• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Trump Signs Executive Order To Stop Family Separations At Border

rokkerkory

Member
Sep 2, 2013
16,509
617
490
Now there is mass confusion on how kids can be re-united with their families. No clear process in place or way to track the kids to their families. Smh
 

WaterAstro

Member
Oct 27, 2015
8,857
1,686
500
Trump probably thinks he can sign an Executive Order and everything gets magically done.
 

BANGS

Banned
Dec 13, 2016
3,957
1,643
440
he started this
He really didn't. It's amazing how uninformed people get so passionate about things they aren't passionate enough to research...

Bill Clinton started this, Trump finished it. Do your research...
 

natjjohn

Member
Oct 15, 2007
1,021
284
1,370
He really didn't. It's amazing how uninformed people get so passionate about things they aren't passionate enough to research...

Bill Clinton started this, Trump finished it. Do your research...

LOL. The bubble is strong. Always amazes me.
 

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
Nov 23, 2015
31,114
139
475
New Jersey
Wondering what is the issue with building a Wall between US and Mexico outside of cost?

It's generally a dumb idea for a variety of reasons, many of which don't even have to deal with politics.
He really didn't. It's amazing how uninformed people get so passionate about things they aren't passionate enough to research...

Bill Clinton started this, Trump finished it. Do your research...

Trump didn't have to finish this, let alone in this manner.
 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,152
51,440
1,215
It's generally a dumb idea for a variety of reasons, many of which don't even have to deal with politics.

Why is it dumb? Lots of countries have built border walls/fences.

If we took cost out of it, what are the negatives to building the border wall? Serious question since I am not from the USA.
 

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
Nov 23, 2015
31,114
139
475
New Jersey
Why is it dumb? Lots of countries have built border walls/fences.

If we took cost out of it, what are the negatives to building the border wall? Serious question since I am not from the USA.

The border is HUGE and much of it is land is inaccessible or terrible for any kind of large scale construction be it a huge mountain range to swamp lands. Not too mention much of these inhospitable areas have no infrastructure to even reach them let alone support a massive wall construction job. Then there is manning and maintaining the wall or the fact that it would run through several Native American reserves who want nothing to do with it. We can't even fix our already well established pieces of infrastructure like our ancient power grid or our railways.

There are a multitude of reasons to avoid a wall and far better ways to deal with issue than the quagmire that building a border wall would result in.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,152
51,440
1,215
The border is HUGE and much of it is land is inaccessible or terrible for any kind of large scale construction be it a huge mountain range to swamp lands. Not too mention much of these inhospitable areas have no infrastructure to even reach them let alone support a massive wall construction job. Then there is manning and maintaining the wall or the fact that it would run through several Native American reserves who want nothing to do with it. We can't even fix our already well established pieces of infrastructure like our ancient power grid or our railways.

There are a multitude of reasons to avoid a wall and far better ways to deal with issue than the quagmire that building a border wall would result in.

So essentially its just to difficult of a project to complete due to geography.

A lot of other nations have border walls/fences, but then a lot of other nations don't have a huge border like the US.
 

BANGS

Banned
Dec 13, 2016
3,957
1,643
440
So essentially its just to difficult of a project to complete due to geography.

A lot of other nations have border walls/fences, but then a lot of other nations don't have a huge border like the US.
Yeah, it's just not viable and will cause more problems than it solves...
 

King of Foxes

Banned
Jan 9, 2018
3,292
7,552
720
Latvia
https://nypost.com/2018/06/22/father-says-crying-toddler-in-photo-wasnt-separated-from-mother/

The sobbing Honduran toddler in a pink jacket — whose photo was placed alongside an image of President Donald Trump for an upcoming Time magazine cover — wasn’t actually separated from her mother, her father said.

 

cryptoadam

Banned
Feb 21, 2018
24,152
51,440
1,215

The media is manipulative but I don't thing this changes the underlying fact that it is cruel to throw kids in cages and separate them from their guardians for days and or months. We are talking about children here.

Obviously the USA can't take in everyone who shows up at their door step, and I can't imagine how hard it is to manage thousands of children and provide them with the best of the best. But a better solution needs to be found, one that treats these kids as humans. Its a tough spot because you want to have a form of deterrence but you can't cross the line either.

