Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-18-2018, 05:15 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,395
The law DOES require them to separate children from their families

Generally, I support the honesty of the media, and in a sense they are not lying on this topic, but for the most part they are.

1) The Trump administration does not have to PROSECUTE people who have crossed into the country illegally as criminals. This is true, and this is what the media is trying to make you believe the Trump administration is saying. But it is not what the Trump administration has claimed.
2) But HAVING decided to prosecute you for criminal trespass into the country, the law DOES force the government to separate children from their families because children aren't allowed to be put into jails. This is what the Trump administration is referring to when they say that they're forced to separate the children out.
3) These laws were not pushed through by Liberals. One law mandating that children not be allowed into jails was backed by Jeff Sessions, for example.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 06-18-2018 at 05:16 PM.
  #2  
Old 06-18-2018, 05:22 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,998
Well, the Trump administration and the Republican-dominated congress could:

a) Choose not to enforce the laws that lead to the breakups of families, or
b) Allocate sufficient funds such that families can be held as units, with the parents' and the children's cases processed simultaneously, so the the family either gets deported as a unit or is granted asylum as a unit.

Since they won't do either of these (that I'm aware of), I have to figure the end results, good or bad, are their responsibility. If it ultimately works out for the better, good for them. If the results are bad, boo-hiss to them.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #3  
Old 06-18-2018, 05:25 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, the Trump administration and the Republican-dominated congress could:

a) Choose not to enforce the laws that lead to the breakups of families, or
b) Allocate sufficient funds such that families can be held as units, with the parents' and the children's cases processed simultaneously, so the the family either gets deported as a unit or is granted asylum as a unit.

Since they won't do either of these (that I'm aware of), I have to figure the end results, good or bad, are their responsibility. If it ultimately works out for the better, good for them. If the results are bad, boo-hiss to them.
Yes, certainly true. I'm not arguing that the administration is in the right nor that they are being honest either. I am, as said, simply pointing out that the media is being deliberately and patently misleading in their statements and in the laws they cite.
  #4  
Old 06-18-2018, 05:39 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,041
Who is "The Media" you so dyspeptically deride? A subsidiary of "liberals", I presume? Do you have a cite for this media-wide dishonesty?
  #5  
Old 06-18-2018, 05:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Generally, I support the honesty of the media, and in a sense they are not lying on this topic, but for the most part they are.

1) The Trump administration does not have to PROSECUTE people who have crossed into the country illegally as criminals. This is true, and this is what the media is trying to make you believe the Trump administration is saying. But it is not what the Trump administration has claimed.
2) But HAVING decided to prosecute you for criminal trespass into the country, the law DOES force the government to separate children from their families because children aren't allowed to be put into jails. This is what the Trump administration is referring to when they say that they're forced to separate the children out.
3) These laws were not pushed through by Liberals. One law mandating that children not be allowed into jails was backed by Jeff Sessions, for example.
Jeff Sessions said this was a new policy in place for deterrent purposes. That's not existing law -- that's a new policy, and one that could very easily be reversed.
  #6  
Old 06-18-2018, 05:45 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Yes, certainly true. I'm not arguing that the administration is in the right nor that they are being honest either. I am, as said, simply pointing out that the media is being deliberately and patently misleading in their statements and in the laws they cite.
I too am going to have to ask for some examples.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #7  
Old 06-18-2018, 05:48 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Jeff Sessions said this was a new policy in place for deterrent purposes. That's not existing law -- that's a new policy, and one that could very easily be reversed.
Absolutely correct.

Trump et al are lying when they say "the law requires us to separate children from their families," because the law does NOT require that they prosecute people who cross the border as criminals. They are choosing to do that.

Sage Rat points out this fact then carries Trump's water by pretending that the choice to prosecute is something other than a choice. Prosecuting is not required. It's not forced on Trump. He's choosing to do it.

The cute little trick of pointing out that those prosecuted as criminals can't have their children stay in jail with them (under current law) is an utterly cynical tactic in its complete irrelevancy. No person with a particle of decency is falling for it.
__________________
__________________

Self-correction is the secret strength of freedom. ---George W. Bush, 19 October 2017
  #8  
Old 06-18-2018, 05:50 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I am, as said, simply pointing out that the media is being deliberately and patently misleading in their statements and in the laws they cite.
...your OP is noticeably cite-free. If you want to assert that the media is being "deliberately and patently misleading" then the very least you could do would be to provide a couple of examples. The media is being attacked to an unprecedented degree by the State. If you want to join in on the pile-on, then at least bring some facts to the table.
  #9  
Old 06-18-2018, 06:30 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,191
Once source that people are citing as the "law" that is now being enforced is the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP), which picked up illegal immigrants in one location and dropped them off in a completely different location. For example, someone picked up in the Rio Grande area might be taken to Mexicali and released there. The idea was that this would discourage drug smuggling and human trafficking rings, people who regularly went back and forth across the border, in other words, by inconveniencing them or worse. This is clearly different in intent and execution than what we are seeing today.

