Would you?

Leaving him glazed like the doughnut.

DHS Bows to ACLU in Class Action Settlement; Agrees to Let Deported Aliens Return

On August 28, a federal judge approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed last year against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of a class of deported illegal aliens in Mexico seeking to return to the United States. (Order, Aug. 28, 2014) The class consists of those deported aliens who, when arrested by immigration agents in Southern California, had agreed to return to Mexico rather than enter formal removal proceedings which would provide them with an opportunity to challenge their removal. (Settlement Agreement at p.5)

The settlement – stunningly proposed by the U.S. government — provides benefits for both deported illegal aliens and for aliens who face deportation in the future. First, it provides aliens in the class:

The right to return to the United States.
Exemption from the three and ten year bars upon reentry (which generally bar the admission of illegal aliens who have left the country and seek to return), and
If they apply for DACA, a finding of continuous residence in the country (one of DACA’s requirements). (Order, Aug. 28, 2014; see Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(a)(9)(B))

To ensure that as many deported aliens as possible are allowed to return, the settlement requires a class action claims administrator to find eligible aliens through a $300,000 radio, online, and billboard advertising campaign in Mexico, half of which will come from DHS’ budget. (Settlement Agreement at p. 15, Ex. D)

Then, the settlement requires the Border Patrol in Southern California for the next three years to do the following upon apprehending illegal aliens:

Read a specific script that advises illegal aliens of their “rights” to a hearing,
Inform the illegal aliens of a toll free hotline that provides more advice,
Provide the illegal aliens with a list of free legal service providers. (Order, Aug. 28, 2014, Settlement Agreement at pp.16-17)

To ensure “compliance” during this period, the settlement requires DHS to provide the ACLU quarterly reports that include actual files of Mexican nationals repatriated through this process of “voluntary return,” which is also sometimes known as “administrative voluntary departure.” (Id. at pp. 21-22) “Voluntary return,” is the process by which an illegal alien in the custody of an immigration agent admits to being present in the United States unlawfully and agrees to return home, instead of entering formal removal proceedings. (Id. at pp. 21-22; Order, Aug. 28, 2014 at p. 4; see INA § 240B; 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a); 8 CFR § 240.25; and 8 CFR § 1240.26)

Finally, the settlement requires DHS to give the ACLU $700,000 in attorneys’ fees. (Settlement Agreement at p. 25)

Considering how far the government went in meeting the ACLU’s demands, one would imagine that the claims in the lawsuit were extraordinarily strong: however, analysis shows that it was the government’s concessions that were extraordinary. The ACLU based its lawsuit on factual claims that Border Patrol agents were “deceptive” in the information they provided when offering aliens the option of voluntary return, and that they were generally overly-intimidating. (ACLU Complaint) DHS denied all of the allegations. (Settlement Agreement at p.2)

Nevertheless, the ACLU claimed that these “deceptive” acts violated Section 240B of the INA and the regulations, which govern voluntary return. ( 8 CFR § 1240.26 and 8 CFR § 240.25) However, the ACLU’s complaint does not detail how the language in the statute or the regulations prohibits the alleged conduct by Border Patrol agents. (See ACLU Complaint) The most specific claim the ACLU makes is that agents’ use of a form that says “I wish to return to my country as soon as arrangements can be made to effect my departure,” violates the requirements that say that when offering voluntary return, the officer “shall specify the period of time permitted for voluntary departure.” (Id. at p. 11, 53; 8 CFR § 240.25(c))

The ACLU also claimed that the Border Patrol’s practices violate the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (Id. at pp. 55-57) The Fifth Amendment establishes rights against the government to those in criminal proceedings, as well as constitutional limits to acceptable police procedures. (See, e.g. Cornell Legal Information Institute)

Specifically, the ACLU objects that immigration agents do not similarly provide “Miranda-type advisals” to illegal aliens upon arrest. (ACLU Complaint at p.12) Yet to make such an argument is to accept the assumption that illegal aliens detained for removal proceedings should be entitled to protections equivalent to criminal suspects detained by law enforcement. However, removal proceedings are civil rather than criminal, meant merely to determine eligibility to remain in the country, rather than as punishment, and thus the array of Constitutional protections provided to criminal defendants do not automatically apply. (See, for example, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)) By filing this lawsuit (as well as many other similar lawsuits), the ACLU intends to blur that distinction.