I think I read here that most of these children were actually not separated from anyone but actually showed up on their own is there any validity to that?
 

BANGS

Banned
Dec 13, 2016
3,957
1,643
440
The media is manipulative but I don't thing this changes the underlying fact that it is cruel to throw kids in cages and separate them from their guardians for days and or months. We are talking about children here.

Obviously the USA can't take in everyone who shows up at their door step, and I can't imagine how hard it is to manage thousands of children and provide them with the best of the best. But a better solution needs to be found, one that treats these kids as humans. Its a tough spot because you want to have a form of deterrence but you can't cross the line either.

I think I read here that most of these children were actually not separated from anyone but actually showed up on their own is there any validity to that?
There is no humane solution. Either you lock them up, or you tell them turn around at gun point and walk back to Mexico. There's really no way to handle it properly...

After trekking through mexico in dangerous territory, a quick vacation in the slammer can't be that bad. At least they're safe and well fed and everything. It's honestly the best we can do given the circumstances...
 

rokkerkory

Member
Sep 2, 2013
16,509
617
490
We need to work with these countries to build up their economies and other opportunities so that these families have a future in their own countries. That's the only long term solution. One good thing about NAFTA was that some of the economies in these countries got better and provided means for these families.
 

natjjohn

Member
Oct 15, 2007
1,021
284
1,370
What bubble is that? Can you actually refute the facts or are you just trolling?

Been debunked so many, many times by myself and others. Gets tiring when even when pointed out, the goal post simply moves to something else that then is refuted, and whoa, goal post is moving again. Exhausting!
 

WaterAstro

Member
Oct 27, 2015
8,857
1,686
500
Why is it dumb? Lots of countries have built border walls/fences.

If we took cost out of it, what are the negatives to building the border wall? Serious question since I am not from the USA.
Money.

And a wall actually doesn't stop anything. They will still find a way through.
 

BANGS

Banned
Dec 13, 2016
3,957
1,643
440
Been debunked so many, many times by myself and others. Gets tiring when even when pointed out, the goal post simply moves to something else that then is refuted, and whoa, goal post is moving again. Exhausting!
Real convincing... Facts are facts you can't debunk them...
 

JCK75

Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,742
1,801
475
Trump started this whole debacle after his many other failed attempts at getting the funding for his wall. The White House has been fairly blunt about this. Schumer is responding to a problem that Trump and his cronies created for themselves and are now trying to pass the buck after this blew up in their faces. He isn't obliged to just slap his signature on some solution that will be rail roaded through and might cause even worse problems as Trump and the GOP scramble to clean up their mess in a slap dash matter. They wouldn't be back pedaling this hard this fast if they thought they could ride this out or use it to their advantage

Again I can point to specific rulings that are being applied now, you're not pointing to anything except your opinion..
Zero Tolerance is not a new policy, it means we are going to actually enforce the existing law and detain people who cross illegally, if detained a child was removed because of the 2016 ruling, now the child will go back to being detained with the parent. These centers are still going to be filled with Children because the vast majority are crossing without an adult being with them.

Most of the time a parent is already here illegally and a child as young as 6 years of age crosses over by himself, he is eventually processed and reunited with his parent in the US.. now if I moved to Canada and instructed my almost 6 year old son to just walk up there and meet me, do you think I'm going to get custody of my child back? it's actually quite insane and if you actually care about kids you want these people to stop putting them into these horrible situations (because the trip is the real horror, not the detainment at the end). If they are seeking asylum they can do so at any Border station and not be separated from their kids.
 

natjjohn

Member
Oct 15, 2007
1,021
284
1,370
Real convincing... Facts are facts you can't debunk them...

Let me know when you post some.

Here you go though with a couple articles clearly laying out the fact this was a Trump policy through and through.

http://time.com/5314769/family-separation-policy-donald-trump/


President Donald Trump continues to falsely blame Democrats for an administration policy that has led to more than 2,000 children being separated from their parents at the U.S. border.

Speaking at a White House event on space Monday morning, Trump again said that the policy is “the Democrats’ fault” because they will not work with Republicans to revise immigration laws.