This article in the NY Times gives a good overview of what is happening now, and why it is different than earlier rulings, policies or laws. The word rulings is especially important here, because many of these issues, have already been before the courts and there is case history.

Quote:
SANDERS: "The separation of illegal alien families is the product of the same legal loopholes that Democrats refuse to close and these laws are the same that have been on the books for over a decade and the president is simply enforcing them."

THE FACTS: The Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy is responsible for spurring family separations. Court rulings do not mandate that course.

Zero tolerance means that when a family is caught sneaking into the U.S., the parents now are routinely referred for criminal prosecution, even if they have few or no previous offenses. That typically means detention for the adults, pending their trial. Under U.S. protocol, if parents are jailed, their children are separated from them because the children aren't charged with a crime.

Until the policy was announced in April, such families were usually referred for civil deportation proceedings, not requiring separation.
More on the 2008 law that Trump is referring to:

Quote:
Trump has been blaming "bad legislation passed by the Democrats," as he recently put it, for driving families apart. But the 2008 law he appears to be referring to passed unanimously in Congress and was signed by a Republican president. It was focused on freeing and otherwise helping children who come to the border without a parent or guardian. It does not call for family separation.
Beginning in April, children were removed from their families, 91% of the time when the charges were misdemeanors. In some cases, they were removed before any charges were brought at all. Parents have not been tried or convicted of anything.

The law does NOT require what is happening now. Trump does.[/QUOTE]
  #10  
Old 06-18-2018, 07:59 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Absolutely correct.

Trump et al are lying when they say "the law requires us to separate children from their families," because the law does NOT require that they prosecute people who cross the border as criminals. They are choosing to do that.

Sage Rat points out this fact then carries Trump's water by pretending that the choice to prosecute is something other than a choice. Prosecuting is not required. It's not forced on Trump. He's choosing to do it.

The cute little trick of pointing out that those prosecuted as criminals can't have their children stay in jail with them (under current law) is an utterly cynical tactic in its complete irrelevancy. No person with a particle of decency is falling for it.
Let's say that I decide to undergo chemotherapy.

The media claims that I have decided to use extreme measures to remove all hair from my head.

I claim that I am doing it to cure cancer and the fact that I am losing hair is a side effect of the decision I made.

Now, yes, I am undergoing an extreme procedure and hair loss is happening, but classifying that as what I am engaged in is silly.

If you want to make the argument that Trump's people overlooked that their new policy would cause thousands of children to be separated from their parents, then sure, that's true. But all indications are that it's an unintended consequence. This is an issue of incompetence causing greater malfeasance than the actual intended malfeasance.
  #11  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:07 PM
elbows elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 13,859
They are actively and intentionally traumatizing children to extort votes from democrats on a heartless immigration policy. They expect the democrats are too thin skinned to long tolerate the abuse of children, their compassion making them weak and easy to exploit.

The descent continues.
  #12  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:08 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,041
An irrelevant hypothetical to cover up previous bare assertions? Quit digging, man! Just give us a cite for who "the media" is, or retract your claims.
  #13  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:27 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
An irrelevant hypothetical to cover up previous bare assertions? Quit digging, man! Just give us a cite for who "the media" is, or retract your claims.
This is basically asking me to post a link to every article written on the subject. Are you honestly asserting that I could not find a news article with a headline basically in the form of, "Trump policy is to separate families at borders"?

But sure, here's two:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...y-on-democrats
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...milies-w520837
  #14  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:37 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
But all indications are that it's an unintended consequence. This is an issue of incompetence causing greater malfeasance than the actual intended malfeasance.
What indications?

Let's assume you are right about this. That alone should disturb you deeply. This is not deciding whether to go to Burger King or McDonalds. These are decisions that affect thousands of people. If it really is just an "oops" then it is near criminal negligence.

At this level of government there are plenty of advisors and decisions are generally carefully considered. There is no way this issue with kids would have been missed if they bothered to discuss it and I cannot believe they did not discuss it.

