The current political controversy over the Trump Administration policy of separating parents from children at the Mexican border when they are apprehended for illegal attempts to cross into the United States involves many ethical issues, and, as usual, conduct and rhetoric that confounds ethical analysis, perhaps intentionally.
With most complex ethics problems, the starting point is to ask, “What’s going on here?” This is especially useful in this case, where the news media, open-borders advocacy groups, and various political faction are intentionally steering the debate, and public comprehension, into box canyons of pure emotion.
So: What’s going on here?
Despite the fact that its editorial page is cheer-leading the box canyon effort, and its journalists are coloring reports on it with their partisan biases, the New York Times has provided the facts, if you can ignore the static Here is the main one:
“For more than a decade, even as illegal immigration levels fell over all, seasonal spikes in unauthorized border crossings had bedeviled American presidents in both political parties, prompting them to cast about for increasingly aggressive ways to discourage migrants from making the trek…Last month, facing a sharp uptick in illegal border crossings, Mr. Trump ordered a new effort to criminally prosecute anyone who crossed the border unlawfully — with few exceptions for parents traveling with their minor children.”
That’s “all” that has happened. Illegal immigration is...illegal. The Trump Administration has decided to treat breaking immigration laws like the country is supposed to treat all law-breaking—as the crime that it is. The law-breakers are arrested. When law-breakers are arrested for robbery, murder, rape, fraud, embezzlement…anything, really…they are separated from their children. This is not remarkable, nor are the law enforcement officers typically blamed. If a man takes his child to a burglary and he is arrested, then the child is going to be, to use a phrase I am seeing too much lately, “ripped from his arms.” If he is a citizen with a resident family or not a single parent, and the child is also a citizen or in the country legally, the child will be handed into the care of a relative. If not, then that child may also wind up in the custody of a government facility.
The children are being taken from the parents because children are always taken from parents when parents are arrested for a serious crime. What is unusual, and making this situation vulnerable to emotional manipulation on the level of the gun-control debate in which “Think of the children!” instantly lobotomizes a large segment of the public and obliterates all ability to process reality, are several factors:
- Criminals don’t typically take their children with them when they break laws.
- Illegal immigrants can claim to be legitimate “asylum-seekers,” even though most of them are not.
- Progressives, Democrats and those who aren’t paying much attention either refuse to acknowledge or don’t realize that entering the country illegally is a crime.
- The illegal border-crossers are, in many if not all cases, using their children to create exactly this political firestorm. Think of them as the equivalent of human shields.
- Previous Presidents have been willing to be extorted through this emotional black mail–Think of the children!–to neglect enforcement of immigration laws. This is, in great part, how the United States ended up with 11-13 million illegal immigrants.
- It is also how the U.S. ended up with President Trump.
Under President Obama, and presumably Bush as well, children trying to cross the border illegally were also held, just with their parents rather than without them, in a politically motivated exception to usual criminal enforcement practice.
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) told CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield how the images of children being held do not depict significantly different welfare than what similar children endured during former President Barack Obama’s administration. “I released some of those photos because it was kept very quiet under the Obama administration. There were large numbers of people coming in. The Obama administration was trying to keep this quiet,” Cuellar said. This controversy, like so many others, is being magnified and distorted because of the anti-Trump double standard. For example, in 2000, during the Elian Gonzalez controversy, Time op-ed liberal Thomas Friedman cheered Janet Reno’s decision to give the kidnapped child over to his father, and by extension, Communist Cuba, and wrote,
“Yup, I gotta confess, that now-famous picture of a U.S. marshal in Miami pointing an automatic weapon toward Donato Dalrymple and ordering him in the name of the U.S. government to turn over Elian Gonzalez warmed my heart. They should put that picture up in every visa line in every U.S. consulate around the world, with a caption that reads: ”America is a country where the rule of law rules. This picture illustrates what happens to those who defy the rule of law and how far our government and people will go to preserve it. Come all ye who understand that.”…Hats off to Janet Reno for understanding that the Elian Gonzalez case was about both of these pictures: the well-being of a child and the well-being of our Constitution, on which all good things in our society rest. But hats off twice to Ms. Reno for understanding that these two noble virtues are not equal. The fear of causing some trauma to Elian by rescuing him could never outweigh the need to uphold the rule of law.”
That was the Clinton administration, of course, the Democrats, and the narrative about the Trump administration enforcing the rule of law is that it proves he’s a Nazi. Still, that is what this policy aims to accomplish. Trump aide Stephen Miller is correct on the facts and the law:
“No nation can have the policy that whole classes of people are immune from immigration law or enforcement. It was a simple decision by the administration to have a zero tolerance policy for illegal entry, period. The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law.”
To be clear, much of the Left does not believe that. They believe that children should be exempt. They believe desperate people should be exempt. Many of them believe that everyone should be exempt. This is why the “1984” device of using misleading language to describe illegal immigrants is the rule rather than the exception. They are “immigrants.” They are “undocumented.” They are “migrants.” Anything to avoid admitting the fact that they are law-breakers.
A few random observations to close:
- When Trump says that this policy is “the Democrats’ fault,” he means 1) that a Democratic Congress passed the laws making illegal immigration a crime, and thus Democrats cannot complain when law enforcement treats it like other crimes. He also means that Democrats have not been willing to cooperate in allowing other measures that would effectively prevent illegal immigrants with children from trying to enter the country illegally.