The family separations began earlier this year after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new “zero tolerance” policy of referring all border crossings for federal criminal prosecution, which leads to children being separated as their parents are sent to jail.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/family-separation-trump.html

Almost immediately after President Trump took office, his administration began weighing what for years had been regarded as the nuclear option in the effort to discourage immigrants from unlawfully entering the United States.

Children would be separated from their parents if the families had been apprehended entering the country illegally, John F. Kelly, then the homeland security secretary, said in March 2017, “in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network.”

For more than a decade, even as illegal immigration levels fell overall, seasonal spikes in unauthorized border crossings had bedeviled American presidents in both political parties, prompting them to cast about for increasingly aggressive ways to discourage migrants from making the trek.

Yet for George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the idea of crying children torn from their parents’ arms was simply too inhumane — and too politically perilous — to embrace as policy, and Mr. Trump, though he had made an immigration crackdown one of the central issues of his campaign, succumbed to the same reality, publicly dropping the idea after Mr. Kelly’s comments touched off a swift backlash.

But advocates inside the administration, most prominently Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s senior policy adviser, never gave up on the idea. Last month, facing a sharp uptick in illegal border crossings, Mr. Trump ordered a new effort to criminally prosecute anyone who crossed the border unlawfully — with few exceptions for parents traveling with their minor children.

And now Mr. Trump faces the consequences. With thousands of children detained in makeshift shelters, his spokesmen this past week had to deny accusations that the administration was acting like Nazis. Even evangelical supporters like Franklin Graham said its policy was “disgraceful.”

Among those who have professed objections to the policy is the president himself, who despite his tough rhetoric on immigration and his clear directive to show no mercy in enforcing the law, has searched publicly for someone else to blamefor dividing families. He has falsely claimed that Democrats are responsible for the practice. But the kind of pictures so feared by Mr. Trump’s predecessors could end up defining a major domestic policy issue of his term.

Inside the Trump administration, current and former officials say, there is considerable unease about the policy, which is regarded by some charged with carrying it out as unfeasible in practice and questionable morally. Kirstjen Nielsen, the current homeland security secretary, has clashed privately with Mr. Trump over the practice, sometimes inviting furious lectures from the president that have pushed her to the brink of resignation.

But Mr. Miller has expressed none of the president’s misgivings. “No nation can have the policy that whole classes of people are immune from immigration law or enforcement,” he said during an interview in his West Wing office this past week. “It was a simple decision by the administration to have a zero tolerance policy for illegal entry, period. The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law.”

The administration’s critics are not buying that explanation. “This is not a zero tolerance policy, this is a zero humanity policy, and we can’t let it go on,” said Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon.

“Ripping children out of their parents’ arms to inflict harm on the child to influence the parents,” he added, “is unacceptable.”

Beyond those moral objections, Jeh C. Johnson, who as secretary of homeland security was the point man for the Obama administration’s own struggles with illegal immigration, argued that deterrence, in and of itself, is neither practical nor a long-term solution to the problem.

“I’ve seen this movie before, and I feel like what we are doing now, with the zero tolerance policy and separating parents and children for the purpose of deterrence, is banging our heads against the wall,” he said. “Whether it’s family detention, messaging about dangers of the journey, or messaging about separating families and zero tolerance, it’s always going to have at best a short-term reaction.”

And that view was based on hard experience.

When Central American migrants, including many unaccompanied children, began surging across the border in early 2014, Mr. Obama, the antithesis of his impulsive successor, had his own characteristic reaction: He formed a multiagency team at the White House to figure out what should be done.

“This was the bane of my existence for three years,” Mr. Johnson said. “No matter what you did, somebody was going to be very angry at you.”

The officials met in the office of Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff, and convened a series of meetings in the Situation Room to go through their options. Migrants were increasingly exploiting existing immigration laws and court rulings, and using children as a way to get adults into the country, on the theory that families were being treated differently from single people.

“The agencies were surfacing every possible idea,” Cecilia Muñoz, Mr. Obama’s top domestic policy adviser, recalled, including whether to separate parents from their children. “I do remember looking at each other like, ‘We’re not going to do this, are we?’ We spent five minutes thinking it through and concluded that it was a bad idea. The morality of it was clear — that’s not who we are.”

