Talk:Reno v. Flores

1997 case of similar name

https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=9493 refers to:

Flores v. Reno [later Meese, Johnson, Kelly, Sessions]

It appears to be a followup case to this from 4 years later. I'm interested in thoughts regarding an article about it where they can link to each other. Has come up on Talk:Trump_administration_family_separation_policy#Trump's_reference_to_"that_law"

This appears to have been settled in what is called the Flores agreement, https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/aclu_irp_legal_backgrounder_on_children_july_2014_final.pdf mentions:

For children, the governing U.S. legal standards come from various overlapping sources. Two of the primary sources of law discussed in this memorandum are (1) the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (“TVPRA”), which applies to all “unaccompanied alien children” under the age of 18;2 and (2) the 1996 settlement agreement in Flores v. Meese

Meese is the 1st name after "Later". I'm still trying to confirm who it refers to, closest name I could find was Doris Meissner who I believe signed page 22 under Defendant https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/immigrants/flores_v_meese_agreement.pdf

I'm not sure who Johnson or Kelly refer to, I figure the last name is Jeff Sessions but there isn't any Flores v. Sessions article I'm able to find here. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

For reference, here's Flores v. Meese: 2600:1700:4060:38B0:5A94:6BFF:FE21:5F48 (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Meese decision at Justia added as source and external link, thanks DylanHock6 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Flores vs Reno appears to be the settlement of a suit, Flores vs Meese, filed years earlier.--Kyle24sp (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Done original complaint added as a source, Clearinghouse add as an external link, thanks DylanHock6 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Contact v Segregation

it says INS facilities will provide "contact with family members who were arrested with the minor" and segregate unaccompanied minors from unrelated adults.

From http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/jun/18/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-child-parent-separations-border-tied/ recently sited in the Flores Agreement section.

This provides a baseline policy but I'm curious about the government mechanics which sprung from it. How does INS determine, when assessing a child, whether to classify adults arrested with them as "family members" or "unrelated adults"? I imagine there could be problems evaluating this if either of them were missing identification papers. Going based on word could be a problem if it was a sex trafficking situation and an adult lied about being a parent and coerced/pressured a child into lying and saying the adult was their parent. Would INS resolve a situation like this where there's no ID by doing a DNA test? What about situations where it's an adoptive/step-parent where even DNA could not prove that relationship? ScratchMarshall (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Done PolitiFact added as a source, agreement to provide contact with family added, thanks DylanHock6 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is Politifact being used as a source for anything in this article? Politifact has a non neutral and readily apparent bias and as such is not a good candidate for becoming a secondary source. 47.135.216.71 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Original document says ."adequate supervision to protect minors from others, and contact with family members who were arrested with the minor."

Section 12.

Dale Hepfner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:DB80:7A35:503D:FE0C:3919:6E66 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Done original complaint added as a source, Clearinghouse case page added as an external link, thanks DylanHock6 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

References

"Opinion" versus "conclusion"

This regards the paragraph where Politico's opinion on Ted Cruz's opinion is being passed as "conclusion." Using the term "opines" is precisely what is needed here: Politico's "conclusion" (of a very flawed "argument," I might add) is nothing but Politico's opinion on what Ted Cruz said (which is also an opinion), and nothing more. I am hoping that no one but the most fanatical ideologue can deny that. And while "conclude" can very well be viewed as a substitute for "opinion," there is a certain weasely quality to "conclude" that is likely to fool one into believing that what follows is a statement of objective truth. "Conclude" carries a whiff of objectivity that "opines" does not. I thus move to replace "concludes" with "opines." Opines is the more precise word here, in a way that "concludes" is not. Aqualung (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, it's not cited to Politico, but PolitiFact, and for another thing, "concludes” is perfectly fine here. Leave it be. Neutrality^talk 02:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

PolitiFact it is, I apologize. As for "concludes," I disagree: it is not fine here. (1) For one, can you please explain why "opines" would be wrong? (2) It is, certainly, the more precise word here, is it not? (3) You do agree that PolitiFact is expressing an opinion, do you not agree? (4) And if yes, why not make this explicit? Why obscure this aspect? (5) Is it not precision that Wikipedia is after? When you can be more precise at no extra cost, why settle for the less precise wording? Anyway, I'd appreciate your answering my questions individually, not just under a blanket dismissal as you did above. Aqualung (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Current content from earliest page creation

The page was created on July 8, 2009 by User:Agradman—who no longer edits Wikipedia—who cited Reno v. Flores (91-905), 507 U.S. 292 (1993). Most of that content is still in the article and appears to be a summary—perhaps written by user:Agradman, who may be an attorney familiar with the technical language—based on the Cornell citation. I am going to use this as the reference for this material while I continue to look for RS that summarize the content in more accessible and less technical language.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

References

User content

The paragraph which begins, "In "Flores v. Johnson" 2015 C.D. Cal., District Judge Dolly M. Gee is taken from an article I created and continue to develop Timeline of events related to migrant children's detention centers in the United States with the intention of modifying one or both entries. Because of the legal language in the references, I am for now, including the full text of both paragraphs to ensure accuracy of the statements. Oceanflynn (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppets

User:DylanHock6, a confirmed sock puppet of User:HughD, contributed 125 edits to this article from from June 20 through July 30, 2018. This represents the majority of the total 346 edits to this article as of August 15, 2019. Although both these accounts have been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts, User:HughD also had over 40 other sock puppets confirmed by CheckUser and subsequently blocked, according to this category page, Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_HughD There are also about 2 dozen other accounts that are suspected to be HughD's sock puppets. "To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts (called sock puppetry, or socking) to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies."Oceanflynn (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)