Can DC block the proposed temporary shelter for migrant kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:City officials have said don't want a large shelter because that's not an appropriate way to house children. It's basically warehousing them. If they have to be detained at all, they should be in smaller shelters/group homes. Plus, although DC might have some authority in terms of licensing the shelter, it's not clear how much authority they have to oversee operations of a facility that's running a federal program. DC said that they rejected the contractor's application because it was inadequate, but didn't explain how. Certainly, that site lacks appropriate outdoor and play facilities for children.

The shelter would be overseen by a grantee. Just like they have been for almost 20 years. This isn’t new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the opposition?

No one wants an influx of poorly educated children concentrating in their neighborhood schools once they are released. No one wants to say it but they take up a lot of resources and it's well known that the sponsors they're going to are concentrated in certain areas.

This is not it. The zoned schools are already Title I, heavily populated with children of low-income immigrants.

IMO, DC doesn’t want to be a part of the abuse of children- and much of what we have learned from these facilities is that they are not well-run and are abusive for the children. We do not trust the Trump administration on treating immigrants humanely.

Exactly the point. The schools are already struggling. Dumping 200+ more kids with high needs into the the same schools for the foreseeable future will not help dig them out of that rut. DC is already known and lambasted for its horrible schools.

These children are not integrated into local schools. They bring in their own teachers and provide all educational services on site.

One of the reasons they want to build a shelter in this area is because the family members the kids are reuniting with live here, so yes, when they are released from the shelter they will be going to public schools. As was stated before these immigrant communities are clustered so concentrated poverty and extreme need for resources will devastate already struggling areas/schools.

Spare me. It's a few hundred kids. I think we can handle it. If not, you can just sit down while the people who care figure it out.

Our suburban high school in MD took 40 kids in 2014. It wasn't easy at all, as schools reallocated funding by moving money into ESOL classes. lots of fights after that . . .

A "few hundred kids" isn't a drop in the bucket, especially since many will attend high-poverty, overcrowded schools.

+1 clearly some posters want to fire off with out really knowing what they're talking about as evidenced in several posts over the last few pages.

Unless you live in DC SIT DOWN. DC would be able to handle this.

I live in DC and you lie, DC cannot handle it. DC is barely handling the low to no-income students currently residing in the District. PP, where are your children currently attending school and which schools are your children zoned to attend? However, to be fair, I have no idea what 5h3 answer is to this massive influx of people. It probably would not be quite as bad if the schools were not mandated tp provide ESOL.

[Anonymous]

Children should not be institutionalized. Take those funds and get them into foster care. I would foster if the program paid for full time day care so I can work and commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Children should not be institutionalized. Take those funds and get them into foster care. I would foster if the program paid for full time day care so I can work and commute.

The casual way in which you refer to taking someone's child is frightening. And this attitude that you are doing them a favor if they throw in fully paid day care... unbelievable.These kids have family and connection somewhere here. They dont just walk 1000 miles and show up at the border to throw themselves to fate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed site is on the corner of Laurel street, across from where they hold the Farmer's market. There's no playground, no parking, nothing!
Surely can't be zoned for that!

WAMU reporter on Twitter cites Board of zoning saying that indeed, the site would need to be rezoned for that kind of purpose. The city council and mayor are all stronlgy against this. I just worry that somehow Congress can bigfoot it and force it there.

The pressure is ramping up on Douglas Development, that owns the building in question to terminate the lease/planned lease.

https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1161808665172688897?s=20

Can someone please explain why there is so much push back against this? What is the issue?

It is a prison for children who have done nothing wrong. We should not be tearing them from their families and keeping them in cages.

The key word is unaccompanied. This is a continuation of the post DACA surge and ORR has age breakdowns of UAM. Youngest are likely traveling with sibs, cousins, friends of family. This is not children separated from parents.

most are teenagers. What do you people want? UAM show up at border with an intended destination and sponsor-yes they have plans- fly the sponsor to Texas , a border state, and fly both back? That is the quickest release to a sponsor with no screening of sponsors which do not have to be legally present.

Fairfax County, DC, NOVA don't want this operation yet those plus MD have the sponsors. Mayor Bowser should complain since the site would be in her jurisdiction and DC gets less UAM released to sponsors by tens of thousands than MD and Virginia. MD/VA/DC get more than Texas. Site would be available for politicians to inspect and they could even volunteer despite the home state.

All who speak Spanish on TV could do ESOL. Saturdays and Sundays. I guess the DC site is in addition to the planned NOVA site. So why none for MD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed site is on the corner of Laurel street, across from where they hold the Farmer's market. There's no playground, no parking, nothing!
Surely can't be zoned for that!

WAMU reporter on Twitter cites Board of zoning saying that indeed, the site would need to be rezoned for that kind of purpose. The city council and mayor are all stronlgy against this. I just worry that somehow Congress can bigfoot it and force it there.

