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

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

Observe these headlines:


G.O.P. Moves to End Trump’s Family Separation Policy, but Can’t Agree How – New York Times

Here Are the Facts About President Trump's Family Separation Policy – Time

Anger mounts against Trump over child separation policy – Al Jazeera

Trump's child separation policy is offensive to human dignity and the ideals of America – NBC News

Governors Refuse to Send National Guard to Border, Citing Trump’s Child Separation Policy – New York Times


No wonder Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen felt it necessary to tweet that the administration does not have “a policy of separating families at the border”, because the media is telling a different story.

Attorney General Sessions’ policy is stated explicitly:

“Accordingly, I direct each United States Attorney's Office along the Southwest Border­ to the extent practicable, and in consultation with D H S - to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy for all offenses referred for prosecution under section 1325(a).”

Despite this, the WaPo “fact-checkers” took issue with Nielsen’s statement for the following reason:

“This is Orwellian stuff. Granted, the administration has not written regulations or policy documents that advertise, “Hey, we’re going to separate families.” But that’s the inevitable consequence, as Nielsen and other Trump administration officials acknowledge.”

The Facts About Trump’s Policy of Separating Families at the Border

Orwellian stuff? What about the illegals without children? I suppose they are unaffected by this “child separation policy” given that they have no child?

Hell, if we are to name policies according to their “inevitable consequences”, then any policy regarding criminal law can be called a “child separation policy”, based on the fact that criminals aren’t thrown in prison with their children. Or, since the inevitable consequences of the previous immigration policies seemed to end up with children detained with their mothers, we should call that policy the “detain mothers and their children policy”. Hey, it’s the inevitable consequences, after all!

No; being separated from your family is the inevitable consequence of being thrown in jail. Being thrown in jail is the inevitable consequence of being busted for a federal crime. There is no “child separation policy”. It’s only that these self-proclaimed “fact checkers” and partisan journos, and all those tasked with informing the public, have chosen to blatantly misinform the public for reasons of propaganda.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think I know a way to end this. Just present the document showing that Trump ordered this, and it's over. If that document can't be shown, does it exist? and if not, then what does that ultimately mean?

The problem stems from the fact that even asylum seekers are being apprehended as criminals and being separated from their children. Then when the government finally gets around to granting asylum they still won't return the children.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The problem stems from the fact that even asylum seekers are being apprehended as criminals and being separated from their children. Then when the government finally gets around to granting asylum they still won't return the children.

Asylum seekers aren't granted immunity from federal law. Legal asylum seekers are not separated from their children

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

nymag.com...

Walks like a duck.

Talks like a duck.

According to the New York Times, White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller was “instrumental” in convincing the president to enact the policy, which applies a zero tolerance approach to prosecuting undocumented immigrants caught entering the U.S. — even if that means taking children away from their parents in the process.

a reply to: grey580

Zero tolerance to those who break federal law. I've never heard such a thing in my life...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So Ms. L, a legal asylum seeker, wasn't separated from her child for four months? The only reason she was reunited with her child is because she filed a lawsuit against the government.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yeah. Normally they stick those guys in ski resorts.

Or just let them off with a slap on the wrist.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think I know a way to end this. Just present the document showing that Trump ordered this, and it's over. If that document can't be shown, does it exist? and if not, then what does that ultimately mean?

I suppose it would mean all of this outrage was simply manufactured to give the media a distraction to push (and keep potus busy) while the deep state covers their ass on something that should be on the tip of the tongue for every american.

Let's see... could it be the super sketchy stuff that started to get exposed last week with the FBI?
Could it be something more sinister?

Maybe the fat cats in the sketchy media business are just really pissed off about all the pedos going to jail recently, and need a way to allow more human traffickers into the country to get themselves some fresh meat.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

So Ms. L, a legal asylum seeker, wasn't separated from her child for four months? The only reason she was reunited with her child is because she filed a lawsuit against the government.

Anyone who enters the country legally should not be thrown in jail, as they committed no crime.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yeah. Normally they stick those guys in ski resorts.

Or just let them off with a slap on the wrist.

Apparently we should just tolerate their law breaking.

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.

originally posted by: grey580


Walks like a duck.

Talks like a duck.

According to the New York Times, White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller was “instrumental” in convincing the president to enact the policy, which applies a zero tolerance approach to prosecuting undocumented immigrants caught entering the U.S. — even if that means taking children away from their parents in the process.

The 9th circuit ruled on this years ago and said that if the parents were being deported, the child would have to be separated. What does this have to do with Trump?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

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

Then why did Trump flipflop with an EO to stop separating families? Politics?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

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.

Then rightfully so. The zero tolerance policy only applies to those who break 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a).

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

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

Then why did Trump flipflop with an EO to stop separating families? Politics?

Because he has a heart.

a reply to: lordcomac

Yes. That's exactly what it is.

In the Oversight Committee hearing yesterday when they were interviewing Horowitz, every Democrat rep only wanted to talk about immigration. One of them said that his constituents want him to talk about the children, not about the FBI. Yeah... I'm sure they do. If they do it's because the media told them so.

It's not even just the public they want to distract. They want Congress, the Administration, and everyone to look the other way.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

" asylum seekers are being apprehended as criminals "


No , they are Illegal Immigrants Invading the United States and being apprehended by U.S. Law ..Duh ?

What we now know is: the media is blatantly lying to the public about this issue, and their lies are leading to a growing discontent among those who cannot look beyond the media.

a reply to: olaru12

Families were not separated because of Trump. They were separated because of Congress and the Courts. Trump did not make the law.

His EO is a last chance attempt to fix it, after he has been bugging Congress for months to fix the immigration laws.