Both parties share the accountability for this mess. Screaming about the lack of “compassion” is deflection, when compassionate law enforcement has been perverted to mean no law enforcement at all.
- Foreign parents who bring their children into this situation and peril are the ones most responsible for it. They do not magically become innocents and martyrs because they break the law exploiting actual innocents that cause the American public to lose all sense of proportion and priority.
I have heard pleas in court for leniency toward other criminals because their conduct and the resulting punishment is hard on the children. Why should they get special considerations and status for placing their children in peril?
- Whether the Trump policy can be justified or not, the political attacks on it were completely predictable. For that reason alone, the policy may be unwise.
However, the assault on sovereignty and the rule of law by the news media and open borders activists makes enforcing immigration laws at all politically perilous.
- Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, has condemned the policy. He should be ignored. The internationalist perspective is anti-US and pro-open borders, and the U.N.’s human rights record is a disgrace.
Ethics Alarms 
Thanks for that. There is actually a pretty good Phillip de Franco segment on this today: https://youtu.be/gRF4KUk1smA?t=322
He basically says this is a combo of things
1. 8 USC 1325 (Improper Entry) — This makes entry into the country “illegally” is a crime.
2. Something called the Flores settlement (back to Clinton times):
— The government is required to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to, in order of preference, parents, other adult relatives, or licensed programs willing to accept custody.
— If a suitable placement is not immediately available, the government is obligated to place children in the “least restrictive” setting appropriate to their age and any special needs.
— The government must implement standards relating to the care and treatment of children in immigration detention.
(in other words — it would violate this settlement if the US were to keep children in custody with their parents)
3. 2008 Anti-trafficking law (i think it is the “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Re-authorization Act of 2008”
But what it really boils down to is what do we do with the kids interdicted with illegal crossings? It seems we only have a few options:
1. Arrest the child with the parent — as I understand it, this is not an option due to the Flores settlement. It seems like it also would violate some sort of human rights convention to incarcerate a child for the actions of their patents.
2. Leave the child where you found them. This is worse than arresting them, as this would likely result in death. You can’t just leave a kid in the middle of the desert — or even in a safe place absent a responsible adult.
3. Bring the child to a safe place so that you can go through some sort of process of notifying any relatives, and if this is not possible to put them into some sort of protective custody (like foster care or something — at least until the guardian has been trough whatever legal process. (this is what I understand we are doing)
4. Fail to prosecute people based on their parental status. This flies in the face of our laws, probably violated due process and equal protection clauses (I mean why is having a child a defense, when a single person will not be afforded the same courtesy? Do we let single moms off for any other crimes?) — This is what we had been doing.
In the interest of accuracy, Jack, not all children are taken from parents who have committed even a serious crime. First-time illegal entry is, as you point out, illegal — a misdemeanor. Misdemeanors are not usually treated as “serious” crimes and children are almost never removed from parents who are charged with misdemeanors. A re-entry MIGHT be considered a felony. A real twist is that unlawfully remaining in the US after a legal entry (overstaying) is not a crime at all. All are subject to deportation.
Therein lies the mess: it’s not a typical misdemeanor, because it involves detention and arrest—like a felony. That’s why “catch and release” is a joke. Whether it is technically a misdemeanor or not, it requires arrest and detention if one is serious about enforcing the law.
8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275:
For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both.
Obviously a fine is absurd: if the individual is allowed to stay, then this is just letting them pay for illegal entry.
I consider the felony-misdemeanor distinction unhelpful. It’s a serious crime, not jaywalking.
Nor is it DUI, which also is a serious crime but rately. results in separation from a child. I do not condone illegal entry, nor do I believe that using children as pawns can even possibly be ethical. However, as DJT has indicated (now walked back) that his approach is also using the children as pawns to get the parents’ attention, that cannot be condoned either — and should be condemned. Putting legality aside (which I do only rhetorically) There is more than enough unethical behavior in this scenario, all around — parents, Administration. This is one time that I am convinced kindness to the CHILDREN should trump Trump.
Micheal, separation may occur with a dui if the parent is not immediately released via bail or some other means following arraignment if no other relative can be found or will take temporary custody.
There is a huge difference between a citizen that has an address to be given pretrial release and persons with no objective means to maintain themselves pending their hearing. I am of the understanding that many that are released never show up for their hearing and simply disolve into the shadows of a given community. Therefore, given we do not know who will show up, prehearing detention makes absolute sense.
Michael wrote, “Misdemeanors are not usually treated as “serious” crimes and children are almost never removed from parents who are charged with misdemeanors.”
In my opinion illegally entering our country is violating the sovereignty of the United States of America and should not be considered a misdemeanor. This isn’t stealing a piece of gum, it’s an intentional act that makes the very presence of the person in the United States of America illegal from that moment in time on. The very presence if an illegal immigrant is continuously breaking the law every second of every minute, every minute of every hour, every hour of every day, every day of every week, every week of every year, etc, that is a lot, lot more than a mere misdemeanor.
To address your point above…
1. If children are with a parent during the act of breaking the law the children are not, I repeat not incarcerated with the parent. We do not incarcerate children with adults.