Furthermore, in this case, the ACLU actually argues for procedural rights for illegal aliens that even go beyond those of American citizens encountering law enforcement officers. The Miranda warnings mandated by the Courts only require law enforcement officers to advise suspects of a limited number of rights, that is, the right to not to answer questions and to speak to an attorney. (See Miranda v. Arizona) They do not command officers to affirmatively provide “accurate and complete information” as to their legal situation, as the ACLU asserts immigration agents must do. (ACLU Complaint at p.16) Courts have never found the Constitution to require police to “supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights.” (See Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 570-571 (1987))

And, for the ladies;
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v

The Goal

The world is massively overpopulated. So much so, in fact, that to ignore the problem now would cause us to strip mine the planet bare in another 60 years.

Also, we know that many times that that baby was an "accident" or in one way or another, unwanted. Let C.S.L. Inc. help you, and help the environment.



How You Can Let Us Help

When you choose to sell your child to C.S.L. Inc., you've done a number of wonderful things. By reducing the number of people in the country while still contributing to that country's stock of goods, you've boosted the economy, helped to combat hunger, reduced the future unemployment rate, and earned yourself a brand new* Miata!




Still Think Selling Your Own Children is An Abomination?

Since we here at Child Slave Labor realize the difficulty in giving up your own flesh and blood, we've compiled a short list of reminders about you, your children, and the human race in history.

1. The most noble of peoples, kings and lords, used to consistently sell their offspring to bring their family greater wealth and honor.

2. 75% of all* children, once grown up, are vengeful and hateful towards their parents. Many refuse to call or even disclose their location to their parents. Is that type of painful rejection worth the risk?

3. Men, it's not your fault that condoms hinder sexual pleasure, nor is it your fault that she refused the abortion. Why should YOU have to give away 18 years of your life and 5/6 of every single one of your paychecks? Hint: Selling a child only requires the signature from one parent.

4. The interest you would earn on the money you would receive from selling your child at birth over a span of 18 years would leave you with upwards of $35,000. That is a fantastic investment!

If you still aren't convinced, take a look at a pamphlet written by our own child slave, Eugene from Australia: "Why to Sell Your Child".




Ready to Sell? Great!

Simply head over to our contact page to request info on how to get started in selling your child for the benefit of humanity!


http://childslavelabor.com/sell.html



Click link for a printable version of the coupon.

http://childslavelabor.com/coupon.pdf

Do your part to promote child slavery.

If it's a choice, so be it.

Many good men and women will still choose to include God in their lives.

Those who chose not to will eventually be asked about that choice.

They might confuse oral gratification with a desire to talk.

Pray to who now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9t6abs7uPg

Reminds me of the Lone Ranger and Tonto.

Thousands of hostile Indians. Lone Ranger says,"Looks like we're surrounded, Tonto."

Tonto replies," We who, paleface?"

If ya happen to find yourself in Hell, don't pick the group standing waist deep in chit drinking coffee.

That applies to paid trolls.
Experience has taught them to bounce around in the forums to give the appearance of being real.

Limited sight is closing eyes to slavery.

Buying from corporations who use slave labor only encourages more of it.

Don't just boycott. Boycott with a reason. Call, email, fax those corporations with disapproval. Bombard MSM with evidence. Protest in front of the GAP, stores that sell Nike, Walmart.

Read the tags.

Those corporations could do better by their labor.

Perhaps, if enough participated, we could find some fabrication return to the US.

Now you know. With knowledge comes responsibility.

