I don’t really see what you’re saying differently here. It’s being done because it’s a deterrent to the crime of illegal entry...which is what my source is saying.
It's a deterrent and it's enforcing crime. Either way, the effect is the same. There's further arguments on it draining resources on the US, which would make it a larger ethical debate, where the deterrent has a positive effect in decreasing expenditure and overall preventing crime. Yes, it's shitty, but Trump has forever shouted about enforcing immigration laws. If he sees a benefit in doing it, that doesn't necessarily work as an argument to why he should stop doing it. It's twofold built, meaning that it's not as easy to reject. It's easier if you point out hypocrisy, like not enforcing other laws, that's a good route to take.
You agree with me that this is “shitty” (I’d say extremely fucked up but whatever), claiming that this administration deems it necessary to do so. Which is the whole point of this thread: this is NOT necessary. It is barbaric.
To further explore that point, I suppose then that my question to you is this: are you claiming or do you believe that these people can’t be prosecuted along with their children? That is, must the families be ripped apart for the prosecution to happen? Because that seems patently absurd to me. What about asylum seekers who are not crossing illegally that get the same treatment? Surely you can honestly see that something is broken here.
It's far more complicated. Since enforcing the law is the focus, that leads to it being a tough thing to get around. Enforcing the law is also part of a deterrence and a principle, leading to that no matter the bad intentions following them, the principle is still to follow them. It's better to treat this by changing laws, to ensure families in regards to being split due to prosecution.
Asylum seekers, that is something I have no idea what principle it works by in the US. But in Norway we consider their application, reject or approve, appeal, reject or approve, tell them to leave, then we tell them to leave and then we ship them out.The asylum institution is currently heavy under attack due to overuse by people who honestly have no grounds for asylum. 49% have no grounds for asylum in 2017 in Norway. Each of these have so many rights and put a large financial pressure on Norway, clogging up other people's cases as well.
Where are people who are being prosecuted kept? Are they suitable conditions for children? All these are questions that show up when it regards families and prosecution. There are solutions to this, though they tend to cost money, which I know is something the US probably tries to avoid. Just look at differences in prisons between US and Europe. I imagine there's no detention facilities in which families can stay together in the US.
The GOP controls the Congress and the President. Why don't they just do it themselves instead of trying to dump this onto the Democrats?
I assume it's because they don't have the necessary votes to get past the Senate. Or there's GOPers that don't want to support it. Again, each party have its members that don't vote the same on all issues.
It's shitty of course to use one change, to pressure the opposition to accept other changes, but that's what happens when it's all "the end justifies the means" (whenever it suits me), as I would call American politics.