Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   An old man yelling "Poppycock" is not something you normally see outside of a 1930's serial cartoon, but when it is a federal judge reacting to the Trump Administration's latest attempt to undermine immigration law, it's perfectly justified   (npr.org) divider line
    More: Obvious, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP agents, initial processing of asylum claims, Border Protection agents, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, U.S. Customs, credible fear determinations, federal judge  
•       •       •

1378 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Sep 2020 at 4:26 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



21 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-09-01 10:50:10 AM  
Maybe the judge just wanted a snack?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-01 11:12:29 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-01 4:16:33 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


So I submitted this too, but I suppose this headline is better than my boring factual description.

I have some knowledge of these processes, and I found a couple things weird ftfa.

1. It says the practice started in January.  Border Patrol agents were making the first stage of credible fear determinations throughout the second half of 2019.  I know this for a fact, as an agent I know put in for that side-job and was doing them in August. In the second half of 2019 a processing agent would ask anyone they caught a series of questions about their credible fear claim as a small starting point for a secondary agent, who had been trained with the guidelines of what constituted credible fear, who would then have the option of denying said fear's credibility before it went to the extremely backlogged USCIS folks. Which makes sense on paper I guess, given the large numbers of claims at the time and the importance of processing things quickly.

2. He told me "basically they told us that for us to deny credible fear the burden was more on us than the aliens" and "I'm pretty much judging everything as credible as sending it to the next stage".  Maybe he was an outlier, but this guy is pretty solidly anti-immigration. He is also the kind of deep state foot soldier Trump hates: the kind that does their farking job as it is supposed to be done. According to him as long as their claim roughly involved protected classes, their government, or politics, it went forward. Only if they said their fear was that they'd starve* or "my neighbor threatened to stab me" would they get a denial.  Because, well, that's how our asylum system is legally set up.

3. The judge said they lacked the training, but that doesn't seem to square with what my guy reports. I mean, it mostly involves following an algorithmic guideline.  That doesn't mean that every agent was actually following them, of course. I know agents who proudly talk illegal immigrants out of claiming credible fear at the earliest stage of processing, or check the wrong box on purpose.  Granted, they explain themselves as "credible fear doesn't just apply to 'it sucks in my country and there are gangs' " and they aren't wrong there, but that isn't their job. Giving them some benefit of the doubt, they think they are just saving the government money and streamlining things.


So I fully support this Judge's ruling. I also think as tfa says, the important next step is in deciding if it is even possible for USBP agents to reliably follow any training or guidelines, given that their primary job is removals and deportations. Regardless of one's thoughts on immigration, imagine if you tasked a teacher with promoting ignorance, or a doctor with spreading disease.  That just isn't their bag, and I don't think it is unreasonable to keep things separate.

I've also seen some of the work these front line screeners did in 2019, and some of it was pretty bad.  One example my buddy gave me was a person from Guatemala who spoke Q'eqchi, not to be confused with the more common K'iche.  I'm probably spelling both of those wrong, if there even is a true spelling.  Anyways, the person in question had very poor spanish, and the agent told me he specifically put in his questionnaire  a note that it was indeed Q'eqchi, and not K'iche, that the spanish skills were poor, and that the asylum officer assigned to the task needed to take that into account.  The agent friend of mine told me the translation service they use repeatedly told him that he really meant K'iche, and ultimately admitted they had nobody who spoke Q'eqchi.

So, the agent received back an email follow-up from the asylum guy regarding his more in depth (supposedly) questioning, which he chose to do entirely in spanish, and the questions and answers were nonsensical.

Q: "were you afraid of being sexually assaulted when you traveled through mexico"
A: "I have never been to a big city"

And it went on like that. Asylum request denied.  According to my agent friend, a union guy he was with was collecting such incidences and sending them up to a congressional contact to try stop all that bullshiat. Deep state at work there.

