Due to the adminstration’s new policy to purposefully separate these children such that their traumatization can serve as a deterrent to future migrants, right now they are being housed separately. Housing them together would not cost any more than housing them separately – in fact, much of the expense of child-care would be unnecessary, since their parents would do much of that if they were housed together.
However, you’ve made it quite clear that you value supporting this president, and preventing immigration, far more than avoiding the unnecessary traumatization of children. That’s your choice, and something you’ll have to live with.
Where’s the part where he cursed at you? Where’s the part where he was DEMANDING?
Seriously, if the use of ‘fucking’ as an adjective is enough to set you off, even when it’s not invective aimed at anyone but simply an intensifier, you really might want to rethink your participation here.
ETA: To answer your question more directly, if someone said, “pass the fucking salt,” I’d pass the fucking salt. I wouldn’t think they were cursing at me. I’d probably think they’d already asked me to pass the salt, but I’d not heard them the first time.
I have family members that have been arrested for shoplifting and even more serious misdemeanors like burglary. One of them more than once. They never even spent a night in jail and their custody of their kids was never in danger. Most people that commit misdemeanor offenses never go to jail.
First of all, the children of most criminals DO have family. Especially since the vast majority of crime is committed by men, while women tend to be the default caregivers.
And even when a single mother commits a crime and is jailed for it, she likely has relatives, friends, someone she can ask to take care of her kid.
And failing all that, Child Protective Services or some similar agency would step in and find someone to foster the child.
But taking the child away from everyone and everything s/he has ever known would be a last resort, not a first one. And even then, the child would not be incarcerated, and the caregiver (the foster parent) would be able to hug a distraught child.
ETA: So if you can’t see the shit-ton of differences between what happens to a child of a criminal who happens to already be a U.S. citizen, and the children being separated from their parents here, I can’t help you. They’re big, they’re obvious.
Right. GETTING BACK TO THE QUESTION: you’re acting like this is business as usual. So, just a head count: how many children have you seen put in foster care for a month or longer because their parents shoplifted? Just a single number.
I think the number is zero, and that this answer undermines your premise, so you’re not answering the question. Please let me know if I’m incorrect.
Of course not. I’d prefer that we go back to the policies of previous years. Hell, let’s go back to W’s policies (and goddamn if I thought I’d never write that sentence).
Folks thinking we’re undergoing a de facto invasion, I wish you had a time machine and could go back to September 1939 and hang out in Poland, so you could experience an invasion. What we’re experiencing now is nothing whatsoever like an invasion. It’s ludicrous hyperbole–and I’m sure that some of the fingerwagging conservatives who so objected to hyperbole earlier in the thread will be along any minute now to wag their fingers at you.
I don’t know that statistics are kept on how many children are placed in foster care because of a parent’s pretrial incarceration. A google search shows that a tremendous number of people are unable to post bail for minor crimes and are incarcerated until trial. Unfortunately, many of my clients are in the same situation. Luckily they have relatives who care for their children while in jail.
These people crossing the border likely do not have relatives to care for the children, so society must do it.
As far as “catch and release,” normal crimes are not described that way because a judge sets bail in an amount, even if it is a personal recognizance, that is likely to ensure the suspect’s appearance at a future trial.
There is so such amount or any other surety to ensure that these people appear if released. They have no verifiable identity, no residence, no ties to the community; we cannot fine them or suspend their driver’s license. Their promise to appear is worthless on its face given that the goal is to sneak into the country and live below the radar.
But none of this is the fault of the United States. Like any sovereign nation, we have the right to protect our border. Why isn’t the finger pointed at Mexico for failing to establish a decent society where its people are able to prosper at home?
I asked you if the child had a right to visitation.
Your response was to waffle on about “the indulgence of relatives.”
A simple “yes” or “no” would have sufficed.
I’ll take it your answer is “no” now?
Of course there is a fucking procedure.
You’ve just given me a procedure. You’ve just explained the steps the police would go through to separate a child from their parent. With over 18,000 police departments in the United States I’m sure the procedures will vary from detailed to ad-hoc. But you cannot deny that there will be procedures in place when it becomes necessary to separate a child from a parent in the scenario when a parent is arrested for a crime when they have a child in tow.
Now: can you name me one police department in the United States of America where they would remove they would remove the child via this method: they would tell the parent they were taking the child away to be bathed, then they would put that child on a plane to the other side of the country, and when the parent asked “where is my child” the response would be “you are never going to see your child again?”
Because that is the system that you deem acceptable. That is the system that you are comparing to “arresting a shoplifter.” Where are these shoplifters who are getting thrown in jail and the children flown across country? If that is the standard procedure for any police department then I’d like to see a cite.
I’m sorry, but can you explain how the decisions made by the Trump administration are the fault of somebody else?
Nonsense. Hyperbole.
Its unbelievable that you are pointing the finger of blame at everybody except the people responsible for this decision. You clearly support this policy. So don’t “pretend” you are taking a pragmatic approach when in reality you don’t have a problem with what is happening here. Take ownership of your beliefs. Show us who you really are.
