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

[Au165]

(10-13-2020, 12:47 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 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.

No, it's about children being separated from their families as part of a now known, and confirmed, coordinated effort to use the tactic to intimidate others from coming. This is a crime against humanity, and would be treated like such if we weren't the United States, and like many things from the last four years will be a black mark on this country's history for decades to come. 

[Dill]

(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. 

It is not the law of the land because it is a "directive from the executive branch."

That misunderstanding is what scared Au.

[BmorePat87]

(10-13-2020, 12:35 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I would personally rather we just turn everyone back immediately.  That solves all of these problems.

ok, but that's not the issue at hand. It's "what justifies intentionally separating children by implementing the zero-tolerance policy?"


Previously families were processed together before deportation. The decision was made to separate families as a deterrent. You argued in favor of this because it is a crime, so I am asking what level of crime has to occur to justify the separation. 

[Dill]

(10-13-2020, 12:32 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: 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.

I'd say the "root cause" is whatever causes the parents to flee their home country.

Fleeing another country does give one a right to apply for asylum--at present.

Trump has been trying to terminate that right and the law which addresses it. If he and Stephen Miller have their way, ALL asylum claims will be "without merit."

https://www.aila.org/infonet/uscis-issues-policy-alert-procedures-terminating?utm_source=AILA+Mailing&utm_campaign=83511c2d9c-AILA8-08-21-2020&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3c0e619096-83511c2d9c-292119624

[hollodero]

(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 about the innocent kid. They get punished severely for no fault of their own.

I get what you're saying, but the ones harmed here are mainly the kids, for a crime/misdemeanor their parents committed. Don't you see injustice in that?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 12:48 PM)Au165 Wrote: 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.

I won't argue whether or not a sentencing directive is the "law of the land" but you're wrong in that the executive branch by way of Executive Order can also make laws that govern this land.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 02:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: It's about the innocent kid. They get punished severely for no fault of their own.

This is true. But the blame lies with their PARENTS.

(10-13-2020, 02:38 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get what you're saying, but the ones harmed here are mainly the kids, for a crime/misdemeanor their parents committed. Don't you see injustice in that?

So, if Trump and Congress made it a felony to illegally enter this country THEN it would be okay to separate children from their parents?

The fact of the matter is that parents are committing crimes with their kids and while it sucks, the parents need to face justice for their crimes. And if that means separating them from their children, then so be it. But the fault still lies with the parents.

[Au165]

(10-13-2020, 03:05 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I won't argue whether or not a sentencing directive is the "law of the land" but you're wrong in that the executive branch by way of Executive Order can also make laws that govern this land.

I was going to do a whole thing but simply put, no they aren't laws they are directives. They govern how the executive branch will enforce/ not enforce the actual laws, which in a sense gets to the ethos of what is a law if not enforced, however they are not actually laws.

[Dill]

(10-13-2020, 03:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: This is true. But the blame lies with their PARENTS.


So, if Trump and Congress made it a felony to illegally enter this country THEN it would be okay to separate children from their parents?

The fact of the matter is that parents are committing crimes with their kids and while it sucks, the parents need to face justice for their crimes. And if that means separating them from their children, then so be it. But the fault still lies with the parents.

Yow! 

You can punish these impoverished parents for entering illegally and seeking asylum or whatever "crime" by fining or detaining them without taking their kids. 

Or you can fine and detain them AND take their kids as an extra disincentive. 

And if you are unable to reunite many parents and children after separation, because you have not taken the trouble to keep track of who belongs to whom, it is still ultimately the parent's fault that they are separated, if I follow your argument.

Assuming that a cruel and unusual punishment is the responsibility of "criminal" parents who incur it, and not those who made  that cruel and unusual punishment law and enforce it, seems to deny the ethical foundation of our liberal democracy. 

[Dill]

(10-13-2020, 03:05 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I won't argue whether or not a sentencing directive is the "law of the land" but you're wrong in that the executive branch by way of Executive Order can also make laws that govern this land.

