What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

I see. This is only if you

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.

A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.

A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.

Which is of course much better than the situation they're fleeing.

There's an old saying regarding the actions of refugees. " Parents only put their children in a boat whe the land is no longer safe."

 

[Coyote]

A few facts: What We Know: Family Separation And 'Zero Tolerance' At The Border

Does the Trump administration have a policy of separating families at the border?
Yes.

In April, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered prosecutors along the border to "adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy" for illegal border crossings. That included prosecuting parents traveling with their children as well as people who subsequently attempted to request asylum.

White House officials have repeatedly acknowledged that under that new policy, they separate all families who cross the border. Sessions has described it as deterrence.

In Their Own Words

President Trump: "The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility. ... Not on my watch."

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: "If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It's that simple. ... If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Sessions on whether the policy is a deterrent: "Yes, hopefully people will get the message and come through the border at the port of entry and not break across the border unlawfully."

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: Under the "zero tolerance" policy, when families cross the border illegally, "Operationally, what that means is we will have to separate your family. That's no different than what we do every day in every part of the United States when an adult of a family commits a crime."

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly: Separating families is "a tough deterrent. ... The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long."​

The policy is unique to the Trump administration. Previous administrations did not, as a general principle, separate all families crossing the U.S. border illegally. And the current administration could choose to end this practice and release families together from detention at any time.

 

[Coyote]

A few more facts: A few facts: What We Know: Family Separation And 'Zero Tolerance' At The Border

Where do the children go once they've been separated?
The answer varies over time. Children begin at Border Patrol facilities, are transferred to longer-term shelters and are supposed to eventually be placed with families or sponsors. Here's more about each step:

Border Patrol facilities. If you've seen photos of children in what look like chain-link cages — whether unaccompanied minors in 2014 or separated children in 2018 — they are probably photos from a Border Patrol facility.

Children usually are held here initially, but it is illegal to keep them for more than three days — these holding cells are not meant for long-term detainment.

The Associated Press visited one site on Monday and described a "large, dark facility" with separate wings for children, adults and families:

"Inside an old warehouse in South Texas, hundreds of children wait in a series of cages created by metal fencing. One cage had 20 children inside. Scattered about are bottles of water, bags of chips and large foil sheets intended to serve as blankets."​

Such facilities have been criticized before for poor conditions and reports of abuse and inhumane treatment, including a number of allegations the CBP strongly denies.

Child immigrant shelters. Within three days, children are supposed to be transferred from immigration detention to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

For 15 years, ORR has handled the "care and placement" of unaccompanied migrant children. Until recently, that usually meant minors who crossed into the U.S. alone. Now it also includes children who have been separated from their families by authorities, including much younger children.

ORR has a network of about 100 shelter facilities, all operated by nonprofit groups, where children are detained.

NPR's John Burnett recently joined other reporters to visit one such facility, a converted Walmart Supercenter housing nearly 1,500 boys ages 10 to 17. Journalists' access to that facility in Brownsville, Texas, was limited, but the site was markedly different from Border Patrol facilities seen in photos released by the government — the teenage boys slept on beds instead of mats in the floor, in rooms instead of cages, and had access to classes and games.

ORR says children remain at these shelters for "fewer than 57 days on average." However some children have been kept detained for months longer than that, and some advocates say certain facilities improperly administer psychotropic medications.

Observers have raised concerns about the psychological toll on young children who enter this shelter system. NPR's Joel Rose talked to one former shelter employee who said he quit after he was instructed to prevent siblings from hugging each other. The organization that runs the shelter said it allows touching and hugging in certain circumstances.

Where are the girls and young children?
Official photos and videos have shown only older boys at shelter facilities.

HHS says there are specialized shelters for children under 13. No images from those shelters have been released, but authorities say new images and videos will be provided later this week.

Note: why aren't reporters allowed inside?

