Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-20-2018, 07:04 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,307
Impact of Trump's Executive Order to Stop Splitting Up Families

Trump signed an order today reversing an earlier administration policy to split up families and create child camps.

Quote:
President Trump abruptly reversed course Wednesday, signing an executive order ending family separations at the U.S.-Mexico border after a public uproar over the impact of his administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy.

The plan would keep families together in federal custody while awaiting prosecution for illegal border crossings, potentially violating a 1997 court settlement limiting the duration of child detentions.
Note that the 1997 ruling is not the only court ruling that has precedence here.

Quote:
In 2015, a federal judge in Los Angeles expanded the terms of the settlement, ruling that it applies to children who are caught with their parents as well as to those who come to the U.S. alone. Other recent rulings, upheld on appeal, affirm the children's rights to a bond hearing and require better conditions at the Border Patrol's short-term holding facilities.

In 2016, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that child migrants who came to the border with parents and were held in custody must be released. The decision did not state parents must be released. Neither, though, did it require parents to be kept in detention, apart from their children.
Here is Trump's order.

There are two sections that stick out for me:

Quote:
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary, upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.
Does this mean that more people are ending up in internment camps? It reads that way to me.

Quote:
(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 (“Flores settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.
This section indicates that Sessions has been instructed to fight the 1997 ruling, but it seems to ignore the 2015, and 2016 rulings, which is interesting. Put another way, under current law, the administration cannot do what this order lays out until and unless those rulings are struck down.

Also, what about the children who are currently in the camps? What are the plans to reunite them with their families? We're talking thousands of children. This is not just happening in the South by the way, although news articles give that impression. There are families impacted here in Oregon. I suspect that there are at other crossings as well.

Finally, what are the plans to make our borders checkpoints available to asylum seekers? Currently, reports are that they are closed. We may choose as a country not to grant asylum (which is another issue), but we should allow people to apply. This is also not addressed. Therefore, we are artificially creating this problem in the first place.

Overall, I conclude that this measure may reduce pressure on Trump in the near term, but is illegal under current US law. I also remain concerned about all of the children already separated from their parents.
  #2  
Old 06-20-2018, 07:16 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 20,666
There are no plans to reunite the separated families:

https://twitter.com/emilymbadger/sta...446385152?s=19

Family separation is still in place:

https://twitter.com/CallanGrayNews/s...635759104?s=19

"Zero tolerance" is still in force:

https://twitter.com/tisaiahcho/statu...550408192?s=19
  #3  
Old 06-20-2018, 07:26 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,307
The order was a big show that did nothing, in other words? I am *shocked*.
  #4  
Old 06-21-2018, 02:48 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
Does this mean that more people are ending up in internment camps? It reads that way to me.
First the problem was OMG the children! and now the real objection comes out: Your side does not want to detain illegal immigrants at all.

Would you call a county jail an internment camp? These people are suspected of committing crimes and taken into custody. Because of the whining, their children are taken into custody along with them.

What, in your mind, should be done here?
  #5  
Old 06-21-2018, 02:52 AM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 6,943
Do you agree that "taken into custody together" is better than "taken into custody apart"? You act like you don't agree.
  #6  
Old 06-21-2018, 02:59 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
Do you agree that "taken into custody together" is better than "taken into custody apart"? You act like you don't agree.
Of course it is better and I agree. However the OP used the phrase "internment camps" like we are still doing something wrong.
  #7  
Old 06-21-2018, 02:59 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
Do you agree that "taken into custody together" is better than "taken into custody apart"? You act like you don't agree.
Sounds like everyone will be happier with this new state of affairs.
  #8  
Old 06-21-2018, 03:06 AM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 6,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Of course it is better and I agree. However the OP used the phrase "internment camps" like we are still doing something wrong.
I just wanted to get a baseline.

Next question, are these ppl given an option to post bail? Are they being given legal representation?
  #9  
Old 06-21-2018, 03:06 AM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
First the problem was OMG the children! and now the real objection comes out: Your side does not want to detain illegal immigrants at all.