The pressure is ramping up on Douglas Development, that owns the building in question to terminate the lease/planned lease.

https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1161808665172688897?s=20

Can someone please explain why there is so much push back against this? What is the issue?

It is a prison for children who have done nothing wrong. We should not be tearing them from their families and keeping them in cages.

The key word is unaccompanied. This is a continuation of the post DACA surge and ORR has age breakdowns of UAM. Youngest are likely traveling with sibs, cousins, friends of family. This is not children separated from parents.

most are teenagers. What do you people want? UAM show up at border with an intended destination and sponsor-yes they have plans- fly the sponsor to Texas , a border state, and fly both back? That is the quickest release to a sponsor with no screening of sponsors which do not have to be legally present.

Fairfax County, DC, NOVA don't want this operation yet those plus MD have the sponsors. Mayor Bowser should complain since the site would be in her jurisdiction and DC gets less UAM released to sponsors by tens of thousands than MD and Virginia. MD/VA/DC get more than Texas. Site would be available for politicians to inspect and they could even volunteer despite the home state.

All who speak Spanish on TV could do ESOL. Saturdays and Sundays. I guess the DC site is in addition to the planned NOVA site. So why none for MD?

Are you saying that the US currently pays for sponsors to fly to the border to meet these kids and then flies them both back?!

What needs to happen is that Congress needs to change the law so that unaccompanied children are sent back to their home country immediately or sent to the consulate to be returned in their country's dime. This is getting out if hand. It sounds like their parents or US based family member played smugglers to get them to the border and the US is completing the human smuggling cycle for them. Outrageous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed site is on the corner of Laurel street, across from where they hold the Farmer's market. There's no playground, no parking, nothing!
Surely can't be zoned for that!

WAMU reporter on Twitter cites Board of zoning saying that indeed, the site would need to be rezoned for that kind of purpose. The city council and mayor are all stronlgy against this. I just worry that somehow Congress can bigfoot it and force it there.

The pressure is ramping up on Douglas Development, that owns the building in question to terminate the lease/planned lease.

https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1161808665172688897?s=20

Can someone please explain why there is so much push back against this? What is the issue?

It is a prison for children who have done nothing wrong. We should not be tearing them from their families and keeping them in cages.

The key word is unaccompanied. This is a continuation of the post DACA surge and ORR has age breakdowns of UAM. Youngest are likely traveling with sibs, cousins, friends of family. This is not children separated from parents.

most are teenagers. What do you people want? UAM show up at border with an intended destination and sponsor-yes they have plans- fly the sponsor to Texas , a border state, and fly both back? That is the quickest release to a sponsor with no screening of sponsors which do not have to be legally present.

Fairfax County, DC, NOVA don't want this operation yet those plus MD have the sponsors. Mayor Bowser should complain since the site would be in her jurisdiction and DC gets less UAM released to sponsors by tens of thousands than MD and Virginia. MD/VA/DC get more than Texas. Site would be available for politicians to inspect and they could even volunteer despite the home state.

All who speak Spanish on TV could do ESOL. Saturdays and Sundays. I guess the DC site is in addition to the planned NOVA site. So why none for MD?

Are you saying that the US currently pays for sponsors to fly to the border to meet these kids and then flies them both back?!

What needs to happen is that Congress needs to change the law so that unaccompanied children are sent back to their home country immediately or sent to the consulate to be returned in their country's dime. This is getting out if hand. It sounds like their parents or US based family member played smugglers to get them to the border and the US is completing the human smuggling cycle for them. Outrageous.

I assume the US pays to transport them to sponsors. IDK. Who is paying unless the relative forks over some money that most likely is otherwise heading back to Central America for remittances. The administration plan to fly released in asylum process illegals to Florida was TO Florida because that was their intended destination. Border areas were /are complaining about the volume of releases and clogging up bus stations etc.

If Bowser, Bulova, Ehrilch, Cummings, Hoyer, Connolly don't want the UAM sheltered in their jurisdictions when any of them and others in the DMV are the destination, then what's the alternative?

None of those politicians have done anything for their taxpayer citizens s and now they complain? There are NOT ocal and state education costs or anything else until they are released to sponsors. After release they are still in the system - this is not an adoption - and the feds beginning with Obama pay $175 annually for each. So cost per pupil I minimum 17k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed site is on the corner of Laurel street, across from where they hold the Farmer's market. There's no playground, no parking, nothing!
Surely can't be zoned for that!

WAMU reporter on Twitter cites Board of zoning saying that indeed, the site would need to be rezoned for that kind of purpose. The city council and mayor are all stronlgy against this. I just worry that somehow Congress can bigfoot it and force it there.