I think Trump knew fully well what would happen (not because he could figure it out but because and advisor would have told him). I think Trump figured the kid issue would strong arm the dems into concessions (e.g. build the wall) in order to get him to ease up (we have heard him say it is up to the dems to fix this). Trump has zero concern for the welfare of others and particularly non-white people. He is not losing sleep over this.
  #15  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:38 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
This is basically asking me to post a link to every article written on the subject. Are you honestly asserting that I could not find a news article with a headline basically in the form of, "Trump policy is to separate families at borders"?
Okay, but that's not misleading. Trump's administration set up a new policy. The result of that policy is to separate families at the border.

Your hair example is inane, because going bald is a trivial side effect of something that has a much greater effect. Tearing families apart is not a trivial fucking side effect.

If you want to change your scenario, let's --[edit: let's go to Sunny's post below mine, which is much better.]

Or better yet, drop that foolishness altogether.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 06-18-2018 at 08:40 PM.
  #16  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:39 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,191
Let's try adjusting your hypothetical. Remember that the Trump administration chose to move from referring these families for civil deportation proceedings to referring them for misdemeanors, so we're looking at doing something more extreme than we need to do.

Let's say your doctor tells you to lose weight. You could do that by exercising and eating a sensible diet. In this case you will do it by undergoing chemotherapy AND your children will do it too by order of your doctor. Everyone around you is quite upset. It's one thing to ask your children to eat sensibly and exercise, but it's quite another to have them undergo chemotherapy. You have to do it though. It's your only chance at weight loss, and you need to lose weight. Your children will suffer, they might even die, but you knew what you were getting into, right? Chemo for kids! The new weight loss craze.

That's crazy, right? Completely overboard. It's harmful to children for no purpose. It can be handled another way and extreme measures are not required for most people. That's the hypothetical that's closer to this situation.

ETA: Or what LHoD said. Drop the hypothetical. It's not working.

Moving on, I think the cite everyone would like to see is one that corroborates your claim of dishonesty in the media. For example, I have shared a cite that states that you are wrong in your claim that the Law mandates what is happening now. Where's your evidence that you are right?

Last edited by Sunny Daze; 06-18-2018 at 08:40 PM.
  #17  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:45 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
This is basically asking me to post a link to every article written on the subject. Are you honestly asserting that I could not find a news article with a headline basically in the form of, "Trump policy is to separate families at borders"?

But sure, here's two:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...y-on-democrats
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...milies-w520837
...these two articles don't back up your assertion that the media are being "deliberately and patently misleading in their statements." You are going to have to do much better than this.

How about you start by showing us what is "misleading" in either of the two articles.
  #18  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:48 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...these two articles don't back up your assertion that the media are being "deliberately and patently misleading in their statements." You are going to have to do much better than this.

How about you start by showing us what is "misleading" in either of the two articles.
AIUI, he's mad because Trump's policy is to prosecute all illegal border crossings; the separation is just a side-effect. But that silly dishonest media isn't making that distinction! Indeed, those two articles don't make that distinction in their headlines.

To which I say: fuck that. A person is responsible for the foreseeable outcomes of their choices. Trump's policy has an obvious outcome, and he went ahead with it anyway. The distinction Sage Rat is drawing is an irrelevancy.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 06-18-2018 at 08:49 PM.
  #19  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:52 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Generally, I support the honesty of the media, and in a sense they are not lying on this topic, but for the most part they are.

1) The Trump administration does not have to PROSECUTE people who have crossed into the country illegally as criminals. This is true, and this is what the media is trying to make you believe the Trump administration is saying. But it is not what the Trump administration has claimed.
2) But HAVING decided to prosecute you for criminal trespass into the country, the law DOES force the government to separate children from their families because children aren't allowed to be put into jails . . . .
The law does not require the authorities to put someone in jail when they decide to prosecute them.
  #20  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:52 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
What indications?

Let's assume you are right about this. That alone should disturb you deeply.
I am not defending the practice.

The indications are that the administration was caught off-guard. While less extreme than their reaction to the travel ban kerfuffle when they realized that their new policy was, for example, preventing green card holders from coming back to the US, you'll still note things like Trump tweeting in surprise how horrible it is that children are being separated:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-border-609615

Let's take two options for how this tweet came into being:

1) The Trump administration carefully and cunningly pored through the laws, searching for some legal strategy that would allow them to separate families. Having done this, they then decided to disavow this strategy rather than seem tough and cruel, despite it being their very goal to seem tough and cruel.

