Quote:Judge John A. Kronstadt of the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles ordered the federal government to immediately make available mental health screenings and treatment to thousands of families forcibly separated under the policy, which was primarily carried out in 2017 and 2018 — though hundreds of similar separations still occur.

(11-08-2019, 12:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/ruling-holds-u-accountable-border-131748024.html


They came here illegally by choice and now we must pay for the "damage" we caused because of our laws.

What next?

Quote:A federal judge has ruled that the government must provide mental health services to thousands of migrant parents and children who experienced psychological harm as a result of the Trump administration’s practice of separating families.

The decision, issued late Tuesday, marks a rare instance of the government being held legally accountable for mental trauma brought about by its policies — in this case, border security measures that locked thousands of migrant parents in detention while their children were placed in government shelters or foster homes.

Quote:In his ruling, Kronstadt referred to previous federal cases that found that governments can be held liable when with “deliberate indifference” they place people in dangerous situations. In the past, the “state-created danger” doctrine has been applied when a police officer ejected a person from a bar late at night in very cold weather, or when a public employer failed to address toxic mold that caused workers to fall ill.

In this case, the judge said, the Trump administration could be held accountable for the enduring psychological harm brought about by forcibly taking children from their parents at the border with no guarantee of when or how they would be reunited.

Thousands of parents spent months in often agonizing limbo, plaintiffs in the case argued, unable to communicate with their children and in many cases not knowing even where the children were being held.

(11-08-2019, 12:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/ruling-holds-u-accountable-border-131748024.html


They came here illegally by choice and now we must pay for the "damage" we caused because of our laws.

What next?

(11-08-2019, 09:22 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Not everyone indefinitely ripped apart from their families and thrown into prison camps was breaking the laws. The policy illegally did the same to people legally seeking asylum.

But even those attempting to cross illegally, such a pathetically, inhumane treatment cannot be excused. So many children who may never find their parents again because the administration, in addition to subjecting them to subhuman treatment, failed to even keep track of families they separated.

(11-08-2019, 09:56 AM)Au165 Wrote: As it was pointed out, not all came here illegally and were inhumanely detained for trying to follow proper procedures. I'm not sure why this is a shock though, criminals still have rights. The idea that someone did something illegal so we don't have to treat them humanely is an archaic view and one that adds to the recidivism rate we see in this country.

(11-08-2019, 12:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From what i understand the policy separated those asylum seekers that crossed the border illegally. Do either of you have a link(s) showing where asylum seekers who crossed into the country legally were separated from their family?

it is my opinion that the parent put the child in harms way; not our laws.

Quote:At first tested discretely in 2017, and then launched publicly in 2018, President Trump’s administration implemented a policy of forcibly separating thousands of asylum-seeking families, in order to deter and punish those crossing irregularly into the United States. Under its so-called “zero-tolerance” policy, the US government claimed that family separations were a necessary result of criminally prosecuting all asylum-seekers and others who crossed the US–Mexico border irregularly (i.e. between official ports-ofentry). In reality, US authorities also separated many asylum-seekers who were not referred for criminal prosecution – including those who sought protection at official border crossings – yet has continued to deny and conceal the practice.

(11-08-2019, 12:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/10/usa-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-southern-border/

Bolded for emphasis on Amnesty International claims of just that.


Article also mentions the U.S. illegal practice of refusing refugees at ports of entry to prevent them from legally requesting asylum.

(11-08-2019, 12:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Including the bolded for emphasis from the unbiased source of Amnesty International. I really don't see examples of folks crossing legally and being separated. I know there were cases of families crossing illegally and then surrendering at borders. You sure that's not what the fine folks at Amnesty International were referring to?

If I am mistaken and US policy forcefully separated families that we allowed into this country legally then I fully support providing those families with the counseling they deserve. If you broke the law first, then I cannot support funding your treatment.

Quote:McALLEN, Texas — After criminals killed his uncle and cousin and warned that he was next, José fled Honduras fearing for his life. He crossed Mexico with his 3-year-old son and arrived in mid-May at the Hidalgo Port of Entry on the U.S. border to claim asylum.