No.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 03:25 PM)Au165 Wrote: I was going to do a whole thing but simply put, no they aren't laws they are directives. They govern how the executive branch will enforce/ not enforce the actual laws, which in a sense gets to the ethos of what is a law if not enforced, however they are not actually laws.

I will concede the point because while TECHNICALLY Executive Orders aren't laws, through everything I've read, they certainly act as laws. So, in the interests of time and to not hijack this thread further, I will fully admit, when it comes to the topic of exectuive orders being laws, I was wrong. 

[*Nately120*]

Can we make the pregnant women get mandatory abortions just to really show them how much we enjoy punishing the kids of criminals?

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 04:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Can we make the pregnant women get mandatory abortions just to really show them how much we enjoy punishing the kids of criminals?

How are we punishing the kids?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2020, 04:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Can we make the pregnant women get mandatory abortions just to really show them how much we enjoy punishing the kids of criminals?

Well, that's ONE way to get Democrats to be against abortion. 

[hollodero]

(10-13-2020, 03:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: This is true. But the blame lies with their PARENTS.

I am not exonerating the parents.

(10-13-2020, 03:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, if Trump and Congress made it a felony to illegally enter this country THEN it would be okay to separate children from their parents?

No. This to me is not a legal issue, or an issue of legal definitions, it is a humanitarian issue.
Sure I also feel it should not be a felony to enter a country, but that is already beside the point.

(10-13-2020, 03:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: The fact of the matter is that parents are committing crimes with their kids and while it sucks, the parents need to face justice for their crimes. And if that means separating them from their children, then so be it. But the fault still lies with the parents.

Fault is not a singular thing. Yes the parents are at fault, but that doesn't mean every measure is ok. If it were, you could justify almost everything with claiming "the parents are at fault". You could have a policy of beating up the children in front of them and claim it's the parents fault. Yeah, in a sense that would still be true, but it doesn't mean everyone but the parents is blame-free. It ain't that easy.

What to me is easy is that either way, you harm an innocent child for the faults of their parents, and it is not a truly inevitable necessity or consequence. Who is to blame won't matter much to the child or the harm it had to endure. And that these separations can come with severe psychological consequences for the innocent child is not a matter of opinion, this is well documented.

[*Nately120*]

(10-13-2020, 04:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How are we punishing the kids?

I haven't really gone over this thread with a fine toothed comb, I'll admit.  Are we talking about the pros and cons of putting kids in cages or not?

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2020, 04:21 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I haven't really gone over this thread with a fine toothed comb, I'll admit.  Are we talking about the pros and cons of putting kids in cages or not?

Oh, allow me to help, your time is more valuable than mine.

No. Were talking the pros and cons of kids not being detained with the parent when he/she commits a crime that requires incarceration.

[*Nately120*]

(10-13-2020, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, allow me to help, your time is more valuable than mine.

No. Were talking the pros and cons of kids not being detained with the parent when he/she commits a crime that requires incarceration.

We should just do like Americans and put them into the foster system where they can be abused and exploited for tax breaks.  Problem solved.

Actually, the bottom line as I see is that we can do whatever we like to the dastardly border-jumpers but as long as the American citizens who hire them keep getting intentionally-weak slaps on the wrist for incentivizing their crime we're going to see little actual change.

[Dill]

(10-13-2020, 03:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I will concede the point because while TECHNICALLY Executive Orders aren't laws, through everything I've read, they certainly act as laws. So, in the interests of time and to not hijack this thread further, I will fully admit, when it comes to the topic of exectuive orders being laws, I was wrong. 

The bolded can be true at times.


There is indeed a sense in which executive orders can, in some circumstances, have the force of law without being law. 

E.g., If a president decides (via executive order) to withhold federal funding from public schools that refuse to install same sex bathrooms, that can have the effect of forcing many to comply, as most such schools desperately need federal funding. (Some schools may nevertheless legally forgo that funding, though.)

[GMDino]

(10-13-2020, 04:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, allow me to help, your time is more valuable than mine.

No. Were talking the pros and cons of kids not being detained with the parent when he/she commits a crime that requires incarceration.

Did every family "require" incarceration or was it an option that the Trump administration used ham-fistedly to try and stop all immigration?