2) The Trump administration does something horrible but stupid and are caught off-guard by sudden claims that they're separating families - not something they're actually doing so far as Trump knows. He flips out, asks what the hell is happening, and he's told that there are laws that you have to throw people in jail if you prosecute them and kids aren't allowed in jail. He proceeds to tweet in a moment of panic that it's not his fault, it's the law! Why does the world hate poor Trump and force him to do these things!? But then, rather than admit that he did something wrong, his team doubles-down on both blaming the Democrats and laws, while maintaining the policy.

I think it's fair to say that there's exactly 0% chance that this was intentional. Steven Miller is probably ecstatic, but it wasn't something he'd planned. Trump was caught off guard by the whole thing and it's taken them the better part of a month to try and get their message together and firmly deny that it's their policy and try to explain the pre-existing laws and procedures.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 06-18-2018 at 08:54 PM.
  #21  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:55 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
The law does not require the authorities to put someone in jail when they decide to prosecute them.
I have not stated otherwise. (Except in the previous, as a simplification of the subject.)

Last edited by Sage Rat; 06-18-2018 at 08:58 PM.
  #22  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:56 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
The Trump administration does not have to PROSECUTE people who have crossed into the country illegally as criminals.
End of story right there. The Trump administration did not have to start this process. They chose to. And having chosen to start the process, they are morally responsible for all of the horrible consequences that arise from it.
  #23  
Old 06-18-2018, 08:57 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Let's take two options for how this tweet came into being:

1) The Trump administration carefully and cunningly pored through the laws, searching for some legal strategy that would allow them to separate families. Having done this, they then decided to disavow this strategy rather than seem tough and cruel, despite it being their very goal to seem tough and cruel.

2) The Trump administration does something horrible but stupid and are caught off-guard by sudden claims that they're separating families - not something they're actually doing so far as Trump knows. He flips out, asks what the hell is happening, and he's told that there are laws that you have to throw people in jail if you prosecute them and kids aren't allowed in jail. He proceeds to tweet in a moment of panic that it's not his fault, it's the law! Why does the world hate poor Trump and force him to do these things!?
Or

3) Beauregard says, "Let's lock up all those dirty border crossers!"
Trump says, "Fuck yeah!"
Someone tells Trump, "Uh, Mr. President, what will we do with their kids? We can't lock them up too."
Trump says, "Why not? Of course we can!"
Someone says, "Well, I guess we could build cages in old Walmarts to keep them in, but that's gonna be pretty rough on the kids."
Trump says, "Do I look like I give a shit about that? Anyway, maybe it'll get some Mexicans to think twice about crossing the border. And hey, worst case scenario, it'll drive the Democrats insane, and maybe we can use it to negotiate a border wall."

Again: just because it's not the purported aim of the policy doesn't mean it's not a fair characterization of the policy.
  #24  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:02 PM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Let's take two options for how this tweet came into being:

1) The Trump administration carefully and cunningly pored through the laws, searching for some legal strategy that would allow them to separate families. Having done this, they then decided to disavow this strategy rather than seem tough and cruel, despite it being their very goal to seem tough and cruel.

2) The Trump administration does something horrible but stupid and are caught off-guard by sudden claims that they're separating families - not something they're actually doing so far as Trump knows. He flips out, asks what the hell is happening, and he's told that there are laws that you have to throw people in jail if you prosecute them and kids aren't allowed in jail. He proceeds to tweet in a moment of panic that it's not his fault, it's the law! Why does the world hate poor Trump and force him to do these things!? But then, rather than admit that he did something wrong, his team doubles-down on both blaming the Democrats and laws, while maintaining the policy.
"The Trump administration" isn't a thing. The United States hasn't had a unitary executive since January 20, 2017. You could have one branch of "the" administration carefully and cunningly poring through the laws in a way that nevertheless catches the rest of "the" administration off guard. Twitter pundit Donald Trump has talked about how horrible it is, but is there any reason to think that he knew about it before seeing it on TV?

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 06-18-2018 at 09:04 PM.
  #25  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:07 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
AIUI, he's mad because Trump's policy is to prosecute all illegal border crossings; the separation is just a side-effect. But that silly dishonest media isn't making that distinction! Indeed, those two articles don't make that distinction in their headlines.

To which I say: fuck that. A person is responsible for the foreseeable outcomes of their choices. Trump's policy has an obvious outcome, and he went ahead with it anyway. The distinction Sage Rat is drawing is an irrelevancy.
It matters. I supported the initiative to force Franken to quit, knowing that it would have no effect on whether Trump had to undergo an ethics investigation or anything else, because it's still useful to be a strong foundation when attacking Trump and the current Republican party.

You can't have the "Liberal/Lying Media" coming across as a Liberal and Lying Media when they're being accused of just that every day. They need to keep their nose clean at this very moment.