They did, however, decide to vastly expand the detention of immigrant families, opening new facilities along the border where women and young children were held for long periods while they awaited a chance to have their cases processed.

Mr. Johnson wrote an open letter to appear in Spanish-language news outlets warning parents that their children would be deported if they entered the United States illegally. He traveled to Guatemala to deliver the message in person. Opening a large family immigration detention facility in Dilley, Tex., he held a news conference to showcase what he called an “effective deterrent.”

The steps led to just the kind of brutal images that Mr. Obama’s advisers feared: hundreds of young children, many dirty and some in tears, who were being held with their families in makeshift detention facilities.

Immigrant advocacy groups denounced the policy, berating senior administration officials — some of whom were reduced to rueful apologies for a policy they said they could not justify — and telling Mr. Obama to his face during a meeting at the White House in late 2014 that he was turning his back on the most vulnerable people seeking refuge in the United States.

“I was pissed, and still am,” said Ben Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “I thought that he had a shocking disregard for due process.”

Before long, the Obama administration would face legal challenges, and be forced to stop detaining families indefinitely. A federal judge in Washington ordered the administration in 2015 to stop detaining asylum-seeking Central American mothers and children in order to deter others from their region from coming into the United States.

Under a 1997 consent decree known as the Flores settlement, unaccompanied children could be held in immigration detention for only a short period of time; in 2016, a federal judge ruled that the settlement applied to families as well, effectively requiring that they be released within 20 days. Many were released — some with GPS ankle bracelets to track their movements — and asked to return for a court date sometime in the future.

It was Mr. Bush, who had firsthand experience with the border as governor of Texas and ran for president as a “compassionate conservative,” who initiated the “zero tolerance” approach for illegal immigration on which Mr. Trump’s policy is modeled.

In 2005, he launched Operation Streamline, a program along a stretch of the border in Texas that referred all unlawful entrants for criminal prosecution, imprisoning them and expediting assembly-line-style trials geared toward quickly deporting them. The initiative yielded results and was soon expanded to more border sectors. Back then, however, exceptions were generally made for adults who were traveling with minor children, as well as juveniles and people who were ill.

Mr. Obama’s administration employed the program at the height of the migration crisis as well, although it generally did not treat first-time border crossers as priorities for prosecution, and it detained families together in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody — administrative, rather than criminal, detention.

Discussions began almost immediately after Mr. Trump took office about vastly expanding Operation Streamline, with almost none of those limitations. Even after Mr. Kelly stopped talking publicly about family separation, the Department of Homeland Security quietly tested the approach last summer in certain areas in Texas.

Privately, Mr. Miller argued that bringing back “zero tolerance” would be a potent tool in a severely limited arsenal of strategies for stopping migrants from flooding across the border.

The idea was to end a practice referred to by its detractors as “catch and release,” in which illegal immigrants apprehended at the border are released into the interior of the United States to await the processing of their cases. Mr. Miller argued that the policy provided a perverse incentive for migrants, essentially ensuring that if they could make it to the United States border and claim a “credible fear” of returning home, they would be given a chance to stay under asylum laws, at least temporarily.

A lengthy backlog of asylum claims made it likely that it would be years before they would have to appear before a judge to back up that plea — and many never returned to do so.

The situation was even more complicated when children were involved. A 2008 law meant to combat the trafficking of minors places strict requirements on how unaccompanied migrant children from Central America are to be treated.

Minors from Mexico or Canada — countries contiguous with the United States — can be quickly sent back to their home countries unless it is deemed dangerous to do so. But those from other nations cannot be quickly returned; they must be transferred within 72 hours to the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services, and placed in the least restrictive setting possible. And the Flores ruling meant that children and families could not be held for more than 20 days.

In October, after Mr. Trump ended Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program that gave legal status to undocumented immigrants raised in the United States, Mr. Miller insisted that any legislative package to codify those protections contain changes to close what he called the loopholes encouraging illegal immigrants to come.

told NPR in May. “The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever — but the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States, and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long.”