2. If a person (an adult) that has committed a crime is considered a flight risk and not likely to show up for court to face justice their crimes they are not released. Since the vast majority of illegal immigrants never, and I literally mean never, show up for court and literally disappear into the population of the United States, never to be seen again by authorities, keeping these persons incarcerated is not only reasonable but it’s completely unreasonable to release them into the population knowing full well that they will not return to court. Catch and releasing of illegal immigrants is literally enabling illegal immigration and that is exactly the intent of the policy.
3. The children that cross the border with their adult parents are literally breaking the law, it’s irrelevant if they are not adult enough to know or understand what they are doing, they are still here illegally. Holding those illegal immigrant children in a facility designed to house them, feed them, educate then, provide for their needs is legally, morally and ethically appropriate while their parents deal with the legalities of their illegal presence in the United States of America.
All these families should be sent back to where they came from, Mexico; it’s not our job to repatriate them to their home of origin just send them back across the border they illegally crossed. I’m fine with gathering them up and sending them across the Mexican border at the nearest legal border crossing. Mexico had no problem with them being in their country before they illegally crossed our border, they can deal with them again. If Mexico refuses to take these illegal immigrants back in their country, immediately close all border crossings with Mexico and cut off US dollars from flowing into Mexico and spend the time and money to repatriate the illegal immigrants back to their country of origin.
We are not required to accept all immigrants that apply to enter our country and we are not required to accept any illegal immigrants into our country.
I’m beginning to lean heavily towards if a person has ever entered the United States illegally in the past, they should never be legally allowed in the United States again.
Also, I think the anchor baby law needs to be eliminated. Only babies born of United States citizens are should automatically become United States citizens.
Well… that depends. I have sometimes made the modest proposal, only somewhat tongue in cheek, that Australia’s occasional difficulty in finding off shore processing sites could readily be solved by using Svalbard Treaty rights to set up facilities in Spitzbergen. I don’t see that catch and release from similar U.S. processing done there would do any such enabling.
Child protective services often removes children from parent’s homes when the government determines that the child’s safety and wellbeing are in peril due to neglect, abuse, or the parents general inability to adequately care for the child. How exactly can these parents provide for the child while they themselves must be cared for while in custody? Yes, in some cases a relative steps forward to take temporary custody but not always. Because many children have no one who will take custody those kids are placed in foster care. Quality foster care parents are in short supply and some people derive a living from being foster parents. These people rely on government payments for not only the childs care but for their own income as well.
We know that it will be nearly impossible to accurately identify close family relatives, who themselves are legally permitted to be in the U.S., who can take custody. I am unaware of any DNA testing that is taking place to ensure the person claiming to be family actually is family. We also know their are significant numbers of people that claim a familial relationship but do so to exploit the child and the system. The evidence manifests itself in the number of children that DHS has lost track. What is not so clear is how many kids wind up in trafficking organizations. This is enough to warrant not simply handing a child over to an unvetted adult that claims to be family.
Those who are up in arms about this issue and think such separations are immoral, I ask would they agree to no family separations provided the family is returned as a unit to their home country while their case is pending. We can use video conferencing for their hearing like we do for other defendants in tbe U.S. If not they need to be honest that they want open borders.
DACA and its apparent immortality has been and is among the cruelest, most cynical policies concocted for eventual electoral gain toward a permanent majority. Now its cruelty is being highlighted with Trump as President, since it is far more expedient to blame him for actually following immigration laws while the Democrats posture and the Republicans dither.
This illegal immigration issue is really, really beginning to anger me.
As far as I can tell 100% of the arguments supporting illegal immigration and opposing the enforcement of our immigration laws are emotion based propaganda bull shit. It’s as if these delusional people think that their ETCT (Emotion Trumps Critical Thinking) parroting of bull shit is going to win the day. I’ve got news for you ignorant SJW’s, it’s the law that wins the day in the United States not your bull shit.
I got in a conversation earlier today where I think I might have ground off a millimeter off my teeth holding my tongue so I wouldn’t embarrass a close friend that happened to also be part of the uncomfortable conversation. The rationalizations were being laid on really thick by a fully consumed social justice warrior (and a pompous ass vegan to boot) that put their fingers in their ears, held their breath and shoved their head so far up their ass that they won’t likely see daylight without an enema.
Illegal immigrants are breaking our immigration laws and violating the sovereignty of the United States of America. Screw them, DACA, those that are aiding and abetting them, all of them – I’m done with this shit! Send all illegals immigrants back across the southern border and let them apply for entry into the United States the legal way. Make all re-entry illegal border crossings a mandatory and immediate felony with immediate deportation across the border at the nearest legal border crossing. If anyone is caught helping an illegal immigrant by hiring them, housing them, giving them ID’s, etc, etc (except for food and water) throw a fine at them in excess of $10,000 per occurrence; let these illegal immigrant advocates pay through their nose for aiding and abetting illegal activity and for those with 10 or more occurrences, charge them with a felony, fine them and additional $100,000+ and let them live with being a felon for the rest of their damn life.
Prove you’re a citizen of the United States or you’re legally here or get the hell out, this is our country not yours!
Hate me if you must but follow our laws and don’t encourage or enable others to break our laws.
P.S. Mexico is aiding and abetting these illegal immigrants, maybe it’s time to put a stop the US dollars flowing into Mexico.
“As far as I can tell 100% of the arguments supporting illegal immigration and opposing the enforcement of our immigration laws are emotion based propaganda bull shit.”