To use the Travel Ban again, do you remember the media ever writing an article with the headline, "Trump policy to deny green card holders entrance to the USA!" And then yeah, you open that and scroll down, and down in the weeds they may or may not actually clarify that Trump was actually just trying to keep Arabs out, and this was just an oversite of incompetence? I, personally, don't recall that article. And if I'd seen it, I would have said, "What a crock." That's not to support the Travel Ban, it's just a hell of a weird way to talk about the issue. If I saw an article like that, my assumption would not be that the media was trying to inform the people in an honest and reasonable way. I would assume that they were trying to target some segment of the population that deeply cared about green cards and were willing to bend the truth to near snapping point in order to politically motivate that subset of the population into following the designs of the writer.

Propaganda is crap. I don't care if it's propaganda in the name of good. I don't care if it's hammering on a thing that is bad or a thing that was bad about a thing that was bad, it's still propaganda and it's still crap.
  #26  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:12 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
"The Trump administration" isn't a thing. The United States hasn't had a unitary executive since January 20, 2017. You could have one branch of "the" administration carefully and cunningly poring through the laws in a way that nevertheless catches the rest of "the" administration off guard. Twitter pundit Donald Trump has talked about how horrible it is, but is there any reason to think that he knew about it before seeing it on TV?
No, but that's the point I was making, so I'm not sure how this is a counter to my statement.
  #27  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:19 PM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,189
Not sure he doesn't tune into Fox to remember his name.
  #28  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:20 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Propaganda is crap. I don't care if it's propaganda in the name of good. I don't care if it's hammering on a thing that is bad or a thing that was bad about a thing that was bad, it's still propaganda and it's still crap.
...propaganda is a very emotionally charged word.

Now that you have chosen to invoke it: the burden of proof for this thread just got significantly higher.

You haven't met the burden of proof yet for your OP. But now you are accusing "the media" of broadcasting propaganda. Your gonna have to do more than post a couple of links to prove that assertion. But I'd like to see what you've got.
  #29  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:37 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...propaganda is a very emotionally charged word.

Now that you have chosen to invoke it: the burden of proof for this thread just got significantly higher.

You haven't met the burden of proof yet for your OP. But now you are accusing "the media" of broadcasting propaganda. Your gonna have to do more than post a couple of links to prove that assertion. But I'd like to see what you've got.
I feel like you're asking me to prove that the sky is blue while we are both staring at the big blue sky.

In your reading of articles, which presentation have you seen more of?

1) Trump administration has policy to separate children from families.
2) Trump administration has policy to prosecute border crossers as criminals.

Are you asserting that #2 is the majority or even a significant percentile of articles?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 06-18-2018 at 09:37 PM.
  #30  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:38 PM
don't mind me don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
This is basically asking me to post a link to every article written on the subject. Are you honestly asserting that I could not find a news article with a headline basically in the form of, "Trump policy is to separate families at borders"?

But sure, here's two:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...y-on-democrats
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...milies-w520837
In the Rolling Stone article, the two real-life stories were of women whose children were taken away after they applied for asylum. That's legal. Let me say again: they broke no law, but their children were taken anyway.

And here's the money quote from the Vanity Fair article:
Quote:
Despite Trump’s attempts to shift blame for these bad headlines to Democrats, the policy is all his own. As Chief of Staff John Kelly told NPR in an interview three weeks ago, the plan to forcibly separate mothers from their children was explicitly designed as a “tough deterrent” to scare immigrants from trying to enter the U.S. “The children will be taken care of—put into foster care or whatever,” he said flippantly.
(emphasis added)

So much for "unintended consequence."

And neither headline claimed that separation IS the policy.
  #31  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:43 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I have not stated otherwise. (Except in the previous, as a simplification of the subject.)
But you have stated that . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
But HAVING decided to prosecute you for criminal trespass into the country, the law DOES force the government to separate children from their families because children aren't allowed to be put into jails.
This is false. Having decided to prosecute the parents, the government does not have to put them in jail pending trial. Thus the law does not force the government to separate children from their parents; the separation is a consequence not only of the government's choice to prosecute the parents, but of the government's further choice to put the parents in jail pending trial (as opposed to, say, agreeing to their being bailed to an immigration detention centre, where they could be with their children).

Last edited by UDS; 06-18-2018 at 09:44 PM.
  #32  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:48 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by don't mind me View Post
And here's the money quote from the Vanity Fair article: (emphasis added)

So much for "unintended consequence."

