Destroying the illegal alien child separation canard

I won't waste anyone's time here. Unlike most of my OPs, this will be short and sweet. Hopefully it provides a helpful rebuttal to those hearing this nonsense irresponsibly thrown around. I won't point out that most of these kids are sent to our border unaccompanied by their parents or how this practice occurred under Obama, Bush, et al. because as you'll see it is completely irrelevant

Any person (whether a Citizen or an illegal) who is placed in custody will be separated from their children.

Period. End of story. No matter what, when a parent is arrested, they will be separated from their child. If the parent is unable to secure alternative care for the minor child, they will be placed in State custody until such time as a non-jailed parent/guardian can take custody.

This applies to Citizens, illegals and everything in between. It is common sense. It is not an issue/consequence exclusive to illegal immigration. It is NOT an official "policy" to separate children from their parents - rather it is merely an unavoidable side effect: When you're incarcerated, you are legally/practically incapable of caring for a child

a reply to: JBurns

Until Congress changes it. Ball is in their court if they want it changed.

Such a simple concept really... Commit a criminal act, go to jail or holding facility. Kids don't follow.





a reply to: JBurns

a reply to: JBurns
Just to add a bit more: And nobody gives a damn that those kids are kidnapped for ransom by gangs, raped by coyotes, criminals, pedophile rings etc. in Mexico...

a reply to: JBurns

No but it is an official policy to jail people I The first place..

An official policy trump changed to zero tolerance.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: JBurns

No but it is an official policy to jail people I The first place..

An official policy trump changed to zero tolerance.

People committing illegal acts should not go to jail ?

a reply to: JBurns

And anyone who would drag thier kids thru an
Illegal border crossing, should be seperated
from them.

The kids prolly hate thier dumb asses any
way.

Why the hell would I want my children to go to jail with me if I committed a crime. I would prefer my children be in a safe place, but hey I'm just a hillbilly.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: JBurns

No but it is an official policy to jail people I The first place..

An official policy trump changed to zero tolerance.

Did they not jail offenders before Trump? I wasn't aware that he could erect jails and staff them so quickly into his presidency all without anyone noticing.

I bet he wants to put "lasers" on the frickin sharks too.

originally posted by: Plotus
Such a simple concept really... Commit a criminal act, go to jail or holding facility. Kids don't follow.





a reply to: JBurns

Simple, except some people need an election issue to campaign on and something to get gullible people to donate to them.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation.

Suppose a very authoritarian Democrat became the Governor of Alabama, Kansas or maybe Louisiana; a State where anti-sodomy laws are still in effect, even though they have been federally banned.

And let's suppose that Democrat governor instructed the police to arrest all people who are of the same sex, male, and are in a relationship, who are engaged in sodomy. At the same time because the couples are arrested, any children they may have or have adopted are also detained, albeit separately -- we don't want to arrest children, right? So, we'll separate them and detain them by themselves. Not arrest, detain. Different words.

The citizens are not only against the enactment of some archaic law, they are outraged that the government would arrest people for it and then separate children from their parents.

The governor can't believe this is happening and says it's not his fault, the Republicans wrote the anti-sodomy bill.



This is more similar than it's dissimilar from what is going on today. Yes, there was a bill for keeping children separate from those arrested but no one was engaged in zero tolerance until now either, were they?

originally posted by: Kharron
Let's look at a hypothetical situation.

Suppose a very authoritarian Democrat became the Governor of Alabama, Kansas or maybe Louisiana; a State where anti-sodomy laws are still in effect, even though they have been federally banned.

And let's suppose that Democrat governor instructed the police to arrest all people who are of the same sex, male, and are in a relationship, who are engaged in sodomy. At the same time because the couples are arrested, any children they may have or have adopted are also detained, albeit separately -- we don't want to arrest children, right? So, we'll separate them and detain them by themselves. Not arrest, detain. Different words.

The citizens are not only against the enactment of some archaic law, they are outraged that the government would arrest people for it and then separate children from their parents.

The governor can't believe this is happening and says it's not his fault, the Republicans wrote the anti-sodomy bill.



