interference in the election, the whole first part of the report is about that aspect of the investigation. It just so happened that various members of trump's campaign had contacts with russians, and then lied about them to the FBI. "not having enough evidence to bring charges" is not the same thing as "no evidence" which is the lie we've been hearing from trump's side for awhile now.

No.

Nope. If there is a problem, acknowledge it, find the cause of the problem that can be found, find it and correct it. You still say there's no problem. We know it's true, because the necessary things they did not supply have been listed in the last day. IN THE MESSAGE TO WHICH YOU REPLIED!! Obviously you aren't reading the messages before you reply. Here's a partial list from that message:

quote:

---

Remember, the official position of the Government, as argued in court, is that yeah, they are holding kids without showers, without soap, without toothbrushes, without clean clothes, with restricted access to bathroom facilities, sleeping on concrete floors with the lights on and flimsy space blankets in cold cages, without hot meals, severely overcrowded, without access to medical care and legal representation, and held in those conditions for weeks longer than the legally allowed 72 hours.

​

But the official Government position is that it's OK because those are "safe and sanitary conditions". And you agree

---

See Message 2577 for the excerpts that prove this. Whether or not the ninth circuit is liberal -leaning (they are), that's what the Government argued.ABE You are correct that the guards would not change diapers. Since there were no other adults the kids had to do it. Without anything to wipe off the shit. Make up your mind. Is there a problem or not? You've been arguing there is no problem.The issue is whether or not the existing conditions at the border are acceptable in the United States of America. We can discuss solutions and blame after you acknowledge that fact.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You don't understand. I can't take anything seriously that I hear from the Left. I don't know how bad the conditions are because I know the Left would exaggerate them. And I don't believe you care at all about the people there, I think it's all politically motivated. Get Trump, that's all it's ever about. If the conditions are bad, at least at that ONE facility and you haven't mentioned any of the others, there must be a solution to it. Organize a caravan of church people or just a bunch of leftists and take the people the things they need. The good old fashioned American way.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh, I understand. You label anything you don't like as "from the left" and don't deal with it.BUt that isn't from the left. It's from the administration's official arguments in court. You can hear them for yourself: The relevant discussion starts at 24 minutes and continues for some time. I don't know how to cue it there.There are horrible conditions at many facilities along the border.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Here's the "access to food" section of Judge Gee's original opinion ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE AND APPOINT A SPECIAL MONITOR [201, 202]. I've deleted most of the footnotes as not particularly informative, but footnote 6 is.

quote:

---

Recent detainees assert that Defendants failed to provide them with adequate access to food. In addition to food standards under the Agreement, Plaintiffs point to the CBP National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS Manual), which lays out standards for meals and snacks for class members in detention. Def. Supp., Ex. 30 (TEDS Manual) [Doc. # 298-2]. According to the CBP’s own standards, minors will be offered a snack upon arrival and a meal at least every six hours thereafter, at regularly scheduled meal times. At least two of those meals will be hot. TEDS Manual 5.6. Additionally, the food provided must be in edible condition (not frozen, expired, or spoiled) and minors must have regular access to snacks, milk, and juice. Id. 4.13, 5.6.

​

Despite the TEDS Manual standards and Paragraph 12A of the Agreement, many detainees attested to, among other things, not receiving hot, edible, or a sufficient number of meals during a given day spent at a CBP facility. See, e.g., Declaration of Walter A. (Walter A Decl.) 5—6 (The only food we got was sandwiches of 2 pieces of dry bread and one thin slice of ham and a small box of juice. We were fed three times over the two days we were there. We were hungry, very cold, scared, and unable to sleep.) [Doc. # 202-1 at 58]; Deposition of Karina V. (Karina V. Depo.) at 28 (she and her three-year old son were offered a sandwich with frozen ham with a kind of ice under the bread as the first meal) [Doc. # 287-4]; Declaration of Karina V. 7 (Karina V. Decl.) (stating son got diarrhea within an hour of eating the sandwich) [Doc. # 342-5 at 37]; Declaration of Franklin R. (Franklin R. Decl.) 8 (received a cookie for breakfast, a sandwich (2 pieces of bread with one thin slice of meat) for lunch, and another cookie for dinner. I was very hungry all day because this was not enough food.) [Doc. # 202-2 at 40].

​

Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ evidence. To support their argument, Defendants rely upon the declaration or deposition testimony of chief patrol agents of the various CBP Sectors4 , CBP field operations directors, and other officials in leadership positions within ICE and CBP. These witnesses generally discuss the policies and practices at the CBP stations. See e.g., Declaration of Manuel Padilla, Jr. (Padilla Decl.) 46—48 (Chief Patrol Agent for the RGV Sector describing policy to provide scheduled meals to class members and what they consist of) [Doc. # 211-1]. Such witnesses also highlight contracts with third party entities that address certain CBP conditions. See, e.g., id. 46 (describing RGV Sector’s contract with Deployed Resources LLC to provide for a menu conforming to a culturally Hispanic diet and that [p]ursuant to the statement of work, the meals provided must meet Texas Department of Agriculture Food & Nutrition guidance and additional quality control requirements) (internal quotation marks omitted).