Either act or kick back with a brew and watch the Monday night game.

<<<<<<<<Total nerdy, old fart.

For the liberals, you may need to define the word WORK.

So, one jumped the White House wall and another tried to drive through.

Put up signs similar to this.



DC doesn't care about National Security on the Southern Border. Why have a wall protecting a bunch of Corporate owned crooks?

Good as gold.

Got a little carried away with that Brazilian wax?

Not only are they slave labor, they use indentured labor. Parents sell the kids to these companies.

Claim to care about the poor and oppressed while stylin in them air jordans and aeropostal? If you do make that claim, ya' jest might be a hypocrite.

Show the world ya really care. Check all your labels. If it don't say, Made in the USA, don't wear it.

This is just about textiles and clothing.

Computers, Ipads, phones, anything made overseas and south of the border.


Lists of Brands That Use Sweatshops
By Selam Nuri , eHow Contributor

Lists of Brands That Use Sweatshops thumbnail Lists of Brands That Use Sweatshops

The International Labor Rights Forum notes that numerous companies with leading brands rely on sweatshop labor. A 2008 "New York Times" article by David Barboza disclosed how Chinese factories that employ workers to produce goods for Western nations were exploited. In addition to being paid minimal wages, the workers were exposed to dangerous machines and harmful chemicals. Leading brands that rely on sweatshops include Nike, Burberry and Walmart.


How Do You Verify Your Clothing Manufacturer Is Not a Sweatshop?

Facts About Nike Sweatshops

Clothing Manufacturers

American Apparel, Abercombe & Fitch, L.L. Bean, Gymboree, Hanes and Burberry are some of the top brand name companies that use sweatshop labor to manufacture their textiles and apparel. According to the International Labor Forum, these companies have failed to respond to fair labor standards or improve the working conditions of their employees. L.L. Bean, Gymborree, Hanes use forced child labor in their Uzbekistan cotton production plants. Employees working for these clothing manufacturers are denied any collective bargaining rights or unionization. The International Labor Forum indicates that this is an inconclusive list as there are numerous other brand-name clothing manufacturers that employ sweatshop laborers.

Sportswear Manufacturers

Sportswear manufacturers like Nike and Adidas rely on the labor of workers in Indonesia to produce their shoes. A report by Common Dreams, a non-partisan citizen's organization, indicates that Indonesian workers live in extreme poverty and face prosecution and physical assault by their employers. Nike is the world's largest sports shoe company, and owns 11 factories in Indonesia that produce 55 million shoes each year. A significant portion of the shoes is exported to the United States; only 1 pair in 50 is sold to Indonesian consumers.

Furniture and Discount Stores

The International Labor Rights Forum lists Ikea, Walmart and Kohl's as furniture and discount stores with a history of unfair labor practices and lacking in "corporate social responsibility." Four factory workers in Turkey who were employed by these companies lost their lives as a result of unsafe working conditions. As one of the world's largest retailers, Walmart has over 60,000 suppliers. Walmart has had a long history of "high-profile" labor rights violations in countries like Bangladesh, China, Indonesia and Swaziland. Walmart has failed in areas including fare wages, overtime pay, maternity leave, bathroom breaks, forced labor and the right to unionize.

Agro-Industrial Companies

Agro-industrial brands like Monsanto, Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland engage in unfair labor practices. According to the International Labor Rights Forum, these companies "sit atop a complex supply chain" that subjects workers to child labor, forced labor and debt bondage. Small-scale farmers in different parts of the world are required to purchase their seeds from these agro-industrial giants and sell back their products at "unsustainable" prices. Workers who work on farms that export products like pineapples, rubber, cotton, cocoa, tea and flowers supply major food processing brands like Kraft, Nestle and Dole. These companies own a significant portion of the world's food brands and violate worker's rights in areas including wages, work hours, freedom of association and exposure to harmful or toxic chemicals.



Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_7737064_lists-brands-use-sweatshops.html