And neither headline claimed that separation IS the policy.
don't mind me admitted in his post that he specifically intended to divert attention from the truth, saying, "So much for 'unintended consequences."

The part that you bolded is not a quote, it's what they're telling you he said. The only thing they quoted him saying is that they're taking care of the children.

What did he actually say that they summarized as "the plan to forcibly separate mothers from their children was explicitly designed [for that purpose]"? What is his actual quote?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 06-18-2018 at 09:48 PM.
  #33  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:48 PM
don't mind me don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
In your reading of articles, which presentation have you seen more of?

1) Trump administration has policy to separate children from families.
2) Trump administration has policy to prosecute border crossers as criminals.

Are you asserting that #2 is the majority or even a significant percentile of articles?
Neither. The Trump administration has a policy THAT separates children from families. The policy was put in place to prosecute border crossers, legal (asylum seekers) and illegal.

"Zero tolerance" for illegal immigrants is not that far away from the policy under Obama. What makes this a huge news story is babies being ripped from their parents' arms. If you think the media is dishonest in leading with that fact, you understand nothing about journalism.
  #34  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:52 PM
don't mind me don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
What did he actually say that they summarized as "the plan to forcibly separate mothers from their children was explicitly designed [for that purpose]"? What is his actual quote?
Here ya go:
Quote:
When asked by CNN in March 2017 whether the Trump administration was seriously considering separating migrant children from their parents, Kelly said, "Yes, I am considering in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network ... I am considering exactly that."
From here.
  #35  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:53 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I feel like you're asking me to prove that the sky is blue while we are both staring at the big blue sky.
...nope. We are in Great Debates. You've presented an opinion in your OP. I've challenged you to back it up.

Quote:
In your reading of articles, which presentation have you seen more of?

1) Trump administration has policy to separate children from families.
2) Trump administration has policy to prosecute border crossers as criminals.

Are you asserting that #2 is the majority or even a significant percentile of articles?
I'm not asserting jack-shit. This is your thread, your OP, we are debating what you have asserted both in the OP and in subsequent posts. Lets pretend that #2 isn't the "majority or even a significant percentile of articles (whatever the fuck you mean by that)". How does that prove your assertion that the media are broadcasting propaganda?
  #36  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:55 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I think it's fair to say that there's exactly 0% chance that this was intentional. Steven Miller is probably ecstatic, but it wasn't something he'd planned. Trump was caught off guard by the whole thing and it's taken them the better part of a month to try and get their message together and firmly deny that it's their policy and try to explain the pre-existing laws and procedures.
Again, if this was really unintentional then you should be deeply worried because it means the people at the top are pulling policy levers without a clue or care as to what happens.

For there to be zero chance this was intentional it would mean Trump woke up one morning and said let's prosecute illegal immigrants and everyone else said, "Sure thing! We'll get right on it!"

I seriously doubt Trump has a clue about much of anything and certainly not how the government works. He is a singularly incurious person (I said that of Bush as well...Trump is worse). But he has advisors.

So unless this was a literal whim one can assume someone sat down and strategized about this. Someone had a goal in mind such as find a way to make democrats pay for the wall or stop illegal immigrants from coming to this country. Then they started coming up with ideas to achieve those goals. As an idea comes up the pros and cons are listed. Presumably you want to come up with the most effective plan and be ready fro counter-moves.

There is no way the idea of criminally prosecuting all the illegal immigrant adults didn't include consideration of what happens to the children.

That or Trump did this on a whim and no one dared say anything to him.

You tell me which of the above bothers you more.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 06-18-2018 at 09:57 PM.
  #37  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:57 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,728
NPR took a break in their reporting to explain that, while there's no written policy to purposely separate kids from parents, since the policy required that parents are put in jail leading directly to the obvious result of separating the kids, they are going to call it a policy.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/18/62112...grant-families

Quote:
The Trump administration says it does not have a policy of family separation at the U.S.-Mexico border, but the administration has selected and is now defending a course of action, which by definition, is a policy.
  #38  
Old 06-18-2018, 10:03 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Propaganda is crap. I don't care if it's propaganda in the name of good. I don't care if it's hammering on a thing that is bad or a thing that was bad about a thing that was bad, it's still propaganda and it's still crap.
You have not identified propaganda. You have identified an incredibly trivial, pedantic point, which is probably wrong anyway, but even if it were right it would be meaningless.

When you come up with a policy that has terrible consequences, I may correctly identify it as a policy that creates terrible consequences.

