Trump says he won't sign legislation banning separation of children from parents

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Rusha writes:
Lie ... IF he hated it, it wouldn't be happening. Intentionally inflicting harm on children due to hatred of their parents is NOT prolife or pro-child.

Glorydaz writes:
Lie....it's the Democrates who keep these long standing problems from being solved.

It's not a longstanding policy. It was implemented by Trump's AG, Sessions. It could end tomorrow if Trump so ordered. He's merely lying about who did it. That's not at issue.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday cited the Bible to defend the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents caught illegally crossing the border.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...ng-kids-from-parents-at-the-border-2018-06-14

Did you really believe Trump when he said that the democrats did this?
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Session's own church rebukes him:

Faith leaders’ statement on family separation

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church is joining other faith organizations in a statement urging the U.S. government to stop its policy of separating immigrant families.

Below is the full statement signed by dozens of faith organizations. Bishop Kenneth H. Carter, president of the Council of Bishops, signed on behalf of the Council.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
The Truth about Separating Kids



The latest furor over Trump immigration policy involves the separation of children from parents at the border.
As usual, the outrage obscures more than it illuminates, so it’s worth walking through what’s happening here.
For the longest time, illegal immigration was driven by single males from Mexico. Over the last decade, the flow has shifted to women, children, and family units from Central America. This poses challenges we haven’t confronted before and has made what once were relatively minor wrinkles in the law loom very large.


The Trump administration isn’t changing the rules that pertain to separating an adult from the child. Those remain the same. Separation happens only if officials find that the adult is falsely claiming to be the child’s parent, or is a threat to the child, or is put into criminal proceedings.

It’s the last that is operative here. The past practice had been to give a free pass to an adult who is part of a family unit. The new Trump policy is to prosecute all adults. The idea is to send a signal that we are serious about our laws and to create a deterrent against re-entry. (Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, illegal re-entry a felony.)


When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.

If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.


Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children.


That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.

The clock ticking on the time the government can hold a child will almost always run out before an asylum claim is settled. The migrant is allowed ten days to seek an attorney, and there may be continuances or other complications.

This creates the choice of either releasing the adults and children together into the country pending the ajudication of the asylum claim, or holding the adults and releasing the children. If the adult is held, HHS places the child with a responsible party in the U.S., ideally a relative (migrants are likely to have family and friends here).

Even if Flores didn’t exist, the government would be very constrained in how many family units it can accommodate. ICE has only about 3,000 family spaces in shelters. It is also limited in its overall space at the border, which is overwhelmed by the ongoing influx. This means that — whatever the Trump administration would prefer to do — many adults are still swiftly released.


Why try to hold adults at all? First of all, if an asylum-seeker is detained, it means that the claim goes through the process much more quickly, a couple of months or less rather than years. Second, if an adult is released while the claim is pending, the chances of ever finding that person again once he or she is in the country are dicey, to say the least. It is tantamount to allowing the migrant to live here, no matter what the merits of the case.

A few points about all this:

1) Family units can go home quickly. The option that both honors our laws and keeps family units together is a swift return home after prosecution. But immigrant advocates hate it because they want the migrants to stay in the United States. How you view this question will depend a lot on how you view the motivation of the migrants (and how seriously you take our laws and our border).

2) There’s a better way to claim asylum. Every indication is that the migrant flow to the United States is discretionary. It nearly dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration when migrants believed that they had no chance of getting into the United States. Now, it is going in earnest again because the message got out that, despite the rhetoric, the policy at the border hasn’t changed. This strongly suggests that the flow overwhelmingly consists of economic migrants who would prefer to live in the United States, rather than victims of persecution in their home country who have no option but to get out.


Children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases.


Even if a migrant does have a credible fear of persecution, there is a legitimate way to pursue that claim, and it does not involve entering the United States illegally. First, such people should make their asylum claim in the first country where they feel safe, i.e., Mexico or some other country they are traversing to get here. Second, if for some reason they are threatened everywhere but the United States, they should show up at a port of entry and make their claim there rather than crossing the border illegally.

3) There is a significant moral cost to not enforcing the border. There is obviously a moral cost to separating a parent from a child and almost everyone would prefer not to do it. But, under current policy and with the current resources, the only practical alternative is letting family units who show up at the border live in the country for the duration. Not only does this make a mockery of our laws, it creates an incentive for people to keep bringing children with them.
Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.

In April, the New York Times reported:
Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.
According to azcentral.com, it is “common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.”


If someone is determined to come here illegally, the decent and safest thing would be to leave the child at home with a relative and send money back home. Because we favor family units over single adults, we are creating an incentive to do the opposite and use children to cut deals with smugglers.


4) Congress can fix this. Congress can change the rules so the Flores consent decree will no longer apply, and it can appropriate more money for family shelters at the border. This is an obvious thing to do that would eliminate the tension between enforcing our laws and keeping family units together. The Trump administration is throwing as many resources as it can at the border to expedite the process, and it desperately wants the Flores consent decree reversed. Despite some mixed messages, if the administration had its druthers, family units would be kept together and their cases settled quickly.

The missing piece here is Congress, but little outrage will be directed at it, and probably nothing will be done. And so our perverse system will remain in place and the crisis at the border will rumble on.



https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/illegal-immigration-enforcement-separating-kids-at-border/
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
None of this changes the fact that Trump lied when he blamed the removal of children from their parents on the democrats. In fact, it was implemented by his administraton.

He lied when he said he wanted to end it, too. He can do that at any time, since it's his policy.
 

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
None of this changes the fact that Trump lied when he blamed the removal of children from their parents on the democrats. In fact, it was implemented by his administraton.

He lied when he said he wanted to end it, too. He can do that at any time, since it's his policy.