I don't doubt that story, as I've seen similar forms of bullshiattery from government employees who take the rules into their own hands and do what they think is right. It is why I'm constantly arguing here against those who say government employees should be making such ethical and moral choices.  We should not. Our jobs should be to fulfill the wishes of the population as expressed via voting, passed down by the executive, put into law by the legislature, and restricted by the constitution and courts.  Anything more is problematic, and I hate when people say "oh, why didn't agent X or employee Y just do Z" because that's a can of worms that should stay closed, for precisely the above reasons.

*and that's a much larger issue that anyone compassionate about immigration needs to acknowledge. It is all well and dandy to say "oh, these folks managed to make it here, let's help them" or "they are in our custody let's care for them before sending them back to their shiathole" but the reality is there are places that are shiatholes, and for every person who successfully makes it here multiple people fail, and another 20 don't even try but deserve just as much help.  I fear yet another cost of Trump being a piece of garbage is that we focus too much on kids in cages and not enough on the bigger immigration picture. But then, I've been called a nazi here for saying that, so I don't have much hope.


/I hope I didn't go off on too many tangents there.
 
2020-09-01 4:18:20 PM  
I never spend much time on TF.  This headline shows green so it is greenlit and will go to the rest of fark, right?

It damn well better, as this is a pretty important ruling on a very important issue.
 
2020-09-01 4:31:56 PM  
 Stormy was yelling mushroom cock ..
 
2020-09-01 4:32:25 PM  
Tonight's episode of Donald Trump's Home Videos is entitled Poopycock: Weekend at Epstien's
 
2020-09-01 4:33:27 PM  
In Trump*'s case, more like popcorncock.
 
2020-09-01 4:36:08 PM  
He has made his ruling. Now let us see him enforce it.
 
2020-09-01 4:37:25 PM  
I won't lie, I used to work with a Judge who I could see using "poppycock" in a ruling.
 
2020-09-01 4:41:30 PM  

mikalmd: Stormy was yelling mushroom cock ..


She ran calling Wildfire.
 
2020-09-01 4:55:47 PM  

Aar1012: I won't lie, I used to work with a Judge who I could see using "poppycock" in a ruling.


Scalia? Probably not.

But even though I despised most of Scalia's opinions, that man had quite the vocabulary and could really get going with his pen when he was pissed
 
2020-09-01 5:11:07 PM  
John Travolta Says Poppycock
Youtube kiCHbgg_YSU
 
2020-09-01 5:13:24 PM  
What a bunch of malarkey.
 
2020-09-01 5:16:00 PM  
"Watch it, poppycock!"

"Who you callin' poppycock, horse feathers!"

"who are you callin' horse feathers, argle-bargle??"

"Don't call me an argle-bargle..."

"I just did call you an argle-bargle..."
 
2020-09-01 5:21:47 PM  
Wait a second, when did it be come a requirement that anyone in the Trump administration be qualified for the job?
 
2020-09-01 6:12:57 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


"Poppycock"? Who talks like that?
 
2020-09-01 6:23:30 PM  
America's Got Talent 2010 Audition 3 Prince Poppycock
Youtube -6E5kebinoQ

Poppycock? He's great!
 
2020-09-01 6:24:07 PM  
Asylum officers are trained to do credible fear interviews and sniff out BS. They're great at their jobs. CBP officers aren't trained in anything but being assholes and treating everyone as criminals. That's not how our immigration system should work.

The pictures I've seen in asylum files and their stories are sometimes very heartbreaking. On the otherhand, I've read files where the asylum officer called BS right away because they'd heard the exact same story 5 times that week.
 
2020-09-01 6:24:45 PM  
Drat !
Godfrey Daniel !
Mother of pearl !
Sufferin' sciatica !
Zounds !
Jumpin Jehosaphat !
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-01 6:31:40 PM  
Poppycock is silly.  That's why I'm voting for the guy who says things "are a bunch of malarky." I honestly do love when Joe says that!
 
2020-09-01 9:00:44 PM  
There once was a painter named Jaques
whose work was intended to shock.
Outsized genitalia
gave critics heart failure,
But one called it "Pure poppycock".
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.