Technically, there is no Trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children. But the “zero tolerance policy” results in unlawful immigrants being taken into federal criminal custody, at which point their children are considered unaccompanied alien minors and taken away.

Unlike Mr. Obama’s administration, Mr. Trump’s is treating all people who have crossed the border without authorization as subject to criminal prosecution, even if they tell the officer apprehending them that they are seeking asylum based on fear of returning to their home country, and whether or not they have their children in tow.

“Having children does not give you immunity from arrest and prosecution,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a speech on Thursday in Fort Wayne, Ind.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13 to obey the laws of the government,” said Mr. Sessions, quoting Bible verse as he took exception to evangelical leaders who have called the practice abhorrent. “Because God has ordained them for the purpose of order.”

A big name of the game is deterrence,” Mr. Kelly, now the chief of staff, told NPR in May. “The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever — but the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States, and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long.”


What typically happens next is someone posts something that changes the argument to something else, posts links to other situations that are not the same (which then has to be pointed out), says well they should go through the legal channels (those have been blocked so family has no access to food/water after being barred access to those channels), etc.
 
Last edited:

Naudi

Banned
May 9, 2012
968
63
0
Does anyone have a running list of things cheeto in chief has broken on purpose only to blame the Democrats/Obama and said he can't fix it, then do a u turn a week later and fix it? Cheeto really is pretty dumb.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,097
2,009
1,410
Trump told Republicans to dump immigration until after mid-terms. What chaotic leadership.
 

Vangelis

Banned
Jun 10, 2018
22
13
0
Stupid move. You commit a crime and your kids get split up. Liberals think we should just allow these people to take over our country. They bring nothing to the table, contribute nothing but, crime and a source of free labor for corporations. You people rally on against slavery but, are fully accepting of illegals being used as slave labor. Smh.
 

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,848
3,457
760
"Zero tolerance" isn't a "policy". It means actually enforcing the law on the books.

Obama faced the same conundrum Trump did but he decided to not enforce the laws and just "catch them and release them".
 
Last edited:

Dev1lXYZ

Member
Sep 1, 2017
1,396
1,670
490
I'm becoming largely apolitical since everything's a 24/7 broken record game of stupidity, so "seems like things got less shitty than they were yesterday as far as policy? thumbs up?" is about it from here, yeah. The rest is noise about assigning blame blindly according to your team and turning the people this policy affects into superficial political pawns to either victimize or demonize according to your agenda. No. They're human beings with complex motives that are individual to each family, and the children involved are not making any of the decisions either way; stop dehumanizing people into victims OR Othering them as scary criminal invaders. Try actually thinking of everyone as a fellow human being for a change -- they are -- and go from there.


I used to think like you when I was younger. It’s a noble pipe dream until you realize that the rest of the world will never think like that. There are two paths from that point: you can sit things out or you can make compromises and try to align yourself with a side that you believe will do less damage and still uphold some of what you believed in. They are not ever going to be perfect either way and in the end, some one is going to suffer some indiscretion.
 

BANGS

Banned
Dec 13, 2016
3,957
1,643
440
Here you go though with a couple articles clearly laying out the fact this was a Trump policy through and through.
None of that debunks the fact that Clinton started this by signing the law stating we can separate children from their parents at the border and lock them in cages... I'm sorry you wasted all that time trying...
 

natjjohn

Member
Oct 15, 2007
1,021
284
1,370
None of that debunks the fact that Clinton started this by signing the law stating we can separate children from their parents at the border and lock them in cages... I'm sorry you wasted all that time trying...

Like clockwork. Every time.
 

natjjohn

Member
Oct 15, 2007
1,021
284
1,370
You completely tapping out of a nonsense debate you started? Doesn't surprise me...

I’ve won the debate.

Where are your facts (receipts) for your claim? Based on your logic, Trump is now breaking the law by ending his family separation policy. Should Trump be impeached for this flagrant law breaking?
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
28,669
71,645
2,475
I used to think like you when I was younger. It’s a noble pipe dream until you realize that the rest of the world will never think like that. There are two paths from that point: you can sit things out or you can make compromises and try to align yourself with a side that you believe will do less damage and still uphold some of what you believed in. They are not ever going to be perfect either way and in the end, some one is going to suffer some indiscretion.