Would you call a county jail an internment camp? These people are suspected of committing crimes and taken into custody. Because of the whining, their children are taken into custody along with them.

What, in your mind, should be done here?
How about not taking anyone into custody?

There's no law that requires someone facing a misdemeanour charge to be held in jail pending trial. Could they not be bailed to immigration detention, where they could stay with their families?
  #10  
Old 06-21-2018, 03:23 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
I just wanted to get a baseline.

Next question, are these ppl given an option to post bail? Are they being given legal representation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
How about not taking anyone into custody?

There's no law that requires someone facing a misdemeanour charge to be held in jail pending trial. Could they not be bailed to immigration detention, where they could stay with their families?
I assume that they arrive at the border with just the clothes on their backs. How would they post even minimal bail? Oh, should they be released on their own recognizance? Let's see, they have no job, no ties to the community, no family support system, no reliable identification, and the goal of any illegal immigration is to sneak in and fly under the radar: exactly what would happen if they were released on recognizance. A judge applying neutral principles would be crazy to allow it.

Appointed counsel? Why should the taxpayers have to pay for that? These people are here for 4 seconds and already have their hand in the till? In any event, this isn't my area of expertise, but I do believe that they have access to counsel.

Again, I am not unsympathetic to the plight of these people. What I object to is this implication that they are entitled to assistance from the United States and entitled to gold plated treatment after coming here illegally. As any sovereign nation, we are entitled to deny entry at our borders.
  #11  
Old 06-21-2018, 03:27 AM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I assume that they arrive at the border with just the clothes on their backs. How would they post even minimal bail? Oh, should they be released on their own recognizance? Let's see, they have no job, no ties to the community, no family support system, no reliable identification, and the goal of any illegal immigration is to sneak in and fly under the radar: exactly what would happen if they were released on recognizance . . .
Did you miss the bit where I said “bailed into immigration detention”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Again, I am not unsympathetic to the plight of these people. What I object to is this implication that they are entitled to assistance from the United States and entitled to gold plated treatment after coming here illegally. As any sovereign nation, we are entitled to deny entry at our borders.
There’s a large middle ground, though, between “entitled to gold plated treatment” and “entitled not to have your children snatched from their families and dumped in camps with other snatched children”. This thread is more about the latter.
  #12  
Old 06-21-2018, 03:52 AM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 6,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I assume that they arrive at the border with just the clothes on their backs.
You seem to be doing a lot of assuming

Quote:
How would they post even minimal bail?
more assuming. But not the question I asked. Do they even have that option, assuming, of course, they had the means?

Quote:
Oh, should they be released on their own recognizance? Let's see, they have no job, no ties to the community, no family support system, no reliable identification, and the goal of any illegal immigration is to sneak in and fly under the radar: exactly what would happen if they were released on recognizance.
or they might want, you know, to apply for assylum.

Quote:
Appointed counsel? Why should the taxpayers have to pay for that?
something about human rights, maybe?

Quote:
These people are here for 4 seconds and already have their hand in the till? In any event, this isn't my area of expertise, but I do believe that they have access to counsel.
So for the record, you are against human rights and an expanded tax base? (I don't know the answer to my question re:legal council either and would love to be deignoranced)

Quote:
Again, I am not unsympathetic to the plight of these people. What I object to is this implication that they are entitled to assistance from the United States and entitled to gold plated treatment after coming here illegally. As any sovereign nation, we are entitled to deny entry at our borders.
I love hyperbole more than anything that's ever happened in all of history. But really? Gold plated? We're talking about the sheer minimum of human rights.
  #13  
Old 06-21-2018, 06:34 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Again, I am not unsympathetic to the plight of these people. What I object to is this implication that they are entitled to assistance from the United States and entitled to gold plated treatment after coming here illegally. As any sovereign nation, we are entitled to deny entry at our borders.
I can only wonder how you would suggest they be treated if you were unsympathetic.
  #14  
Old 06-21-2018, 06:59 AM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sounds like everyone will be happier with this new state of affairs.
I won't be, Trump's victims won't be, your feelings don't matter.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #15  
Old 06-21-2018, 07:11 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sounds like everyone will be happier with this new state of affairs.
For the record, I declare that I consider going from "worse than Hitler" to "like Hitler" an improvement in approach.
  #16  
Old 06-21-2018, 08:14 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
These people are suspected of committing crimes and taken into custody.
It is as legal as church on Sunday for furriners to seek asylum here by presenting themselves at the border.

