|
Post by prozyan on Jun 18, 2018 8:26:10 GMT -5
Trump tweeted this morning something to the effect of Why won't democrats give us the votes to fix the worst immigration laws in the world?
While his blaming of Democrats is ridiculous, the question isn't a bad one....Why won't Congress act to fix what are obviously broken immigration laws?
I'm sure Cass will cry sophistry yet again, but I can see this no other way. Trump is doing nothing more or less than enforcing the current laws as written. Are they bad laws? I think we are all in agreement with that.
However, it isn't the President's job to fix bad laws. That falls squarely into the domain of Congress. But as I said in my first posting:
So yay, you were waiting for someone to say this is business as usual. How is it not? Neither side is particularly interested in fixing the problem. They just want to use it to score points with their base and beat the other side of the aisle over the head with it.
I do find it interesting, Cass, that as a lawyer your solution to a bad law is to pretend said law doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 18, 2018 8:36:52 GMT -5
I advocate we go back to what they were doing, yes. ETA: I do not proceed from the "OMG, this situation was presenting such a dire problem at the border that we needed to do something utterly drastic and humane to stop it!" I think that's a false dilemma. You're proceeding not from the actual situation at the border but to "what if everyone in the entire fucking universe was at our border -- do we have to let them all in?" And we don't need to get there to conclude that it's fucking appalling to take little kids from their parents. No. I don't think we need everyone in the entire fucking universe at our border to say "No more." Australia faced a similar dilemma in the 90s. They had waves of "boat people" coming to their shores, and at first, humanity and compassion dictated that they allow them in to be processed and ultimately naturalized. But this caused a number of problems, not least of which was that a lot of people were drowning at sea trying to get to Australia. Australia ended up changing its policies, and now puts them in off-shore detention centers. This has been called cruel and inhumane, but it's slowed down the waves of boats. Europe is dealing with similar issues. If you held a gun to my head and said "Choose: separating children from parents, or just let everyone in," I would have to go with the first option. Sometimes you have to use the cruelty of law to avoid worse consequences long-term. (I would define effectively opening our borders to be worse.) But as I said, my preference would be working out a long-term sane, adult solution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 8:48:15 GMT -5
I hate to say I have to get some work done but I really do. For now --
Prozyan, I am not at all ignoring the law. Again, yes, that's sophistry. The law only comes into question because Trump's administration is deliberately doing something that wasn't being done before to deliberately trigger it. Take a spin on google and you'll find a pile of other legal experts saying exactly the same thing I'm saying. I can dig some up for you later if you really need me to do so.
Amadan, I think our essential disagreement may stem from your taking it as a given that we have such a dire immigration problem that we have to do whatever we can to stop it. I don't agree with that at all (i.e., I do not think it is such a dire situation for us, as opposed to the migrants themselves), so you're not going to bring me to your next point of "well, yes, this is inhumane but since we've absolute GOT to stop this yuuuuuge problem at our border, give me a more humane way to do so."
And even then, IMO, some things are simply wrong and we are never justified in doing them, period. This is one.
