The law DOES require them to separate children from their families

But putting them in tents and cages and forcing them to sleep on floors and yelling at them if they play is okay, huh?

Your argument is as-yet unsupported and your attempt at what-aboutism is failing to distract from the actual harm being done by Trump policies.

If anything about this caught Trump “off-guard”, it may be that he didn’t expect such a negative reaction from Americans capable of, y’know, empathy. It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump finds this to be a difficult concept.

not okay…but I was absolutely astounded to learn that this has been going on for years, including under Obama’s watch.

Take a look at these photos of children in cages, back in 2014:

@ OP — it appears to me that your entire thread, while possibly having some validity in a trite legalistic sense, is very misleading. Please answer the following True/False questions:

(1) T/F: The immigration authority could house entire families in Family Detention Centers, as it has in the past.
(2) T/F: The Obama Administration coped with unwanted refugees without generally separating children from their parents.
(3) T/F: Mainstream media provides legal details of these cases for readers with the time to explore details and scrutinize legal nuances.
(4) T/F: Headlines and brief introductory paragraphs are of necessity, brief. Detailed discussion of legal nuances are provided in the … detailed discussions.
(5) T/F: It would be trivial for Trump and his henchman to treat refugees humanely, as the Obama Administration did. His failure to do so is deliberate.
(6) T/F: When the plain facts are so simple it would only serve the interests of the evil-doers to require obfuscatory justifications every time the evil is mentioned.

I’m no expert on these matters and I hope others will also answer these questions to help me judge whether OP’s answers, if he chooses to offer any, are correct. I think the answers are T, T, T, T, T, T.

Did you read the article you linked? Because it is not the same thing as is made clear in the article.

Here is the tl;dr version:

In 2014 there was a huge spike in unaccompanied minors crossing the border and there simply were not enough shelters to house them all. The government set about reuniting them with the closest relatives they could find, 80% of the time their parents.

Trump is not trying to deal with unaccompanied minors and reunite them with their parents. He is taking accompanied minors and separating them from their parents.

Can we just be intellectually honest and say that your side does not support enforcing immigration laws?

If I drive drunk, it is technically true that the authorities do not have to prosecute me. It is also technically true that they do not have to take me to jail if they do prosecute me. But I think that we would agree that the local authorities would not be doing their jobs if they refused to prosecute wholesale violations of the law.

It is the President’s job to enforce the laws. It says so right in the Constitution. Why shouldn’t he enforce this law? Because you don’t like the law? Because it separates children from their families? Well, that is very sad, but it is no different than a parent violating any other law. If I am in county jail, the kids aren’t there with me.

This is bullshit. “My side” is the same side as our nation’s side for the past half-century or more. We’ve decided that immigration laws should be enforced to the extent that they can be WITHOUT VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS. Our nation has treated undocumented immigration as a violation of the law, but as a very minor one, that doesn’t require a tremendous outlay of resources to address.

Can we just be intellectually honest and say that your side supports enforcing immigration laws even when doing so comprises a violation of human rights?

The same side that got called “Deporter in Chief?” That side?

How is incarceration a violation of human rights? You are suspected of breaking the law, you go to jail and the kids don’t go with you. Since when do citizens of one country have a right to enter another country?

Again, let me roll through Canadian customs at the Rainbow Bridge with my daughter in the car and see if I don’t end up separated from her while I am processed. This is not some new principle of law that just started last month.

Yeah, I don’t think we’re gonna play this game. Question asked and answered in other thread; meanwhile you’re not answering questions over there.

Edit: y’know what, I can spare the 15 seconds to Google for you. Here you go, but I’m gonna start charging for my Googling services.

The liberal side did enforce immigration law. Obama deported more people than any other president. Is that not enforcing the law in your view?

Also, for illegal immigrants crossing the border for the first time the US prosecuted them as a misdemeanor crime (which among other things did not require prison and did not separate them from their kids). Can you tell us which part of the law, as specified by congress, this did not uphold?

So what part of immigration law was not being enforced under liberals?

This is a new US policy and it did start last month.

Do you think this has been happening all along, nothing has changed?

Because it IS a misdemeanor crime and should be prosecuted as such. If I get a DUI in another state, should they just send me back to my home state? What if I had a child with me in the car? No. It is a crime. Not charging these crimes is not taking care that the law be faithfully executed.

This is a silly argument. In no area of law do we charge everyone with a misdemeanor charge regardless of the circumstances or consequences. If 100% charging is your bar for faithful execution of the law, then almost no law is being faithfully executed.

You are also persistently ignoring the evidence that CBP is shunting asylum-seekers away from ports of entry.

I understand discretion based upon circumstances. But if we NEVER charge the crime, then that is ignoring a valid law.

If the CBP is denying asylum-seekers access to these ports, then that is a different matter that needs to be addressed.

Separation of parents from children is not being done while being processed, as you very well know.

Probably not. Such certainty is seldom based on actual knowledge.

We could charge the crime by summons, rather than going forward with custodial arrest.

I JUST heard a reporter that was saying that Border Patrol is setting up at border bridges and ports of entry and are turning away asylum seekers that don’t have documents.

Gonna need some sort of permanent identification number for those kids. Tattoos, maybe?