Concerning current events, Trump blames Democrats for the separation of children from their illegal parents. A Republican friend of mine supports this statement under Public Law 107-296 (of 2002). This law does say concerning this very situation (in few words) the children will be retained (lacking specific details of how to do so). My friend claims this law passed a Blue Congress with President Bush as POTUS. Overall, this voluminous Act’s Table of Contents reads like the Patriot Act. Hard to tell as “Patriot Act” is probably a loose term for a specific Act.
Anyway, how does a Democrat argue against this? Surely, this Act cannot be the final word. In the least, there must be laws against acting as inhumane as possible. But, this too is a slippery slope because, when dealing with illegals, are they innocent until proven guilty and thus protected under the US Constitution? Or, is this a gray area best left for the legal eagles of the Federal Courts?
I am not a lawyer. I have not read the law. I have listened to lawyers discus the law and what I have heard is the law was targeted at people who committed felonies. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor and the law was not intended to apply to people in this category. I also heard that the law is a bit vague on this point; thus the zero-tolerance policy of the Sessions Justice department.
The policy will most likely be a very successful deterrent to the immigration of families. It is also immoral, reprehensible, and I am personally disgusted the policies that are taking place in my name. As an independent, the Republicans have lost me forever as a supporter at any level. I am hoping that their actions will have consequences, but I have doubts that it will be the case.
The first thing I’d ask is how the hell your friend thinks 2002 was a blue Congress. The Senate was split pretty much down the middle (with Cheney having the tie-breaking vote) and the House had a Republican majority, albeit a small one.
You might point out to your friend that, at the time this bill was being debated, the presidency and the House were in Republican hands, and the Senate (depending on the exact date) had a one or two seat Democratic majority. Of the bills’ 154 sponsors combined in the House and Senate, 148 of them were Republicans. If something passed in that environment can be solely blamed on Democrats, democracy has very little meaning.
It’s not a crime if the crossing, and asylum request, is at a port of entry. Crossing the border at some random point, asylum request or not, is a misdemeanor the first time. Any future crossing, not at a port of entry, is a felony.
Sometimes some insight into the workings of the government can come from inspecting the silliest of all possible hypotheticals, and see how it plays out.
There are articles that list dozens of seemingly stupid laws that remain on the books centuries later because no case came to light to foster its repeal. Like, it is against the law to transport an opossum on a bobsled. A cop checks out a bobsled, and sure enough, there’s the opossum riding in the jumpseat. So he throws the book at the driver, adding in a few gotcha laws like Conspiracy to transport an opossum on a bobsled and contributing to the delinquency of an opossum, and he is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and gets a hanging judge.
This goes viral, and of course, the Republican governor sends his staff to get the goods, and sure enough, the opossum/bobsled laws was enacted and signed by a Democratic administration. So it’s the Dems fault.
Public Law 107-296 created the Department of Homeland Security. 2002 was between September 11th and the invasion of Iraq, if you recall. Few politicians could afford to vote against any law that talked about protecting the borders.
Also, I don’t understand the OP’s “Seeking advice, not a debate” title.
You might point out while they’re hiding behind a law, they have been pretty clear they are attempting to extort compliance from the Dems for a nasty immigration bill. By traumatizing children.
Pretty hard to defend that level of evil, in my opinion.
That’s my understanding, in other words if someone gets everything in order and crosses properly, they’re good. If they hop on a makeshift boat to cross and run through the desert in the middle of the night, not so much. However, in 2008 there were several options for what DHS/HHS could do with people picked up illegally crossing, Trump’s policy of zero tolerance is only using one of those options. Phillip DeFranco has a good, quick, explanation here. Starts at 5:25.
Also, I’m pretty sure when you reach a port of entry and make your asylum request, you don’t cross the border, until your asylum request is granted. In these cases the families are not separated.
We might also advise that Trump, and his minions, have been telling us that, as chief executive law enforcement officer, he’s capable of ordering the enforcement, or not, of anything he sees fit. Not a debate. That’s what I hear them saying.