bcking

You seemed to have missed the major item, what were they doing with a metre ruler in Minnesota?

Having worked in the mental health field years ago, I would agree - you are probably not qualified to assess mental illness. My earlier point stands though, it's not something you should even attempt to do so from a one sided news article and from statements which you can't even verify. 

You don’t. 

He may have been the most decisive Democratic President but I truly honestly fail to see how you can even compare the worst of what Obama ever said about people he disagreed with to what Trump says on an almost daily basis.
 
I've never quite felt so uncomfortable with a Republican President prior to Trump. I wish he had even a fraction of Bush Sr's class (may he RIP). People can disagree about politics without being enemies...I'm not sure Trump understands that.
 
Would love some examples from Obama... (Direct quotes please)

I was young enough not to be paying attention when he was president, but he certainly grew on me in later years. A great statesman and a great example for anyone considering politics at any level.

We have an estimated wait of up to a year just to get a new green card reprinted. REPRINTED. No new application or anything.
 
So yes please put these "spare agents" on backlogs

Sorry it's early. Misread your statement

We have an estimated wait of up to a year just to get a new green card reprinted. REPRINTED. No new application or anything.
 
So yes please put these "spare agents" on backlogs

She is the Trump of the Democrat Party.

The question here isn't blame for her child getting sick, it's blame regarding medical neglect in a dependent population. It would be similar to cases of neglect and malpractice in the prison system. If someone gets sick in prison the responsibility falls on the prison to provide them adequate and reasonable therapy. A prison can't just blame the prisoner because they are a criminal and then not treat them. While they were detained the facility was responsible for their health and well-being.
 
Based on the available information it seems highly likely that, at the very least, the facility improperly "medically cleared" her for discharge from the facility. We have very minimal objective information but one objective number in one of the articles linked here was that she was 8% down from her baseline weight about 1 week into the illness, and about 1 week prior to discharge from the facility. 8% weight loss is classified as "moderate dehydration", and at the very least would require oral rehydration and prolonged observation in an ED. We don't know which direction she went prior to discharge but given the fact that her condition seemed to continue to worsen, it is highly likely that she was further down from her baseline weight at the time of discharge. >10% would be considered "severe hydration", and there is absolutely no situation in which a child would be "medically cleared" if they were so significantly dehydrated. Failure to respond to oral rehydration during that week would have warranted transfer to a facility to provide intravenous hydration (or more substantial enteral nutrition). That is ONLY taking into account her hydration status (since we have 1 objective number for that), ignoring her respiratory status.
 
TL;DR - The facility was responsible for the child during the period of detention, and at the very least they improperly "medically cleared" her for discharge when she was at least moderately dehydrated, and likely severely dehydrated by the time of discharge. From her hydration status alone, she would have warranted transfer to a medical facility due to failure for her condition to improve.
 
 

It was an advertisement production, so I think they might have been in trouble if they did not give the money back, but initially, I thought the same thing.  On the plus side, we got to see some very fashion conscience people (in their own mind at least) spend frivously on something that can be very affordable.

The PCR viral panel is everywhere nowadays and they could have had the results in an hour or so. It would have detected both adenovirus and any of the parainfluenza viruses. Granted an immigration facility may not have access to that, but they should have a protocol for transferring emergent cases for treatment. Any ER could have had the test done and recognized what was going on given the seriousness of the symptoms.
 
   I think the biggest factor was if the stated symptoms were present while the child was in the facility, they needed to initiate appropriate treatment.  Any detention facility has an obligation to provide appropriate medical care. It doesn't matter if the symptoms began in the facility or prior to the detention.

You probably shouldn't mention it also because it's not true.

My wife has her green card, lives with  me, and she still can't go to the US Citizen line. When we travel together they tell us both to go to the "Visa or Foreign Visitor" line, or I can go to my line and meet her on the other side.
 
Maybe it varies by airport? We fly into Houston (IAH) since we live there now. We just came back from a trip together two weeks ago and we both had to wait in the Visa/Foreign line.
 
If you are getting an IR-1/CR-1, as your profile states, you should be able to just enter on your permanent resident visa after you get it, and then leave if you need to go home. There isn't anything that makes you stay here once you come.
 
My wife "moved" here in late April, but flew back home to the UK in late May, maybe 3-4 weeks later. She stayed for a couple more weeks (had some weddings to go to, and more packing etc...) and then came back. That was all done on her IR-1/CR-1 in her passport. I think she got some questions like "Why did you leave?" when she came back the second time, but there are no rules saying you can't leave the US again.
 
If it's multiple "visits" before you finally move I don't know. I'm fairly certain that it is effective on your first trip after you get your passport back. You can't just choose not to "activate" it or something. But I still don't see why they would care if you are making frequent trips home. You are still a citizen of your home country, and you are permanent resident of this one. So you would be able to go back and forth. 
 
------------------------
 
I've told my wife's story in this thread before but it's been awhile so I'll just repeat it again for people - She visited once during our application process. It was during the "NVC stage" (The I-130 was already approved, and it was in transit to the NVC). We were coming to the US together, as we had just traveled on holiday extensively over the summer. I was flying "home", while she was coming with me to stay for a few weeks before she would fly back to the UK. We had a stop over in the UK though so our flights were just from the UK. We flew through Dublin because A. We spent a couple days there and B. She liked the "pre-flight" immigration process so that you aren't stressed out once you land after a long flight.
 
We had a very rough time. She eventually was allowed through but it took us a couple hours of being separated and interviewed individually. We had all our paperwork. The officer that interviewed us was incredibly disrespectful. Condescending, rude, judgmental. As I said she eventually was allowed in, but she never visited again until we got the visa.
 
The more I hear other people's stories the more I think it was because A. We were travelling together and B. We were flying through Dublin. Perhaps they have higher rates of overstayed visas from people who go that route. I don't know. Just something to keep in mind. This was in August 2016.

I mean let's be honest...it doesn't take much to flip burgers. 
 
Managing takes people skills. 

Sorry don't think I responded to this before.
 
I absolutely agree, which is why I think discourse should be more civil. Even these sorts of statements and encouragements can get blown out of proportion by a population (on both sides) that are impassioned.
 
HOWEVER - that doesn't mean her message was asking for violence. Was it inappropriate? That's questionable, but she certainly wasn't calling for violence.
 
There have been examples in recent years of public figures DIRECTLY calling/asking for violence. That recent Twitter post from the actor, or several of the quotes from Trump during his campaign. This isn't one of those. Still not civil, but not on the same level as directly condoning violence.

You do realize our current President called the middle one things like "stand up guy" and showered praise?

You do realize our current President called the middle one things like "stand up guy" and showered praise?

“I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will”
 
“If you do (hurt him), I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it”
 
“Knock the ####### out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees”
 

I think we all know "push back" is far more aggressive and directly violent than "punch him in the face".

“I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will”
 
“If you do (hurt him), I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it”
 
“Knock the ####### out of him, would you? I promise you, I will pay your legal fees”
 

I think we all know "push back" is far more aggressive and directly violent than "punch him in the face".

This isn't an "eye for an eye". This isn't "protecting yourself from violence".
 
"Drawing a crowd" is not violence. So it shouldn't be met with violence. That says a lot more about the person ACTUALLY threatening violence here.

If someone physically assaults you first, sure go ahead and defend yourself.
 
Walters wasn't calling for people to physically assaults anyone. She was calling for disruptive  protesting. Even if you take "push back" literally and think she is referring to actually pushing...it would be in retaliation (hence the word "back").