​

None of this generalized evidence, however, undermines the veracity of Plaintiffs’ firsthand experiences. Defendants repeat what they did before in response to Plaintiffs’ 2015 Motion to Enforce: point to their own policies and practices. But [t]he mere existence of those policies tells the Court nothing about whether those policies are actually implemented, and the current record shows quite clearly that they were not. July 24, 2015 Order, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 881—82. Defendants do introduce data logs from a CBP computer system known as the e3 Detention Module (e3DM), which allows Defendants to track and monitor when Border Patrol agents have provided certain detainees with meals, water, and other amenities. Declaration of David Strange (Strange Decl.) 2—3 [Doc. # 344-2]. Defendants cite to the e3DM logs for a handful of detainees to show that the records contradict their statements as to the number of meals received and whether they were served hot or cold. See Def. Resp. at 11—12.

​

There are several problems associated with the activity logs that undermine their reliability. For example, they do not identify the type of meal provided. The logs also show that some detainees went for extended periods (e.g., 11 hours) without food, which Defendants themselves admit is an error. See, e.g., Strange Decl., Ex. F (arrest time of 1:00 p.m. for Dina P., Alison A., Anderson A., Susan A. with first meal not served until 12:10 a.m. the following day); id., Ex. A (arrest time of 5:15 a.m. for Franklin C. with first meal not served until 3:22 p.m.); id., Ex. I (arrest time of 2:00 p.m. for Jenyffer G. and Angel T. with first meal not served until 2:00 a.m. the following day); Deposition of Manuel Padilla, Jr. (Padilla Depo) at 26—27 [Doc. # 287-1 at 31].5

​

Defendants fail to explain these time-gap discrepancies or what efforts, if any, they undertook to monitor the accuracy of the records entered. See Deposition of Paul Beeson at 45— 46 (Chief Patrol Agent of Tucson Sector answered No when asked if he was aware of what training agents undergo with respect to inputting data into the e3DM system or what efforts exist to monitor the accuracy of meal records entered) [Doc. # 287-1 at 73]. At oral argument, when the Court asked government counsel to address the discrepancies Plaintiffs raised with respect to activities entered in the e3DM logs, counsel merely reiterated Defendants’ policy of feeding children snacks every three hours and attributed the errors to e3DM being a new system rolled out with new monitoring procedures that would require some time before agents are . . . fully compliant. Hearing Tr. dated Jan. 30, 2017, at 40. In any event, to the extent some discrepancies exist between a detainee’s claim regarding the frequency and quality of food and the corresponding e3DM log, Defendants only point to a small number of discrepancies.6 See Def. Resp. at 11-12. This pales in comparison to the large volume of statements by detainees who described receiving inadequate food. In short, the Court does not find that Defendants’ e3DM records undermine the credibility of the detainee statements presented regarding the frequency and quality of the food Defendants served them.

​

Given the above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ have satisfied their burden of establishing Defendants’ substantial non-compliance with the Agreement and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce as to the RGV Sector on the issue of adequate access to food.

​

---

Footnote 6
Even with these limited examples, not all of the e3DM records show that the detainee’s statements are inaccurate or misleading. For instance, Defendants argue that the e3DM record contradicts Franklin R’s claim that he received only two cookies and one ham sandwich during his first day in CBP custody. See Franklin R. Decl. 8 (The first day that I was there they gave me a cookie for breakfast, a sandwich (2 pieces of bread with one thin slice of meat) for lunch, and another cookie for dinner); Def. Resp. at 11 (Border Patrol records indicate that he was provided ten meals in the just over 48 hours he was in custody). But an examination of the e3DM record for this detainee shows he was arrested on January 22, 2016 at 5:15 a.m. Strange Decl., Ex. A. Within the next 24 hours, Defendants’ own record indicates that Franklin R. received his first meal at 3:22 p.m. (1522) and a second meal at 11:36 p.m. (2336). Id. He received his third meal on January 23, 2016 at 7:16 a.m. Id. The e3DM record does not contradict Franklin R.’s declaration that he received two cookies and a ham sandwich as the Defendants’ records do not indicate what type of meal they served detainees. If anything, based on Defendants’ position at oral argument, they would probably suggest that another anomaly occurred with the data entry because Franklin R.’s e3DM record suggests he was not fed for a 10-hour period following apprehension.

---

I say I can't trust anything you have to offer so you offer more? And by the way the dates mentioned in the document are 2015 and 16 which was Obama's watch. Why is this coming up now?And shouldn't you be addressing the problem of our having to deal with uninvited "immigrants" in the first place? Not that they should be mistreated, but they ARE here illegally.

Do you really think I faked an hour-long official court proceeding? Are you so rabidly dedicated to your right-wing bubble that a video of the administration's official position is tainted because I posted it? That sure is some heavy reality avoidance.But it does confirm, for the nth time, that you have no interest in reality or truth. Your seething hate is all you have or want. The references to 2015 explicitly refer to previous similar orders, which have no bearing on what current conditions are.

quote:

---

Defendants repeat what they did before in response to Plaintiffs’ 2015 Motion to Enforce: point to their own policies and practices. But [t]he mere existence of those policies tells the Court nothing about whether those policies are actually implemented, and the current record shows quite clearly that they were not. July 24, 2015 Order, 212 F. Supp. 3d at 881—82.

---

I don't know why the reference to 2016 is there. Perhaps a typo. But it came up in June 2017 under Trump's watch. You'll do anything to avoid addressing the current topic, won't you? The influx of migrants is indeed a problem we need to solve. But we are discussing the treatment of those migrants, and you're dancing as fast as you can to avoid even looking at those conditions.

I don't think you fake anything, I just think you supply the information that you want to supply, aren't concerned much about context, other points of view that may impinge on the facts that most interest you, or concerned about taking my views into account at all. Giving your point of view and calling me names for failing to share it is how most of it hits me.