We likely have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 18, 2018 9:08:20 GMT -5
I hate to say I have to get some work done but I really do. For now -- Prozyan, I am not at all ignoring the law. Again, yes, that's sophistry. The law only comes into question because Trump's administration is deliberately doing something that wasn't being done before to deliberately trigger it. Take a spin on google and you'll find a pile of other legal experts saying exactly the same thing I'm saying. I can dig some up for you later if you really need me to do so. I too have work, but would rather banter on the internet. If only there weren't damn bills to be paid. I think you are misunderstanding what I am considering as following the law. While separation of children is part of that, it is not what I am referring to. I'm referring to the practice of prosecuting illegal immigrants for illegal entry. You are quite correct in that Trump is doing something that wasn't done before that is triggering familial separation. That something is treating the illegal act of illegally crossing the border like it is...well, illegal. Under US law crossing the border somewhere other than a recognized port of entry is illegal. I don't really have a problem with Trump saying "Hey, that is illegal. We're going to prosecute you for it". I completely understand your point that this enforcement isn't something that was done in the past. I don't even argue that isn't the case. All I'm saying is Trump is now enforcing the law. The law says entering the US illegally is a crime. People are prosecuted for crimes. Your point seems to center on something along the lines of "Well, that law is inconvenient. Let's ignore it". Or pretend it is something else. Or that law triggers the separation of families so we best just pretend it isn't really a law. It is exactly that attitude that has gotten us to this point. Obama, by reissuing the Bush policy of Catch-and-Release basically gave the green light for unlimited family illegal immigration. It is an insane policy. Unrestrained immigration has been an utter disaster anywhere it has been permitted. See France, Germany, hell the entire EU for examples. Don't work too hard, Cass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 12:48:16 GMT -5
I hate to say I have to get some work done but I really do. For now -- Prozyan, I am not at all ignoring the law. Again, yes, that's sophistry. The law only comes into question because Trump's administration is deliberately doing something that wasn't being done before to deliberately trigger it. Take a spin on google and you'll find a pile of other legal experts saying exactly the same thing I'm saying. I can dig some up for you later if you really need me to do so. I too have work, but would rather banter on the internet. If only there weren't damn bills to be paid. I think you are misunderstanding what I am considering as following the law. While separation of children is part of that, it is not what I am referring to. I'm referring to the practice of prosecuting illegal immigrants for illegal entry. You are quite correct in that Trump is doing something that wasn't done before that is triggering familial separation. That something is treating the illegal act of illegally crossing the border like it is...well, illegal. Under US law crossing the border somewhere other than a recognized port of entry is illegal. I don't really have a problem with Trump saying "Hey, that is illegal. We're going to prosecute you for it". I completely understand your point that this enforcement isn't something that was done in the past. I don't even argue that isn't the case. All I'm saying is Trump is now enforcing the law. The law says entering the US illegally is a crime. People are prosecuted for crimes. Your point seems to center on something along the lines of "Well, that law is inconvenient. Let's ignore it". Or pretend it is something else. Or that law triggers the separation of families so we best just pretend it isn't really a law. It is exactly that attitude that has gotten us to this point. Obama, by reissuing the Bush policy of Catch-and-Release basically gave the green light for unlimited family illegal immigration. It is an insane policy. Unrestrained immigration has been an utter disaster anywhere it has been permitted. See France, Germany, hell the entire EU for examples. Don't work too hard, Cass. It is true that I'm well known here for running away from arguments with my tail between my legs, particularly when they are lawsplaining posts by non-lawyers, but as it happens, I genuinely have a deadline or three to meet. I shall see thee at Philippi.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 18, 2018 12:59:35 GMT -5
When you have time, I would like to hear the legal argument for this. Because it does seem like previous administrations basically used the equivalent of prosecutorial discretion to not enforce the law. Or "enforce" it in a way that they knew would lead to it not being enforced (i.e., let the families in, release them, and tell them "But remember, you need to show up for your court hearing, pinkie swear!") And they came to that point precisely because the illegal immigrants realized that by bringing their families, they could effectively avoid being prosecuted.
I think morally, this is in many ways comparable to the debate over Hamas's use of human shields in Israel. We know Hamas puts civilians in buildings from which they launch rockets. They encourage civilians to charge fences and throw stones at soldiers after being told "If you charge this fence or throw stones, we will shoot you." So Israel has a choice of allowing Hamas to keep attacking with impunity, or they can use force and be accused of killing civilians and using "disproportionate force" ("They're shooting kids who were just throwing stones!")
Israel being a hard-ass, they went with option B, and take a lot of flak for it. Now Trump is going for option B in the US. I don't like the outcomes in either case, but there are no good outcomes in the short term, so I see the long-term best outcome as the one that deters a continuation of the status quo.