I used to think like you when I was younger. It's my professional responsibility not to allow myself to.
 

Naudi

Banned
May 9, 2012
968
63
0
Stupid move. You commit a crime and your kids get split up. Liberals think we should just allow these people to take over our country. They bring nothing to the table, contribute nothing but, crime and a source of free labor for corporations. You people rally on against slavery but, are fully accepting of illegals being used as slave labor. Smh.

Ouch. I would rather them here then you. With an "opinion" like this I say you bring nothing to the table. America has and will always be compassionate toward migrants. If you don't like that maybe you should find somewhere else to live.
 

BANGS

Banned
Dec 13, 2016
3,957
1,643
440
I’ve won the debate.
Cute... but that's not how it works. You don't just say it and it happens...

Where are your facts (receipts) for your claim?
https://www.heritage.org/immigratio...lien-kids-their-parents-many-people-not-trump

In 1997, the Clinton administration entered into a settlement agreement in Flores v. Reno, a lawsuit filed in federal court in California by pro-illegal immigration advocacy groups challenging the detention of juvenile aliens taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The Clinton administration agreed to settle this litigation despite the fact the Supreme Court had upheld the Immigration and Naturalization Service regulation that provided for the release of minors only to their parents, close relatives, or legal guardians.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the Flores agreement allows the agency to detain unaccompanied minors for only “20 days before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services which places the minors in foster or shelter situations until they locate a sponsor.”

But in a controversial decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the most liberal in the country, has interpreted the settlement agreement to apply to “both minors who are accompanied and unaccompanied by their parents.”

In other words, it is the 9th Circuit’s misinterpretation of the Clinton administration’s settlement agreement that doesn’t allow juvenile aliens to stay with their parents who have been detained for unlawful entry into the country.


Based on your logic, Trump is now breaking the law by ending his family separation policy. Should Trump be impeached for this flagrant law breaking?
He issued an executive order. I'm not gonna pretend I understand how the legality of it works. If it is illegal, that's up to congress to decide if they'd like to move forward with impeachment, not me and "my logic" of stating facts...
 

natjjohn

Member
Oct 15, 2007
1,021
284
1,370
Cute... but that's not how it works. You don't just say it and it happens...


https://www.heritage.org/immigratio...lien-kids-their-parents-many-people-not-trump

In 1997, the Clinton administration entered into a settlement agreement in Flores v. Reno, a lawsuit filed in federal court in California by pro-illegal immigration advocacy groups challenging the detention of juvenile aliens taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The Clinton administration agreed to settle this litigation despite the fact the Supreme Court had upheld the Immigration and Naturalization Service regulation that provided for the release of minors only to their parents, close relatives, or legal guardians.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the Flores agreement allows the agency to detain unaccompanied minors for only “20 days before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services which places the minors in foster or shelter situations until they locate a sponsor.”

But in a controversial decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the most liberal in the country, has interpreted the settlement agreement to apply to “both minors who are accompanied and unaccompanied by their parents.”

In other words, it is the 9th Circuit’s misinterpretation of the Clinton administration’s settlement agreement that doesn’t allow juvenile aliens to stay with their parents who have been detained for unlawful entry into the country.


He issued an executive order. I'm not gonna pretend I understand how the legality of it works. If it is illegal, that's up to congress to decide if they'd like to move forward with impeachment, not me and "my logic" of stating facts...

Again, these claims keep popping up and are just wrong. No law or court order mandated Trump’s policy of removing children from their parents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/

The president and top administration officials say U.S. laws or court rulings are forcing them to separate families that are caught trying to cross the southern border.
These claims are false. Immigrant families are being separated primarily because the Trump administration in April began to prosecute as many border-crossing offenses as possible. This “zero-tolerance policy” applies to all adults, regardless of whether they cross alone or with their children.
The Justice Department can’t prosecute children along with their parents, so the natural result of the zero-tolerance policy has been a sharp rise in family separations. Nearly 2,000 immigrant children were separated from parents during six weeks in April and May, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
The Trump administration implemented this policy by choice and could end it by choice. No law or court ruling mandates family separations. In fact, during its first 15 months, the Trump administration released nearly 100,000 immigrants who were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, a total that includes more than 37,500 unaccompanied minors and more than 61,000 family members.
 