This is more similar than it's dissimilar from what is going on today. Yes, there was a bill for keeping children separate from those arrested but no one was engaged in zero tolerance until now either, were they?

The answer in both this real world scenario and in your hypothetical scenario is to change the law. No one is exempt from a law they find archaic or stupid. That's the slipperiest slippery slope I've ever heard of.

a reply to: face23785

But it does not have to be enforced either, does it? If it's been a choice for all other admins, or a situation has never arisen for it to be an issue... why does it become an issue for this one suddenly? What changed?

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: face23785

But it does not have to be enforced either, does it? If it's been a choice for all other admins, or a situation has never arisen for it to be an issue... why does it become an issue for this one suddenly? What changed?

If you change the law you don't have to worry about whether it's enforced or not. Why is it suddenly an issue that it's "enforced more" when it was enforced before and nobody cared. Separating x many children is okay, but 2x is not? That a strange form of morality.

Sounds more like people just needed something to run on for the midterms.

a reply to: JBurns

The answer is simple.

Abolish laws.

It's for the children.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: face23785

But it does not have to be enforced either, does it? If it's been a choice for all other admins, or a situation has never arisen for it to be an issue... why does it become an issue for this one suddenly? What changed?

If you change the law you don't have to worry about whether it's enforced or not. Why is it suddenly an issue that it's "enforced more" when it was enforced before and nobody cared. Separating x many children is okay, but 2x is not? That a strange form of morality.

Sounds more like people just needed something to run on for the midterms.

I agree with you, the laws should be changed but until they are, they should not be used as an excuse to perform such deeds.

If one thinks they should be changed, then don't engage in them -- that's a choice. No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to enact zero tolerance and then to separate thousands of children, as per some law that never caused such issues before.

Besides, I think these facilities may have been equipped to deal with an occasional detained child, but I bet there is a big difference with having a child with a social worker, one on one... and a hundred children per social worker, with armed guards. Not letting senators in.

A bit different.

Don’t commit crimes with your children. I always assumed this was a common sentiment, but given that people would prefer detaining families together, I’m not so sure.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: face23785

But it does not have to be enforced either, does it? If it's been a choice for all other admins, or a situation has never arisen for it to be an issue... why does it become an issue for this one suddenly? What changed?

If you change the law you don't have to worry about whether it's enforced or not. Why is it suddenly an issue that it's "enforced more" when it was enforced before and nobody cared. Separating x many children is okay, but 2x is not? That a strange form of morality.

Sounds more like people just needed something to run on for the midterms.

I agree with you, the laws should be changed but until they are, they should not be used as an excuse to perform such deeds.

If one thinks they should be changed, then don't engage in them -- that's a choice. No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to enact zero tolerance and then to separate thousands of children, as per some law that never caused such issues before.

Besides, I think these facilities may have been equipped to deal with an occasional detained child, but I bet there is a big difference with having a child with a social worker, one on one... and a hundred children per social worker, with armed guards. Not letting senators in.

A bit different.

No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to break US law either. Any consequence of that is on them. No one is holding a gun to the government's head and forcing them to separate you from your children if you commit embezzlement either. You can tug on people's heart strings about how you were just taking money from greedy corporations and they have more than enough money anyway so your children shouldn't have to suffer so those 1 percenters can keep more of their money, and some people may buy that argument. So now you're exempt from that law. Maybe I want to be exempt from a different law because I've got a sad story too.

Where does it end?

No, sorry. How about, until the law is changed, having children shouldn't be used as an excuse to break the law? No one has room to complain for being prosecuted. This isn't the #ing Wild West.

People committing illegal acts should not go to jail ?

So when you speed should you go to jail?

It's a stupid argument, you don't prosecute refugees, you either admit them, reject them or put them in camps but criminal prosecution is just stupid and pointless.

Pretty much everyone in the Trump campaign and administration are criminals, why aren't you calling for them to be prosecuted??

a reply to: CB328

In Arizona if you speed more than 20 mph over the limit you are booked into jail on the misdemeanor charge of criminal speeding. If you have children with you , then you can have relatives get them until you are released. If nobody can get them they are placed in CPS custody.