Good taste your own medicine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
None of this changes the fact that Trump lied when he blamed the removal of children from their parents on the democrats. In fact, it was implemented by his administraton.

He lied when he said he wanted to end it, too. He can do that at any time, since it's his policy.

as you learned, that's just not so:

That’s because of something called the Flores Consent Decree from 1997. It says that unaccompanied children can be held only 20 days. A ruling by the Ninth Circuit extended this 20-day limit to children who come as part of family units. So even if we want to hold a family unit together, we are forbidden from doing so.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
As noted earlier, Trump agrees that his new policy is horrible, and he says he'll rescind it, if Congress gives him his wall.

Otherwise, he says, he'll continue abusing children to get at their parents. Even FOX News finds it despicable:

Trump suggests separation of families at border is a negotiating tool
President Donald Trump suggested Saturday that he is using his administration’s separation of families at the US border as a negotiating tool to get Democrats to cave on his immigration demands, which include funding for a border wall, curbing legal immigration into the US, and tightening the rules for border enforcement.

http://fox40.com/2018/06/16/trump-suggests-separation-of-families-at-border-is-a-negotiating-tool/


Which is not surprising. During a fight over his father's will, Trump withdrew medical care for the severely-ill child of a relative, as a negotiating tool. It's the kind of person he is.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Donald Trump cut off medical funds to nephew's sick baby because he was 'angry' over family feud
After this came to light, Freddy's children sued, claiming Donald Trump (their uncle) and his siblings had wielded "undue influence" over Fred Sr, who suffered from dementia in the last years of his life.

It is alleged that a week later Donald retaliated by withdrawing the funds that were meant to pay for the healthcare of his nephew's ill child.

Explaining this decision, Donald told the paper: "I was angry because they sued,"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...child-medical-bills-family-feud-a6795131.html

He was angry at the parents, so he tried to hurt their baby. It's not the first time for him, you see.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Barbie claims:
...Trump withdrew medical care for the severely-ill child of a relative...

doser notes:
in my experience, medical care is provided by medical professionals

is trump a medical professional?

Barbie hastily backpedals:
It is alleged that a week later Donald retaliated by withdrawing the funds ...


oh

that's different

so Donald didn't "withdraw medical care", he just stopped paying for it



wait a tic - the relative was his brother, who was a pilot.

why should Donald be expected to pay for the health care of his brother's child?

isn't that his brother's responsibility?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
OK - I watched the video, really impressive footage of a reporter flapping his gums in front of a wall

:idea:

if a wall can keep illegal immigrants in, do you think there's a possibility that a wall can keep illegal immigrants out?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
The Efficacy of a Wall
Trump speaks with absolute certainty of a wall’s ability to repel entries, yet the efficacy of the existing barriers has gone largely unstudied. The president is proposing a project likely to cost tens of billions of dollars and to suck up many other resources, and he is doing so without a single evaluation of the barrier. Obviously, any obstacle to passage will reduce entries at the margin. But would other options work better?

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) of the House Homeland Security Committee failed to obtain an answer to this exact question from the Obama administration. Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) concluded in 2013 that “it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence,” but he gave no indication of how he evaluated the costs and benefits. A 2016 Migration Policy Institute review of the impact of walls and fences around the world turned up no academic literature specifically on the deterrent effect of physical barriers relative to other technologies or strategies, and concluded somewhat vaguely that walls appear to be “relatively ineffective.”

Fences can have strong local effects, and the case for more fencing often relies completely on these regional outcomes. Take the San Diego border sector, probably the most commonly cited success story in this debate.

From 1990 to 1993, it replaced a “totally ineffective” fence with a taller, opaque landing mat fence along 14 miles of the border. This had little impact on the number of border crossers. “The primary fence, by itself, did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego,” the Congressional Research Service concluded.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

Turns out, most Border Patrol agents are skeptical:

But the biggest practical problem with a wall is its opacity. In fact, many Border Patrol agents oppose a concrete wall for precisely this reason (albeit quietly, given that they were also some of Trump’s biggest supporters during the election). “A cinder block or rock wall, in the traditional sense, isn’t necessarily the most effective or desirable choice,” Border Patrol agents told Fox News. “Seeing through a fence allows agents to anticipate and mobilize, prior to illegal immigrants actually climbing or cutting through the fence.”
ibid
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans have distanced themselves from the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents at the southern border even as the White House cited the Bible in defending its “zero tolerance” approach to illegal border crossings.
...
The comments came as House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republicans said they were not comfortable with family separations, which spiked dramatically after the Justice Department adopted a policy in April of referring all illegal border crossers for prosecution.

“We don’t want kids to be separated from their parents,” Ryan said Thursday.

Sen. James Lankford tweeted Thursday that he told a constituent that, “I am asking the White House to keep families together as much as we can.”

In an unusually tense series of exchanges in the White House briefing room, Sanders blamed Democrats for the policy separating children from parents and wrongly insisted the administration had made no changes increasing the tactics’ use.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...ing-rift-between-gop-leaders-white-house.html
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
GOP fears midterms backlash from breaking up families at the border
"The images are devastating" for the GOP, said one Republican operative, referring to children and their families being separated.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's policy of taking immigrant children from their parents at the southern border may have been designed to push Democrats to the negotiating table in Congress — but it could end up costing Republican lawmakers.

But the policy, which has separated some 2,000 children from their parents in just six weeks, could have the opposite effect as anxious Republican lawmakers fear voters may see their party as heartless on immigration and punish them for it in November. And Democrats are driving home that message in emails to supporters and by organizing trips to detention centers.

The issue will "absolutely" be a factor in the midterm elections this fall, said a GOP operative working to elect Republicans to Congress, adding that "the images are devastating" for the GOP.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...rms-backlash-breaking-families-border-n883706
 
Top