Only on La La Land

[GMDino]

(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.

1) It always seems to come down to should "we pay".  Always about the almighty dollar and not about the human beings.  That's a big problem in this country.

2) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have

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.

DJT used an executive order to separate everyone despite past practice.  Feel free to argue that ripping children away from their parents is "right" or "legal" or whatever but it also caused harm to those children and their families so since DJT made it happen "we" get to pay for any counseling they may want or need.

For now.

It will probably be fought in court by the same administration that denied it started the policy in the first place.