More than 10,000 migrant children, including children who crossed the border alone, are kept in ORR facilities. And existing facilities are filling up — the shelter Burnett visited was 95 percent full.

Tent camps. A temporary facility has been set up in Tornillo, Texas, near El Paso. Little is known about the facility, and reporters have not been allowed outside, but KQED's John Sepulvado has seen the tent from outside.

Note: why aren't reporters allowed inside?

"It's a heavy-duty-grade white tent in the middle of a desert," he told NPR's Here & Now. "It's behind two chain-link fences and there's a dirt easement that's on top of it so you can't actually see into it from the American side.

Sponsors or family members: Ultimately, ORR tries to find family members, foster parents or sponsors to take in children. Parents are the preferred option, but that's not a possibility for children who have been separated from parents who remain in detention.

There is no time limit on how long it can take to find a home for a child, but again, ORR says that on average the process takes less than two months.

By law, those relatives or sponsors must, among other requirements, show that they can provide for the minor — sometimes verified with home visits — and ensure the minor's attendance at any future court hearing.

The Trump administration has said that it intends to subject sponsors to increased scrutiny.

Under those new rules, the criminal background and immigration status of all sponsors, and any other adult living in the household, will be examined. Biometric data, such as fingerprints, also will be required. The checks will be performed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and not by ORR.


Critics say these new background checks will have a chilling effect.

"Under the current circumstances and given the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the administration, it may be that few will be willing to come forward to claim children," said Bob Carey, who was director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement under the Obama administration.

 

[Coyote]

But what about all the parents sending their children alone across the frontier to be handled by complete strangers in hopes of getting them across the border? Have they not already broken up the family? Did they not already damage that precious bond between parent and child?

Bears repeating again

Except that is another issue, that is not what this is about. These are parents coming with their kids.

Intriguing...

How is that a separate issue?

Because the policy does not apply to them.

But the inference was that the children were being separated from their parents in every case. You never acknowledged that the majority of the children came here alone. You don't acknowledge that some of these "parents" are in fact NOT parents who use them as a means to get across the border themselves. They essentially abandon these children at the first sight of trouble.

So, what is this really about? Compassion? I seriously doubt it. Nobody showed any to these children when they sent them here/ brought them here to be used as bargaining chips.

You probably want compassion to completely overrule the law.

It's apples and oranges here - you are trying to conflate two seperate issues in order to somehow deflect this policy. The children ARE being seperated from their parents in every case where PARENTS CROSSED THE BORDER ILLEGALLY with their children. I never said ALL MINORS being detained came with parents.

YOU don't acknowledge that thousands of children have been seperated from their parents under this new policy. Instead you deflect deflect and justify.

Do you seriously expect them to leave their children behind in gang and violence infested areas that they are trying to save them from? Seriously?

 

[forkup]

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

I see. This is only if you

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.

A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.

So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.

 

[Coyote]

So does jay walking and speeding.

This is a bit more than Jaywalking:

Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers

"
Maria says she was 16 when she was lured into the gang by a man on the streets of the Mexican border town of Ciudad Juárez.

Since the 1990s, thousands of women have disappeared from the town. Hundreds of bodies bearing signs of rape and sexual mutilation have been dumped on waste ground in the city; thousands more have never returned.

In 2009, 55 teenage girls vanished in the town, which has been gripped by violence as two drug cartels fight a lethal turf war over cocaine smuggling routes into the US.

Maria, who was in hiding when she talked to Channel 4 News, said she had been given presents and promised a job in an office by the gang member but was instead drugged and raped and sold to men."

IF ONE CHILD IS SAVED FROM THIS, THEN OUR JOB DOES IT'S JOB.............

PERIOD!

Then all children should be removed from any any adult entering or leaving our country for Mexico or Canada and put into a detention facility regardless of age until aithorities can determine with out a doubt they are indeed the parents.

