It’s evidently not the only country in the world where it happens, but to me it seems as if the US has a long and thick history of coming up with policies which Must Be Done without
checking that it is possible to Do So,
providing the details on who, how, and when,
coming up with an actual procedure,
examining how the new policy affects existing laws, policies, regulations and procedures,
modifying these accordingly,
etc. etc.
The bit about “inadequate funding”, that one is quite common, sadly.
“Let’s detain every person that ever comes to our attention has entered the country without doing all their paperwork” probably seemed like a Good Idea. On paper, it’s basically “let’s follow the letter of the law”, which doesn’t seem terribly far-fetched or creative. But alas, once you start doing it it’s… “ok, so now we need to prosecute them. And that means we need to do something with these kids. I don’t have the budget or place or procedures to deal with the kids. Here, you do it!” “Uh? Bbbbubut why? I don’t have the resources or holyfuckwhyisthiskidcryingIdon’tevenunderstandwhatitsays!”
If you cross into another country illegally with your children then you are putting them into all sorts of danger, the least of which is separation. The parents are the ones responsible.
This administration made a deliberate choice to institute a policy of separation for deterrence purposes. They made the choice that deliberately traumatizing children, to deter families in the future who don’t want their children traumatized, was good for America.
Those making the choice to deliberately traumatize children are responsible for traumatizing those children, not desperate parents trying to make the best choice from a group of terrible options for their families.
To put it another way, let’s say all laws regulating the sale of guns were abolished, but the gun stores were closed so that nobody could ever buy a gun.
I have a question I hope you will answer. If given a choice between being on an MS-13 hit list and traveling across a desert, which one is the better bet for you and your family?
And yet, somehow, this policy is new and wasn’t present under the previous administration. It seems something has changed - was it the parents who instituted that change?
A party does not have to be in charge to put forth spending bills or any other legislation. In fact most bills are passed with bipartisan support. Many republicans are also wanting to stop this practice.
So I think right now would be a great time to put forth such a spending bill.
There are lots of solutions. The easiest is to abandon the policy by which you shunt legitimate asylum-seekers away from ports of entry and in which you prosecute 100% of misdemeanor offenders.
But even if you want to keep those policies, you could have family detention or highly restrictive parole.
The reason you cannot see those solutions is because you cannot bear to accept that this cruelty is being inflicted for no reason, or because the cruelty is itself a benefit in your analysis.
Technically, you’re correct. But in practical terms, I have roughly the same chance that Steny Hoyer or Ben Cardin or Chris Van Hollen (my Rep and Senators) have of having a bill one of us writes making it to the floor of the House or Senate in 2018.
The party that controls a house of Congress gets to control what legislation gets considered in committee, let alone what legislation makes it to the floor for a vote. If you’re in the minority, you can write all the bills you want, but it’s the equivalent of shouting into the void.
Right now, Sen. Feinstein has written a bill to end the separation of families at our southern border. IIRC, every Democratic Senator other than Manchin has co-sponsored it.
How about letting them in, and putting them to work? Unemployment’s at 3.9%, and there’s news stories all the time about how employers can’t find workers.
Solves two problems at once. Win-win!
ETA: I’m being quite serious here. I’ve seen few better examples of two problems where each was the other’s solution.
But if we let them in legally, we would have to pay them legal wages and whatever benefits the other employees get. Not only that, but we would actually have to let them receive the Social Security they have been paying into!
Well then, the solution’s obvious: let them in illegally as in the past, so employers can pay them sub-minimum wages since they can be reported to ICE if they complain!
Getting serious for a moment, the weird thing about that arrangement is that American workers seemed to prefer illegal foreign workers to legal ones, despite the fact that the illegals could substantially undercut their wages. I never did grok that.