I swear, over the past 48 hours I have seen the most astonishing pedantry from folks confronted with this administration's terrible shittiness. I cannot figure out why folks think that's a good use of their time.
  #39  
Old 06-18-2018, 10:27 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
This is basically asking me to post a link to every article written on the subject. Are you honestly asserting that I could not find a news article with a headline basically in the form of, "Trump policy is to separate families at borders"?

But sure, here's two:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...y-on-democrats
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...milies-w520837
My gripe is that Vanity Fair + Rolling Stone != "The Media". To my personal ear, when people start attibuting things to The Media, 1 I suspect they'll rant and 2 it sounds like something out of a conspiracy theory. Who are the shadowy figures pulling the strings of The Media? What are their dark motives, and what can good conservatives do to resist these villains?

See what I mean? It is similar to when people talk about Liberals. I can never get anybody to define that word, but to hear some people tell it, they are to blame for All Badness in the world. Or, The Left. It's like Santa Claus, in everyone's house at once, only more like a boogeyman under the bed. Ooga booga!

Is your beef really with The Media? If so, flesh it out. If not, please be more specific on this point.
  #40  
Old 06-18-2018, 11:20 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
The law DOES require them to separate children from their families
Of course a law requires them; the point was, and still is, that what law to use took place by a change in policy and the application of a law that was intended for asylum or refugee applicants.

Snopes take on the OP's title: False.

Quote:
There is no federal law mandating children and parents be separated at the border; a policy resulting in that outcome was enacted in May 2018.
Quote:
Although the questions were varied, their underlying question essentially was the same: Whether a so-called “law to separate parents from children” existed before the Trump administration. In some versions, President Bill Clinton’s administration passed such a law, and in other iterations, President Barack Obama detained twice as many children separated from their parents during his presidency.

On 5 June 2018, Trump attributed the policy to Democrats in general:

There is no federal law that stipulates that children and parents be separated at the border, no matter how families entered the United States. An increase in child detainees separated from parents stemmed directly from a change in enforcement policy repeatedly announced by Sessions in April and May 2018, under which adults (with or without children) are criminally prosecuted for attempting to enter the United States:

Quote:
The “zero-tolerance” policy he announced [in May 2018] sees adults who try to cross the border, many planning to seek asylum, being placed in custody and facing criminal prosecution for illegal entry.

As a result, hundreds of minors are now being housed in detention centres, and kept away from their parents.

Over a recent six-week period, nearly 2,000 children were separated from their parents after illegally crossing the border, figures released on [15 June 2018].

[Attorney General] Sessions said those entering the US irregularly would be criminally prosecuted, a change to a long-standing policy of charging most of those crossing for the first time with a misdemeanour offence.
We addressed the “law to separate children” in a fact check about a purported statement made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions did not make the statement attributed to him, but he did make a series of remarks in early April 2018 about a new border initiative involving the separation of children from parents at border crossings:
  #41  
Old 06-18-2018, 11:26 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 15,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Generally, I support the honesty of the media, and in a sense they are not lying on this topic, but for the most part they are.

1) The Trump administration does not have to PROSECUTE people who have crossed into the country illegally as criminals. This is true, and this is what the media is trying to make you believe the Trump administration is saying. But it is not what the Trump administration has claimed.
2) But HAVING decided to prosecute you for criminal trespass into the country, the law DOES force the government to separate children from their families because children aren't allowed to be put into jails. This is what the Trump administration is referring to when they say that they're forced to separate the children out.
3) These laws were not pushed through by Liberals. One law mandating that children not be allowed into jails was backed by Jeff Sessions, for example.
But putting them in tents and cages and forcing them to sleep on floors and yelling at them if they play is okay, huh?
  #42  
Old 06-19-2018, 06:14 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I'm not arguing that the administration is in the right nor that they are being honest either. I am, as said, simply pointing out that the media is being deliberately and patently misleading in their statements and in the laws they cite.
Your argument is as-yet unsupported and your attempt at what-aboutism is failing to distract from the actual harm being done by Trump policies.

If anything about this caught Trump "off-guard", it may be that he didn't expect such a negative reaction from Americans capable of, y'know, empathy. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump finds this to be a difficult concept.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #43  
Old 06-19-2018, 06:44 AM
chappachula chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
But putting them in tents and cages and forcing them to sleep on floors and yelling at them if they play is okay, huh?
not okay.......but I was absolutely astounded to learn that this has been going on for years, including under Obama's watch.

