1) Our immigration policy separates children from their parents under only 3 circumstances:
a) if the adult is found to be falsely claiming that he/she is the parent (ie - if they are not really the parent)
b) If the parent is found to be a threat to the child
c) If there are criminal charges against the parent.
2. If an illegal immigrant is caught for the first time, they are not separated from their parents. If they are found guilty, they are allowed to leave with their children.
3. If the parent is caught for a second time for illegal re-entry, this is a felony, and it results in criminal charges. The children are then separated temporarily in these cases until the case can be very swiftly run through the courts, and the children are temporarily housed and nourished and cared for - usually for about a day - sometimes less, somethimes a couple of days. If the parent is found guilty, they can choose to take their children back immediately, and be deported.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE IMMIGRANT PARENT CAUGHT FOR ILLEGALLY TRYING TO RE-ENTER THE COUNTRY RATHER THAN GO THROUGH THE NORMAL IMMIGRATION PROCESS WHICH IS STILL OPEN TO THEM (A MULTIPLE OFFENDER) CAN CHOOSE TO APPLY FOR ASYLUM. iF THEY CHOOSE THIS, THEY ARE MADE AWARE THAT THE LEGAL PROCESS TAKES CONSIDERABLY LONGER. tHEY ARE FURTHER INFORMED THAT DUE TO THE FLORES ACT OF 1997 (signed into law by President Bill Clinton), ANY CHILD REQUIRING DETENTION GREATER THAN 3 WEeKS MAY NOT BE FURTHER HELD, AND THE GOVERNMENT MUST PLACE THE CHILD INTO A DIFFERENT HOME.
The government is then faced with the option of either letting every illegal immigrant who seeks asylum to take their children and flood into the country, or allow the parents to make this decision, and separate themselves from their children knowingly.
So, this has been going on for the past 21 years, and it never mattered to the Dems or the MSM until they needed a manufactured crisis to try to distract from the withering details within the IG report and the fact that Trump is kicking ass.
This, my conservative friends, is the real story that the libs wouldn't tell you about if they were informed or intelligent enough to know already.
Link: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/illegal-immigration-enforcement-separating-kids-at-border/
“One Guatemalan boy planned to live with his uncle in Virginia. But when the uncle refused to take the boy, he ended up with another sponsor, who forced him to work nearly 12 hours a day to repay a $6,500 smuggling debt, which the sponsor later increased to $10,900"
Were Chris and Frank outraged then?
This is a media crisis generated simply bc Trump is in office.
Link: https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1008817351536594945
I really don’t.
If Obama’s people did this - and the non-Fox experts say they didn’t - then it was outrageous and horrible then too. I didn’t complain because I had no idea.
Toturing children (and that’s what this is, make no mistake) to deter migrants is immoral. And if you don’t think so, then you are, too.
(no message)
alternative that protects our country's right to control it's immigration and not offer a giant loophole for entry to anyone who can find a child to bring with them, an lternative that does not create a slave market for children and also protects the children, then sure, I am willing to listen.
You are making a ridiculous demand. You wish to end an immigration policy without offering another in it's place that accomplishes the same goal in an improved manner.
Despite your outrage, nobody wants children separated from their families. but we also don't want unfettered immigration of anyone who can fins a child to walk across the border with (this is the real reason that the media has raised this concern to you).
....they went to their old stand by claim that they have done many times when they have no other avenue - Republicans eat children. I expect the racism charge to be next. It's all they know. trump has them completely gobsmacked.
no matter what the collateral damage, even to children. If we all spoke with a united voice against illegal immigration these parents would not be trying to unload their children on us.
and by whether we posture politically...only when the other party is in charge. I wonder if, when your US citizen clients are jailed, do you argue that they should not be separated from their children? Or, do you only make this argument for illegal aliens?...and only when a Democrat is not in office.
2) Refugees and persons seeking asylum are not here unlawfully.
3) You are wrong that prior administrations did what Trump is doing, particularly re the volume of separating families.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/fact-check-republicans-family-separations-border.html
Where was your concern for the children when they started being separated in greater numbers by Obama than Bush with the exact same immigration laws - all claimed here clearly by Chris.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=276791
Regarding the law, do you agree with me that any law that is bad when enforced should be repealed?
Or, is it your position that the President can decide which laws to enforce, and if Congress enacts a bad law (as construed by the courts), then we should leave the law in place and just rely on the President not to enforce the law?
Most illegals are not refugees, so why bring that up?
Sometimes, a court ruling interpreting a statute can lead to horrible consequences, especially when the executive branch (or agency) compounds the problem through indiscriminate enforcement.
Not every real life scenario can be adequately predicted by Congress or the courts, — the latter often presented with a narrow legal question re a narrow set of facts.
Often, Congress creates a platform or structure, but yields enforcement power to the executive agencies, with the expectation that sound discretion will rule the day. That has always been our approach to immigration, giving the executive branch broad discretion.