Whereas your rant — “ignorant SJW’s… your bull shit… I might have ground off a millimeter off my teeth holding my tongue… pompous ass vegan… I’m done with this shit!… get the hell out, this is our country not yours!” — is just the height of reasoned argument?
He’s upset, Windy…
I had a million dollar bet with myself that you would be the first to reply to Zoltar…thanks!
Rant, eh? Why aren’t my feelings towards progressives and SJW’s considered equal valid fact like the shit they spew?
Actually, I think your feelings towards progressives and SJW’s are just as valid as theirs, in the sense that neither is going to go very far toward convincing the other.
Seriously, a lot of the conflict over immigration policy is not about facts or about reasoning, but about core values. That’s kind of a squishy concept, granted, but that’s part of the problem. It’s hard to understand values we don’t share, or values we don’t hold as highly as others hold them.
Windypundit wrote, “Seriously, a lot of the conflict over immigration policy is not about facts or about reasoning, but about core values.”
This is idiotic. No Windypundit, the problem is one side wants to ignore laws and the other side wants to enforce them. Either our laws are just and needed or they are not; it’s not a “squishy concept” it’s black and white.
Windypundit wrote, “It’s hard to understand values we don’t share, or values we don’t hold as highly as others hold them.”
Values we don’t share? What the hell?
You mean that you don’t share the value that we should be enforcing our laws?
I want to know why these, specific laws are the ones we can ignore? How about federal land ownership in the West? We had a group who took up arms against the federal government a couple of years back. Should we just have ignored them and let the ranchers take over? After all, they’re just laws many people don’t like.
Interesting point about core values. Arnold Kling wrote a book about political language and discusses the three language model. Specifically, progressives operate on the Oppressor-Oppressed axis while conservatives operate on the Civilization-Barbarism axis.
The immigration debate as it’s currently framed in this country, is polarizing because it pits legitimate progressive sympathy for Oppressed people against legitimate conservatives concern for increased barbarism. I’m not arguing that these people are oppressed or barbarians, the issue is how our polarized society views and thinks about the issue. I think the model is generally accurate and reflects how partisan media frame the immigration debate, i.e. liberal media drums up sympathy for the good immigrant and conservative media drum up fear over the rapists/drug dealers/gang members.
The way to actually move forward on this issue is by synthesizing the oppressed/Civilization axis in such a way that support can come from both sides. I believe a strong punishment for all people currently in the country illegally paired with a commitment to increase legal immigration in the near future would work. Rule of law will be respected and people who broke it will be punished, but we will increase our future inflow of oppressed people because we recognize the terrible plight they are running away from.
However, I generally do not believe either political party wants to ‘solve’ this issue, even if they could. There are simply too many economic benefits to having a large population of labor here illegally and do not have to follow federal labor laws. Likewise, both sides of the aisle get more political return by grandstanding on the issue then they would be solving it. Both sides of the aisle view this issue is a win/win, and as long as the population as a whole is split the political calculation won’t change.
The GOP is every bit as culpable as progressives: they LIKE the cheap labor.
If we start putting those that hire illegals in jail (real time served, say three months per illegal) this whole problem solves itself.
Amen, brother!!! I’ve been advocating this approach for years.
The way I understood what you wrote I think that may be a decent representative of the viewpoint from the partisan left but it’s not representative of the viewpoint of the center or the right.
Point: We have no real proof that these people, illegal immigrants in general, are or have been oppressed in any way. The word oppression is being used as a propaganda tool to rationalize illegal behavior when there are viable legal ways of entering the United States. What we do know is that illegal immigrants didn’t like where they were living enough to risk traveling thousands of miles (in some cases), risk being caught illegally crossing our southern border with Mexico, and risk being sent back to their country of origin because of their illegal activity. Just because they don’t want to live in their country of origin does not earn them any sympathy.
Point: What we do know is that the political left has been and wants to continue to enable illegal immigration by intentionally setting logic aside and strictly using emotion as their tactic to try and circumvent existing law, where the political right is trying to enforce existing law, and illegal immigrants that have been encouraged to cross the border illegally in the past are now caught in the middle of two rival ideological factions trying to win their ideological “war” with the masses. The losers are illegal immigrants, the citizens of the United States, and the political process that’s intentionally tainted with massive propaganda – there are no real winners.
Point: Since we are a nation of laws, the law should win over ETCT ETCT (Emotion Trumps Critical Thinking).
If I misunderstood your opinion, just take my opinion for what it is without referencing it back to your opinion.
Windy,
I couldn’t help but notice that you really didn’t bother to address even one of my points.
If you think you are up to the task, pick one of my points try to counter it and let’s have at it.
I addressed your point about the emotional nature of your opponents by pointing out you were being just as emotional.
But since you asked, your point that “Illegal immigrants are…violating the sovereignty of the United States of America” doesn’t really mean anything. Illegal immigrants aren’t trying to invade the U.S. on behalf of a foreign power, and they’re not trying to overthrow the government. They aren’t trying to establish their own army or police forces. Certainly terrorists or spies or insurgents would be a threat to sovereignty, but that cannot justify the far broader prohibitions of our immigration policy. Note that the U.S. government managed to achieve and maintain sovereignty against a world power like the U.K. at a time when borders were essentially wide open.