(That said, as I mentioned before, rather than separating families, I think we should keep them together, in detention. That will also suck, and be a visible human rights eyesore.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 14:14:08 GMT -5
When you have time, I would like to hear the legal argument for this. Because it does seem like previous administrations basically used the equivalent of prosecutorial discretion to not enforce the law. Or "enforce" it in a way that they knew would lead to it not being enforced (i.e., let the families in, release them, and tell them "But remember, you need to show up for your court hearing, pinkie swear!") And they came to that point precisely because the illegal immigrants realized that by bringing their families, they could effectively avoid being prosecuted. I think morally, this is in many ways comparable to the debate over Hamas's use of human shields in Israel. We know Hamas puts civilians in buildings from which they launch rockets. They encourage civilians to charge fences and throw stones at soldiers after being told "If you charge this fence or throw stones, we will shoot you." So Israel has a choice of allowing Hamas to keep attacking with impunity, or they can use force and be accused of killing civilians and using "disproportionate force" ("They're shooting kids who were just throwing stones!") Israel being a hard-ass, they went with option B, and take a lot of flak for it. Now Trump is going for option B in the US. I don't like the outcomes in either case, but there are no good outcomes in the short term, so I see the long-term best outcome as the one that deters a continuation of the status quo. (That said, as I mentioned before, rather than separating families, I think we should keep them together, in detention. That will also suck, and be a visible human rights eyesore.) Amadan -- just a quick note to say that yes, I will return, and respond in some detail. Given where this argument is, I don't want to just fire off and exchange a bunch of disconnected retorts. I'd like to spread out and 'splain. And that takes some time. But I must point out that IMO we have two different issues here. You raise some interesting and worthwhile points about the current state of immigration issues. Certainly worth discussing. But it's a separate issue from the one Prozyan raised, which is that the law requires this, and it's not Trump's fault. When I return, it will be the latter issue on which I spread myself on first. I do not think saying "okay, we have some immigration issues to address" requires us to say "yeah, and so we've got to separate kids from their parents" -- not legally, morally, or any other -ly. \
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 20:08:24 GMT -5
Will you also promise to stop misrepresenting my position? You claim I’m misrepresenting you when I say this, Prozyan: and if I AM misrepresenting you, I apologize. But I’m getting that from quotes like these: So, whatever, maybe I’ve got you wrong, but I understand you to be saying that Trump is doing what the law requires when he separates families; it was just that past presidents didn’t follow the law. And that being my understanding, my response is that, as I discuss below, I don’t agree that the law requires him to do this – he’s following his own policy in handling migrant families this way. That being the case, hells bells yes, it is Trump’s “fault” we are separating families. If you meant something else, well – what? I don’t get it, apparently. Enlighten me. Anyway. If you think I’ve got it all wrong and you actually said something else that I don’t address in this post, then tell me and I’ll try to address it. Meanwhile, I shall struggle through as best I can. As I noted in my last post to Amadan, I think we have two conversations going here – related ones, to be sure, but still two different conversations. The first was the one I started in this thread, to wit “WTF we are tearing babies out of their parents’ arms at the border and that is not fucking okay—it is a violation of human rights and an utter disgrace.” The second is the one you and Amadan started – to wit, “yeah, well, we have a lot of illegal immigration, and we gotta do something about it.” You and Amadan put up some fair and interesting points on the second issue, and they’re worth discussing. Moreover, I don’t mind discussing them in the thread. But it IS a separate issue. I submit that we need not resolve illegal immigration in order to condemn taking babies away from their parents at the border. Similarly, we can condemn torturing, enslaving, or killing illegal immigrants without resolving what else we might do with them with them. What you guys did in this thread, in effect, was say "well look, do you have a solution to illegal immigration? No, well hells bells then, if you can't tell us how to solve that problem right now, you've got no business whining that Trump is taking babies away from parents and dumping them in cages! [insert lengthy lectures 'splaining immigration issues]." And no, I think that's an argument fallacy, actually. I don't have to come up with a three point plan to fix EEEEVVVVERYTHING before I can assert that a policy our country is following is morally wrong and harmful. And I do assert it -- I submit that it is simply wrong, and whatever we DO do, whatever the solutions we DO come up with, the answer is always gonna be “not that.” It’s morally wrong, incredibly harmful to innocent children, and we should not do it. We can agree to disagree on that – pretty much nothing will change my opinion on that. Getting past that -- There’s the sub-issue of “my” issue, and that’s the one I understood you to be