Random thought: where are all those “pro-family” conservative (mostly evangelical) orgs? Where do they stand on this? I checked out Focus on the Family’s website, and couldn’t find any mention of this moral carnage.
Yeah, I know: they’re not pro-actual families, just pro some twisted Platonic ideal of a 1950s white evangelical family. I’d still be delighted to be proven wrong.
The link in post #140 also says:
Today is June 17, so they’ve probably managed to separate another several hundred kids from their parents. May 31 is just the last date they’ve got the numbers for.
Today is also the 46th anniversary of the Watergate break-in. That at least wasn’t a crime against humanity, though Nixon and Kissinger committed more than their share.
Because it’s not as fun.
Fine, I consider it monstrous and also probably financially unwise, it’s probably expensive to look after kids while their parents will do it for free.
It does sound like this is more than just a Trump thing, if border guards are going to extra effort to prevent asylum seekers then it’s probably systemic dickishness.
It also sounds like they’ve found the best way to shit on immigrants while still technically following the law so it’s probably not going to stop, Trump’s people aren’t doing it to appeal to liberals and the media, i bet this is going down great with Trump’s base.
One important question that’s come up elsewhere online is: what happens when these kids act out, or simply go crazy, as a result of being deprived of their parents? Does ORR have enough staff trained to handle extremely traumatized children to look after thousands of them? Or do they just have whatever warm bodies they can find, in our booming economy with plenty of better jobs out there, who can give them food and show them where their beds are, but aren’t capable of much more than that? And what does the staff do when these kids throw things, break things, try to harm themselves?
…I have a response for you Bricker.
This what is happening right now.
Do you think that this method of separating parents from children is a morally acceptable method to enforce immigration law?
Here’s Susan Collins’ mealymouthed response to a constituent asking about the kids separated from their parents.
No hope from moderate Republican officeholders, then. Disappointed but not surprised.
They’re pro family in the sense of “wow, it sure feels good to say I’m pro family”.
How would you deal with:
People who were caught at the border previously, but say they were forced to sign documents in English that they didn’t understand regarding their willingness to leave the U.S. without formal deportation proceedings? (This happens with astonishing frequency.)
People who were in deportation proceedings previously (and then either left voluntarily or were deported) years ago, or even recently, but experienced events in their home country in the interim that forced them to flee again?
I’m sure there are other circumstances not contemplated by the Bricker Plan that would lead to people being treated unfairly.
Improvisational politics worries me. Too many things can go wrong when its hot and grumpy and people are already fired up.
I read the rest of the thread, but I wanted to respond to this as it was directed at me.
Illegal immigration has a victim: the sovereignty of the United States. Twelve MILLION people here in violation of the law. If it is a shitty law, then we need to change it. If not, we need to enforce it. Further, this Libertarian idea that so long as there is not an identifiable victim of a crime, then it should not be illegal, has never been a part of U.S. or English common law jurisprudence.
Regardless of the legality of seeking asylum, there is cause (and the Fourth Amendment is extremely relaxed at the borders) to believe that someone showing up with a kid and asking for asylum is attempting simple illegal immigration. Many people accused of DUI, battery, or shoplifting are completely innocent, but they will be separated from their children while the justice system proceeds, even if it proceeds slowly.
In the latter instances, children are separated from U.S. citizens. We have a right to defend our own borders. Let me blast through the Rainbow Bridge customs area with my daughter and see if the nice Canadians allow us to spend the night together.
I’m sure that’s true. I could probably sleep six more people in my basement.
But I doubt you’d argue that my failure to volunteer my basement is inhumane.
So my question focuses not on what we could do with full advertance of the national will, but, as I hinted above, what would constitute avoiding inhumance actions.
If a husband and wife are arrested for tax evasion, and cannot make bail, we do not provide a shelter for them to remain with their children. I have never heard of that policy being criticized as inhumane.
So at the least, it would seem defensible to separate those border crossers who are repeat offenders. No?
“the sovereignty of the United States” is an impressive-sounding phrase. Could you be more specific about the concrete consequences to U.S. sovereignty here?
Why? Why do you think it’s essential that the children of people who haven’t even been accused of a crime be punished so cruelly?
