Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 22:31:48 GMT -5
Interesting, too, that Trump and his minions don't seem to be broadcasting that it was Bill Clinton's policy. Huh. Given the massive outrage on this issue, you'd think they'd be doing it in their defense.
Why is this smelling to me like a trollbot rumor bubbling up on reddit that will soon hit Breitbart, Fox & Friends, and thence make its way to Trump's Twitter feed?
But hey. If there's a cite for it, lay it on me. Then I will join you in scorning the hypocrisy, even as I continue to condemn the policy.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 17, 2018 22:32:40 GMT -5
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.
The problem isn't the children, it is the adults. The zero-tolerance policy means every adult caught crossing illegally (and virtually all these cases occur between legal ports of entry) are prosecuted. 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.
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.
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. 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.
Trump ran on a promise that he would end catch and release. He did so with the zero-tolerance policy. And, according to the letter of the law, Trump is correct. The separations are according to documented law and court rulings.
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.
But none of the resolves the problem. 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?
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 17, 2018 22:44:46 GMT -5
I'll also add that I'm not a fan of this particular action either. It stinks.
As a half Cherokee, half Mexican, I'm not a huge fan of the way the government has handled this situation for decades.
That said, I'm not going to burn Trump in effigy for what should be a federal law and policy enacted, enforced, and funded by an act of Congress.
Not to bring up each side is the same argument, but from my perspective the business of Congress Critters is to get re-elected, do as little as possible to rock the boat, and pray they keep their job. NOT work for the good of the American people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 22:45:41 GMT -5
An unaccompanied minor isn't with his parents to begin with (not to mention has got to be big enough to get here on his own). That's not the same as U.S. government officials taking a screaming toddler from his parents.
Detaining families together is not the same thing, either.
The policy of taking kids away from migrant families to discourage them from coming here is not a Clinton policy, as you claimed above, nor is it an Obama policy. It is a new Trump/Miller thing.
And it's not cute.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 17, 2018 22:47:34 GMT -5
Holy shit Cass, do you not read?
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.
There is no distinguishing between an unaccompanied minor and an accompanied minor any more by court ruling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2018 23:07:31 GMT -5
Can you read? Show me where minors were routinely taken from their parents at the border during the Clinton administration. You say the law required it. So, obviously, if this is so, the Clinton administration was littered with camps full of parentless migrant children, right? Or did perhaps...bear with me here...the Trump administration decide to go all gangbusters in a whole new way and arrest all migrant/asylum seeker parents and treat them as criminals in a way that didn't used to happen so that they could use that 9th circuit case as an excuse to take the kids away? mobile-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/06/14/us/politics/ap-us-immigration-fact-check.amp.html?amp_js_v=a1&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https://www.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Faponline%2F2018%2F06%2F14%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fap-us-immigration-fact-check.htmlSo. It was not a Clinton policy to separate migrant minors and parents as a matter of course. The 9th circuit did not require it, and they didn't do it. To the contrary, they released whole families from detention rather than separate them. www.cnn.com/2018/05/07/politics/illegal-immigration-border-prosecutions-families-separated/index.htmlIt was a Trump admin decision to enact a policy to arrest the migrants and refer them for federal prosecution (even if the may have a valid asylum claim) that would let them harness the Clinton era court case and use it as an excuse to take kids away from parents in order to discourage migrants and put pressure on Dems for the fucking border wall money. Total sophistry to say it was Clinton policy to do this. Or as they say in Trump World, "Fake News." It reminds me a bit of a scene in "I, Claudius". A guard is ordered to kill a little girl. He protests that he can't, because she's a virgin, and roman law doesn't allow it. So his superior orders him to first rape the girl so she won't be a virgin when he kills her. The Trump administration is using similar logic here: "Well, if we arrest and prosecute them instead of instituting civil deportation proceedings, we can take their kids away and blame it on the Dems. Cute!" ETA: Does anyone here ever actually remember I'm a lawyer when they throw case law at me and ask if I can read? Asking for a friend.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jun 18, 2018 0:33:37 GMT -5
Total sophistry to say it was Clinton policy to do this. And don't even get me started on that time Obama started the Reichstag fire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 0:36:23 GMT -5
Total sophistry to say it was Clinton policy to do this. And don't even get me started on that time Obama started the Reichstag fire. Ugh. Yes, that was the WORST.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 18, 2018 1:03:49 GMT -5
I would argue that Clinton's 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act directly led to the deportation machine that exists today.
The law has always required the separation of minors when the adult enters into criminal proceedings. Always.
The difference between Trump and previous administrations is Trump is actually enforcing the law whereas other administrations politely looked the other way.
