Separating immigrant families and imprisoning children

[rogue06]

Also, general reminder, the US is the only nation in the world not to have ratified the "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child". That explicitly states the rights of children to stay with their parents.

Republicans are so ""pro-family"" that they can't bring themselves to acknowledge what every other country in the world agrees are the rights of children.

Once again, the left didn't care one whit about any of this while it was going on when Obama was in office. The few times it was covered the rest of the MSM studiously ignored it as a non-story.

And tell me star, when parents are arrested in New Zealand do they also put their children in jail with them or do they violate this interpretation of the "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child" and separate them?

[Tassman]

Once again, the left didn't care one whit about any of this while it was going on when Obama was in office. The few times it was covered the rest of the MSM studiously ignored it as a non-story.

Comparatively, it was a non-story.

During the Obama administration, unaccompanied immigrant children who arrived at the border were kept in similar facilities with a view to deportation, but in response to the outcry the practice ceased.

The big difference now, apart from the sheer industrial scale numerically, is that children who are accompanied by parents are being forcibly separated from their parents at the border. And, it's estimated that 30,000 such children will be in custody by August.

And tell me star, when parents are arrested in New Zealand do they also put their children in jail with them or do they violate this interpretation of the "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child" and separate them?

False equivalence!

[carpedm9587]

Photos of border detention facilities from the Obama-era, taken during 2014

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28412[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]28413[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]28414[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]28415[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]28416[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28417[/ATTACH]

Now the MSM are falling over themselves talking about Nazi-like concentration camps but back then they really couldn't be bothered.

Publishing pictures from a period when a tide of unaccompanied children temporarily overwhelmed immigration facilities as if they are equivalent to explicit, intentional separation of families is not just disingenuous, it is dishonest and a flat out lie. You should know better, Rogue.

I know each party wants to show itself in the best possible light and undermine the opposition - but such bald-faced lies are not worthy of a person that calls themselves "Christian." Are we really at a point where politics precedes ethics?

[carpedm9587]

Once again, the left didn't care one whit about any of this while it was going on when Obama was in office. The few times it was covered the rest of the MSM studiously ignored it as a non-story.

And tell me star, when parents are arrested in New Zealand do they also put their children in jail with them or do they violate this interpretation of the "United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child" and separate them?

Probably because the Obama administration explicitly decided NOT to prosecute adults with children specifically to avoid this scenario. So it's occurrence was rare, and usually quickly corrected. Trump has made it the defacto policy of the current administration to prosecute, making it the norm. That is the difference, and why it is a story now and was not a story then.

Site after site reports this disconnect. Fact-checking site after fact-checking site outlines how this is being spun.

[lilpixieofterror]

Probably because the Obama administration explicitly decided NOT to prosecute adults with children specifically to avoid this scenario. So it's occurrence was rare, and usually quickly corrected. Trump has made it the defacto policy of the current administration to prosecute, making it the norm. That is the difference, and why it is a story now and was not a story then.

Site after site reports this disconnect. Fact-checking site after fact-checking site outlines how this is being spun.

Awww yes, the politically motivated ‘fact checkers’ are the best people to tell us what to think about the object of their hate, Donald Trump. They can be trusted to be impartial bastions of truth... or not...

[carpedm9587]

Awww yes, the politically motivated ‘fact checkers’ are the best people to tell us what to think about the object of their hate, Donald Trump. They can be trusted to be impartial bastions of truth... or not...

Have you read the article? Their "proof" that these sites lean left is that they gave Trump the "pants on fire" rating more frequently than Clinton. Not exactly proof, since it is fairly evident that Trump lies on a regular basis. Capital Research, it turns out, is a conservative think tank, so it is not particularly surprising that they would take issue with fact-checkers when their own party is more commonly held to account.

I have chased enough of the "facts" behind the fact-checker posts to have a fairly high confidence-level in their accuracy.

One of the worst things, IMO, that Trump has done as president is to take the right-wing meme of "you can't trust the media" mainstream. We live in a democracy. The fourth estate is the watchdog of that democracy, giving us an eye into what our government is doing. None of us has the time to do that digging. They should be called into account when they are found to have abused their role, and most are honestly self-correcting when they make an error. Time after time, news outlets have fired people, disciplined people, and published retractions when they jumped too quickly on a story and got it wrong. (Well, most news outlets. There are several that simply do not do that, or do it grudgingly).

But each an every error is jumped on as if it's part of a global conspiracy against the right. When you undermine the watchdog of democracy, you undermine democracy itself. You leave us with only one source of news about the activities of the government: the government itself. That is a nasty place to be.

[Mountain Man]

Well - at least you're consistent. When someone points out the errors in your posts, you regularly dismiss it as "spin" and throw up your hands.

Not much of an argument. If anything I said was untrue...feel free to provide the evidence that it is. I linked you to my sources.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

You're right. I completely agree.