raising, Prozyan, and that I am addressing here: the assertion (as I understand it) that Trump is just enforcing existing law, and that therefore it is not his “fault” that he’s separating families at the border and it is not right to “blame” him. And yeah, no, I don’t agree. While I acknowledge he has the power to do it (clearly, since he's doing it), the law sure as hell doesn't require it -- he isn't just enforcing existing law. It's his decision, his policy, he could fix it in a nanosecond, and so yes, it's his fault. (1) To start at the beginning, I’m gonna get into how this argument got started. I know you backed off from this point, Prozyan, but I think it matters because (a) it pissed me off, and (b) my trying to sort out what the hell you were getting at colored everything I understood you to be saying, and so we might not have gotten into quite this spitting match without it (though I’m sure we still wouldn’t be agreeing). You initially said (in response to my posting Bill Clinton’s tweet opposing the policy): Oh, and did that ever frost me. When I challenged you to point to the specific Clinton policy you were talking about and the evidence of Clinton era tent camps filled with weeping toddlers that resulted from it, you amended to “Enacted is probably improper. Adjudicated would be more accurate. “ Well, by gum, yes. Yes, if you’re talking about a court case that happened to be decided during an era where someone was president, “enacted” is certainly completely improper and inaccurate, as is “policy.” Actually, they are not remotely the same thing. Unless you want to say, e.g., that the various court decisions striking down Trump’s travel bans are actually “policies” Trump “enacted.” To be fair, maybe this all sounds the same to a non-lawyer, but to me it was a huge, “What the fuck?” and it took me a bit to get past. And in light of comments like “Everyone acts like it’s Trump’s fault” “he’s just enforcing the law” etc., and under the avalanche of “we have a really really really bad immigration situation here and past presidents and Congress haven’t fixed it,” I had a tough time walking away from the notion that you were claiming that Trump was just enforcing Clinton-era policy and Clinton was hypocritically trying to pretend otherwise. (2) So getting past whether or not it’s Clinton’s cute policy, my understanding is that you still don’t think the baby-snatching is Trump’s “fault” because illegal immigration is illegal, and the law requires we put illegal immigrants in jail and take their children away, and therefore, he's just enforcing the law. Again, if I’ve got that wrong, tell me. Meanwhile, Imma go point by point through one of your posts because that’s just how I roll. Enacted is probably improper. Adjudicated would be more accurate. The Flores (I misspelled it with a "z" earlier. I'm a terrible Mexican) Consent Decree or the Flores Settlement Agreement. You can find it under either name. Now this does pertain to unaccompanied minors, and established three mandates for the government’s handling of unaccompanied minors. First, that detention should be as brief as possible, with immediate efforts being taken to find a parent, relative or qualified adult with whom the children could live. Second, that children should be treated with dignity and respect that recognized the vulnerabilities that accompany childhood. And, third, that the detention should be in the least restrictive facility possible — a facility less like a jail than a day care. A 9th Circuit Court ruling later said that this must be applied to ALL children within ICE custody. [Here’s a link to the case you are talking about. cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-55208/17-55208-2017-07-05.pdf?ts=1499275970 Yes, so far what you’ve said is accurate – what that case requires is for the kids to be placed in the least restrictive facility possible, and that their unique vulnerabilities, etc. be recognized and protected.
I’m still trying to figure out how Trump’s policy of ripping them from their parents and putting them in cages with foil blankets in abandoned Walmarts accomplishes that, though. Seems to me that’s exactly the opposite of the court’s goal of recognizing and protecting their vulnerabilities. But let’s move on. You have given an accurate summary of the gist of the case. ]The problem isn't the children, it is the adults. (Agree, it’s never the kids’ fault. They are vulnerable and helpless. Which is why we have a special duty to protect them.) The zero-tolerance policy means every adult caught crossing illegally (and virtually all these cases occur between legal ports of entry) are prosecuted. [Yep, that’s what the new Trump zero tolerance policy requires – but not what the 9th circuit case requires. Ninth circuit says squat about that.] Nowhere does a person being detained and prosecuted for a crime take their children to jail with them. So the children are separated and processed under the guidelines of the FSA. As I mentioned in my earlier post, if the adult doesn't contest the proceedings are make an asylum request, they are reunited with their family in very short time. [ Um, yeah. So as long as they drop their asylum request and agree to go home like good little desperate wretches, they get their kids back in a “short time” and they all get to go home to whatever hellhole they’re going to die in and went to such strenuous lengths to escape. Otherwise, they get bunged and their kids get sent off to an unknown location to cry alone in a cage with an aluminum foil blanket and they don’t know if they’ll ever see them again. Seems to me like that’s a pretty fucking shitty cleft stick if they do happen to have a legitimate asylum claim.