But even though he entered the U.S. legally at an official border crossing, where the Trump administration promised asylum-seekers would not be prosecuted or separated from their children, José was detained and had his son taken away, according to advocates who are helping with his case.

(11-08-2019, 01:00 PM)Au165 Wrote: You want to try again? Maybe those fine unbiased folks at Amnesty International were right, and you came in with a preconceived position that was false?

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/they-came-seeking-asylum-now-they-want-their-children-back-n886781

(11-08-2019, 02:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And as I said if it is found that anyone entered this country legally and were forcefully separated from their families then they should be afforded treatment.

(11-08-2019, 03:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: If you want to simply say you don't believe any of the links that's fine.

(11-08-2019, 03:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: If you want to simply say you don't believe anything other than what you think that is fine, but you asked for links I gave you links. I provided you an example, your defense is you don't believe them.

(11-08-2019, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm saying I know what the zero tolerance policy was and it applied only to those that crossed the border illegally.  Who knows Jose might be 100% truthful or he might have motivation for embellishing. BLUF: the policy was intended for those that entered our country illegally. WTS: I've consistently said that if it is proven that anyone who entered this country legally and were forcefully separated from their families should receive treatment. I still haven't seen you answer if we should pay for treatment for those that entered our country illegally. If you don't want to answer that's fine.

Quote:The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 12 named plaintiffs who, like hundreds of other migrants, sought asylum at official U.S. points of entry in compliance with federal law and then were confined and sent to remote prisons in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

(11-08-2019, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm saying I know what the zero tolerance policy was and it applied only to those that crossed the border illegally.  Who knows Jose might be 100% truthful or he might have motivation for embellishing. BLUF: the policy was intended for those that entered our country illegally. WTS: I've consistently said that if it is proven that anyone who entered this country legally and were forcefully separated from their families should receive treatment. I still haven't seen you answer if we should pay for treatment for those that entered our country illegally. If you don't want to answer that's fine.

Quote:The right to be with your family


What the law says: Critics of family separation have pointed to the legal right to “family integrity.” This right is not spelled out in the Constitution but was established through court rulings in the early 20th century, Rodriguez said.

“People have a right to be with and commune with their family. It’s a very basic principle,” she said.
The government can split up families in extraordinary circumstances, such as in the case of child abuse, but it cannot do so without going through a legal process.

How it works in practice: Before Trump signed the executive order Wednesday, the administration had divided families as a matter of course, without considering the individual cases. The ACLU sued, arguing the policy was unconstitutional.

The court has not issued a final ruling, and the president’s executive order could change the case. But a judge did rule earlier this month that the case could proceed, saying immigrants have a right to “familial association” under the Constitution.

(11-08-2019, 03:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: You would be wrong again. By being locked up illegally they were separated from their kids who were sent to be housed in other facilities.

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/09/05/judge-blocks-ice-denying-parole-asylum-seekers



Yes, we should pay for treatment for people who were convicted of misdemeanors but then subjected to borderline torture practices. We don't separate kids from parents who get misdemeanor speeding tickets in this country, we did not apply an appropriate level of response based on the level of the offense.

EDIT: MS. L V. ICE is the national class action case that the ACLU has filed specifically over LEGAL asylum seeking families being separated.

(11-08-2019, 03:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You're quite quick and insistent on throwing out the "you're wrong" assertion. This article mentions about those who surrendered to crossing points. As I mentioned earlier many crossed illegally and then sought asylum. A practice some may claim to be LEGAL. But I will concede that you can find various opines to support your assertion from unbiased sources (what that last one really from Southern Poverty Law Center?). You can further argue that the Trump's Zero tolerance policy was aimed at every immigrant if you want; however, I'll roll with it was only aimed at those that cross our borders illegally. I'll wait for you to assign right/wrong.

  We'll further disagree with the notion that our government should flip the bill for those that crossed our borders illegally.

Quote:But even though he entered the U.S. legally at an official border crossing, where the Trump administration promised asylum-seekers would not be prosecuted or separated from their children, José was detained and had his son taken away, according to advocates who are helping with his case.

(11-08-2019, 04:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: From the first article...


MS. L V. ICE is another case currently in the court system of a lady who went to a legal port of entry directly from her home country and was detained and separated.