There is no "Child Separation Policy" Despite What the Media Says

The law that Trump is “just following” doesn’t need to be followed.

It’s just a law. If you believe that Trump “following the law” means it’s the right thing to do just because it’s a law, then you are severely naive as to the nature and history of this country. And the laws in it.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And that's why she's suing the government. As part of her case her lawyers have a number of affidavits from other immigrants that have similar experiences.

was that a Trump policy? The ACLU is on it. If they can't get justice, then perhaps there was more to the case than the one sided view you have seen thus far. Either way, this really doesn't have anything to do with the current situation. The events taking place happened in the last few weeks. (based on what CNN is telling it's viewers to be angry about.)

Ok, ok, you’ve had your time.

Trump already signed the order ending family separation.

Can we, now, properly address this big red elephant in the room?

Or is the left now moving to a different distraction? Maybe they’ll protest for open borders to anyone.

a reply to: underwerks

The law that Trump is “just following” doesn’t need to be followed. It’s just a law. If you believe that Trump “following the law” means it’s the right thing to do just because it’s a law, then you are severely naive as to the nature and history of this country. And the laws in it.

The law against murder is "just a law".

originally posted by: underwerks
The law that Trump is “just following” doesn’t need to be followed.

It’s just a law. If you believe that Trump “following the law” means it’s the right thing to do just because it’s a law, then you are severely naive as to the nature and history of this country. And the laws in it.

Jesus. slow on the uptake doesn't even come close here.

Trump want's Congress to fix this so nobody has to "ignore" the law. he wants them to "CHANGE" the law. They won't do anything Trump wants, so he will have to do this with an EO instead. And the idiots who are squawking about this now, will be angry with him over that as well, I'd wager.

You are aware that we write laws to be followed, not ignored.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Assuming they are breaking the law.

I'm reading that many are surrendering and asking for asylum.

a reply to: Thejoncrichton

It's happening under his watch apparently.

So he gets the blame.


But we are drifting. The topic is "There is no "Child Separation Policy" Despite What the Media Says".

And apparently there is.

a reply to: grey580

And apparently there is.

Let's see it.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Assuming they are breaking the law.

I'm reading that many are surrendering and asking for asylum.

It is a federal crime to enter the United States in places other than official entry points.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A heart? I thought you guys scoff at heart, empathy, apathy and only embrace what you deem "logic" like some kind of Vulcan Spock like creature. Don't tell me even trump is suffering from bleeding heart liberal syndrome?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: grey580

And apparently there is.

Let's see it.

Watch TV, plenty of video of children in cages.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's worthy to note the actual verbiage of 8 U.S. Code § 1325(a) to point out that it doesn't differentiate by intention behind illegally entering the borders of the United States:

8 U.S. Code § 1325

a. Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts


Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

As we can readily see in the verbiage, even if someone claims to be seeking asylum, if they do not enter at an official Port of Entry, try to elude immigration officers, or lie about the circumstances of them being here, they can be detained/arrested under suspicion of violating this federal law.

Just because someone who gets caught entering the country illegally claims to be here seeking asylum does not mean that they deserve an apology and a suite in the closest Hyatt Regency--they are treated like criminals first for how they entered the country (illegally under the verbiage of 8 U.S. Code § 1325[a]) and then the request for asylum can be handled after the fact.

"I'm here seeking asylum" are not magical words that negate criminally trespassing on U.S. soil. I know that you understand this, but I felt it a good point to add to the thread, since too many people, like Xcalibur254, are seemingly thinking that such intent does away with criminal activity, and it does not.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Assuming they are breaking the law.

I'm reading that many are surrendering and asking for asylum.

That is exactly what is happening. Under Obama they were let free until their hearing for asylum. Under Trump they are being held as criminals which forced the separation of the families. Trumps solution is to let them all stay in jail, kids included, rather than letting them free until their court date to which 99%+ of these people show up. They want to follow the law which is why they surrender to authorities immediately after entering the country and we reward that by throwing them in prison. $775 per night to care for these kids. Buy private prison stock. .

a reply to: network dude

The judge that slapped down the government's motion to dismiss described the new policy as brutal and unconstitutional.

a reply to: network dude

Well, it's a good thing he is getting it changed, my only question is..if the law has been like this since Clinton, why has it only been enforced like this recently?
The optics of it are pretty bad.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's worthy to note the actual verbiage of 8 U.S. Code § 1325(a) to point out that it doesn't differentiate by intention behind illegally entering the borders of the United States:

8 U.S. Code § 1325

a. Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts


Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

As we can readily see in the verbiage, even if someone claims to be seeking asylum, if they do not enter at an official Port of Entry, try to elude immigration officers, or lie about the circumstances of them being here, they can be detained/arrested under suspicion of violating this federal law.

Just because someone who gets caught entering the country illegally claims to be here seeking asylum does not mean that they deserve an apology and a suite in the closest Hyatt Regency--they are treated like criminals first for how they entered the country (illegally under the verbiage of 8 U.S. Code § 1325[a]) and then the request for asylum can be handled after the fact.

"I'm here seeking asylum" are not magical words that negate criminally trespassing on U.S. soil. I know that you understand this, but I felt it a good point to add to the thread, since too many people, like Xcalibur254, are seemingly thinking that such intent does away with criminal activity, and it does not.

That's right. Seeking asylum does not mean you can break the law.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

The judge that slapped down the government's motion to dismiss described the new policy as brutal and unconstitutional.

did that judge issue an injunction to stop it from happening?

Now the aftermath of trying to reunite those kids with their parents. Another nightmare that falls on Trumps watch.

You reap what you sow, even if you flipflop....

Will this be Trumps defining moment?

originally posted by: underwerks
The law that Trump is “just following” doesn’t need to be followed.

It’s just a law. If you believe that Trump “following the law” means it’s the right thing to do just because it’s a law, then you are severely naive as to the nature and history of this country. And the laws in it.

Do you understand what the executive branch does? Do you understand why Trump was elected?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

The law that Trump is “just following” doesn’t need to be followed. It’s just a law. If you believe that Trump “following the law” means it’s the right thing to do just because it’s a law, then you are severely naive as to the nature and history of this country. And the laws in it.

The law against murder is "just a law".

Yes it is. And one that should be followed.

The oppposite of this law.