And it seems to me we’ve skipped right over a step in your “the law requires Trump to do this” argument. Please point me to where in the 9th circuit case it says “you must send the adults to jail.”
Yeah, never mind, I won’t wait for you to point me to that, because the case doesn’t say that at all. The new Trump zero-tolerance policy is what says that. Wanna show me a court case or previous law that DOES require that the adults go to jail? I’ll wait. Trust me, if you went into court saying “that 9th circuit case requires me to jail the parents!” you wouldn’t win. (That was the reason for our “can’t you READ?” disconnect earlier in the thread, btw – I knew what the ninth circuit case was about, but since it doesn’t say you’ve gotta jail the parents, it seems to me, in my pedantic lawyer world, that it doesn’t at all require what you seem to think it requires, and I was actually rather mystified at what the hell you might mean. Truly, I was, in good faith.)
In the absence of such a case or statute requiring the parents be sent to jail, it is not the law requiring that the parents go to jail, and that therefore the kids be separated from them. That is a result of the new Trump zero tolerance policy, period
I know, you’re gonna say “but they crossed the border ILLEEEEEGALLY!”
Okay. Illegally crossing the border is a misdemeanor offense www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#a that CAN be punished by jail -- I won’t dispute that -- but it doesn’t have to be, and in the past, it generally wasn’t. In other words, Trump isn’t required to do this. Past presidents chose not to do it.
That’s not just “well I’m finally enforcing the law!” That’s electing to be as harsh as fucking possible. If a judge had discretion to impose either probation or ten years in prison on you and elected the latter, would he be simply “following the law?" Or is there maybe a degree of choice in there for him?
And it’s not illegal to come here seeking asylum. Yeah, you’re technically supposed to come to a port of entry to seek it (though I can certainly imagine circumstances where a desperate refugee would get here however it was possible, can’t you?). But oh that irascible Trump and his minions! They’re deliberately making that really fucking hard – really fucking impossible in many cases. E.g., they’re turning asylum seekers away at the official points of entry and saying “hey, we’re all full up here, come back some other time maybe! ”
See this story: www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-the-us-border-asylum-seekers-fleeing-violence-are-told-to-come-back-later/2018/06/12/79a12718-6e4d-11e8-afd5-778aca903bbe_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9e807c3fbcac
These are poor, desperate people. Many of them DO have legit asylum claims. But we’re doing the best we can to prevent them from making them in a legal way, then punishing them because in their desperation, they try to get here any way they can. Sure, that’s not every person crossing the border, but we’re not sorting that out – we’re just chucking them in jail and taking their kids, then twisting their arms to drop any pesky asylum claim they might have so we can send them right back to their hellhole.
By the way? Even if they stick to their asylum claim, they’re mostly fucked under Herr Trump. Don’t miss my post above where I attach the case in which our lovely government decides that someone who had guerrillas murder her husband and then forced her to perform slave labor for them had, by performing said slave labor, given the guerrillas aid and therefore was not eligible for asylum. That’s not the only case like that – that’s how we’re now handling this stuff in Trump World.
Really, Amadan? Trump would let the St. Louis dock? Come on. Never. We’d ship them back to the Nazis without blinking.