Or perhaps you have in mind a weaker concept of sovereignty. Perhaps you think that illegal immigrants violate U.S. sovereignty merely by refusing to follow U.S. law — effectively challenging the U.S. government’s legitimacy by disobeying it. But that proves too much. By that definition, every violation of the law is a challenge to sovereignty, in which case you’re just using “sovereignty” to mean the same thing as “breaking the law.” Thus your point that illegal immigrants are violating U.S. sovereignty is either wrong or vacuous.
Windypundit wrote, “I addressed your point about the emotional nature of your opponents by pointing out you were being just as emotional.”
That was intellectually dishonest. Saying I’m doing the same thing is not addressing the point.
Windypundit wrote, “…your point that “Illegal immigrants are…violating the sovereignty of the United States of America” doesn’t really mean anything.”
Your statement is literally ignorant, see below.
Windypundit wrote, “Illegal immigrants aren’t trying to invade the U.S. on behalf of a foreign power, and they’re not trying to overthrow the government. They aren’t trying to establish their own army or police forces. Certainly terrorists or spies or insurgents would be a threat to sovereignty, but that cannot justify the far broader prohibitions of our immigration policy. Note that the U.S. government managed to achieve and maintain sovereignty against a world power like the U.K. at a time when borders were essentially wide open.”
Rationalizations one and all. It appears that you need to educate your on the English language; look up the definitions of invade; seriously, look them up. Not all definitions of invade are of a military nature. Yes my dear Windypundit; illegal immigrants are literally invading the USA in that they are entering the country in large numbers, with intrusive effect, for the purpose of literally occupying the country.
Windypundit wrote, “Or perhaps you have in mind a weaker concept of sovereignty. Perhaps you think that illegal immigrants violate U.S. sovereignty merely by refusing to follow U.S. law — effectively challenging the U.S. government’s legitimacy by disobeying it. But that proves too much. By that definition, every violation of the law is a challenge to sovereignty, in which case you’re just using “sovereignty” to mean the same thing as “breaking the law.””
This is Communication Malpractice.
Windypundit wrote, “your point that illegal immigrants are violating U.S. sovereignty is either wrong or vacuous.”
That doesn’t pass the smell test especially since you’re basing that conclusion on the four sentences of blather that preceded it.
Here is what I meant by sovereignty. Sovereignty consists of four basic things; territory, population, authority and recognition. Illegal violation of international borders IS a violation of national sovereignty.
Do you want to try again?
“Saying I’m doing the same thing is not addressing the point.”
Seriously, man, I have no clue what you think your points were, other than than you were mad about SJWs and illegal immigrants. Fine. I concede your point: I agree completely that you are mad about SJWs and illegal immigrants.
And if you’re going to use your own private definition of words like “soverengnty” (consisting of four words without explanation) I guess can’t argue with that either. Kudos to you.
Windypundit trolled, “Seriously, man, I have no clue what you think your points were, other than than you were mad about SJWs and illegal immigrants.”
Don’t take this personally but that statement shows what I call an increasing Cranial Power Generation Potential. The points literally blew straight over you head, the roar from the wind must have been deafening.
Windypundit trolled, “And if you’re going to use your own private definition of words like “soverengnty” (consisting of four words without explanation) I guess can’t argue with that either.”
First: Operative word in that statement is can’t.
Second: I didn’t define “soverengnty” nor did I define “sovereignty”. 😉 I told you what I meant by listing four basic things that sovereignty consists of as it relates to national sovereignty. You are free to challenge that list if you think you can.
Since you don’t seem to be keeping up intellectually, maybe you and I should just stop talking about this.
And, no surprise, you still don’t have a point. Good talk.
And no surprise, you’re still trolling because you can’t intellectually keep up. Typical.
Windypundit,
I didn’t chase you away by challenging your rhetoric, did I? I hope not.
P.S. There was a commenter with the moniker “Windy” that used to comment a lot at madison.com a hand-full of years before they silenced the voice of opposition to their terribly bias articles. That’s up in your subsection of the upper mid-west and if I remember correctly you two sound quite similar, was that you?
I wonder how many of these apologists support mass immigration into Europe.
I think we should offer that as one of the options – free airfare to Europe for any asylum seekers. They seem keen on picking at the country with the most open immigration laws, let them have them instead.
I’ve always thought that was a good option for the West Bank. France likes the Palestinians. Gather them all up, outfit a bunch of ships as passenger vessels and park them in the harbor near Nice.
What a wonderful idea, Matthew!! I’m sure the French would take them, they’re such a friendly people.
Yep, I’m sure the French would be ecstatic!
What, exactly, could they do though? It’s not like they could just take them back across the Mediterranean again.
Same thing the British did when they owned Palestine…park a ship-load of Jews in the middle of the harbor and not let them leave or re-supply. In this case, it would not be Jews, but that’s a minor detail.
“Criminals don’t typically take their children with them when they break laws.”
The esteemed criminologist Damon Runyon explored the folly of this practice in his short story “Butch Minds the Baby”:
Click to access story-butch-minds-the-baby.pdf
Great read!
There are 12000 children in DHS protective custody. Of that number, 10,000 were unaccompanied minors whose parents sent their children away with coyotes. Even more, never made it due to accidents, physical abuse or were left to die in the wilderness. This act by their parents is child abuse.
The other 2000 who are the ones the progressives are claiming to be held in concentration camps are the lucky ones. They are eating properly, being educated, provided recreational activities and medical care.
