True, but people blaming this solely on Trump and his cronies are making a mistake, this isn’t just some administrative error. You have government employees chucking toddlers in cages and forbidding hugs and these people are not currently strung up from lampposts or at least cowering from a baying mob…I assume they’re all still on the job…the baby caging job…that they haven’t quit in disgust.
This is systemic shittyness.
I assume they don’t want to be there but prefer to have a steady paycheck rather than none at all. Voluntarily changing government jobs ain’t easy, especially if they’re trying to go from one job series to another.
I’m not sure of the percentages. It has been discussed in several places that the US is violating international agreements with regards to treatment of refugees.
Good question, actually. Historically, describing something as “American” is hardly evidence of benevolence, nor does describing something as “unAmerican” carry the automatic assumption of malevolence. You’d have to have a pretty sanitized view of history (as well as being pretty out of it in these last 18 months in particular) to blithely link “American” with “good” and “unAmerican” with “evil”.
I can see staying on the job both to make sure the children are being cared for/protected as well as possible and to serve as a witness later for what was happening. If you are a good person, leaving the kids to the mercy of only those that embrace this policy isn’t the only ethical choice.
Good point. 
So, getting back to the OP, Trump had now signed a executive order which will keep at least some of the families together.
So, OP, since the President can’t change a law passed by Congress, is the executive order a legal nullity?
Or is it the case that the law gives the President substantial discretion, and this crisis was started by an order from Trump, and is now partially eased by another order from Trump?
Well, I for one am glad Trump is saving some families from himself.
I’m going to start a separate thread on the executive order. I have many questions…
Here is the new thread. I linked to news coverage, the relevant past rulings, and a copy of today’s executive order.
What salary would you require to do it?
Trump didn’t build those cages.
The difference was that Obama’s team were more selective on what path to go down earlier in the process. But for cases where they decided to follow the criminal procedures, they ended up in the same place.
So you agree, then, that Trump is worse? I’m glad to see this, at least, has been settled.
I’ve never said anything otherwise? I’ve been very clear since the beginning that this thread is anti-Trump and does not defend his choices in this nor any other endeavor. This is a thread about the media failing to be non-partisan and, thereby, playing into Trump’s hands to use against them.
…and we are all still waiting for you to make your case.
I expect the media to take the role of the fourth estate. To hold the people in power to account. Doing that isn’t “partisan.” Its a fundamental part of what we expect them to do.
The media isn’t playing into Trump’s hands when they do their job. The very last thing the media should be worried about is how Trump is going to spin things. Its the biggest mistake they could possibly make. Just yesterday the New York Times spiked parts of a podcast at the request of the White House. They shouldn’t be doing that.
If you change your story based on how Trump and his base react then you have literally yielded the narrative. You let Trump control the story.
I would be very happy to argue with you and to convince you of my thesis, but right now that would be a waste of time because, fundamentally, you think that I’m doing something and saying something different than I am. You believe that somehow I am seeking to defend Trump or his policy, or to try and destroy the media, so that Trump or the Republicans aren’t being taken apart by them, or whatever. And, so far as your posts read to me, I don’t believe that until you’ve moved on from believing that, that there’s anything I could post that would serve as evidence of my point. First, I have to convince you that I hate Trump, love the media, and am on your side.
Are you willing to trust that I hate Trump, love the media, and am on your side?
I agree, and that’s what I’m arguing for.
You are arguing that the media is being deceptive because you think that there’s no evidence that the family separations were the goal and that they are instead incidental to the new zero tolerance policy. But it’s been pointed out to you in this thread that individuals in the Trump administration explicitly identified the decision to massively ramp up family separations as a deterrent. So I don’t see the dishonesty on the part of the media.
I have missed the bolded. Link?
I have seen statements in the media to this effect, but none of the Trump officials have said so in any actual quotes from them that I have seen. I think I have seen a few statements from a few individuals within the administration to the effect that they’re all for it in a post-hoc fashion, but nothing that it was a policy goal, and most of them have vehemently denied that it was or is a goal.
…you are incorrect.
Wrong. This is not my belief. Not even close.
It would probably help if you started by reading my posts. Because nothing I have written comes remotely close to how you have characterized them.
Nope. First you have to go back to the very first post that you wrote here and make a case that what you assert is in fact truth.
You aren’t on “my side.” And whether you love or hate Trump, whether you love or hate the media, have no bearing on my initial request, which is that you back up what you wrote in the OP.
No you don’t agree, and you aren’t arguing for that. You literally argued the exact opposite when you said the media shouldn’t play into Trump’s hands. If the media try to avoid “playing into Trump’s hands” then they aren’t doing their job. They are doing Trump’s job. They are being played by him. They should not try and do that.
You didn’t bold anything, but I can infer. It was in post #34:
It’s got quotes from Kelly and Sessions making it pretty clear that the family separation was foreseen far in advance and was designed as a deterrent/punishment.