Anyway. Explain to me again how this whole wretched baby-snatching policy isn’t Trump’s choice – his “fault” if you will. Explain to me again how Trump’s hands are bound by the 9th circuit court case or some other law to do this horrible thing. They are not. Sure, it might be in his discretion to do this, sucky as it is – actually, I never said it wasn’t nor did I claim it was illegal -- but it IS entirely his choice, his policy, his doing and he is not remotely bound by statute or case law to do it – as evidenced by the fact previous presidents did not do it. So yes, damn straight I “blame” him. Damn fucking right it’s his “fault.”]During the Obama administration there was a policy of detaining families together. Starting about 2012, this policy came under fire as funding for familial detention centers was (and is) near non-existent. Conditions were, simply put, not good. So the Obama administration closed down most of these facilities and instituted a basic catch-and-release policy for families. Basically any families caught were put into processing and released awaiting their trial. Shockingly, the vast majority of those released were never seen or heard of again. [So, um, they didn’t cause any problems after they were released? Your tone implies that this is a really really uber bad thing, but I guess I don’t see it that way. Perhaps they are picking fruit or delivering for a restaurant, but between the evils of that and the evils of taking babies away from parents, I’m going to pick us gaining a few fruit-pickers. Your mileage may vary; we can agree to disagree on how bad that actually is. And anyway, we can talk about approaches other than catch-and-release. We don’t have to proceed to baby-snatching. Come on, everyone in the goddamn world thinks that’s horrible other than Putin, Kim Jong Un and Duterte. Of course, those are our new allies, so…]This policy has two consequences. First, it angered the pro border security crowd. I don't think I need to tell you which way the majority of the crowd votes, so it became an issue for the GOP. [Yes, well, sucks to be the GOP, but I don’t think it means we’re required to take babies from parents.] Second, and far worse, it encouraged illegal immigrants to drag their entire families to the border. Until this policy illegal immigration from the south consisted almost entirely of single males looking for work and to send money back home. Now, if you brought your family, even if you were caught you were quickly released. It created an incentive for families to attempt an illegal crossing as a unit. [Their other alternative being to leave their families in the hellhole and separate on their own accord while they come here? Seems to me the incentive would nearly always be to come as a unit, especially if you were fleeing something terrible. You want to get your family the fuck out of there, and to someplace safe/better. What would you do, if it were your family?] Trump ran on a promise that he would end catch and release. He did so with the zero-tolerance policy. [Yes, and he promised to build a great big-ass 3000 mile long transparent border wall that the Mexicans were gonna pay for, too, but since that didn’t work, he’s gotta arm-twist Congress for it using the babies as ransom. The fact that he feels pressure to stick by his campaign rants explains why he’s doing what he’s doing, for sure, but it doesn’t make it the right thing to do.] And, according to the letter of the law, Trump is correct. The separations are according to documented law and court rulings. [And back we are to this. Nein. Nyet. No. The 9th circuit law doesn’t require jailing the parents. It requires us to protect vulnerable kiddos. Illegal border crossing law don’t require us to jail the parents, though they give discretion to do so. (And again, note that I didn’t dispute Trump has discretion to implement this policy – what I said was that it was horrible and that it wasn’t a past policy or something required by law, but rather his choice to implement this policy. Also, as I pointed out above, we’re supposed to be letting asylum seekers seek asylum at ports of entry – and we’re not – so we’re basically forcing them to rot or try to cross the border and beg for help any way they can. And rather than sort it all out, Trump has decided to exercise the most draconian policy he thinks the law will allow, and using small helpless children to discourage asylum seekers and immigrants and as something to hold over the Democrats until he gets his fucking 3000-mile border wall (which, oddly he seems to feel we have money for. It fucking fascinates me, what we do and don’t have money for.]Sure, Trump could ignore the policies. Sure, he could institute something similar to catch and release or exercise selective enforcement of the law as Obama or Bush before him did. Sure, he could decree families be detained together. [Yes. Yes, he could do all of that. And other things too. He could sit down with Congress and discuss solutions, if he weren’t so fucking determined to get his border wall by whatever means necessary.]But none of the resolves the problem. [And taking babies away from parents does? Actually, no, it doesn’t. See below—so far, it is not a deterrence.] None of that ensures adequate facilities, adequate personnel, and most importantly adequate oversight. Only Congress has the power to do that. Want to take odds on Congress acting for the benefit of immigrating families or continuing to use the issue as a club to beat each other over the head with and score points with their respective base? What all this history ‘splaining you're doing comes down to is that, in your opinion, we have an illegal immigration problem and you don’t think past presidents/Congress have adequately addressed it. Fine. I don’t agree that’s it’s as yuuuuugge a deal as you do, but for purposes of this argument, let’s assume it to be true and I won’t quibble.
That still doesn’t legally mandate that Trump take babies away from their parents at the border. That still doesn’t make that policy right or moral or humane. See everything I said above.