You have been corrected on this point numerous times in these threads, so I can no longer attribute this blanket "these people are suspected of committing crimes" as an error resulting from ignorance. You are intentionally repeating an untruth.
  #17  
Old 06-21-2018, 08:28 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What I object to is this implication that they are entitled to assistance from the United States and entitled to gold plated treatment...
Seeing as how gold plating is only 1 micron(0.001 millimeter) thick, I thought you would be o.k. with that miniscule amount of human rights, but apparently even that small amount is too much for you to accept.
  #18  
Old 06-21-2018, 08:48 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
First the problem was OMG the children! and now the real objection comes out: Your side does not want to detain illegal immigrants at all.
Is the goal to detain and imprison illegal immigrant or is the goal to get them out of our country?

Because if it is the latter then liberals were doing great at that job.

Personally I would rather not spend my tax dollars on detaining kids indefinitely. You seem ok with that though for some reason.

I am curious. What problem do you think Trump is now solving that was worse before him?

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 06-21-2018 at 08:49 AM.
  #19  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:24 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
First the problem was OMG the children! and now the real objection comes out: Your side does not want to detain illegal immigrants at all.
No, our side doesn't want to detain illegal immigrants when it doesn't make sense to detain them.
  #20  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:37 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
How about not taking anyone into custody?

There's no law that requires someone facing a misdemeanour charge to be held in jail pending trial. Could they not be bailed to immigration detention, where they could stay with their families?
Well, that's what we did before, "catch and release". The results of catch and release are that people are released into the country without background checks, which is dangerous for us. Then there's the part that's dangerous for them:

1) They are released and given a court date
2) 37% fail to show up to court
3) They become wanted felons and fugitives
4) Once caught they face long jail terms and permanent or long term seperation from their families, followed by deportation.

You'll have to convince me that this is a superior policy.
  #21  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:39 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No, our side doesn't want to detain illegal immigrants when it doesn't make sense to detain them.
They fail to appear in court in large numbers. 37% according to one immigration judge:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...144893699.html

As a general principle, we detain people who are flight risks.
  #22  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:40 AM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,018
That number is totally bogus. The actual government stats are between 14% and 1% depending on the program and population in question. The Trump Administration ended a program that had a 99% appearance rate. They should re-start it.
  #23  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:42 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
They fail to appear in court in large numbers. 37% according to one immigration judge:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...144893699.html

As a general principle, we detain people who are flight risks.
Hmm...

From another thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I heard an interesting piece on NPR this morning, and followed up on it.

In January 2016, ICE started a program known as the "Family Case Management Program" which was an alternative to detention, dealing with people who are supposed to go to immigration court and lived in a handful of cities that were part of a pilot program. One of the top criteria for entering the program was whether the person had young children, and they were seeking asylum. Basically, the same population that is embroiled in the controversy today.

Now get this, you people who look kindly on locking up children in cages because "we just have to" -- the program, before the Trump Administration shut it down, resulted in 99 percent of its enrollees showing up for immigration court, including families who were ultimately deported. This program also cost about nine times less than the daily cost of a detention center bed.

And furthermore, I just learned there was another alternative to detention that according to an IG review appears to have been about 95% successful in keeping asylum seekers from absconding.