And dont forget, in these facilities they arent even allowed to pick up and console a hysterical toddler who just wants her Mommy!

What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic ...
Chicago Tribune › nationworld
What separation from parents does to children: 'The effect is catastrophic'

You do understand about Passports, Right? You understand about the requirements for Documents, Right?

Unless you are that Naive (and maybe you are), you actually do sound as if you support Human Trafficking.

So you are claiming that 100% of those parents have no documents? Or they cant possibly be kept with their children prior to their heating if there is no reasonable suspicion of trafficking? They cant possibly be detained as a family unit until their hearing????? Even a nursing child?

Even passports can be faked.

You think I support child trafficking? Well it sure sounds like you support child abuse.

Do you know what happens to some of those kids in detention facilities?

So you are claiming that 100% of those parents have no documents?

I made no such claim, and if they show up at the boarder crossing seeking Asylum. THEY ARE NOT SEPARATED.

It sure sounded like it Pops. I mean, you have 100% seperation of all parents crossing with children. Not just parents without documents, and you implied that was the case where there was seperation. ALL parents.

And yes. Those seeking asylum are also being seperated: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/whats-really-happening-asylum-seeking-families-seperated.

Or they cant possibly be kept with their children prior to their heating if there is no reasonable suspicion of trafficking?

FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, If they cross at a non border crossing WITHOUT DOCUMENTS, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MORE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE FAMILY THAN YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE TRAFFICKING!

Even passports can be faked.

Border Patrol is trained on passport recognition. Now you are simply making excuses making it appear you support trafficking. It's not a good look for you.

Really now? You think they just look at passports, which are easily faked?

Migrants, young and old, are not always related. Border Patrol says fear of child trafficking forces separations

No. YOU are just trying to make it appear like I support trafficking rather than addressing the arguments. Do you support child abuse? I don't really think so. But if I go by your rationale, then it sure looks like it. How about we quit these stupid insults?

You think I support child trafficking? Well it sure sounds like you support child abuse.

We have put in a system that eliminates the possibility that the adults that would traffic these children, be done in a manner that is as non abusive as possible, while insuring these children are not being trafficked. That is about all we can do.

Do you know what happens to some of those kids in detention facilities?

If not worse than happened to Maria, then what is your point?

Mexican woman tells of ordeal with cross-border child traffickers

Is that your excuse for supporting this policy? You do realize that this was not put into place for the purposes of addressing child trafficking don't you? That's just the most recent excuse for supporting what is effectively a very very damaging policy for the children who aren't being trafficked.

Do you have any real numbers on how many of those children being detained since this policy went into effect were found after detention to be victims of traffickers? Not children seperated because border control thought they were (ie parents couldn't identify a birthday or children themselves gave indications that they weren't their parents)?

How many of the children automatically torn away were victims of traffickers?

 

[Coyote]

Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.

Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
You realize that whether applying for asylum or not, an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?

Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.

Nice conflation. How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?

There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.

And they aren't now if they present themselves at a border crossing.

Glad I could be here to inform you of something you should google before posting.

Thank me later

Trump admin discussed splitting moms, kids to prevent asylum in Feb. 2017
WASHINGTON — The idea of separating migrant children from their mothers was discussed during the earliest days of the Trump administration as a way to deter asylum-seekers, according to notes from a closed-door DHS meeting.

BC News has found that some women are separated from their children even if they are legally claiming asylum and not being referred for prosecution. In those cases, the children are kept in the same facility, but they are still separated for days without being told whether they will be reunited.

Former USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez, who served under the Obama administration, said families who presented themselves for asylum between ports of entry were not previously prosecuted.

"We understood that the border had to have integrity," Rodriguez said. "But we also had a pretty deep awareness of why people were coming. There were deep humanitarian issues that were driving them here."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Knowing you can’t qualify for a asylum…And trying anyway knowing you’ll be separated from your children…Should be a crime though...right?

Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.

Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
You realize that whether applying for asylum or not, an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?

Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.

Nice conflation. How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?

There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.

Asylum seekers aren't prosecuted NOW, unless they commit a crime. Too bad for you that crossing the border IS still a crime.

However, if someone who has crossed the border illegally THEN asked for asylum is actually granted the asylum, then they certainly aren't prosecuted for anything.

Meanwhile, none of this answers the question you're either too stupid to understand, or too cowardly and dishonest to acknowledge: 40% of WHICH applicants? You're conflating asylum applicants who go about it the legal way with people who only request asylum when they get caught breaking the law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.

I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.

Case closed. You're dismissed, puswad.

This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.

This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse

They are illegal aliens, they have no constitutional rights. Who gives a fucking shit about them

Wrong.
Asylum seekers have a constitutional right to due process of their claim. Making that process criminal is decidedly unconstitutional.

No one has made seeking asylum criminal, you outrageous frigging liar.

Sure they did, dope.

If a person crosses illegally and immediately turns themselves in and claims asylum, they crossed for that reason.

Prosecuting them and separating them as a result is a new policy.

Sorry, asshole, but seeking asylum is not illegal. Crossing the border between ports of entry is, and committing a crime "for a really good reason" is still committing a crime. They are being prosecuted for their criminal act, not for seeking entry. There is no earthly reason whatsoever for a legitimate asylum seeker to EVER cross the border illegally.

You're cordially invited to stop lying and making shit up any time now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Putting innocent children in jail with adults is a really bad idea, are Democrats dumb or something?

Don't put the adults in jail then. Duh.

And there we have it: the REAL motivation here. The kids are just a shield to hide behind, a tool to use to advance your agenda.

Don't ever wonder why everyone pisses all over your bullshit claims of "concern" and "outrage" and "compassion". We all knew this is what you were REALLY about long before you admitted it.

And there we have it: the REAL motivation here. The kids are just a shield to hide behind, a tool to use to advance your agenda.

Don't ever wonder why everyone pisses all over your bullshit claims of "concern" and "outrage" and "compassion". We all knew this is what you were REALLY about long before you admitted it.

That's not what it's about at all, dope.
It is through their choice to prosecute them that the separation is necessary.
You dopes have a problem understanding that they just started doing this shit six weeks ago.

For the first year and change they did it the the way every other administration had.

"Ehrmagerd, Trump is so eeeeevil to prosecute people for committing crimes! How DARE he not just give criminals a pass because they squeezed out some kids?!"

You dopes have a problem understanding that "this shit" is happening because you wanted to let illegals flood into the country, but you were too chickenshit and dishonest to just SAY it. It's no one's fault but your own that you dumbasses fought for a law you never intended to have enforced. And now your chickens have come home to roost, because your God-Emperor isn't in office anymore, and can't use your underhanded maneuvers as an excuse to release illegals in job lots.

You can scream to the skies how it's "all Trump's fault", but I have no intention of letting you get away with it. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

 

[TemplarKormac]

YOU don't acknowledge that thousands of children have been seperated from their parents under this new policy. Instead you deflect deflect and justify.

First of all, I can't help but notice how emotional your argument is getting.

Second, this isn't a new policy. Go look up the William Wilberforce Trafficking Act. Bush signed that law in 2008. This whole thing is the result of multiple administrations implementing and expanding upon existing immigration and anti-trafficking laws.

Third, you fail to acknowledge, on your own, that separation happens all the time with legal citizens here in the US. When a mother with children commits a crime, she is sent to jail. If a mother and father are partners in crime, they are both sent to jail. Separated from their children. But no outcry from you.

Fourth, you refuse to acknowledge that the majority of the children who come here are smuggled here or sent here ALONE. You refuse to see the fact that the separation happened before they even got here.

Fifth, Trump has already called for the authority from congress to detain and deport families at the border TOGETHER. But Democrats are too busy wailing and resisting to even consider helping him with that.