Nor does it make Trump’s baby-snatching solution a good one from a deterrent point of view. Certainly it is not a humane one – can we have that as a given? But even taking aside whether it is humane, even if you assume that such a policy goal is worth the terrible cost to these families (and I certainly do NOT grant that, btw), so far the policy does not seem to be effective as a deterrent.
See e.g., www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/illegal-border-crossings-remained-high-in-may-despite-trumps-crackdown/2018/06/01/aab543ae-65a9-11e8-a768-ed043e33f1dc_story.html?utm_term=.22a1b1fb1778 (“The number of migrants attempting to cross illegally into the United States remained high last month, according to administration officials and Border Patrol agents, an early indication that “zero tolerance” measures separating parents from their children and President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops have not had an immediate deterrent effect.”)
See also this: www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/family-separation-deterrence-dhs/index.html (“publicly released data showed a roughly 5% uptick in the number of people caught crossing the border illegally when compared to figures from April, including a big jump in unaccompanied children.”)
Someone somewhere said this –I can’t recall if it was here or elsewhere: as long as our economy is good (or better than theirs) and they are living in hellholes, desperate people will be trying to come here. Whether we let them in or turn them away, the question is how far we’re willing to descend into inhumanity to try to deter them. Hell, we could build a yuuuuge wall, post guards on top of them, and shoot people if they try to get over. We could skin them and hang their corpses on the wall as a warning, catapult baby corpses at them, gas them when they get to the border. That all might work better as a deterrent, actually, but I think we can all agree it would be abhorrent and immoral. Obviously this isn’t quite in that league of horrifying, and I don’t mean to say it is. But it’s still pretty fucking horrifying. And on top of that, as I said, it doesn’t even seem to be working.
Finally, I gotta point out that 48 Democratic Senators right now are waving around a bill trying to stop this policy. Not a single Republican has signed on, or proposed another bill, though several have now, at long last, spoken up condemning the policy. Maybe Congress will act. I hope they will. But meanwhile, Trump could stop this with his pinkie finger. And he doesn’t. Because he fucking LIKES this policy.
Trump is enacting executive orders left and right, dropping pardons like confetti, claims he can pardon himself. Of COURSE he has the power to end this, with a single word. In fact, it wouldn’t be happening at all if it weren’t for him. He’s affirmatively chosen to do this.
How on EARTH, then, is this policy “not his fault?”
Yeah, the fact that there is illegal immigration, okay, that’s not his fault. Fine. Still doesn’t mean you take babies and dump them in cages in a Walmart.I can't believe I spent my evening on this. I really can't. Here's the thing. If you don't look at this policy and say, along with the Obamas and Bushes and Clintons and all the Democratic Senators and the McCains and Bill Kristol and Bill fucking O'Reilly for god's fucking sake and the shit ton of other people who've been screaming this last couple of days, "no fucking way -- we shouldn't be doing this, period!", if you think ANYTHING could justify it, if it doesn't horrify you...well, I doubt anything I can say is going to convince you. So whatever. We can agree to disagree. We can debate some possible immigration policies at some future time. For now, I'm tired and fucking depressed as fuck. I haven't been this depressed about a policy since I learned we were fucking torturing people. I am sorry if you think I got more emotional and pissed off than you believe was warranted, but I really do think this is heartbreaking and horrifying, and I am quite genuinely sick about it. I promise I will come back to see why I totally misunderstood you and didn't answer any of your points and don't understand anything at all, and I'll do the best I can to address it all, but not tonight. I hope I didn't fuck up the formatting too badly on this post, because I'm probably not going to try to fix it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 20:18:35 GMT -5
This is one those threads that keeps me here. Seriously. It's so much better than CNN. Ha! This post actually made me laugh, and I'm feeling so grumpy and upset (about the policy, not the thread, if that makes sense--I'm really genuinely distraught about it), that's something. As depressed and distraught as I am about this policy, I agree -- threads like this IS why we're here. Let's see if we can all manage not to get time-outed, shall we. That includes me -- I admit this issue is a trigger-happy one for me, as you can likely tell.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 18, 2018 20:38:37 GMT -5
With all due respect, Cass, I am not a lawyer, but I tried to read through your explanation and rebuttal and think like a lawyer, and... this is the most emotional and least logical I've ever seen you. I understand, it's an emotional topic, and I get that you feel a deep sense of horror at this whole thing, clearly more than Prozyan or I or anyone else here does, even though we all agree that separating children from parents is bad.
