If I get arrested for DUI should my child go to jail with me so that the family isn’t separated? Please answer that question and tell me why this is different?
Because these people are awaiting trial. Those arrested for DUI are not even jailed while they await trial, much less separated from their children.
Any other pointless analogies?
Indeed they are jailed awaiting trial if they are unable to post bail.
Any comments on my post 120, in which it is shown that people don’t need to be jailed to show up to immigration court?
This is happening because Trump WANTS it to happen. These children are just pawns in his insatiable quest for political power.
But my daughter isn’t jailed if I can’t post bail. Do you not see the difference?
You are defending child concentration camps. Regardless of your word salad, in the end, this is what it amounts to.
I’m not suggesting that this could not be done better. My only objection is to the hysteria of “OMG, they are separating children from their parents!!!” by pointing out that this is very normal when the parents are suspected of committing crimes, especially in the presence of their minor children.
And your cite sort of highlights the problem. 100,000! illegal immigrants caught at the border in 15 months and simply released. In a six week period, nearly 2,000 children separated from their parents.
Why is it so shocking to say that we have a serious problem here with illegal immigration and the old policy is not working, so we need to start charging these people with crimes.
Now, I can understand a disagreement with this new policy, but all the President is doing is simply enforcing the law as written and attempting to do his job of protecting the border. This isn’t outrageous or un-American.
Not really. People incarcerated in the U.S. for committing crimes in the U.S. typically have other family members or neighbors who can shelter the children during the incarceration. Families from remote countries rarely have any such resources available. (And, as noted earlier, before Trump and Sessions, the government handled the situation in a way that did not separate families or cage children in dog pens.) And since the majority of these people are seeking asylum, I would hope that the lawyer in you would be rather more upset that the government is violating treaties providing shelter for refugees (meaning that no crime is being committed) and artificially inflating misdemeanors to felonies.
And when the government artificially sets the price of housing and bread too high or hinders employment, then the government is at fault, just as when the government physically blocks the ability of refugees to claim asylum.
N/M
Trump is folding: he will do what he said he could not do, and will end the policy.
All those arguing for child concentration camps literally got shown for who they are, their souls bare to the world, while Dear Leader pranced away from the disaster which he created and they defended.
Good job, Trump supporter! Good job!
Of course, and it would be no different if I was accused of a crime in Paris, let’s say. I would have no one to way my child and she would be in government custody.
The way it was handled before what that nobody was charged with committing this crime. I understand prosecutorial discretion. However, as the prior poster noted, we had 100,000 people in 15 months deported. If you know that if you attempt a crime and the worst that will happen to you is the status quo ante, then hell, many people will commit crimes. This policy of prosecution seems to me in the abstract to be acceptable, even if the details could be handled better.
But the problem is that we cannot look at an individual and tell that he or she is a refugee. If we have a policy of taking them all, then the illegal immigrants will just claim that they are refugees, frustrating the enforcement of the law.
Requiring proof is not unusual. Hell, you see it all of the time. Sort of like how on Veterans Day, a store will give out a free breakfast sandwich and a cup of coffee to any veteran. But they do require documentation. Why? Because if they didn’t, every asshole in the county would say that they were a veteran and want their free breakfast sandwich.
Don’t get me wrong. This is a humanitarian crisis and I do feel terrible for these people. But I also realize that the United States must retain its sovereignty and be able to keep the border situation manageable.
WE did not cause this problem and the burden should not be on us to solve it. We will try to help within reasonable limits, but we have to take steps to enforce the law.
Your President just threw your arguments… and by extension, you… under the bus, UV. Might want to let this one go.
Bullshit. Concentration camps. Hyperbole much?
Then why did you call the thread, “The law DOES require them to separate children from their families?”
There is no law forcing the President to do this. He is using his discretion to enforce the law in a way that abuses toddlers, for the goal of getting Democrats to fund the wall. It’s disgusting, and nobody and no thing is forcing the President to do this. He is “not just following orders,” to adopt the phrase used by his fellow white supremacists.
I don’t work for the President. I have said many times in this and the other thread that the policy could be better. My point was that this isn’t the humanitarian disaster others have made it out to be.
I’m in Texas. There are camps where people who are extra-judicial, with similar characteristics, are being… concentrated… about 120 miles from me. Wanna go see?
Concentration camps. Trump and Sessions set up concentration camps for children, you argued for them, own it.
You do understand that the term “concentration camp” has a particular meaning outside of its component words, right? You might as well argue that college dorms are concentration camps.
But it is. There is no way to spin it any other way. You can’t just look at hundreds of babies and toddlers being removed from their mothers and just gainsay the inhumanity. That is just evil.