‘We Need to Take Away Children,’ No Matter How Young

[Dill]

(10-13-2020, 11:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Never mind the silliness that llegally crossing into a sovereign country is the same as jay walking or stealing a candy bar. These are just red herrings

The question is; If the law determines you go to jail, should your child go with you

Right. Don't understand why "breaking into a  country" is just a misdemeanor, even if fleeing for your life.

In answer to your question--if "the law" determines you should go to jail for "breaking and entering" into our country, but has no system for properly caring for your child in the meantime and then re-uniting you, then

1) yes, your child should go with you --especially if the child is an infant breastfeeding. Or

2) there should be no separation until such time as the child can be properly cared for.

Unless of course there is another intent behind the law, namely to scare off would be asylum seekers and immigrants by separating children from parents. Taking care of the children and insuring they are promptly reunited with parents would render the law useless for that.

I'm sure most here will agree--

Liberals just do not have the stomach to do what needs to be done to purge our country of those who don't belong.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-13-2020, 11:55 AM)Au165 Wrote: Why is one low level misdemeanor zero tolerance and another isn't? If it was considered a big deal wouldn't the duly elected legislative branch have made that crime of a higher class?

Illegal immigration needs to stop and the less we give to illegals the less they will find it a good idea to break into our country.

People wait years to come here the correct way.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 11:31 AM)Au165 Wrote: Should you go to jail and be separated from your kids for 180 days in Ohio for stealing a candy bar?  It qualifies for petty theft, a misdemeanor, which by your logic they should have the book thrown at them.

I forget where it was but out west (I think California) a few years ago, it came out that the DA was not going to prosecute for small crimes like shoplifting. Guess what happened? Many people went nuts and started shoplifting. Sometimes, if a certain crime becomes a problem, you need to drop the hammer to try to send a message and to try to get people to stop committing that crime.

So, to answer your question: yes, I should be sent to jail and separated from my kids for stealing a candy bar if there was a problem with lots of people stealing candy bars in Ohio. 

(10-13-2020, 11:31 AM)Au165 Wrote: ...or the judge could fine them as allowed by the law simiarly as the law for illegal entry into the U.S. allows for a fine without incarciration on a first offense.

Sure, if the law allows that. Similarly if the law allows jail for a first offense a judge is well within his or her rights to sentence them to prison.

[Au165]

(10-13-2020, 12:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I forget where it was but out west (I think California) a few years ago, it came out that the DA was not going to prosecute for small crimes like shoplifting. Guess what happened? Many people went nuts and started shoplifting. Sometimes, if a certain crime becomes a problem, you need to drop the hammer to try to send a message and to try to get people to stop committing that crime.

So, to answer your question: yes, I should be sent to jail and separated from my kids for stealing a candy bar if there was a problem with lots of people stealing candy bars in Ohio. 


Sure, if the law allows that. Similarly if the law allows jail for a first offense a judge is well within his or her rights to sentence them to prison.

Now let's go a step further, what if the judge didn't always send people to jail for stealing candy bars but instead specifically sent people with kids to jail while letting those without go without being incarcerated more often than not? 

You still good with that?

[Au165]

(10-13-2020, 12:12 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Illegal immigration needs to stop and the less we give to illegals the less they will find it a good idea to break into our country.

People wait years to come here the correct way.

If it is such a big deal, why is it a misdemeanor? Also, why do you feel you or a single person in the executive branch, should get to decide what misdemeanors are serious and what are not? Do you not believe in the way our government is set up allocating that duty to the legislative branch?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 11:59 AM)Au165 Wrote: No, actually it isn't it's a sentencing directive unilaterally pushed down from the executive branch. The "law of the land" as passed by the actual legislator allows for a fine of $50-$250 with no incarceration at all.

If the directive came from the executive branch then it IS the law of the land.

[Au165]

(10-13-2020, 12:17 PM)PhilHos Wrote: If the directive came from the executive branch then it IS the law of the land.

...no, it isn't. This is actually scary that you believe this.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 12:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: Now let's go a step further, what if the judge didn't always send people to jail for stealing candy bars but instead specifically sent people with kids to jail while letting those without go without being incarcerated more often than not? 

You still good with that?

Of course not. I'm all in favor of consistency. But, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the mean old United States government taking the poor illegal immigrants' children away from them even though the poor unfortunate illegal immigrants committed a teeny tiny crime. 

[Au165]

(10-13-2020, 12:20 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Of course not. I'm all in favor of consistency. But, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the mean old United States government taking the poor illegal immigrants' children away from them even though the poor unfortunate illegal immigrants committed a teeny tiny crime. 

It's 100% what we are talking about. Illegal entry cases are not being handled the same for those with and without children. Early on those with children were specifically targeted for prosecution to "send a message" while those without were being returned without charges at a much higher rate. The picking and choosing is what makes the idea of "we need to take away the children" potentially a crime against humanity.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-13-2020, 11:59 AM)Au165 Wrote: No, actually it isn't it's a sentencing directive unilaterally pushed down from the executive branch. The "law of the land" as passed by the actual legislator allows for a fine of $50-$250 with no incarceration at all. That leeway is there, like most misdemeanors, to allow for intelligent decisions to be made about other circumstances.

