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

a reply to: vonclod

Because the trump administration chose to take a hard line stance to enforce the laws to the maximum sentence probably to deter future illegals. I don't think they took in to account the backlash and now trump is walking it back and his supporters are claiming this shows he has a "heart"
The same supporters that fully supported the locking up in cages of children just days ago.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Posted on page 1

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.

Please end the ignorance.

It's a law. If we don't like the law, it must be changed through appropriate means, meaning that a bill must be written, introduced, and taken through the process all the way to signing by the president.

Even if a law isn't the right thing to do, there is still constitutionally mandated procedure that must be followed to change or negate the law. A president unilaterally deciding to enforce only laws that he likes and ignoring others is not how it works.

Speaking of naiveté.

President Trump has just signed an EO ending the non-separation of children from their families.

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order promising to "keep families together" amid fury over separation of migrant families.
He said he had been swayed by pictures of children who have been taken from parents while they are jailed and prosecuted for illegal border-crossing.
www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: gortex

Excellent.

Our work here is done.

Thread over.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

Ya, I know, I think it blew up in their face pretty badly.
As to his heart..who knows, perhaps his wife bent his ear, + the terrible optics of it, perhaps some guilt..I could see it as the sum of all that.

The same supporters that fully supported the locking up in cages of children just days ago.

Oh, I know..pretty sad.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Being thrown in jail is the inevitable consequence of being busted for a federal crime.

No, not actually. There's this thing called prosecutorial discretion (actually, there's also an allowance for humanitarian parole discretion in the relevant immigration laws I've read too) which allows prioritization of enforcement.

The Trump administration uses prosecutorial discretion when it suits them. Which is why the feds aren't raiding "legal" pot dispensaries in places like the Las Vegas strip. After all, they're clearly in violation of federal law. Not only is there leeway in enforcement priorities but all prosecutors have leeway in charging offenses.

The "zero tolerance" policy issued by Sessions in April formalized the administration's policy decision to reprioritize enforcement and to seek the most serious penalties (like similar memos which require federal prosecutors to charge the most serious offenses possible).

The results of this change in policy were anticipated, as has been evidenced by the statements of multiple admin officials including Kelly and Miller. Family separation wasn't a bug for them, it was a feature — an intended consequence embraced as a deterrent.

a reply to: gortex

And I don't believe that it will be a legal order, either, to allow the keeping of detained children in a detention center longer than allowed by the Flores-v-Reno case. Executive orders are not the way to go, and it will be challenged in court.

My prediction, anyhow.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Fair point. But the law explicitly states that anyone breaking the law willl “be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both”.

originally posted by: gortex
President Trump has just signed an EO ending the non-separation of children from their families.

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order promising to "keep families together" amid fury over separation of migrant families.
He said he had been swayed by pictures of children who have been taken from parents while they are jailed and prosecuted for illegal border-crossing.
www.bbc.co.uk...

So Trumps policy is that he ended child separation, which is the exact opposite as claimed by the media.

originally posted by: underwerks

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.

Why shouldn’t it be followed?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think the EO is a political move , a public show that he's doing something to remedy what has become a political faux pas.

originally posted by: network dude

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.

We as a country have always picked and chose what laws we follow. To believe otherwise is to be intentionally obtuse.

When a law leads to something more detrimental than positive it’s our duty as free people to disregard that law, because in a lot of cases to obey it is to go against what is morally right. And I dont trust my government to legislate what is moral. In a country as crooked as America, the legal way isn’t always the right way.

This is what I see. I work in an industry that was founded on disregarding an unjust law. Which over half of America has deemed acceptable. So I find it strange when people come with the whole, “It’s the law! We don’t disregard laws, we enforce them!” crap.

As long as we as a country pick and choose what laws to follow the argument of “it’s the law!” doesn’t hold up. Because laws change. What’s right doesn’t.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think the EO is a political move , a public show that he's doing something to remedy what has become a political faux pas.