Why, even then? If we determine that their claim to asylum is invalid, and they have been charged with crimes in other countries, why do we need to separate them even then? Why not just return them to the custody of the officials in the country where they have been charged?
This is such a ridiculously bullshit false equivalence that it discredits any semi-rational arguments you may have made.
Answer: 8 U.S. Code § 1325(a)(1), forbidding entry or attempted entry of the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers.
A person who has illegally entered the United States may still apply for asylum, but that does not erase the crime of illegal entry. Asylum-seeker should enter the United States at a designated point of entry to seek asylum.
But are we assuming that majority of illegal immigrants are legitimate asylum seekers? I don’t believe that’s a true statement.
That’s an interesting question. The answer is generally no, because generally that’s not a crime.
But if a parent were arrested for the crime of trespassing, and could not make bail, the children for which they are responsible would typically be taken into some sort of custody until another appropriate adult could be found.
I don’t think it it’s essential.
I am arguing against the proposition that it is per se inhumane.
Not that you asked me.
I have, many times. The notion that people get jailed for sheer inability to post bail, pay fines, etc. creates a caste system of justice where comfortably well-off people like you and me remain free awaiting trial, but poorer people sit in jail awaiting trial, with all the life consequences (loss of income, disruption of ability to care for dependents, potential loss of residence, etc.) that that entails.
In the opinion of many on the left (myself included) it’s only marginally removed from debtor’s prison. Here’s David Dayen in The Nation writing about this.
The point isn’t to derail this thread with a debate over this issue, but to make the point that this policy is in fact criticized as inhumane, though you yourself may not have heard those criticisms.
To the extent that this depends on your previous assertion, no.
Well, I already responded that, since I’m not an expert on refugee operations or whatever I said up there, I don’t know the answer, but there are actual people who know these things. Unfortunately, since this administration is filled with nothing but corrupt and incompetent people, they don’t know what to do either. A competent administration, well, wouldn’t do this in the first place, but if they did, they would have a plan for holding families in acceptable housing while their situations are sorted out, asylum seekers are separated from regular illegal immigrants, and people are sent along their way.
I assume you’re taking about non-asylum seekers here, but of course, those people are treated the same way as regular illegal entrants. So, limiting this to illegal entrants, the difference between citizens and residents being arrested and folks on the border is that the locals have actual neighborhood connections. So, if my wife and I were jailed, my neighbors, family, friends could step in and care for my children. In the worst case, children are placed into temporary foster care – I know a family that would take in infants for moms who were in custody – they were placed into their loving home, not put into fenced-in camp. Almost by definition, people who are just arriving at our border don’t have that kind of support network here. So, the normal way we treat normal criminals don’t provide any guidance here.
I don’t know whether you’re just playing devil’s advocate here, but I’m a little surprised at your position. With your anti-capital punishment, pro-life, pro-gay rights, devout Catholic background, you always struck me as a true compassionate conservative. This policy doesn’t seem like compassionate conservatism to me.
OK, fair enough. And in fact, I admit that with this refreshing of my recollection, I have heard this policy criticized – perhaps not literally as “inhumane,” but certainly I have heard strong criticism of it.
But I think my real point is: notwithstanding those criticisms, the process of separating children from parents when the parents are jailed for a crime is a well-established practice in the country; it’s not a novel indignity being directed only at illegal immigrants.
I’m not supportive of this policy, and believe it to be lacking compassion and cruel.
But I don’t believe it qualifies as “inhumane.” It’s the hyperbole I’m attacking here.
But when you’re talking about separating children from parents jailed for a crime: first, it’s very rarely from both parents. Husband-and-wife criminal teams aren’t something you hear about every day. So Dad (overwhelmingly Dad) goes to prison in order to protect the rest of us from him. Mom is still there - probably the primary caregiver anyway. If worst comes to worst, there are likely other relatives the child can stay with. There is almost always someone there who will take on the responsibilities of a parent because that person is related to the child, and cares about the child.
But what we’re talking about here is the total separation of the child from anyone with any bond to that child, from anyone the child can inherently trust.
So there’s a qualitative difference, yes. The latter is far more inhumane than the former.