What is interesting is they chose to "follow the law of the land", as you incorrectly put it, almost always when dealing with poeple with children, but chose not to charge many people who crossed alone. This is part of the issue now, the picking and choosing of when to pursue charges seems to have been a tactic to intentionally inflict suffering on those with kids as a "warning".

How about we just turn everyone back immediately?  No special treatment, no fine, no "jail" and no kids separated.  

[Dill]

(10-13-2020, 12:12 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Illegal immigration needs to stop and the less we give to illegals the less they will find it a good idea to break into our country.

People wait years to come here the correct way.

What if we take something away as well, like children?

That way the only people "breaking in" would likely only be those fleeing worse options, fearing for their children's lives, and unable to wait in line.

But a crime is a crime. And taking children would surely reduce the number of "break ins."

Anyway, it appears that was Sessions' idea.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 11:59 AM)Au165 Wrote: No, actually it isn't it's a sentencing directive unilaterally pushed down from the executive branch. The "law of the land" as passed by the actual legislator allows for a fine of $50-$250 with no incarceration at all. That leeway is there, like most misdemeanors, to allow for intelligent decisions to be made about other circumstances.

What is interesting is they chose to "follow the law of the land", as you incorrectly put it, almost always when dealing with poeple with children, but chose not to charge many people who crossed alone. This is part of the issue now, the picking and choosing of when to pursue charges seems to have been a tactic to intentionally inflict suffering on those with kids as a "warning".

That was a lot of words (many of with are just opine, not fact) to not answer the question posed.

[BmorePat87]

(10-13-2020, 11:42 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: No I am saying the crime of illegal immigration should be zero tolerance.  I have never said "a crime is a crime".

It's very simple.  Don't break into a foreign country illegally and with your children.

This is about justifying the separation of children, though. No one is suggesting it is not illegal to enter the country. At what point does a crime justify shipping kids off the detention centers states away?

[Mickeypoo]

(10-13-2020, 12:25 PM)Dill Wrote: What if we take something away as well, like children?

That way the only people "breaking in" would likely only be those fleeing worse options, fearing for their children's lives, and unable to wait in line.

But a crime is a crime. And taking children would surely reduce the number of "break ins."

Anyway, it appears that was Sessions' idea.  

The root cause of the children being separated is that their parents are bringing them while breaking into a foreign country illegally.  

Fleeing one country does not give you the right to illegally break into another.  Isn't it like 80% of asylum claims are found to be without merit?  Could be wrong on that, but I remember reading that.

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 12:25 PM)Dill Wrote: What if we take something away as well, like children?

That way the only people "breaking in" would likely only be those fleeing worse options, fearing for their children's lives, and unable to wait in line.

But a crime is a crime. And taking children would surely reduce the number of "break ins."

Anyway, it appears that was Sessions' idea.  

Folks fleeing are welcome to show up to crossing points South of our border and attempt to enter legally.

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 12:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is about justifying the separation of children, though. No one is suggesting it is not illegal to enter the country. At what point does a crime justify shipping kids off the detention centers states away?

When the crime causes the parent to be held in custody.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-13-2020, 12:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is about justifying the separation of children, though. No one is suggesting it is not illegal to enter the country. At what point does a crime justify shipping kids off the detention centers states away?

I would personally rather we just turn everyone back immediately.  That solves all of these problems.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 12:19 PM)Au165 Wrote: ...no, it isn't. This is actually scary that you believe this.

Uhh, yes it is. 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/16/qa-trump-administrations-zero-tolerance-immigration-policy
The current “zero-tolerance” policy specifically refers to referrals for immigrants committing “illegal entry,” or entering the US without authorization. Illegal entry is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in prison, with a subsequent conviction for illegal entry punishable by up to two years.

So, while the law of the land does indeed include lesser punishments than jail time, the fact is that jail time for first offenses is ALSO the law of the land. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 12:21 PM)Au165 Wrote: It's 100% what we are talking about. Illegal entry cases are not being handled the same for those with and without children.

No, it's not. Re-read the OP again. This thread was because of children being separated from their families and how horrible that is. Now, if you want to make THAT the discussion because you're losing the debate, fine. But we've just been talking about children being separated from their criminal parents.

[Au165]

(10-13-2020, 12:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Uhh, yes it is. 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/16/qa-trump-administrations-zero-tolerance-immigration-policy
The current “zero-tolerance” policy specifically refers to referrals for immigrants committing “illegal entry,” or entering the US without authorization. Illegal entry is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in prison, with a subsequent conviction for illegal entry punishable by up to two years.

So, while the law of the land does indeed include lesser punishments than jail time, the fact is that jail time for first offenses is ALSO the law of the land. 

Right, so we have come full circle to the actual LAW OF THE LAND does not require incarceration but rather a unilateral directive from the executive branch has essentially thrown out part of the law pushing for only the most severe punishment. I said the law actually allowed, meaning in lieu of, other remedies. In context to the discussion, it was portrayed as this (Incarceration) was the required outcome of the offense, to which I pointed out it was not as the directive from the executive branch was no THE LAW OF THE LAND but rather a sentencing directive picking out only the parts of the law they liked.

Bottom line, no a sentencing directive from the executive branch does not make something the "law of the land". The constitution is very clear that only the legislative branch can make the laws that govern this land.