As reported a few days ago here, Item#6, the Biden Administration is reportedly considering compensating illegal immigrant families separated at the southern U.S. border by the Trump Administration as a result of the latter’s “zero-tolerance” policy. The program could theoretically pay out more than $1 billion, with payouts of around $450,000 per person or $1 million per family. The American Civil Liberties Union has been championing this crazy idea, though how paying taxpayer funds to illegal aliens lines up with the organization;s mission is a mystery.
Apparently nobody told Joe Biden about this compassionate plan. When Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy asked Biden if the payments, which were first reported last week could incentivize even more illegal immigration—gee, ya think?—the POTUS replied, “If you guys keep sending that garbage out? Yeah. But it’s not true…$450,000 per person — is that what you’re saying? That’s not gonna happen.”
This came as a surprise to the ACLU. “President Biden may not have been fully briefed about the actions of his very own Justice Department,” the ACLU responded.
There are all manner of ethics violations at work here: pick one:
- Honesty? Biden, realizing that giving money to illegal immigrants who placed their children in a perilous situation is not going to help his tumbling popularity, was just lying and blaming the news media.
- Fairness? Biden defaults to insulting Doocy and “you guys” when he’s the one responsible for the confusion.
- Competence? Biden doesn’t know what his own administration is planning.
- Communication? Biden’s subordinates have an ethical obligation to tell the President what he needs to know. I’d say he needs to know if his own administration is preparing to hand out a billion dollars to illegals.
- Trustworthiness? Why would Americans trust a President who doesn’t know what’s going on in his own administration? HOW could they trust such a leader?
What ever is going on, it’s not good. Concludes the NY Post in an editorial, “We have no doubt the Journal’s reporting is correct. A shakedown by the ACLU and solving everything with a big check is directly from the liberal playbook. And it will, as Doocy notes, encourage even more migrants to illegally cross the border — something neither the ACLU nor the administration thinks is a bad thing.”
And still, if you believe the polls, about 50% of the country still approves of this Presidency. What wouldn’t they approve of?
15 thoughts on “I’d Put This In The “Res Ipsa Loquitur” Files, Except I’m Not Sure What’s Going On Here. Trust? Competence? Honesty? Communication?”
At the rate his actions are crushing the economy, a million dollars won’t buy much, so maybe they have no problem giving out that much because they know our money won’t be worth to anything soon.
Maybe it’s a foreshadowing of what’s to come with the global reset where in the words of Klauus Schwab “you’ll own nothing and be happy.”
Who knows. These people are so blinded by hatred for so many…. They have lost the ability to have common sense.
I suspect Joe was saying the $450K number was crap. It’s probably only something like $425K! Hah! They’re probably still negotiating! Maybe the ACLU hasn’t accepted the $450K number and they want something higher!
Question I have. Why do you think these settlements would encourage illegal immigration?
Why don’t you? A group of illegal immigrants bring their children along into a situation where if they are stopped and detained, the children have to be separated from them, just as children of single parents don’t go into jail when their parents are arrested. This creates a no-lose situation: the government has incentive not to detain illegal families, and if they do and separate the families from children, as they must, the families stand to reap a windfall.
This would make sense if the Trump policy that is the cause of the payouts still existed but it does not.
The policy doesn’t exist anymore so there won’t be any more payouts.
The government still has to deal with illegals. If the consequence of the pay-outs is non-enforcement, then the payouts encourage border-breakers. See?
Nonenforcement of what?
Non enforcement of the immigration laws. Why is this so hard for you?
The consequences of the payouts is non enforcement of immigration laws?
Why do you think that?
I don’t think that, it’s true. The consequence of children being used to interfere with enforcement is either non-enforcement or enforcement that will lead to the reason for the lawsuits. If the signal is sent that the US will settle suits for damages triggered by the illegals themselves, then there will be more illegal entries.
Wrong. The US is settling suits triggered by a policy that doesn’t exist anymore.
There is nothing the illegals can do now to trigger suits since the policy that actually triggered the suits doesn’t exist.