But here is my understanding of the law (not "what's right" or "how to deal with the immigration problem," but the law):
1 .If someone enters the country illegally, they are committing a crime, for which they would generally be prosecuted. 2. If someone commits a crime, and has a child in their custody, the state has to provide care for that child until such time as it can be reunited with its parents. If this were some other crime - like, say, armed robbery - we'd have no qualms about saying, "Yeah, sorry, you shouldn't have brought your kid with you while committing armed robbery, now you're going to lose custody." But... 3. In the past, the combination of factors particular to illegal immigration (destitute people deserving of pity, a crime many find sympathetic or even think shouldn't be a crime at all, and large numbers of them) made it both impractical and politically unpalatable to enforce the letter of the law. So previous administrations didn't enforce the letter of the law; they compromised ("catch and release") in a manner that, effectively subverted the law by allowing people who enter the country illegally with their children and claim asylum (as opposed to "We'd like to move to America, please") to have what was effectively a free ticket. 4. This set up perverse incentives which led to more of this. Allowing increasing numbers of families of illegal immigrants to enter also became politically unpalatable. 5. The Trump administration decided to start enforcing the letter of the law, and is now playing a game of political brinksmanship with Democrats in Congress. Unfortunately, with all these families being the pawns. And here we are.
I think two things are true:
1. The previous system (anyone who arrives with family in tow and claims to be a refugee is pretty much allowed in) was not sustainable. I think we disagree on this. You don't see illegal immigration as a significant problem, and you think the horror of separating families is worse than the consequences of incentivizing people to bring their children when they try to enter the country illegally.
2. The Trump administration has chosen to deal with it in the most heartless and brutal manner possible (under US law - I still think this falls far, far short of being Nazis). They've done this because that's what Trump does, and the results are typically horrible.
I honestly don't know what a "good" solution is here. That's why I brought up Israel before, because it's another situation where I think there are no good solutions, where you can "compromise" in some way that doesn't suck for an awful lot of people.
Either we control our borders or we don't. Either we have a say in who can come here, and how many, or we don't. Meanwhile, we have all these people showing up with their kids, and if we want to control our borders (i.e., not let them in), we either need to build some very large and expensive facilities, or else start taking the kids away when we prosecute their parents.
None of these options are good. But I can only think of even worse ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 21:17:29 GMT -5
My point (other than "jesusholyfuck, this is horrifying") was that taking the children away was the direct result of Trump's zero tolerance policy, and therefore is his "fault." Note that the laws in question existed before this, but that jailing immigrants and taking their children did not happen.
The misdemeanor of crossing the border illegally does not require Trump to put the parents in jail. Can he, legally? Yes. Must he? No. He is choosing to impose the harshest penalty he can -- putting them in jail -- for the purpose of invoking that 9th circuit case and taking their children away. (Taking the kids is a feature, not a bug.)
His having the legal power to do it this way is not the same thing as saying "he's just following the law, so hey, it's not his policy. You gotta change the law, and if you don't, you can't blame Trump, whose hands are totes tied by that law." You most certainly can and should blame Trump.
You see no responsibility --- "fault," as it were -- in electing to impose the harshest penalty you can, when you have a choice?
To note: this novel, overly-emotional view of things is being touted as we speak all over the internet and television by about a zillion lawyers, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, among many, many others. I guess we're all distraught and too emotional to think straight. Nobody but Team Trump (and you guys, obviously) thinks Trump is just enforcing existing law as he must, rather than carrying out a harsh new policy. I will find and post some of the discussions tomorrow or later this week, depending on my schedule and my mood. But yeah, believe it or not, I'm not the only shrill, hysterical lawyer out there.
I'd turn it around and say you're so stuck on "well, we gotta do SOMETHING about immigration..." that you think maybe we just have to shrug and go with this incredibly shitty solution.
I am going to sign off for the night. Goodnight.
|
|