Lastly, how can you blame Trump for any of this? You can't. How can you expect anyone to have sympathy when Democrats are serving as a constant barrier to the resolution of this issue? Wouldn't that show that they lack sympathy? Putting their own political goals ahead of that of the families they don't want being separated?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I need nothing that would make me anything similar to the likes of you. You need to realize that YOU are no sort of standard people are aspiring to.

I'm going to take "Russian troll" as a sign that you've finally recognized that you can't deflect your way out of the fact that this law you're so "outraged" about as of five minutes ago is 100% the fault of LEFTISTS, and you're too much of a craven liar to admit it.

Case closed. You're dismissed, puswad.

This isn’t a “law” nor is it a requirement. This is Trump torturing children for political gain and you cheering the abuse.

This is who you are. A selfish, amoral xenophobe who supports child abuse

Is this all you can say? Are you so wrapped up in emotion you're willing to claim someone supports child abuse purely because they disagree with you politically?

You certainly aren't in opposition in this case.

Ha. Of what? Child abuse? That's weaksauce man.

My father was a victim of child abuse, he routinely told me horror stories. He was molested by his brother and beaten with a crossiron. He was starved, and his father tried to kill him.

No. Don't you dare insinuate that I support child abuse. None of what our President does to these children comes remotely close to that level of child abuse. Nor does it rise to the level of child abuse at all.

Causing mental and emotional harm to children over prolonged periods of time is certainly child abuse. Especially when done when discrestion allows for altenatives.

Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.

And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.

1) The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed. Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children. The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016. What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults. Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.

2) Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases: if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings. In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.

3) When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals. The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for. Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.

4) Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short. Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE. This typically happens in one day. At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from. If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.

5) The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum. THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child. When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party. Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.

6) If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years. If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates. We know this from experience.

7) There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally. They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum. They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children. The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.

8) In April, the New York Times reported:

Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.

"It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com

But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril. How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?

9) Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote. They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible. So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?

Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border. This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president. Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit. He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it. I'm sure most of his supporters would agree.

The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it. I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.

It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act. It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law. And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.

It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.

The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.

Only after the parents are prosecuted which is the new policy, fool.

No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days. Period. End of discussion. You can say, "Trump can just sign an order to ignore that" and force me to say it for 100 more times on top of the 100 you've done it so far, but the answer will remain the same.

The only fool here is the one who deliberately forgets what he's told five seconds after it's said, because he REALLY wants to believe he can wish the world different.

Let me save you some time.

The law requires that children whose parents have been arrested MUST not be detained longer than 20 days.

"Trump could just issue and executive order and change that."

The President does not have the legal authority to ignore or change the law unilaterally. Congress could change it, but I notice you're not spending ANY time excoriating the people who have that power, and ALL your time blaming someone who doesn't.

Until I hear you say something about "Why doesn't Congress do something?" you lack all moral credibility on this subject, and have summarily lost the debate.

There. Now copy and paste that somewhere, and stop chasing your tail.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.

You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway. But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested. You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey. I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.

But this really cuts to the heart of the matter. You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".

when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".

No. What we really mean is there are ways to deal with this without separation being a result. Trump knows this. Separation was always their intention.

From march of 17. Video in link.

"Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly says the Trump administration is considering separating children from their parents to deter families from trying to enter the United States illegally"

Kelly: Separating families under consideration - CNN Video

 

[Cecilie1200]

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

I see. This is only if you

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.

A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.

A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.

Which is of course much better than the situation they're fleeing.

There's an old saying regarding the actions of refugees. " Parents only put their children in a boat whe the land is no longer safe."

What a load of horseshit. I realize you want to pretend that every single one of these people is fleeing horrible persecution, but the fact is that most of them just want to take advantage of our standard of living. Which is understandable, but it's also not my fucking problem.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A few facts: What We Know: Family Separation And 'Zero Tolerance' At The Border

Does the Trump administration have a policy of separating families at the border?
Yes.