To little, to late. The GOP is running scared and the West wing is in chaos, Kelly and Sarah Sanders are on their way out.

Trump screwed the Pooch, as they say in Texas.

a reply to: gortex

See my points here--I may not agree that it's only for a political stunt, but I think that the end result will probably be the same and that not much will change concerning the separation of families.

And from everything that I've read, I think that this separation is necessary if and until verification that a claimed family unit is actually a family.

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.

The problem with you and many others so triggered about all this is I don't think any of you really understand what is driving all this, so I'll spell it out for you.

First we should all agree that the hard working people involved in this are doing it with best interest at hand. If any of you feel they are trying to torture the kids, dangle them in front of their parent as meat then we have bigger issues in America than just evil Trump.

With that said, The “zero-tolerance” policy puts parents into detention, so that makes it a rather complex event for their kids. Normally children are not detained and are released to relatives etc until their case is heard, but if there is no one to release the children to then someone needs to take care of them as their parents wait their hearing while under detention.

If anyone thinks this is new and just Trump do his racist thing, you just need to Google "Detained illegal children" and you will get a plethora of information from the Obama years that reads almost like Deja Vu.

In the past when whole families were released 85%+ never came back for their hearings, so that doesn't work either.

As I write this I see Trump has now said families will not be separated, so instead of blaming the man for all this he might just fix something that has been broken for a long time.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Not yet. It hasn't gone to trial yet. This was just the judge denying the government's motion to dismiss.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

See my points here--I may not agree that it's only for a political stunt, but I think that the end result will probably be the same and that not much will change concerning the separation of families.

And from everything that I've read, I think that this separation is necessary if and until verification that a claimed family unit is actually a family.

I think you're right. In fact I'd say it would be a lot worse.

I recall hearing secretary Neilson saying that something like 10,000 of the 12,000 children in these centers were without parents, meaning they were being trafficked. Now, because of the bellyachers in the media, these children will be detained along with the people trafficking them.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't know if that means that they were being trafficked, necessarily, but yes, those numbers sound correct, and it does mean that those 10,000 kids are not affected in any way, shape, or form by this separation issue.

Minors come across the border for many, many reasons willingly, and some are sent here by parents wishing for better lives for their kids.

But, yes, it can pretty much be a guarantee that some of them are being trafficked, even the ones claimed by adults.

To me, that is the foremost thing that we should be considering, because the thought of a child being trafficked for any reason--sex, slavery, cheap labor, etc.--is about as abhorrent as I can think. It's actually getting me pissed off right now just thinking about it. I have a beautiful four-year-old daughter, and every time I see a missing girl's picture on the news, I see her.

I would literally lose my collective sh*t.

I live right where I-75 and I-71 meet in KY, and both are major trafficking corridors in America--I see questionable vehicles traveling on those interstates nearly every day.

I would like to think that most of these minors being temporarily separated from their families already can understand the reason behind it, or will grow to understand it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't know if that means that they were being trafficked, necessarily, but yes, those numbers sound correct, and it does mean that those 10,000 kids are not affected in any way, shape, or form by this separation issue.

Minors come across the border for many, many reasons willingly, and some are sent here by parents wishing for better lives for their kids.

But, yes, it can pretty much be a guarantee that some of them are being trafficked, even the ones claimed by adults.

To me, that is the foremost thing that we should be considering, because the thought of a child being trafficked for any reason--sex, slavery, cheap labor, etc.--is about as abhorrent as I can think. It's actually getting me pissed off right now just thinking about it. I have a beautiful four-year-old daughter, and every time I see a missing girl's picture on the news, I see her.

I would literally lose my collective sh*t.

I live right where I-75 and I-71 meet in KY, and both are major trafficking corridors in America--I see questionable vehicles traveling on those interstates nearly every day.

I would like to think that most of these minors being temporarily separated from their families already can understand the reason behind it, or will grow to understand it.

There is not much more one can do but hope that the people these children are travelling with are benevolent. But it seems right to separate the children from the adults until proof of relationship can be confirmed.