I stated earlier:
and here:
So yes, as inconvenient as it is the truth is it is the law to separate children from families that are being prosecuted.
It is also the truth that Trump has made it policy to prosecute all immigrants breaking the law.
Yes, Trump is using current law and policies as a political club to try to force Congress into either funding a wall or whatever other crazy idea is running through his orange little head at the moment. I have no doubt in my mind the zero tolerance policy was instituted with the full knowledge that families would be separated and such separation would be used as a bargaining chip.
I was once stopped by a traffic cop on a minor violation. I popped a little attitude and in return got hit with 14 violations including things such as stopping too far from the curb, not turning on my hazard lights. Yes, it was petty but technically I had committed all those violations and the officer was within his rights to cite me for them. Trump is doing much the same by using existing law, court rulings and the vagaries contained within to try to force an action he desires. He is being petty, cold, and a bully. But he isn't acting outside his authority or illegally. Indeed, it could be said he is acting like Stannis from AGOT....enforcing the strict letter of the law regardless of consequence.
So what are you proposing? Not enforcing current laws? You do know that entering the country illegally is...creatively enough...illegal? You are a lawyer as you point out. One who attended what might be described as an above average school. Surely you know that illegal is....not legal?
So what is your answer? Ignore the law? Don't prosecute illegal immigration? Keep up the welcome sign though we have no means of housing or caring for immigrants in these numbers? I'm not being snarky. I know you are an extremely intelligent person and would like to know what your solution would be.
Yes, I know, separating families is evil and all that. I tend to agree. But the only option Trump has to fix the situation is to do as his predecessors have done....ignore it. That serves nothing.
My answer would be to create family housing centers where families could be kept together through either their prosecution for illegal border crossing (which if that is all they are looking at takes a few days at most) or their asylum request. I would treat illegal immigrants as a family unit separate from single illegal immigrants. New law or the changing of current law is required. New funding is required. These both fall in the domain of Congressional action, not executive order.
But we all know Congress won't act. It isn't in their interest to do so.
Cass, what are your solutions? Is Trump not simply enforcing the rules as they are written? Yes, he does NOT have to have a zero tolerance policy and could commit civil proceedings as opposed to criminal ones. But that isn't going to happen. What would you have Trump do that both enforces current law AND obeys the laws and court rulings as they are now?
I'm not sure Trump has any power to act in any meaningful way other than ignoring the problem as past administrations have done. I know I don't agree with that action. Hence why I hold that this is a Congressional problem and requires Congressional action.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Jun 18, 2018 1:35:45 GMT -5
Don't want to add this onto my previous post. Everyone is acting like this is Trump's fault. Going back to 2011, a report was released that detailed the separation and foster housing of some 5,100 children by immigration services. This report also proclaimed that within the next 5 years that number would swell to over 15k children unless action was taken to change the laws. The report also detailed the problems of ensuring the safety and welfare of the children as well as keeping track of them and their parents for future reunion. Here is a link to the report: act.colorlines.com/acton/attachment/1069/f-0079/0/-/-/-/-/ARC_Report_Shattered_Families_FULL_REPORT_Nov2011Release.pdfWhat action was taken to solve this problem? Ignore it and chose selective enforcement of laws rather than make meaningful change. So yeah, we can blame Trump for enforcing a zero-tolerance policy. I also choose to blame past administrations all the way back to the Reagan era for kicking the can down the road and hoping the issue wouldn't come up to hurt any of them in their election or re-election bids.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 7:39:08 GMT -5
My solution is to stop the new zero tolerance policy he's started of immediately tossing migrants in hail and hauling their kids off to abandoned Walmarts.
Again, you are engaging in sophistry.
You are saying "well, sure, Trump could stop his new zero tolerance policy that jails them all and prosecutes them as criminals, but that's not going to happen"... and then sadly shaking your head and saying "everyone is acting like this is Trump's fault" and "what can be done?"
Well sure, Putin could stop occupying Ukraine and poisoning his enemies and running troll farms to infest Twitter and exacerbate political division, but that's not going to happen. Yet everyone is acting like it's his fault. Hey, what can possibly be done?
Well, sure, Kim Jong Un could stop putting his people in gulogs and murdering his family, but that's not going to happen. Yet everyone is acting like it's his fault. What can be done?
Well, sure, those soldiers in "I, Claudius" could have not raped and murdered that little girl, but that wasn't going to happen. Yet you talk as though it was their fault. Clearly, the fault was that law firbidding people from murdering young virginal girls, which left that loophole for allowing them to do it if they raped her first. They were helpless in the face of that. They'll just have to keep raping and then murdering little girls until the Senate passes a new law.