In April, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered prosecutors along the border to "adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy" for illegal border crossings. That included prosecuting parents traveling with their children as well as people who subsequently attempted to request asylum.

White House officials have repeatedly acknowledged that under that new policy, they separate all families who cross the border. Sessions has described it as deterrence.

In Their Own Words

President Trump: "The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility. ... Not on my watch."

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: "If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It's that simple. ... If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Sessions on whether the policy is a deterrent: "Yes, hopefully people will get the message and come through the border at the port of entry and not break across the border unlawfully."

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: Under the "zero tolerance" policy, when families cross the border illegally, "Operationally, what that means is we will have to separate your family. That's no different than what we do every day in every part of the United States when an adult of a family commits a crime."

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly: Separating families is "a tough deterrent. ... The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long."​

The policy is unique to the Trump administration. Previous administrations did not, as a general principle, separate all families crossing the U.S. border illegally. And the current administration could choose to end this practice and release families together from detention at any time.

A few facts:

NPR isn't "facts".

Okay, that was just one fact, but it's a fairly important one.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..

Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
Marching Them Off To Death
Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims

To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
Is The Height Of Hyperbole

You Folks Cheapen Words Like
'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes

So Save It
There Is NO Equivalence
Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs

But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'

He is just abusing children. No big deal to his base.

----------------------- i love the way that this tactic is reportedly scaring the heck out of other third worlders . Also good news is that this tactic is supposedly stopping some overseas people from wanting to import themselves into the USA . Hey , its ALL Good Coyote .

- i love the way that this tactic is reportedly scaring the heck out of other third worlders .

It's not. Thats the point. It's creating alot of pain for children without much benefit.

Border Patrol agents say Trump's 'zero tolerance' border policy isn't immediately working, and officials are bracing for an 'eruption' from Trump

 

[Cecilie1200]

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

I see. This is only if you

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.

A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.

So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.

You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid. Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Neither applying for asylum nor being denied asylum is a crime. Children should not be separated in either case.

Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
You realize that whether applying for asylum or not, an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?

Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.

Nice conflation. How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?

There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.

And they aren't now if they present themselves at a border crossing.

Glad I could be here to inform you of something you should google before posting.

Thank me later

That's not what I'm talking about, dope

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.

1) The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed. Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children. The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016. What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults. Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.

2) Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases: if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings. In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.

3) When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals. The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for. Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.

4) Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short. Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE. This typically happens in one day. At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from. If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.

5) The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum. THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child. When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party. Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.

6) If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years. If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates. We know this from experience.

7) There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally. They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum. They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children. The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.

8) In April, the New York Times reported:

Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.

"It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com

But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril. How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?

9) Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote. They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible. So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?

Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border. This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president. Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit. He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it. I'm sure most of his supporters would agree.

The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it. I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.

It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act. It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law. And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.

It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.

The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.

Only after the parents are prosecuted which is the new policy, fool.

No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days. Period. End of discussion. You can say, "Trump can just sign an order to ignore that" and force me to say it for 100 more times on top of the 100 you've done it so far, but the answer will remain the same.

The only fool here is the one who deliberately forgets what he's told five seconds after it's said, because he REALLY wants to believe he can wish the world different.

Let me save you some time.

The law requires that children whose parents have been arrested MUST not be detained longer than 20 days.

"Trump could just issue and executive order and change that."

The President does not have the legal authority to ignore or change the law unilaterally. Congress could change it, but I notice you're not spending ANY time excoriating the people who have that power, and ALL your time blaming someone who doesn't.

Until I hear you say something about "Why doesn't Congress do something?" you lack all moral credibility on this subject, and have summarily lost the debate.

There. Now copy and paste that somewhere, and stop chasing your tail.

Most Dem Voters just don't have the mental capacity to understand how our three branches of government work.