In “The Mote in Gods Eye”, Niven and Pournelle have a character bluntly tell another “Wrong”, only to have yet another character tell him that the tactful way to say that is, “That does not happen to be the case”.
The Flores agreement is what is precipitating the decision to settle. The ACLU is contending that the US breached that judicial decree and is thus subject to financial sanction. I for one do not agree that the government should have even entered into such a ridiculous agreement. That agreement states that the children must be released after 20 days so if the Biden administration honors the agreement the parents will be released into the general population along with the children. That means that we will have no way to find them if they fail to appear for their adjudication some years later. That is how we wind up with millions of undocumented persons and why the policy will incentivize others with children to come and enter illegally. The children become an effective shield against custodial detention. The payout is not the incentive the incentive is that the US taxpayer gets punished if we detain them without their children in excess 20 days. The radical Ninth Circuit Court upheld the 2016 decision to include children travelling with adults.
See Below: https://www.fairus.org/issue/border-security/flores-settlement-agreement-explained
What is the Flores Settlement Agreement?
In 1985, a number of class action lawsuits were filed related to the detention of minor aliens, including Jenny Flores, a 15-year old unaccompanied minor who was detained after attempting to enter the country illegally.
Her case resulted in a series of judicial rulings and policy decisions, culminating in a March 1993 Supreme Court decision in which the 7-2 majority ruled that unaccompanied minors do not have a constitutional right to be released to anyone other than a parent or close relative.
In 1997, the U.S. government ( Clinton Administration) entered into a consent decree, the Flores Settlement Agreement, which established immigration detention standards for unaccompanied alien children, including how long they may be detained and to whom they may be released (parent, guardian, relative, etc.).
How Does It Contribute to the Current Crisis?
At the time the U.S. government agreed to the Flores Settlement, it was viewed as necessary to ensure the humane treatment of migrant children, including imposing a 20-day limit of federal detention as a way to encourage placement with an adult family member. However, in 2015, federal district court Judge Dolly Gee expanded Flores to include children who were detained at the border with their families.
That decision forced upon the U.S. government a Hobson’s choice – either detain a parent and an adult but separate them by releasing the child after 20 days or release the entire family. In 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Gee’s ruling.
The reinterpretation of Flores requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to “catch-and-release” families apprehended at the southern border and has created an incentive for thousands of family units to head north in the hope of being released.
So, Flores in its current interpretation means the government cannot hold either an accompanied or an unaccompanied migrant child more than 20 days.
What Can Be Done to Fix Flores?
Two words: Congress. Action. Legislative fixes proposed in both the House and Senate over the years have been stymied by pro-amnesty special interests, but that has to end.
Congress must pass legislation which supersedes the Flores v. Reno consent decree making it clear that DHS can detain family units, in appropriate facilities. Lastly, Congress must ensure federal immigration agencies have both the funding and resources needed to hire additional immigration judges.
Does this also apply to all of the families separated by the Obama administration, how about the Biden administration, or is this just families separated by the Trump admin?
To Waldorf, re Incentives for illegal immigrants. The two choices for the United States are either proposed settlement payouts or to not detain illegal immigrants. For the illegal alien, individual or family, setting foot on American soil means that they will be quickly allowed into the interior, at worst being detained for 20 days. If a minor is separated from their parent for more than 20 days, they might still be released to the interior; this time with several hundred thousand dollars in taxpayer money. Even if deported, their station in life will be substantially improved.
These payments will also show potential illegal aliens that Uncle Joe is going to give them everything they need, reward them with amnesty, and will face no consequences for their illegal actions.
I am pro-deportation, pro-detention, & anti-amnesty If you’re coming into America illegally and you brought your child along for the trek, treat the child the same way that American children are treated when their guardian(s) break the law; enter the minors into the care of Child Protective Serivces. If an American took his child along for a dangerous journey, he would be separated from his children and likely face prosecution for child endangerment.
If they are willing to break the law and endanger their child(ren), it’s only fair to subject them to the same Rule of Law that equally applies to everyone else.