Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guess he’s out dodging the question….
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.
Trump would never allow that. He wouldn't even let reporters take pictures of the cages he keeps them in. Since he believes their animals, maybe he feels he has the right to treat them as such.If they don’t change the policy,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.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?
Do you think we can/we should send in a 3rd party monitor like the International Red Cross to observe the conditions? Like they did in POW camps?
Prisoners of the First World War | International Committee of the Red Cross - Index
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.I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature HereVandalshandle said: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.
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...
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.
If the Democrats just showed up at the polls, they would win. Independents do not favor the draconian measures that we are using on kids at the borders though they probably do abhor illegal immigration. Independents do not favor the tactics we’re taking with our allies in terms of trade. They sure do not favor the behavior of the president; the sleaze, the legal issues, the idea that he could self-pardon….
If the Dems show up at the polls, they win in the general election.
Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.
Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.
"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.
I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.
It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.
I hope I'll be able to live my life without having to have earned your respect. I guess I'll just have to life with the emptiness of not having your highly developed intellect enlighten me about why it's justified to separate parents from children because them wanting a better life for their kids.I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"See link posted above.Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)
"My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished." Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.
Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.
I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
More like I don't respect you enough to bother scrolling back that far. If it ain't in the post right above where I'm typing, it ain't worth it. The only fear you engender in me is the possibility of you drooling on my shoes.
You have something to say, say it. You don't, then we're done here.
That's right. Makes sense to me. However, you forgot inhuman liars. You fuckers are inhuman liars, who deserve a major beat down, politically speaking.We don't? The left has been promoting immigration, promoting the right as racist, sexist, homophobe. Your last candidate referred to us as deplorables. But we don't have the ability to learn?
You mean your strategy of illegal and un-Constitutional gerrymandering? You have more in common with the Weimar Republic, than you do with the American republic.You people have been losing power the last ten years, yet you think your decades old strategy is working just fine.
/——-/ Bad News Libtards. You thought you had Trump this time but he’s working to fix yet another Obozo screw up. In a month this will be forgotten.Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:
"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."
Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.
Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.
"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.
I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.
When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.
It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.
In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.
/——-/ Bad News Libtards. You thought you had Trump this time but he’s working to fix yet another Obozo screw up. In a month this will be forgotten.
The White House announced that President Trump had endorsed legislation negotiated between GOP leaders and moderate Republicans that promises to "solve the border crisis and family separation issue by allowing for family detention and removal."
Its an insult based on skin color….hence racial slur. I’m sure that Trumpians like yourself aren’t interested in the fine distinctions between Hondurans, Nicaraguans, Mexicans, etc…..
No it's not.
You wishing it's a racial slur doesn't make it one. It's a derisive term which refers to Mexicans, and it's based on country of origin.
By the way, since you mentioned, what skin color Mexicans have, please?
Now that is funny…
Yeah…someone like you who calls people “beaners” as a sign of affection makes a distinction between Mexicans and other latinos. Riiiight.
Someone like me?
Nope, I did not call anyone a beaner, I joined the conversation to explain to you that beaner is not a racial slur.
Now, since you do know the distinction, why don't you answer the question: What skin color Mexicans have?
Or you gonna act dumb and dodge it again...
Have you/will you gone/go into a chicano bar and called the bartender a beaner and shown how much you love the race?
Are you going to dodge the question or answer it?
I recall I asked you question several times that you did provided answer to.
You don't get to ask me anything until you do so. Capisce?
In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again. If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out.Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.
Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass
"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."
Dude, you were very clear. If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
That sentence is entirely context driven. Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs. I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
Only if you are a bad parent apparently.In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again. If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out.Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass
"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."
Dude, you were very clear. If you're not comparing them, this has no point.
I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling
Sometimes you take risks for your kids!
That sentence is entirely context driven. Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't
I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs. I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
They took their kids to invade another land. I doubt it was legal.How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to."Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.
FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron. The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
So the Mayflower were criminals. Got it. I have to believe there's a line of looking stupid you wouldn't go below. But damned if I can find that line ...
You do know that there were criminals on the Mayflower, right?
you need to ask the native tribes.They took their kids to invade another land. I doubt it was legal.How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to."Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.
FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron. The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
Really? Perhaps you could cite for me the laws they were violating.
So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified." That's what you think
Not even remotely in the same universe. Are we so privileged that we compare getting into private school to actual survival? Not to mention comparing armed robbery to a misdemeanor.
OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point. He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.
It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...
Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
Of course you consider it a minor crime. You want it to happen.
No, I don't want illegal immigration, however I do want more legal immigration and I want the United States to help these refugees.
The more Democrat voters the better. You want to award prizes for coming here illegally. I mean literal prizes. Welfare, free education, free medical care. We'll house Mexico's prison population for them. It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!
No, none of this is true.
Just the same, crossing the border is not a major crime. Unless you're a hysterical xenophobe of course.
I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age. Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?------------------------- i don't care about the TRAFFICKING . I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law Coyote . --------------------- just a comment .
And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
Think about that
These families came seeking asylum. You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
Think about that.
Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them? Of course they could lie. And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
I'm saying you don't presume that a family is human traffickers and victims without evidence any more than you would presume that a man carrying a briefcase walking out of a bank is a bank robber.Immigration officials are required to interview all detainees regardless of age. Do you really think kidnap victims are not going to speak up?Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?
And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.
Think about that
These families came seeking asylum. You can not apply for asylum with out complete documentation of all family members.
Think about that.
Poor children from third world countries who are being abused and threatened and told the American will kill them? Of course they could lie. And you're saying keep them in the abuser's hands to keep doing that
When you stop a criminal at the border who has a kid that isn't his with him...you think that we should allow the kid to stay with that criminal in jail?
Because that's what you fools are advocating.
In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again. If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out.
Who can blame the families trying to escape from that kind of life?
The problem is not with those people trying to come to the United States, or Donald Trump for that matter. Why not focus on the countries and governments that are so bad that people risk their families lives to escape them?