Previous presidents did not do this. The fact that Trump IS doing it is what is creating the situation. The law does not require him to do it. The fact that he won't stop doesn't make it not his fault.
And yes, we're probably going to need Congressional action to stop it, but that's not because of the 1996 law. It's because Trump won't stop his new policy.
What you are doing, and what I knew somebody here would do (though I wasn't guessing you, actually), is grabbing for some way to Both Sides (or Pfft No Big Deal or Thanks Obama or Not Trump's Fault Because Some Other Branch Should Stop Him or otherwise This Is Business As Usual) this situation.
And it is sophistry.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 18, 2018 8:14:51 GMT -5
My solution is to stop the new zero tolerance policy he's started of immediately tossing migrants in hail and hauling their kids off to abandoned Walmarts. Again, you are engaging in sophistry. I think you're being very unfair here. And you're not really answering the question. Okay, stop enforcing the actual law. If I understand correctly, that leaves three options: 1. Catch and release, as we did before. As Prozyan pointed out, that basically incentivizes illegal immigrants to bring their entire families with them, and then when caught, they disappear into the US. 2. Stick them in what facilities are available. Unless and until Congress appropriates funds for them, they will probably turn into hellholes in short order. 3. Give up and let in anyone who wants in. Which option do you think we should pick? I don't like separating children either. But of the three, I'd go with number 2, and let everyone see the shitholes these families are being confined in. We'll still be accused of running concentration camps, and Congress probably still won't pay to improve conditions, but at least we won't be separating families.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jun 18, 2018 8:14:55 GMT -5
The problem isn't the children, it is the adults. Truest statement in this entire thread, from pretty much every angle. My own angle: I think our immigration policies have sucked for a long while. We should have a more streamlined, open process for people who want to become citizens, such that many, many more would become citizens every year. At the same time, we should enforce the laws as they are written and not look the other way because "compassion." You know who these illegal immigration problems--in particular the allowance of it to continue and the protection of illegal immigrants by various cities and the like--really hurts? The people trying to become citizens legally and the people who have recently done so. Fact: people who break laws can sometimes lose custody of their children, temporarily or permanently. Don't want to risk losing your kids? Don't break laws that could lead you down that road. I don't want helpless families pulled apart because of US policy, to be sure. But at the same time, I recognize that this situation is not simple and is one that previous admins--and a good chunk of sitting members in Congress--have been shoving down the road for decades, even though they knew/know the world's population keeps going up every year and that this will necessarily exacerbate the problems. At some point, someone was going to get stuck making hard decisions (climate change enthusiasts might even see some parallels here). Of course, these are the kind of hard decisions that Trump seems to actually enjoy because he's a jackwagon, but that doesn't make him 100% wrong. Meanwhile, the world cheers--most of it--as Mexico beats Germany in the World Cup...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2018 8:21:22 GMT -5
My solution is to stop the new zero tolerance policy he's started of immediately tossing migrants in hail and hauling their kids off to abandoned Walmarts. Again, you are engaging in sophistry. I think you're being very unfair here. And you're not really answering the question. Okay, stop enforcing the actual law. If I understand correctly, that leaves three options: 1. Catch and release, as we did before. As Prozyan pointed out, that basically incentivizes illegal immigrants to bring their entire families with them, and then when caught, they disappear into the US. 2. Stick them in what facilities are available. Unless and until Congress appropriates funds for them, they will probably turn into hellholes in short order. 3. Give up and let in anyone who wants in. Which option do you think we should pick? I don't like separating children either. But of the three, I'd go with number 2, and let everyone see the shitholes these families are being confined in. We'll still be accused of running concentration camps, and Congress probably still won't pay to improve conditions, but at least we won't be separating families. How, oh, how, did Obama, Clinton, and Bush avoid separating families when it is so very impossible?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jun 18, 2018 8:22:31 GMT -5
I think you're being very unfair here. And you're not really answering the question. Okay, stop enforcing the actual law. If I understand correctly, that leaves three options: 1. Catch and release, as we did before. As Prozyan pointed out, that basically incentivizes illegal immigrants to bring their entire families with them, and then when caught, they disappear into the US. 2. Stick them in what facilities are available. Unless and until Congress appropriates funds for them, they will probably turn into hellholes in short order. 3. Give up and let in anyone who wants in. Which option do you think we should pick? I don't like separating children either. But of the three, I'd go with number 2, and let everyone see the shitholes these families are being confined in. We'll still be accused of running concentration camps, and Congress probably still won't pay to improve conditions, but at least we won't be separating families. How, oh, how, did Obama, Clinton, and Bush avoid separating families when it is so very impossible? I believe they went with option 1, catch and release. Is that what you are advocating?
|
|