So when people like Trump, Sessions, Neilsen, and other depraved individuals claim that they have no choice under the law, they are lying. They STOPPED a legal program that appears to have been extremely successful, in order to abuse children.
  #24  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:50 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
There are no plans to reunite the separated families:

https://twitter.com/emilymbadger/sta...446385152?s=19

Family separation is still in place:

https://twitter.com/CallanGrayNews/s...635759104?s=19

"Zero tolerance" is still in force:

https://twitter.com/tisaiahcho/statu...550408192?s=19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
The order was a big show that did nothing, in other words? I am *shocked*.
I'm skeptical of this whole thing too, but can we give it more than an hour before we declare it to have done nothing?
  #25  
Old 06-21-2018, 09:56 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,728
If the numbers aren't so bad, then by all means return to catch and release. But step up enforcement on fugitives. There's just no excuse for it and it should be punished severely just as if an American did it.
  #26  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:03 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 12,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I'm skeptical of this whole thing too, but can we give it more than an hour before we declare it to have done nothing?
No. There is no need to wait given an explicit statement that the criminal cabal in chief has no intention of even attempting to undo the damage already done. From the first link:

Quote:
Trump Retreats on Separating Families, but Thousands Will Remain Apart
"There will not be a grandfathering of existing cases," said Kenneth Wolfe, a spokesman for the Administration for Children and Families.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #27  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:07 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,561
The result is that someone is going to sue to stop it. I'm surprised that hasn't happened already.

Trump will immediately blame the plaintiffs and court for wanting to separate children. This will take the heat off him in regards to Republicans. Democrats, probably not. Maybe gets appealed all the way to the SC.

I predict after the lawsuit blocks his EO, Trump will re-implement catch and release, unless congress enacts something, which I highly doubt. This is a winning issue for Democrats. They're not going to agree to anything until after the mid-terms.
  #28  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:10 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: 39,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
If the numbers aren't so bad, then by all means return to catch and release. But step up enforcement on fugitives. There's just no excuse for it and it should be punished severely just as if an American did it.
I'm "soft" on immigration, by which I mean that of all the illegal things that someone can do in this country, entering illegally is way at the bottom of the priority list. "Catch and release" is a term from fishing, and it's gross to apply it to human beings. Folks whose life in their own country is so awful that they're willing to leave it all behind to move here? I'd rather spend our resources helping them integrate into our society than imprisoning them and their children.
  #29  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:17 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,728
Part of integrating is obeying a court order to appear. Once they flout that it's time to go.
  #30  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:19 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
It is as legal as church on Sunday for furriners to seek asylum here by presenting themselves at the border.

You have been corrected on this point numerous times in these threads, so I can no longer attribute this blanket "these people are suspected of committing crimes" as an error resulting from ignorance. You are intentionally repeating an untruth.
I'm a bit unclear on the population in question, and I haven't even bothered asking until now because the SDMB is so ate-up with emotional rants on the subject and light on facts lately that it seemed futile, but maybe I'll have more luck with you today:

Isn't it the case that (some/many of) the people who have been separated from their children are suspected of committing a crime and the government intends to prosecute them, and that's why they've been detained?
  #31  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:23 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,728
Oh man, now you're getting into tough stuff because the government can't be trusted to tell the truth. They keep on changing their story on stuff like this.

One thing I do know is that many minors are actually unaccompanied and adults are claiming them as their own to avoid detention. I'm hoping that proof of guardianship is being required before people get to enter with kids. These are not stone age countries. Births are documented, adoptions are documented. If you want to bring your kids, you have to bring proof they are yours.
  #32  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:24 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Isn't it the case that (some/many of) the people who have been separated from their children are suspected of committing a crime and the government intends to prosecute them, and that's why they've been detained?
If that's the narrative you wish to push, then I think it is up to you to provide the evidence.
  #33  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:31 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
If that's the narrative you wish to push, then I think it is up to you to provide the evidence.
My post amounts to asking RTFirefly for evidence to support his claim (that "these people are suspected of committing crimes" is an "untruth").
  #34  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:32 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,728
Well they aren't suspected, they crossed the border illegally. There is no outcome in court that results in them being allowed to stay short of a successful asylum claim. Guilty: they crossed illegally and have to go home. Innocent: they didn't cross illegally, they still have to go home.
  #35  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:35 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Oh man, now you're getting into tough stuff because the government can't be trusted to tell the truth. They keep on changing their story on stuff like this.
"The government", as in a Democratic administration would be just as bad? No, it's just Trump and his deplorables.