BANGS

Banned
Dec 13, 2016
3,957
1,643
440
Again, these claims keep popping up and are just wrong. No law or court order mandated Trump’s policy of removing children from their parents.

What typically happens next is someone posts something that changes the argument to something else
Like clockwork...

I said Clinton started it, and proved he did. End of story. You have your facts. Don't deflect...
 

natjjohn

Member
Oct 15, 2007
1,021
284
1,370
Like clockwork...

I said Clinton started it, and proved he did. End of story. You have your facts. Don't deflect...

You post didn’t prove he started Trump’s policy. Trump started his policy, and then ended when arguments like yours weren’t winning folks over except a small minority of people.

Clinton didn’t do mass separation of children from parents. Bush didn’t do mass separation of children from parents. Obama didn’t do mass separation of children from parents.

Trump did mass separation of children from parents. Trump’s policy through and through that again, he ran away from when his and his admin’s talking points were only convincing the most ardent of his supporters like the Heritage foundation.
 

404Ender

Member
Jun 17, 2006
3,839
300
1,535
Cute... but that's not how it works. You don't just say it and it happens...


https://www.heritage.org/immigratio...lien-kids-their-parents-many-people-not-trump

In 1997, the Clinton administration entered into a settlement agreement in Flores v. Reno, a lawsuit filed in federal court in California by pro-illegal immigration advocacy groups challenging the detention of juvenile aliens taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The Clinton administration agreed to settle this litigation despite the fact the Supreme Court had upheld the Immigration and Naturalization Service regulation that provided for the release of minors only to their parents, close relatives, or legal guardians.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the Flores agreement allows the agency to detain unaccompanied minors for only “20 days before releasing them to the Department of Health and Human Services which places the minors in foster or shelter situations until they locate a sponsor.”

But in a controversial decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the most liberal in the country, has interpreted the settlement agreement to apply to “both minors who are accompanied and unaccompanied by their parents.”

In other words, it is the 9th Circuit’s misinterpretation of the Clinton administration’s settlement agreement that doesn’t allow juvenile aliens to stay with their parents who have been detained for unlawful entry into the country.


He issued an executive order. I'm not gonna pretend I understand how the legality of it works. If it is illegal, that's up to congress to decide if they'd like to move forward with impeachment, not me and "my logic" of stating facts...

Key word there is that it allows the agency to detain accompanied minors. Clinton's, Bush's and Obama's policies were not to do that very often. Trump and Sessions decided to go full zero tolerance and make it their policy to separate children from their families most of the time.

They were allowed to do so, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do, nor does it exempt them from moral judgement or complaints from the American people.
 
Last edited:

Future

Member
Aug 5, 2004
9,452
151
1,305
Like clockwork...

I said Clinton started it, and proved he did. End of story. You have your facts. Don't deflect...

You never heard this child separation from Obama’s cuz he didn’t do it, probably because it’s a callous and terrible thing to do

Trump starting doing it, trying to blame the democrats like you are for allowing him to do it, when the reality is he never had to do it at all. If you are trying to win an argument where he isn’t responsible you will lose, because he is entirely responsible for what’s happening now. If you are trying to say that the law wasn’t made by him and that he is some victim of circumstance based on a law he didn’t create, then sure man. You win. But you’ve lost the war.

The hilarious part is trumps executive order is undoing what people are desperately trying to defend anyway, so now I’m not even sure what the argument is even about. Because left or right if you’ve ever seen a young child you KNOW that separating them from the only adults they trust is callous and terrible, even for someone like trump that tries to maintain this hardline stance on everything immigration. And that decent human beings that aren’t pure assholes with any power would put an end to it
 

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,848
3,457
760
Key word there is that it allows the agency to detain accompanied minors. Clinton's, Bush's and Obama's policies were not to do that very often. Trump and Sessions decided to go full zero tolerance and make it their policy to separate children from their families most of the time.