I will be happy to reunite them with their parents provided the reunification occurs on the flight home. It is the parents choice, stay separated during the wait for a hearing or get reunited on the trip back home. You can’t have it both ways.
It’s 2,000 children?
The media had me under the impression this was hundreds of thousands of children…
This fiasco is a head on collision between the near sacrosanct value of the integrity or “unbreakability” of families and the near absolute importance of Rule of Law. But, I think we’ve been clear on this. Rule of Law wins by a nose.
But the beauty of Rule of Law is, is the Laws are causing an unethical situation, the laws can be changed. But in the meantime, arbitrarily choosing to enforce and not enforce laws does more damage to the system than enforcing bad laws. Bad laws should prompt quick changes.
But 2,000 children? I’m not certain this is nearly the crisis we’re being led to believe.
I heard that the Senators from the great state of Texas have introduced ’emergency legislation’ (whatever that is) to change this situation. Details are sketchy.
Not sure how I feel about that.
Any “fix” I think would likely be a short term Act to address this particular manifestation of the greater immigration law problem.
I doubt, and it’s only a guess because I haven’t done any research, that they’re introducing any comprehensive reform of the immigration system.
As Texas conservatives are introducing the bill, you can be reasonably certain it aim to mitigate the problem without undermining the existing set of protocols for processing and addressing illegal immigrants.
Mind boggling. I can’t imagine there are parents so naive that they would do that. My assumption is that any child turned over to human traffickers has high odds of becoming a sex slave. For a tween or teen girl, I would expect the rate to approach 100%.
In the press conference, Huckabee noted that info about the great majority of “children” not even being in the company of a relative when trying to cross illegally. She also reminded them that a parent could arrive with a child at a legal crossing, ask to apply for amnesty, and not be separated.
Oops, meant “Huckabee Sanders” (and it may have actually been Secretary Nielsen) and “asylum”, not “amnesty”. I shouldn’t post while sleeping.
I might point out that it isn’t at all unheard of for people arrested on misdemeanors to languish in jail because they’re unable to post cash bail. Some jurisdictions have been turning this around in recent years, but it still happens. Those peopleare separated from their families. They often lose jobs. Sometimes they lose custody of children. The media wants you to believe this is a sh*t sandwich, but really it’s a whole manure pile that somebody threw a hamburger bun onto.
I think we all need to get in a time machine and go back about a month to when we first started talking about the children of illegal immigrants.
There were these pictures, you see, of kids being kept in dog kennels, with a couple of blankets sprinkled on the floor. “Trump keeps kids like animals!” people decried, Obama Administration staffers condemned the actions with all severity, actors expressed the appropriate outrage, Twitter was all Twittery….. At least until it was pointed out that the pictures were from 2014, when some of Obama’s talking points flubbed, resulting in an unprecedented uptick in unaccompanied minors rushing the border… Then all of a sudden, the left didn’t care anymore, the Tweets came down slightly faster than the speed of light, the actors went back to their green rooms, and the administration officials, not that they realised they were actually part of the administration that… y’know… did it, said absolutely nothing. Because the areas of the left we’re talking about…. progressive Twitter, actors and politicians, they don’t care about these kids. They care about appearing virtuous, and you can’t do that by criticising Obama (criticising him is probably *shuffles deck, draws card* racist.) They care about their own positions within the progressive stack, and there’s nothing that puts you more at risk for expulsion than expressing even a momentary lapse of wrongthink (it’s also probably *shuffles deck, draws card* Nazism). What they REALLY care about though, most of all, is hating Trump. I can’t tell what killed the story faster, the Obama connection… Or that it could no longer be tied to Trump (with all his *shuffles deck, draws card* Misogyny! Wait…? *shuffles deck, draws card* Xenophobia! Much better.)
But now, now we CAN tie the separation of kids to Trump, because his administration *is* doing it. This is materially different from when Obama did it because …. Something…. Pick a card. And to be fair…. I think the execution of these policies has been cripplingly stupid. I get that there’s a law that says that children cannot be held in detention centers with their parents. I get that the “solution” of catch and releasing them into the general population is untenable. I get that despite the amount of illegal immigration plummeting over the last couple of years, there’s still more that needs to be done*. While I understand all that, I also understand that we’re talking about kids. Kids who probably didn’t have much of a say in what their parents did. And we’re locking them up in detention centers full of bars and chain link fences, with Trump’s God-Damned face painted on the God-Damned walls. Can anyone think of a worse way to do this? What does that even look like? Throwing the kids into an active volcano? Using them for a real life version of the hunger games? You can do the right thing the wrong way, and doing it the wrong way makes you wrong.
*As an aside… “There’s less of it now, so you don’t need to worry” is a REALLY stupid argument for progressives, apply it to ANYTHING else…. But be prepared to draw a card.
“And we’re locking them up in detention centers full of bars and chain link fences, with Trump’s God-Damned face painted on the God-Damned walls.”
I understand the average stay for these kids is like 50 days? Are you suggesting that we just give them to whatever adult decides to come down to the detention center for a kid today? Is there not some responsibility to ensure that the kids are either reunited with an actual relative or at least placed in a knows safe place. With more that 250 coming in per day, how long is a reasonable time to get those logistics sorted out? Where should they be until that is sorted out?