Quote:
One thing I do know is that many minors are actually unaccompanied and adults are claiming them as their own to avoid detention.
You know that? From what source?

Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Well they aren't suspected, they crossed the border illegally.
Many, after being physically barred right at the border from entering at points where they could ask for asylum. Did you just not know that?

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 06-21-2018 at 10:36 AM.
  #36  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:39 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,675
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
It is as legal as church on Sunday for furriners to seek asylum here by presenting themselves at the border.

You have been corrected on this point numerous times in these threads, so I can no longer attribute this blanket "these people are suspected of committing crimes" as an error resulting from ignorance. You are intentionally repeating an untruth.
It's way too early in the morning for me to try and parse this favorably. Don't do this - don't appear to accuse other posters of lying. Steer well clear of this.

[/moderating]
  #37  
Old 06-21-2018, 10:40 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm a bit unclear on the population in question, and I haven't even bothered asking until now because the SDMB is so ate-up with emotional rants on the subject and light on facts lately that it seemed futile, but maybe I'll have more luck with you today:

Isn't it the case that (some/many of) the people who have been separated from their children are suspected of committing a crime and the government intends to prosecute them, and that's why they've been detained?
I believe this is your answer, unless (a) you're going to accuse the high quality reportage of the New Yorker of being "ate-up with emotional rants on the subject", or (b) you're going to dredge up the circular argument that people who crossed the border illegally should be treated as criminals because they crossed the border illegally. Perhaps you'd be good enough to clarify just what you meant by "suspected of committing a crime". Emphasis mine in the quote below:
[Trump] reversed course because he had no choice politically. Although he often adopts the rhetoric and body language of an authoritarian strongman, he’s an elected politician. And in the face of mass outrage, bipartisan opposition, and condemnation from church groups and other civil-society institutions, the child-separation policy was no longer sustainable.

But Trump didn’t reverse the policy of “zero tolerance” that his Administration introduced in May, which obliges immigration agents to arrest and detain anybody who crosses the border outside an official entry point. The Times reported that the new executive order was designed “to get around an existing 1997 consent decree, known as the Flores settlement, that prohibits the federal government from keeping children in immigration detention—even if they are with their parents—for more than 20 days.” If Trump gets his way, families stopped at the border will now be detained indefinitely under the custody of ICE. That is precisely the outcome that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deemed illegal in a 2016 ruling about the Flores settlement.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...ily-separation

Last edited by wolfpup; 06-21-2018 at 10:44 AM.
  #38  
Old 06-21-2018, 11:33 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
... Perhaps you'd be good enough to clarify just what you meant by "suspected of committing a crime". ...
It's my understanding that crossing the border illegally / "outside an official entry point" is a crime (a misdemeanor, it seems). Do we agree on at least that much?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 06-21-2018 at 11:34 AM.
  #39  
Old 06-21-2018, 11:40 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: 39,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Part of integrating is obeying a court order to appear. Once they flout that it's time to go.
That's a lovely Catch-22, isn't it?

Hey, immigrants! We want you to immigrate! As part of that process, we've set up immigration standards for folks from your country that make it damn near impossible for you to immigrate legally. We're stepping up deportation proceedings massively, too. And if you don't appear at the court proceeding where you'll most likely be deported, that's a sure sign you don't want to immigrate, which means it's time for you to leave our country.

Yeah, can't see how that contradicts what I said at all.
  #40  
Old 06-21-2018, 11:47 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,728
True, we do have a system that fails to meet demand for immigration from Latin America. But that's a choice American voters make. We'll take X number of people in, and that number must be diverse, rather than 90% from Latin America. That's an issue to take up within the democratic system, not by having laws that aren't enforced because they don't match your policy desire to have an undiverse group of immigrants enter the country in larger numbers than American voters want.
  #41  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:10 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: 39,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
True, we do have a system that fails to meet demand for immigration from Latin America. But that's a choice American voters make. We'll take X number of people in, and that number must be diverse, rather than 90% from Latin America. That's an issue to take up within the democratic system, not by having laws that aren't enforced because they don't match your policy desire to have an undiverse group of immigrants enter the country in larger numbers than American voters want.
This gets into a huge discussion of whether a moral person should participate or support the enforcement of immoral laws. I don't think you can do that and remain moral, but I know others disagree; however, it's such a huge discussion that I don't think we can hash it out here.
  #42  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:11 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,003
Wow. This shit is actually indicative of Trump's pro-diversity views? MAGA! That was some outstanding reasoning right there, I tell ya.