They were allowed to do so, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do, nor does it exempt them from moral judgement or complaints from the American people.

So would it have been better to throw the kids in regular jails along with their parents? :headscratch

Also I just saw NYT dude say that an alternative to imprisoning families is to just clasp ankle bracelets on them and let them go and have them come back later. I wonder how much do these bracelets cost? But it's probably cheaper than jailing them, I guess.

Anyway, I'm starting to feel that a wall might be the only solution. How else do you keep people from just walking over the border like they are doing now?
 
Last edited:

404Ender

Member
Jun 17, 2006
3,839
300
1,535
So would it have been better to throw the kids in regular jails along with their parents? :headscratch

Yes. It would be better to leave them in detention centers with their parents instead of detention centers by themselves.

I don’t think that’s a very controversial statement to make.
 
Last edited:

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,848
3,457
760
Yes. It would be better to leave them in detention centers with their parents instead of detention centers by themselves.

But wasn't there a law/judgement saying that you can't do that?

According to a summary from the Congressional Research Service, the order also required those minors who would be kept in federal custody be placed in the least restrictive conditions possible and be provided with some basic necessities, like food and water, access to medical treatment, access to running water, and that they be separated from adults to whom they had no relation.

But over the years, immigration authorities were not fully complying with the Flores settlement. Congress passed laws in the 2000s that would eventually require the Department of Homeland Security put unaccompanied children in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, within the Health and Human Services Department.

So you can't jail them with parents because those facilities don't seem to fit the requirements of the Flores agreement. From what I seen in videos the facilities where the children are kept at are a much higher standard than regular "detention centers". They almost look like hotels.

But Trump has now tried to override all this with his executive order. So now you get to throw the kids into those detention centers as well. So shouldn't you be thanking Trump?
 
Last edited:

404Ender

Member
Jun 17, 2006
3,839
300
1,535
But wasn't there a law/judgement saying that you can't do that?



So you can't jail them with parents because those facilities don't seem to fit the requirements of the Flores agreement. From what I seen in videos the facilities where the children are kept at are a much higher standard than regular "detention centers". They almost look like hotels.

But Trump has now tried to override all this with his executive order. So now you get to throw the kids into those detention centers as well. So shouldn't you be thanking Trump?

You’re saying the places where their parents are being held lack “basic necessities, like food and water, access to medical treatment, access to running water”? I doubt that very much.

They’re much better off with their parents in a “non-hotel” than on their own, scared and vulnerable, in a “hotel”.

I’m thankful Trump changed his mind, although he certainly didn’t need an EO to do so (well, to enforce the new “they can now be held indefinitely” bit, perhaps he did). But he could’ve just not bucked the status quo on this in the first place and saved himself the trouble and PR disaster.
 

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,848
3,457
760
You’re saying the places where their parents are being held lack “basic necessities, like food and water, access to medical treatment, access to running water”? I doubt that very much.

They’re much better off with their parents in a “non-hotel” than on their own, scared and vulnerable, in a “hotel”.

I’m thankful Trump changed his mind, although he certainly didn’t need an EO to do so (well, to enforce the new “they can now be held indefinitely” bit, perhaps he did). But he could’ve just not bucked the status quo on this in the first place and saved himself the trouble and PR disaster.

I agree that his new "zero tolerance" policy was enacted in a horrible way. Like there was zero planning at all before putting it in place. Were they going to end up housing millions of kids in detention? It wasn't sustainable.

Anyway despite all this I'm glad we are at this point. At least the country is aware now of how horrible and convoluted our current immigration system is. Maybe they will finally force Congress to do something about it.
 

Naudi

Banned
May 9, 2012
968
63
0
I agree that his new "zero tolerance" policy was enacted in a horrible way. Like there was zero planning at all before putting it in place. Were they going to end up housing millions of kids in detention? It wasn't sustainable.

Anyway despite all this I'm glad we are at this point. At least the country is aware now of how horrible and convoluted our current immigration system is. Maybe they will finally force Congress to do something about it.

It's almost like every other thing cheeto has tried to do. No planning and horrible execution, putting people in unnecessarily horrible positions. Weird.