[carpedm9587]

I have to admit that this entire immigration situation is having an interesting effect on the 2018 election. Republicans (especially in swing districts) are in a conundrum. Although the nation is 2/3 against this Trump policy, Republicans are (narrowly) in favor. That puts Republicans in swing districts in a tough spot if the primary has not already occurred. They (modestly) risk losing the primary if they come out against Trump, but they (bigly) risk losing in the general election if they come out in support. Little wonder they want this issue to go away and as quickly as possible.

It will be interesting to see what impact this has on the fall election...

[carpedm9587]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

You're right. I completely agree.

Another well-thought out response!

[Sparko]

No, that part is true. Trump could end the separation of families today if he wanted. The reason for this is made clear in the quoted point 2:

If, however, illegal immigrants cross the border illegally, the Trump administration now treats them as criminals.

The Trump administration made a deliberate and conscious decision to punish first-time border-crossers more harshly, prosecuting them for their crime to an extent not done before. As part of that prosecution, they get imprisoned pending the trial, and that is when their children are taken away. All Trump has to do is wave his magic wand and go back to the Obama era policy of not prosecuting them as criminals and hence not imprisoning them for a lengthy amount of time and hence not taking away their children.

Hence the article is lying.

That final option wasn't suggested by the courts and is a completely fictional invention of the Trump administration, and extremely Orwellian, and I don't buy it at all. The courts said effectively "no imprisoning families for more than 20 days". The Trump administration is getting around this by separating the families and then declaring the children 'unaccompanied'. To my mind, that is a false declaration they are making: The children are not unaccompanied, and if they claim they are, they're lying. The court didn't say "you have the option of separating the families", this is something the Trump team have come up with themselves, that they (wrongly IMO) think makes what they are doing compliant with the court's ruling. I would personally like to see a direct legal challenge against the legal theory that the Trump team is using to claim they are compliant with the court's past rulings here.

Unfortunately, this is not true. Legal asylum applicants are being caught up in the dragnet of "let's be mean to immigrant" policies, and are also seeing their children taken away.

Right, and that is the key point that the Trump administration has changed and could fix today with its magic wand if it wanted.

I suggest you don't read Shapiro, he's a chronic liar, as this article demonstrates.

Instead of Trump waving his magic wand, why doesn't congress actually DO THEIR JOB and make laws to fix the problem? Hmm? Everytime Trump tried to use his magic wand in the past, congress complained and federal judges stopped him. Yet this time they want him to do it? Sounds like a setup to me. It is congress's job to make laws. They can fix this easily. They could fix DACA easily. Yet they refuse.

[Roy]

Then, of course, there is the fact that those families who enter legally are not separated. It's only those who choose to violate our laws who face the consequences.

Based on the Slate article cited in the OP, and on Charles's Amnesty International report, this is not a fact, but a lie (albeit not yet a lie by you).

Source: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/06/usa-family-separation-torture/

Amnesty International recently interviewed 17 asylum-seeking parents who were forcibly separated from their children, and all but three of them had entered the USA legally to request asylum.

“The claims of the Trump administration ring hollow. This cruel and unnecessary practice is being inflicted not only on families crossing irregularly, but also on those seeking protection at ports of entry. The majority of these families fled to the US to seek international protection from persecution and targeted violence in the Northern Triangle, where their governments are unwilling or unable to protect them,”

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

It doesn't stop me mocking Americans for using multiple different words for irrelevant nuances on the same thing. Like how you break what other countries call "murder" into all sorts of degrees and names like 'justifiable homicide' etc. Or how you distinguish 'jail' and 'prison' etc.

a prosecutor works for the government and tries people for crimes. a lawsuit (suing) is a civil matter between citizens (or corporations) and is tried by two civilian lawyers/barristers. Pretty sure that is the same terminology used in any English court.

[Roy]

We all know this, MM. Of course they don't separate legally entering families.

Apparently they do.

[carpedm9587]

Apparently they do.

Really? Where is that documented?

[Sparko]

In what I'm sure is no surprise, Schumer and the Democrats have rejected a GOP proposed legislation that would ensure children could stay with their parents while awaiting a ruling on their petition for asylum.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3...-border-crisis

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) on Tuesday dismissed a legislative proposal backed by Republican leaders to keep immigrant families together at the border, arguing that President Trump could fix the problem more easily with a flick of his pen.

“There are so many obstacles to legislation and when the president can do it with his own pen, it makes no sense,” Schumer told reporters. “Legislation is not the way to go here when it’s so easy for the president to sign it.”

Anyone remember these same people complaining about Trump abusing his executive powers and getting Federal Judges to block him when he wanted to temporarily stop immigration from the middle east?

Back then it was an abuse of power for Trump to do any such thing. It was up to congress to make the laws!

But now, congress says it's too HARD to make laws! They need the President to use his pen! WAAAAAAH!