We are not letting in one fewer Norwegian for every Salvadoran refugee.

Again: Where are you getting these alternative facts from?
  #43  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:17 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It's way too early in the morning for me to try and parse this favorably. Don't do this - don't appear to accuse other posters of lying. Steer well clear of this.

[/moderating]
Yeah, I fucked up there. My apologies.
  #44  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:23 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 37,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
My post amounts to asking RTFirefly for evidence to support his claim (that "these people are suspected of committing crimes" is an "untruth").
A statement that some of the persons in question are suspected of committing crimes would certainly be true. A blanket statement applying to all of them would be false, because we know that some of the detainees presented themselves at ports of entry and requested asylum. Unless they subsequently did something irrational like attack a guard, they've committed no crimes.
  #45  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:26 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's my understanding that crossing the border illegally / "outside an official entry point" is a crime (a misdemeanor, it seems). Do we agree on at least that much?
This has been my contention all along. The other side has responded that, no, they are simply presenting themselves and claiming asylum. You do not get arrested for that. From my understanding all of the people in these camps were arrested because they were attempting to cross the border illegally.

If that shouldn't be a crime, then petition Congress to change the law. Until then, I fail to see the outrage of arresting people on suspicion of committing a crime. And when you do so with your children in tow and there are no relatives to take the children, the government takes custody of them. Further, this crime is being committed at such a massive level that jails will not hold everyone. The government is handling a situation that is not its fault. This idea of concentration camps and human rights violation is absurd.

Indeed, Trump is ending the policy and children can now stay with their parents. But, but why are we imprisoning children when they did nothing wrong?

Okay, please, guys let's have the real argument we need to have. You all support opening the borders and allowing all of these people to live in the United States. Let's have that debate.
  #46  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:27 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This gets into a huge discussion of whether a moral person should participate or support the enforcement of immoral laws. I don't think you can do that and remain moral, but I know others disagree; however, it's such a huge discussion that I don't think we can hash it out here.
I think that in a democracy, assuming laws are decided upon consistent with what they public wants and consistent with constitutional principles, the laws are moral by definition. I'm sure some people want immigration enforcement because they don't want brown people here. For most though, there is a legitimate national interest in deciding how many new entrants we take in and under what conditions. That's going to involve enforcement and as with any law, people will get hurt. There are many people who hate IRS agents for the same reason. IRS agents destroy the lives of people you know who you believe to be good people but made an honest mistake, or maybe even a dishonest mistake that didn't really hurt anyone. But if the tax laws aren't enforced, we end up like Greece, where tax evasion is a national pasttime.
  #47  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:34 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Okay, please, guys let's have the real argument we need to have. You all support opening the borders and allowing all of these people to live in the United States. Let's have that debate.
We can debate about why so many people use the excluded middle fallacy. How about that one?
  #48  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:39 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,728
Common response to the open borders accusation. Middle ground still involves enforcement. What enforcement measures do you support?
  #49  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:40 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
We can debate about why so many people use the excluded middle fallacy. How about that one?
So, tell me what your position is in this excluded middle? From my observation, those on your side oppose each and every policy that stops illegal immigration.

We have 12 million illegal immigrants here. We have turned away 100,000 in the last 15 months. So many are coming that we are dealing with 2,000 children over a six week period.

What steps, in your opinion, can we take to solve this problem, or indeed is it even a problem in your mind? Should we just open up the gates and let them all in?
  #50  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:46 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,003
We can start by not blaming the families bringing their children for being forcibly separated from them.

We aren't going to have a useful discussion if you're going to base your positions on alternative facts.
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 06:15 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