The summary is that the AG and Secretary of HHS shall use all necessary means to ensure that each unaccompanied alien child who was removed to be reunited...but there are some concerns. It's a little vague.
There is no time-bound frame here for "earliest possible"...that seems really easy to abuse. "Sorry ma'am, a decade was the earliest possible time frame for us to prioritize getting your child back." There should be an actual timeline. 2 business days?
I also think this should be explicit on who bears the cost for reunification. It should be us, since we chose the locations where these children landed. Some of these children are being flown 1k+ miles away from parents.
There isn't anything about figuring out if they have the right kid with the right parent, any sort of reporting for precisely how many kids we have, reunification times, any remedies for parents seeking to find their kids.
I like a short, readable bill. This one certainly accomplishes that end.
However, these are some number X of children and we have no idea where they all are, how their parents can identify them, and it doesn't really sound like DHS does either.
How old were your children when they could accurately identify you without having you physically present? It sounds like we may have a decent amount of that going on.
Good start Bruce. Add some language before you move it forward so it's effective.
Oh, and I'm a little worried someone could get hinky with the definition from page 2. These kids parents are going to be somewhere between (g)(2)(C)(i) and (ii), I feel like a nefarious policy maker has a lot of room to be a jerk interpreting here.
A la "well they couldn't provide care because they were detained in an adult facility but they aren't eligible for a family facility unless they are already reunited".
Reunification is going to be a messy logistical nightmare, worse each day we wait.
I am a constituent of Susan's. Ever since I have moved here I am astonished at how incredibly effective she is at harnessing people's hope and her words like a damn magician.
Though she is a consistent conservative vote, she is able to focus all eyes on her.
Then your family and community will look at you different.
Your behavior will be questioned, and even if you has zero responsibility, many will blame you for being a tease, wanting it, being irresponsible for choosing what should be a totally innocuous setting.
In this hypo traditional campaigning requires around $1+ million per year to get and/or keep a house seat (plus all the other energy you have to expend to keep the peanut gallery PACs happy).
Let's assume they're at it 5 days/week and take a couple weeks off per year.
Too many really lovely people hoping for their partner, child, parent, etc to be the person they could be if that partner, child, parent, etc if they only changed, which of course they have no desire and/or resources to do.
I've been asked this a lot - what is the benefit of ranked choice voting?
If you feel like politics keeps pushing far left or far right as candidates differentiate, RCV lets you pick the moderate with the back-up of "not the other one".
Maybe you think of yourself as an independent, moderate, etc, and really don't love either party (but probably like one party less) - you can select me as your first choice, and still have the back up of another candidate if not enough people agree with you. #mepolitics
In this race, folks who like Bruce probably don't like Jared, folks who prefer Jared probably aren't keen on Bruce.
A lot of folks would like (or find less annoying) someone who really isn't a party. With RCV, you can do that! It removes the risk of vote-splitting.