Generally, I support the honesty of the media, and in a sense they are not lying on this topic, but for the most part they are.
The Trump administration does not have to PROSECUTE people who have crossed into the country illegally as criminals. This is true, and this is what the media is trying to make you believe the Trump administration is saying. But it is not what the Trump administration has claimed.
But HAVING decided to prosecute you for criminal trespass into the country, the law DOES force the government to separate children from their families because children aren’t allowed to be put into jails. This is what the Trump administration is referring to when they say that they’re forced to separate the children out.
These laws were not pushed through by Liberals. One law mandating that children not be allowed into jails was backed by Jeff Sessions, for example.
Well, the Trump administration and the Republican-dominated congress could:
a) Choose not to enforce the laws that lead to the breakups of families, or
b) Allocate sufficient funds such that families can be held as units, with the parents’ and the children’s cases processed simultaneously, so the the family either gets deported as a unit or is granted asylum as a unit.
Since they won’t do either of these (that I’m aware of), I have to figure the end results, good or bad, are their responsibility. If it ultimately works out for the better, good for them. If the results are bad, boo-hiss to them.
Yes, certainly true. I’m not arguing that the administration is in the right nor that they are being honest either. I am, as said, simply pointing out that the media is being deliberately and patently misleading in their statements and in the laws they cite.
Jeff Sessions said this was a new policy in place for deterrent purposes. That’s not existing law – that’s a new policy, and one that could very easily be reversed.
Trump et al are lying when they say “the law requires us to separate children from their families,” because the law does NOT require that they prosecute people who cross the border as criminals. They are choosing to do that.
Sage Rat points out this fact then carries Trump’s water by pretending that the choice to prosecute is something other than a choice. Prosecuting is not required. It’s not forced on Trump. He’s choosing to do it.
The cute little trick of pointing out that those prosecuted as criminals can’t have their children stay in jail with them (under current law) is an utterly cynical tactic in its complete irrelevancy. No person with a particle of decency is falling for it.
…your OP is noticeably cite-free. If you want to assert that the media is being “deliberately and patently misleading” then the very least you could do would be to provide a couple of examples. The media is being attacked to an unprecedented degree by the State. If you want to join in on the pile-on, then at least bring some facts to the table.
Once source that people are citing as the “law” that is now being enforced is the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP), which picked up illegal immigrants in one location and dropped them off in a completely different location. For example, someone picked up in the Rio Grande area might be taken to Mexicali and released there. The idea was that this would discourage drug smuggling and human trafficking rings, people who regularly went back and forth across the border, in other words, by inconveniencing them or worse. This is clearly different in intent and execution than what we are seeing today.
This article in the NY Times gives a good overview of what is happening now, and why it is different than earlier rulings, policies or laws. The word rulings is especially important here, because many of these issues, have already been before the courts and there is case history.
More on the 2008 law that Trump is referring to:
Beginning in April, children were removed from their families, 91% of the time when the charges were misdemeanors. In some cases, they were removed before any charges were brought at all. Parents have not been tried or convicted of anything.
The law does NOT require what is happening now. Trump does.
[/QUOTE]
The media claims that I have decided to use extreme measures to remove all hair from my head.
I claim that I am doing it to cure cancer and the fact that I am losing hair is a side effect of the decision I made.
Now, yes, I am undergoing an extreme procedure and hair loss is happening, but classifying that as what I am engaged in is silly.
If you want to make the argument that Trump’s people overlooked that their new policy would cause thousands of children to be separated from their parents, then sure, that’s true. But all indications are that it’s an unintended consequence. This is an issue of incompetence causing greater malfeasance than the actual intended malfeasance.
They are actively and intentionally traumatizing children to extort votes from democrats on a heartless immigration policy. They expect the democrats are too thin skinned to long tolerate the abuse of children, their compassion making them weak and easy to exploit.
An irrelevant hypothetical to cover up previous bare assertions? Quit digging, man! Just give us a cite for who “the media” is, or retract your claims.
This is basically asking me to post a link to every article written on the subject. Are you honestly asserting that I could not find a news article with a headline basically in the form of, “Trump policy is to separate families at borders”?