I mean, those are nice thoughts, but I don’t think the situation is really that easy.
No, I’m suggesting that the detention centers maybe have glass windows, not have Trump’s face painted on the walls like some tinpot dictator’s propaganda, and that the center maybe have some amenities, like beds.
And yes… I know all the mitigations: “The mural was one of many in that center…. It’s not just Trump’s face.”, “MOST of the detention centers have beds, Not ALL of the detained kids are sleeping on towels in chain-link cubicles.”
It’s still dumb. Cripplingly stupid. Seriously… Take me up on my challenge; How could the administration possibly do this in a worse way? What does that look like?
The problem with glass windows is that some bad actor will break one and use a shard as a weapon…just like in mental illness facilities.
Bullet proof poly, then. Look, if the administration has time and money to commission propaganda be painted on the detention center’s walls, they can pretend their charges are children and afford them a little kindness.
Sooo… Obama does this , and worse, and all is just peachy.
Trump practically BEGS Democrats to help change the laws, but enforces them as he is, you know, supposed to… and Trump is the bad guy?
Got it.
You’re not really dumb enough to think that’s a legitimate response to me, are you?
I didn’t know about this during the Obama years because your media wouldn’t report on it, but I bet my left testicle that I’d absolutely, positively, unequivocally, in all the strongest terms possible criticise Obama for doing this, had I known he was doing it.
Your protests sounded a lot like the progressive wingnuts down here.
I apologize, since you assert you did not know about it. I knew about it, but then I live in Texas, and rub elbows with illegal aliens on at least a weekly basis.
I wonder how much of the last two years of increasingly vitriolic attacks on Trump from the Left has had the unintended consequence of making him more likely to enact policies like this “zero tolerance” stance. I mean, he knows he’s going to get crucified no matter what he does, so why not do the politically difficult (but legally correct) thing anyway?
Previous presidents have ducked this issue because they didn’t want to deal with the negative press associated with it. Trump’s going to get negative press coverage either way, so he has nothing to gain by avoiding the problem, and nothing to lose by taking a hard stance.
I think your analysis is likely right. It’s also liberating. People used to always wish for a President who did what he thought was right and didn’t govern by poll.
Guess what?
This is condign justice, any way you slice it.
For progressives, for the GOP, for Democrats (I know, they ARE the progressives), and for the American public, who let this fester so long.
I gotta tell you, I didn’t vote for Trump (or anybody else, for that matter), but I’m re-thinking that stance for next time.
The Governors of three states have refused to send National Guard troops to the border. I wasn’t aware that this was an option. I rather thought that Wallace and Faubus settled that argument back in the ’60’s, as did Grant and Lee at Appomattox Court House.
Now wait a minute that can’t be right. I’ll check my notes but I’m SURE that being in favor of “States’ Rights” is code for being a big old racist, so there’s no way that anybody on the left would now be cheering States exercising power contrary to the wishes of the Federal government…
Reported by AOL, Luke. Would they lie?
Here’s the link.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/06/19/3-states-are-pulling-national-guard-troops-from-the-us-mexico-border-in-protest-over-trumps-family-separation-policy/23462607/
Jack – how does this post change when discussing not Illegal Immigrants, but Asylum Seekers? I think the “right” doesn’t understand that the “left” is using an apparently similar looking scenario with superior legal standing to attack a broad application of rules, policy, and law. The right hear’s the left say “asylum seekers” and they think it’s just the latest euphemism for an illegal immigrant….and it’s not (at least not in all cases). That misunderstanding could spell trouble down the line whether it be by the courts or simply in public opinion.
Is there a way to incorporate how Asylum Seekers fit into this discussion? Or should they be treated the same as those who are caught crossing the border illegally?
When the criminals caught sneaking over the border, as well as those arriving at a legal control point, have all been coached to squeal “asylum”, how do you separate the wheat from the chaff?
Willem Reese wrote, ” ‘those arriving at a legal control point, have all been coached to squeal ‘asylum’ “
As far as I can tell that asylum coaching story was a factually true story. I personally heard it reported on the ABC evening news and Fox News broadcast and the story was complete with at least one interview on each station. What I got from the reports is that some advocacy group in the USA was literally teaching a caravan of foreigners from south of Mexico how to lie to immigration investigators about asylum. I can’t wait till those kind of coaching actions puts someone behind bars for something like subversion, obstruction of justice, etc.
Whether they’ve been actively coached or not, they all now know to play that card and have a “gang violence” or some other story fabricated for presentation. Asylum used to be a real thing, commonly done through a U.S. embassy; now every criminal and economic migrant abuses the process and overburdens the system with their bogus claims.
Actually – “Gang Violence” is not one of the 5 protected reasons for asylum seekers. Should they say such a thing, their application would be rejected, they would be deported, and barred from the US for 5 years.
You should probably make AG Sessions aware of that; apparently application of that law has been corrupted over recent years. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/asylum-claims-based-fear-gang-violence-sessions/story?id=55807902 “USCIS says (credible fear) screenings have gone from 5,100 in 2008 to close to 92,000 screenings in 2016.”
I mean, I could tell him, or he could look it up on the USCIS.gov site.
How Is an Individual Found to Have a Credible Fear of Persecution?
An individual will be found to have a credible fear of persecution if he or she establishes that there is a “significant possibility” that he or she could establish in a full hearing before an Immigration Judge that he or she has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution or harm on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned to his or her country.