The pressure is ramping up on Douglas Development, that owns the building in question to terminate the lease/planned lease.

https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1161808665172688897?s=20

Can someone please explain why there is so much push back against this? What is the issue?

It is a prison for children who have done nothing wrong. We should not be tearing them from their families and keeping them in cages.

The key word is unaccompanied. This is a continuation of the post DACA surge and ORR has age breakdowns of UAM. Youngest are likely traveling with sibs, cousins, friends of family. This is not children separated from parents.

most are teenagers. What do you people want? UAM show up at border with an intended destination and sponsor-yes they have plans- fly the sponsor to Texas , a border state, and fly both back? That is the quickest release to a sponsor with no screening of sponsors which do not have to be legally present.

Fairfax County, DC, NOVA don't want this operation yet those plus MD have the sponsors. Mayor Bowser should complain since the site would be in her jurisdiction and DC gets less UAM released to sponsors by tens of thousands than MD and Virginia. MD/VA/DC get more than Texas. Site would be available for politicians to inspect and they could even volunteer despite the home state.

All who speak Spanish on TV could do ESOL. Saturdays and Sundays. I guess the DC site is in addition to the planned NOVA site. So why none for MD?

Are you saying that the US currently pays for sponsors to fly to the border to meet these kids and then flies them both back?!

What needs to happen is that Congress needs to change the law so that unaccompanied children are sent back to their home country immediately or sent to the consulate to be returned in their country's dime. This is getting out if hand. It sounds like their parents or US based family member played smugglers to get them to the border and the US is completing the human smuggling cycle for them. Outrageous.

+1 million

What an absurd system. They need to be sent back to their home country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children should not be institutionalized. Take those funds and get them into foster care. I would foster if the program paid for full time day care so I can work and commute.

The casual way in which you refer to taking someone's child is frightening. And this attitude that you are doing them a favor if they throw in fully paid day care... unbelievable.These kids have family and connection somewhere here. They dont just walk 1000 miles and show up at the border to throw themselves to fate.

How do you know that the children who will be housed in the proposed center have family here?

I'm assuming these are children who have *already* been separated from their parents by a regime I do not support. Children who will spend years in shelter. Institutionalized.

I am not talking about doing anyone favors. I cannot make fostering work as I am a single mom who WOHM and cannot afford daycare for any more kids. Whether it's migrant children we are talking about or the kids currently in the US foster system, I am not in a position to help without daycare. Although I would like to. Not sure why you want to make me out to be a bad person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children should not be institutionalized. Take those funds and get them into foster care. I would foster if the program paid for full time day care so I can work and commute.

The casual way in which you refer to taking someone's child is frightening. And this attitude that you are doing them a favor if they throw in fully paid day care... unbelievable.These kids have family and connection somewhere here. They dont just walk 1000 miles and show up at the border to throw themselves to fate.

How do you know that the children who will be housed in the proposed center have family here?

I'm assuming these are children who have *already* been separated from their parents by a regime I do not support. Children who will spend years in shelter. Institutionalized.

I am not talking about doing anyone favors. I cannot make fostering work as I am a single mom who WOHM and cannot afford daycare for any more kids. Whether it's migrant children we are talking about or the kids currently in the US foster system, I am not in a position to help without daycare. Although I would like to. Not sure why you want to make me out to be a bad person.

The entire purpose of putting a shelter in this area is because so many sponsors live in the DMV area.

[Anonymous]

and again, you know this how?

[Anonymous]

Hypocrites!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:and again, you know this how?

1. Based on costs, MS 13 activity, school budget articles and the fact that Newsday, a real newspaper on Long Island NY has been writing articles.
2. Newsday count by top counties for sponsors and here's the update from May 2019:
https://projects.newsday.com/databases/long-island/detained-immigrant-children-released-sponsors/
3. Where does Newsday get the release numbers? They are public at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/programs/ucs
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/about/ucs/sponsors
At bottom of page click on state or county and you get the data...

Ages and countries of origin https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/about/ucs/facts-and-data Majority are purported teenagers from Central America.

So it is very obvious based on where sponsors live that most jurisdictions have minimal impact. Sponsors do not have to be legally present in the USA. That is why the federal govt would locate shelters in the DMV based on the volume. Big favor for the illegal and legal sponsors who are here and then local jurisdictions have expanding legal funds from property taxes to pay for immigration attorneys for the sponsors and UAC. Politicians are in favor of illegal immigration so here we are today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the opposition from DC politicians. Would they rather the kids stay at the border? I thought the border conditions were terrible? So confusing.

Same with pushing hotels not to accept them. The conditions where they are now are terrible, so let's prevent any effort to improve that.

People can be so heartless and cruel when trying to score a political point for their team.

[Anonymous]

I wish that they’d blocked Bowser’s crony developer boondoggle - aka the “temporary” shelters built in each ward.