Let’s assume you are right about this. That alone should disturb you deeply. This is not deciding whether to go to Burger King or McDonalds. These are decisions that affect thousands of people. If it really is just an “oops” then it is near criminal negligence.
At this level of government there are plenty of advisors and decisions are generally carefully considered. There is no way this issue with kids would have been missed if they bothered to discuss it and I cannot believe they did not discuss it.
I think Trump knew fully well what would happen (not because he could figure it out but because and advisor would have told him). I think Trump figured the kid issue would strong arm the dems into concessions (e.g. build the wall) in order to get him to ease up (we have heard him say it is up to the dems to fix this). Trump has zero concern for the welfare of others and particularly non-white people. He is not losing sleep over this.
Okay, but that’s not misleading. Trump’s administration set up a new policy. The result of that policy is to separate families at the border.
Your hair example is inane, because going bald is a trivial side effect of something that has a much greater effect. Tearing families apart is not a trivial fucking side effect.
If you want to change your scenario, let’s --[edit: let’s go to Sunny’s post below mine, which is much better.]
Let’s try adjusting your hypothetical. Remember that the Trump administration chose to move from referring these families for civil deportation proceedings to referring them for misdemeanors, so we’re looking at doing something more extreme than we need to do.
Let’s say your doctor tells you to lose weight. You could do that by exercising and eating a sensible diet. In this case you will do it by undergoing chemotherapy AND your children will do it too by order of your doctor. Everyone around you is quite upset. It’s one thing to ask your children to eat sensibly and exercise, but it’s quite another to have them undergo chemotherapy. You have to do it though. It’s your only chance at weight loss, and you need to lose weight. Your children will suffer, they might even die, but you knew what you were getting into, right? Chemo for kids! The new weight loss craze.
That’s crazy, right? Completely overboard. It’s harmful to children for no purpose. It can be handled another way and extreme measures are not required for most people. That’s the hypothetical that’s closer to this situation.
ETA: Or what LHoD said. Drop the hypothetical. It’s not working.
Moving on, I think the cite everyone would like to see is one that corroborates your claim of dishonesty in the media. For example, I have shared a cite that states that you are wrong in your claim that the Law mandates what is happening now. Where’s your evidence that you are right?
…these two articles don’t back up your assertion that the media are being “deliberately and patently misleading in their statements.” You are going to have to do much better than this.
How about you start by showing us what is “misleading” in either of the two articles.
AIUI, he’s mad because Trump’s policy is to prosecute all illegal border crossings; the separation is just a side-effect. But that silly dishonest media isn’t making that distinction! Indeed, those two articles don’t make that distinction in their headlines.
To which I say: fuck that. A person is responsible for the foreseeable outcomes of their choices. Trump’s policy has an obvious outcome, and he went ahead with it anyway. The distinction Sage Rat is drawing is an irrelevancy.
The indications are that the administration was caught off-guard. While less extreme than their reaction to the travel ban kerfuffle when they realized that their new policy was, for example, preventing green card holders from coming back to the US, you’ll still note things like Trump tweeting in surprise how horrible it is that children are being separated:
Let’s take two options for how this tweet came into being:
The Trump administration carefully and cunningly pored through the laws, searching for some legal strategy that would allow them to separate families. Having done this, they then decided to disavow this strategy rather than seem tough and cruel, despite it being their very goal to seem tough and cruel.
The Trump administration does something horrible but stupid and are caught off-guard by sudden claims that they’re separating families - not something they’re actually doing so far as Trump knows. He flips out, asks what the hell is happening, and he’s told that there are laws that you have to throw people in jail if you prosecute them and kids aren’t allowed in jail. He proceeds to tweet in a moment of panic that it’s not his fault, it’s the law! Why does the world hate poor Trump and force him to do these things!? But then, rather than admit that he did something wrong, his team doubles-down on both blaming the Democrats and laws, while maintaining the policy.
I think it’s fair to say that there’s exactly 0% chance that this was intentional. Steven Miller is probably ecstatic, but it wasn’t something he’d planned. Trump was caught off guard by the whole thing and it’s taken them the better part of a month to try and get their message together and firmly deny that it’s their policy and try to explain the pre-existing laws and procedures.