So in other words, although you didn’t say it, the answer to my question is “zero.” Cool!
New question: how many children have you ever HEARD of whose parents were charged with shoplifting and who, because of this charge, became wards of the state for a month or longer?
I think the number is still “zero.” I expect that, rather than answer the question, though, you’ll hem and haw and throw up distractions and irrelevancies about the paucity of statistics on the subject.
You started this by citing your extensive experience working with cases involving neglect and abuse. You made your experience relevant. So pony up: how many have you heard of?
Our country is richer than it’s ever been. Our cities are crowded because crime is low and all of a sudden, everyone wants to live in the cities. (We could have a lot more housing there, but for NIMBYism.) Most places I know of have schools that are less crowded than back in the early 1960s when I was in elementary school. (The normal class size in my affluent suburban elementary school was 30, and sometimes it was a good bit more than normal. The parochial schools had even larger classes.)
We’ve got megabillionaires who can’t find anything better to do with their money than invest it in space travel. Our society has wealth. The problems we have are largely problems because we prioritize the desires of the uber-wealthy.
Who is suggesting this? I did catch the ‘some of you,’ so OK, not me, but whom?
Yeah, just like the invasion from eastern and southern Europe in the decades before WWI when two of my grandparents ‘invaded.’
They ‘invaded,’ became productive citizens, sent my father to college so that he could start his adult life with the advantages they didn’t have when they arrived.
And you know what? That’s what’s been happening on our southern border for decades. Latinos arrive here, take the shit jobs the rest of us don’t want, work hard, and make sure their kids start their lives in a better position than they did.
America has greatly prospered due to ‘invasions’ like this. It’s a fundamental part of what makes this country great. It doesn’t become better by slamming the door. Even on a basic economic level, it will make us weaker and less prosperous.
I have never personally heard of such a case, because in the ordinary criminal context, people have friends and relatives in the community in which they live. They have some semblance of being settled and a routine. Further, the authorities do everything they can to place these children with relatives.
I have heard of several cases where parents have had their rights terminated because they committed crimes in the presence of the child. In a recent case, a mother left her ten year old daughter in the car while she went to the front door of a house to purchase heroin. She was adjudicated an abusive parent because, the thinking goes, that drug deals are inherently dangerous and she exposed her child to this potential of violence.
However, if I got arrested in Paris with my child, then I have no friends or relatives, then the child must be placed in government custody. You cannot send the child to jail, so what else will be done?
Wait…the only options you see are “living in the streets” and concentration camps??
Seriously?
No, seriously?
No one has done so in this thread. You know it, I know it, Urbanredneckmight know it if he looked past his blinders.
But yanno what? I’mma throw him a bone. I’ll do it one better: I’m not suggesting that we should have open borders, I’m saying it outright.
Yes. We can.
Yes. We can.
There. Urbanredneck, I just said it. I AM THE ONLY ONE IN THIS THREAD WHO HAS DONE SO. I AM THE ONLY PERSON IN THIS THREAD TO ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS WITH NO RESTRICTIONS.
Now, feel free to address any invective you might have toward me, and kindly stop accusing other posters of holding positions they have not stated.
.
One thing that perhaps confuses things is the % of asylum seekers who are doing so at designated border crossings vs those who are sneaking in or being smuggled in. I think a lot of folks are assuming we are dealing mostly with the former, but perhaps these cases (with children) getting so much attention in recent months it’s been more of the latter?
Previous administrations have treated everyone who claims asylum the same. And the answer to how many fail to appear is 14% when you don’t give them lawyers, and 2% when you do give them lawyers. It would literally be cheaper to simply appoint them all lawyers than to detain them all, with virtually the same result in terms of rates of appearance.
This is a very inconvenient fact for people trying to justify this the way UltraVires is trying.
…which is bound to result in some people proposing ahem unsavory theories involving the more distasteful elements of Donald’s Russian Rolodex if the Trumpoltroons don’t start coughing up answers. Not implying anything, just saying…
What I have heard, and only in passing is: the correct and legal locations for applying for sanctuary and asylum or specific and special. They are not located directly on the borders, but on American soil, and those offices located on the border refuse to accept or even acknowledge such requests.
Hence, anyone seeking such asylum must first cross the border, which instantly renders them criminals. El Catcho Veintidós.
As said, this was only heard in passing, I have not verified it. Got a nickel says its true.
Let’s just take a moment and actually think about this issue. The U.S. has a hard cap on the number of refugees it takes from other countries, which went as high as 80,000 in recent years, but is now falling to half of that. The number of people granted asylum seems to be in the 25,000 range, but it seems like those stats are harder to come by.
In comparison, in any year the U.S. grants more than 1 million people lawful permanent residence, based on things like being family members of US persons, getting married to an American, having a long-term job in the US, etc.
When you stop to think that less than 10% of those who are lawfully admitted to this country are those who are legitimately fleeing death, violence, and persecution, I think we can take an awful lot more of them. The idea that in this country of what, 315 million, we don’t have room for ~100,000 more people who may otherwise face murder or imprisonment? Give me a break.