Unsurprisingly, Trump’s strong anti immigrant views have created an untenable situation that will force Congress and/or the courts to revisit the platform.
(no message)
The proper course of action is for Congress to review the law, not for a president to show restraint, and only enforce the law when he feels like it.
No administration has sought to enforce the court ruling as Trump is doing now, and again, in the sweeping volume that Trump is doing now.
And he is enjoying himself.
Create controversy and division per Putin’s marching orders.
Seems like we should incarcerate the families together. And yet, that would violate the law. So, the answer is to change the law, not to argue that the President can violate the law whenever he wants to do so.
I don't want a system with a lot of bad laws, where enforcement is discretionary. That is Stalinist.
The Stalinist system: "Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."
Link: https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2010/criminalization-almost-everything
Re refugees and asylum seekers, I would give them their hearing date.
In the interim, I would not separate children from parents.
Would never do what Trump is doing for pure sport, or as “the art of the deal.”
100% enforcement of the law is not principled, particularly without the resources and wherewithal to do so. It is deliberately cruel, designed to intimidate.
It demeans all Americans.
The separating kids from parents thing is required by the courts. Changing that requires an act of Congress...again, unless you are advocating for POTUS to ignore the law.
while you said nothing.
(no message)
The Flores Act demanding child separation was instuted by Bill Clinton in 1997, and with more deportations, comes more episodes of the act being enforced which means more child separations. yet you said not one peep in defense of children back then.
In your defense, you are a low information voter who knows only what your chosen biased media feed you, so you were completely oblivious to the fact until now.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=276791
(no message)
(no message)
I mean, WTF? The IG says 50 of them were taking bribes from the media and feeding the media information in violation of policy?
Clinton aides get immunity...Trump aides get no-knock raids and jail. I guess there are two very different ways to influence witnesses to talk the way you want them to talk.
Meanwhile, you've got a guy who stated in writing that he was actively working to undermine the election, and he is still freakin' employed at the FBI...in HR, making hiring decisions and personnel policy decisions which directly affect the careers of other agents.
No deep state here.
investigation for perjury when she said she didn't speak to anyone on the Clinton campaign.
I also believe a leaker was arrested in NY today.
Huber is working. Justice is coming.
What filth! We were 100% right about the IC's political bias and umprofessionalism as well as the agenda of a deepstate within left behind by Obama to bring down Trump.
It's not refutable anymore.
It is a new directive from the DOJ. It’s breaking up families as a deterrent to immigration OR seeking asylum.
But let’s assume for a moment that this idiot deflection is right....OK fine, then it was immoral then and it is immoral now.
It. Must. Stop.
worse.
Link: ACLU
That is not to concede that your nonsense source is right, of course.
(no message)
99% of the blame belongs with the parents who come here illegally with their children. We're supposed to feel bad about separating children from families yet the parents know that's the outcome. Why should we feel bad when the parent's don't think it's so awful?
It was going on under Obama and other presidents, with illegals as well as with US citizens. It is, after all, the law. Or, are you arguing that the President should not enforce the law?...perhaps only enforcing it when he wants to "punish his enmies" (to quote Obama)? Don't pass laws which are amenable to abuse. Repeal them when you do so by accident. Don't argue that they should selectively be enforced, unless you don't believe we are a nation of laws.
But, to the issue of separations: It is amazing that you guys are arguing that only US citizens arrested for crimes should be jailed and separated from their kids, but illegal aliens should be treated better than that.
Family separation can be an unfortunate consequence of crime.
It is not used as a policy to deter crime.
See the difference?
And it is not now somehow being used as a deterrent when it has existed unchanges for all of these years..
See the similarity?
You merely choose to see things differently because your candidate is not the one in office now, and it has been a very tough week for the Dems, and their complicit media is frothing you up with skewed information.
They go with other family members, or at worst into the foster system.
They're not baby-sat by ICE rejects.
(no message)
(no message)
a foster home. The blame here belongs on the parents who place their children into the no win situation.
I am fascinated that the Left is arguing for Trump to ignore the law. Weird, because that is exactly what I thought they feared the most.
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1008865753506942976?s=19
These children were abandoned by their parents when they tried to enter the country illegally.
Link: https://www.google.com/search?q=child+abandonment&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjO3e-GlN7bAhUKZawKHe1vBisQ_AUIDCgD&biw=960&bih=467#imgrc=4JGFj6nmlNpZIM:&spf=1529357282024
Those who opposed open borders need to be as aggressive as those who would destroy this country for political gain.
I see Immigration Rights are not your thing.
Hitler gassed people because they were Jewish.
Isn't the detaining of illegal immigrant children the same thing?
It's not important what the law is and who made the law.
It's important only that our Trumpo-Narzis do not gas the children psychologically.
Got that, hater?