Take a look at these photos of children in cages, back in 2014:
http://www.businessinsider.com/migra...plained-2018-5
  #44  
Old 06-19-2018, 07:26 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Generally, I support the honesty of the media, and in a sense they are not lying on this topic, but for the most part they are.
@ OP — it appears to me that your entire thread, while possibly having some validity in a trite legalistic sense, is very misleading. Please answer the following True/False questions:

(1) T/F: The immigration authority could house entire families in Family Detention Centers, as it has in the past.
(2) T/F: The Obama Administration coped with unwanted refugees without generally separating children from their parents.
(3) T/F: Mainstream media provides legal details of these cases for readers with the time to explore details and scrutinize legal nuances.
(4) T/F: Headlines and brief introductory paragraphs are of necessity, brief. Detailed discussion of legal nuances are provided in the ... detailed discussions.
(5) T/F: It would be trivial for Trump and his henchman to treat refugees humanely, as the Obama Administration did. His failure to do so is deliberate.
(6) T/F: When the plain facts are so simple it would only serve the interests of the evil-doers to require obfuscatory justifications every time the evil is mentioned.

I'm no expert on these matters and I hope others will also answer these questions to help me judge whether OP's answers, if he chooses to offer any, are correct. I think the answers are T, T, T, T, T, T.
  #45  
Old 06-19-2018, 07:57 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
not okay.......but I was absolutely astounded to learn that this has been going on for years, including under Obama's watch.

Take a look at these photos of children in cages, back in 2014:
http://www.businessinsider.com/migra...plained-2018-5
Did you read the article you linked? Because it is not the same thing as is made clear in the article.

Here is the tl;dr version:

In 2014 there was a huge spike in unaccompanied minors crossing the border and there simply were not enough shelters to house them all. The government set about reuniting them with the closest relatives they could find, 80% of the time their parents.

Trump is not trying to deal with unaccompanied minors and reunite them with their parents. He is taking accompanied minors and separating them from their parents.
  #46  
Old 06-19-2018, 08:05 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
The law does not require the authorities to put someone in jail when they decide to prosecute them.
Can we just be intellectually honest and say that your side does not support enforcing immigration laws?

If I drive drunk, it is technically true that the authorities do not have to prosecute me. It is also technically true that they do not have to take me to jail if they do prosecute me. But I think that we would agree that the local authorities would not be doing their jobs if they refused to prosecute wholesale violations of the law.

It is the President's job to enforce the laws. It says so right in the Constitution. Why shouldn't he enforce this law? Because you don't like the law? Because it separates children from their families? Well, that is very sad, but it is no different than a parent violating any other law. If I am in county jail, the kids aren't there with me.
  #47  
Old 06-19-2018, 08:09 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Can we just be intellectually honest and say that your side does not support enforcing immigration laws?

If I drive drunk, it is technically true that the authorities do not have to prosecute me. It is also technically true that they do not have to take me to jail if they do prosecute me. But I think that we would agree that the local authorities would not be doing their jobs if they refused to prosecute wholesale violations of the law.
This is bullshit. "My side" is the same side as our nation's side for the past half-century or more. We've decided that immigration laws should be enforced to the extent that they can be WITHOUT VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS. Our nation has treated undocumented immigration as a violation of the law, but as a very minor one, that doesn't require a tremendous outlay of resources to address.

Can we just be intellectually honest and say that your side supports enforcing immigration laws even when doing so comprises a violation of human rights?
  #48  
Old 06-19-2018, 08:13 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Can we just be intellectually honest and say that your side does not support enforcing immigration laws?
The same side that got called "Deporter in Chief?" That side?
  #49  
Old 06-19-2018, 08:24 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This is bullshit. "My side" is the same side as our nation's side for the past half-century or more. We've decided that immigration laws should be enforced to the extent that they can be WITHOUT VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS. Our nation has treated undocumented immigration as a violation of the law, but as a very minor one, that doesn't require a tremendous outlay of resources to address.

Can we just be intellectually honest and say that your side supports enforcing immigration laws even when doing so comprises a violation of human rights?
How is incarceration a violation of human rights? You are suspected of breaking the law, you go to jail and the kids don't go with you. Since when do citizens of one country have a right to enter another country?

Again, let me roll through Canadian customs at the Rainbow Bridge with my daughter in the car and see if I don't end up separated from her while I am processed. This is not some new principle of law that just started last month.
  #50  
Old 06-19-2018, 08:25 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
How is incarceration a violation of human rights?
Yeah, I don't think we're gonna play this game. Question asked and answered in other thread; meanwhile you're not answering questions over there.

Edit: y'know what, I can spare the 15 seconds to Google for you. Here you go, but I'm gonna start charging for my Googling services.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 06-19-2018 at 08:29 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017