Fear of violence is not a protected category because you can move about your community or country to avoid it. If you’re being targeted for a protected category, it’s usually not violence you can escape – it will follow you.
Actually, I just clicked your link. Sessions is roundly aware that “Gang Violence” is not a protected category since he’s the one that just stopped the practice of considering “Gang Violence” as a reason.
That’s right, he just stopped it…meaning that it HAS been being accepted. Like I said the application of the law had been corrupted to include considering those supposedly fearful of domestic or gang violence as “persecuted”.
The law says that you can only seek asylum entering the country openly, at a port of entry, which means a legal, staffed entry point to the country. Sneaking across the border, getting caught, and then claiming asylum is not what the law permits.
Exactly my point. There are asylum seekers mixed in with illegal immigrants. (Non-criminals with criminals). How does one justify separating families of those who have not committed a crime and are seeking asylum? Your post is pretty dedicated to the criminal immigrant and from that perspective makes sense. It does nothing to address the other situation, which is my question.
If they are not at a legitimate and legal point of entry, and they are not, then that point is moot.
The detainee population is not simply comprised of illegal immigrants improperly claiming asylum, but also legal asylum seekers who properly surrendered to border patrol at a port of entry. They’re mixed. With that in mind, do you think treating them the same, and separating them from their children, as with those caught illegaly entering the country is the best policy?
I’ll go another step further – sometimes legal american citizens have gotten caught up in a detention center. Should american citizens be separated from their children when they are wrongfully detained?
Tim,
My understanding is that asylum seekers who present themselves at a staffed port of entry are NOT separated from their children. I think that is a critical distinction.
Correct. And asylum seekers are not interned with the illegal aliens, as THEY ARE NOT CRIMINALS.
This happens every time a legal American citizen is accused of a crime. If you are being arrested, and you have kids with you, you WILL be separated from them, until the situation is adjudicated.
What is the difference?
This is not happening to Asylum Seekers. Thererfore, it is the progressives (again) using deceptive language.
I mean when you see a report like this:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “all of the members of Republican conference support a plan that keeps families together while their immigration status is determined. “
You don’t get a sense that it’s exclusively happening to illegal immigrants, but rather to asylum seekers.
You are being gaslighted. On purpose.
Because ‘think of the children!’
Considering that the United States gives approximately 87.5 million dollars to Mexico in unrestricted foreign aid yearly, I think perhaps it would be time to legislate a solution. However that is easier said than done, there is absolutely no creative problem solving to be found in the legislative branch. This money could instead be used to set up barracks for these children. Since Mexico is more than happy to send these problems our way, they should be happy to contribute to this humanitarian cause. The kids could remain in supervision until their guardians are correctly identified and they are returned on their way back to the nearest point of entry. If no guardian was to be found, I’m sure some of these sympathetic reactionaries would be more than happy to adopt, right? Seeing the cost of adoption nowadays you could actually probably turn a profit! The average cost of raising a child is estimated at around 287151.78 from 0 to 18 years. Multiply that by the 2000 or so unaccompanied minors and it comes out as 574 million dollars, a drop in the bucket of the billions of foreign aid that end up in the hands of petty warlords all over the world!
The point of all this is that if a solution was truly desired then one could found. However the current lack of innovation and willingness to challenge the comfortable status quo will not allow these selfish creatures to act. Instead they once again only offer outraged tantrums that reinforce an intentional false dichotomy and further fuel the partisan divide.
Sam, my belief is that the average IQ among Senators/Representatives is 85 or possibly less. Their only goal: reelection. I am HORRIBLY in favor of term limits.
“Considering that the United States gives approximately 87.5 million dollars to Mexico in unrestricted foreign aid yearly, I think perhaps it would be time to legislate a solution. ”
Right! BUILD THE WALL (…and make Mexico ‘pay’ for it with the aid we don’t send)
Proving that Chris Cillizza is good for something when he isn’t peddling fake news, here’s a helpful overview of the kids-at-the-border problem. My mains take-away: yup, it sure does cause trouble when successive administrations won’t enforce the law, and then the next one does, and both Congress and thee news media is screaming that yes, the law should be enforced, of course, just not really. Key quote:
“The change the Trump administration has made is to declare and try to implement a zero-tolerance policy at the US-Mexico border: Criminal prosecution of all people who seek to cross illegally between ports of entry. With Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement on April 7 that all illegal crossers would be prosecuted in federal court for illegal entry or re-entry, the administration essentially ensured that parents would be separated from their children because minors cannot be kept in federal criminal detention facilities.”
As I said. Of course, sending the message for years that nice illegal immigrants could get away with entering illegally is the reason this is happening.
I just saw this pure unadulterated emotional propaganda shared on Facebook…
How do critical thinking people “fix” this kind of stupid?
Read the comments…
I suggest changing the sort criteria from the default to “New”.
Fixing this kind of stupid (and the complete idiots who supported him) is not possible. Not sure how you can work around them, though. Sadly, there are enough of them that they can swing an election, sometimes.
Who’s “him”?
Jack Marshall asked, “Who’s “him”?”
isi breen from the post I linked to above.
How does Schizophrenia-AT fit Progressives, anti-Trump resistance, and Social Justice Warriors?
How is it that the political left “evolved” to the level of absurdities that they are obsessed with today?