Trump admin to end separation policy

[Dill]

(06-26-2018, 08:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually I was happy to respond when you DID NOT provide legitimate examples of parents seeking asylum separated from children when you provided a link and asked folks what they thought of the legality. But instead of admitting you provided a poor example and were made to look foolish you hollered "Squirrel!" and said look at this.

Parents being separated from their children while trying to seek asylum in a legal fashion is a totally different dynamic than folks being separated because they committed a crime. These are different situations no matter how much you claim they are the same.

As I said folks can read the past exchange and see your failure. Also I didn't say it needed another thread; that's just you not failing again. I said if you want to create one feel free to.

You can also claim you understand the the use of obfuscation better than I, but you do not. But at least it is something you can cling to. Please continue down this road; it is quite entertaining.

I don't have a problem admitting the link, which raises the issue of separating children from asylum seekers, did not offer an example of LEGAL asylum seekers being separated from children.  So it was a poor example of that. 

Then instead of "admitting" I had a poor example, I "hollered squirrel" with six legitimate examples of children separated from legal asylum applicants, because I thought the examples were the issue. You treat this "failure" as simply moving from "fabrication" to "obfuscation" rather than a clarification settling the factual question once and for all.  Can folks see past all those factual examples to my "failure"? Why would they want to, if their interest in the matter were factual, issue-related?

I don't see where in any of my posts I have claimed that legal and illegal asylum seekers are "the same," though the LEGAL difference would be difficult to explain to the children, or perhaps to anyone prioritizing the ethical question of separating children from parents as a means of dissuading asylum seekers from applying.

The point of bringing up the separation of children from legal applicants is to foreground that 1) despite the constant if selective appeal to "rule of law" by Trump and supporters, this policy in practice simply ignores the law and separates any refugee parents from children when the Border Patrol gets hold of them. Doesn't matter if the parents are criminals who have committed a misdemeanor to save their children from violence at home or law abiding applicants who have applied legally at a port of entry. And 2) given these consequences, this illustrates again how little thought out this policy is.  This could be added to the evidence we already have of that--such as the absence of any database for enabling parents to reconnect with children who may be to young to explain who their parents are.

Finally, you, alone, decided the problem of separating children from LEGAL asylum seekers was off topic on a thread generally discussing a Trump order about separation of children, and said you'd be happy to respond on another thread.  That was deflection.  You want to defend Trump's policy appealing to rule of law and disparaging "criminal" misdemeanors, but can't when law-abiding applicants are treated just as cruelly as "criminals." Hence all the talk of "entertaining" obfuscation in my pointing out the conflict between your stated ideals and Trump's policy in practice. You ok with Trump's policy? If so, say so, and why. If not, then explain why or remain silent. Don't just kick up dust around the question.