No, but my understanding is that this situation is more analogous to something like this: Dad takes kid along on a bank robbery. When dad-of-the-year is arrested, and kid is standing around the bank lobby alone, the police place kid in custodial care until a relative or other suitable caretaker can be located to provide for kid’s needs. Am I missing some key element of the situation?
-
Separating male (I’m assuming adult male) immigrants from their families doesn’t sound like what I’m hearing, which is that children are being separated in general from both parents.
-
I didn’t know about Obama doing this, but I disapprove of it too.
-
Did you know about it? Did you protest it then? Do you support it?
-
Of all the shit that Republicans did protest Obama for, why wasn’t this part of the list? Maybe because they actually supported it?
-
The same acts against brown people really are different when done by someone who regularly spouts racist propaganda.
Tim R. Mortis, would you care to tell us what the legal procedures are that these folks ought to be pursuing?
The severity of the crime and the likelihood of finding a suitable caretaker?
Let’s say Canada gets fed up with Americans driving like asshats, and so passes a law saying that you can’t drive in Canada without an international drivers’ license, which few Americans bother getting; violating this law is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $250 fine and a 1 year restriction on entering Canada. But it’s not effective, Americans are getting the citation and just ignoring it, going back to the US, and never facing punishment. Outraged, the Canadian government decides to hold Americans caught without an international DL in jail until they can be tried/punished. And if they happened have kids in the car at the time, well, you can’t very well lock the kids up with the adults, right? Now Canada is separating young children from their parents and keeping them in ghastly holding facilities over a petty charge of driving without an international driver’s license.
Not really, but the police in that situation would be able to get the kid home in a couple of hours, max.
What it comes down to is balance. How much are you willing to have a child suffer in order to solve a law enforcement problem? My answer is “minimally,” but a lot of people seem to be saying “until the parents learn.”
Two bills are coming up for a vote in the House. I’m hoping there’s enough political pressure to get one passed and then the Senate will be on the hot seat.
House Republicans have been working on two proposals: One more moderate one, and another more conservative option, known as the Goodlatte bill.
The current situation is heartbreaking and a solution has to be implemented.
I don’t think either party wants to risk obstructing legislation. Especially just before mid term elections.
This goes beyond winning or losing in politics. The children’s plight strike at everyone’s heart.
I have no idea. But if I were planning to invade a foreign country, I would surely bone up on the pertinent laws before I started packing.
Because they are not allowed to enter at the checkpoints and ask for asylum. This is another policy change. You can’t ask for asylum until you are in the country. You can’t enter through the checkpoints.
Your ancestors may or may not have entered through legal checkpoints. Almost certainly the laws were different.
I assure you my ancestors entered legally, at Ellis Island. I’m sure the laws change all the time, but we still let in legal immigrants every day. There’s a right way to do it, as well as wrong ways, and I have zero sympathy for those who choose to flout our laws.
Improper Entry is a misdemeanor. It would be more like Dad of the Year caught littering and was arrested and held without bail while the child was forced into the state system.
Trump went to the House.
I’m encouraged that the Majority Whip is on board to get a bill passed. The Whip is responsible for rounding up support and counting heads before the vote.
Imho, it’s good that Trump repeatedly said he’d sign either bill that passed. There’s no reason for him to alienate one side or the other. Let the House sort it out and decide which goes to the Senate. He reports to the Speaker of the House.
Normally a bill like this wouldn’t have a chance. But, the pressure is on to fix the immigration problem. Keep families in detention together.
Next few days will be very interesting. What happens will probably have an impact on the mid term election. I wouldn’t want to be on record voting against a immigration bill that ends the separation of families.
3 administrations, including this one, used the same law to refer the same type of offenders for civil deportation proceedings. The only thing that has changed is the policy, not the law.
How long before these “family detention centers” get called concentration camps and then get compared to the internment of Japanese during WWII?
Oh, no. Hold the phone. We need to control our borders. We need to end the systems of illegal entry and people trafficking. I’m with you 100%.
Thanks to the current administration and its supporters, this effort is hopelessly entwined with racism and white nationalism, and it is no one’s fault but their own.
The current practice has led to some very hard facts:
a) we separate babies from their mothers
b) the babies are warehoused
c) we are not prepared to account properly for their treatment, or their existence,
d) as their care is handled by private firms.
“We must hurry and pass this legislation” is not the right answer. The right answer is demonstrating, right now, that whatever is being done is in keeping with our values as a country of immigrants. The country is not new at this. The administration is new. The policies are new. The facilities and procedures are new. These things are in question.
“We must hurry and pass this legislation” is a political game. That can wait.
We already know that it is not, in fact the opposite. So yes, the right answer *is *to “hurry and pass” something that will stop it.
If you’re referring to the Trail of Tears, WW2 internment camps, turning away the Jews aboard the St. Louis, and breaking up slave families at auction, and those are just for instance, then you’re right, this is nothing new for us. What *would *be new would be the obvious lessons being so well learned that these latest atrocities would be impossible.
I work at a trucking firm. As I walk into the office there is talk about last night’s news: “If they didn’t cross the border illegally, this wouldn’t have happened” “Obama did it too!” “I heard on the news that it was child actors” etc.
When I said that I didn’t think it was right to take babies and toddlers away from their parents, the response was swift and to the point-“Why are you bringing politics into this? You know the rule about bringing up politics at work, don’t you?”
It seems to have gone the opposite way. Whip counts show both bills falling far short of passage in large part because Trump wouldn’t commit to either. No one trusts that they’ll vote for the “compromise” (:rolleyes:) bill and then NOT see a Trump tweet a day later blasting everyone who voted for it as supporting amnesty and open borders.
What they wanted was Trump to definitively support a bill so they could somewhat safely get behind it. That didn’t happen so both bills are floundering.
I cannot agree with that, I can only say that I strongly suspect this is a ham-fisted shitshow of dubious intent.
Just as Trump planned.
Trump planned this as a negotiating tactic. He seems completely unaware how spectacularly this is blowing up in his face right before the midterms.
That said, it must be fixed. The United States has stood for fundamental decency in human rights and against this type of abuse for decades. One can rightly point to instances where we have failed to live up to our ideals, but we have strived to improve, and we have always looked forward even as we struggled. What is happening now is unacceptable and it cannot stand.