Separating immigrant families and imprisoning children

[carpedm9587]

If separating children from parents is bad, then we are saying why wasn't this brought up many years ago? Why were the liberals complacent when Obama did it? It seems pretty odd that this has been going on for decades and it has just now been noticed and everyone is mad at Trump and he is just following the law. If the law is bad, why did it get passed in the first place? Why wasn't it changed under Obama?

And why is it immoral to keep kids out of jail when their parents are arrested for breaking the law? Do you think it is better for the children to be sent to jail with the parents?

Because previous presidents explicitly decided NOT to do this and did NOT prosecute parents of families for exactly this reason. The pictures from the Obama era are falsely being put out as examples of separated children when most of them are of the wave of unaccompanied children that overwhelmed resources for several months. Under Clinton, Bush, and Obama, separating illegally entering families was the exception. And when it DID happen and was picked up by the press, it got howling responses from all media outlets.

Under Trump it is the norm, right down to "tender age" facilities for babies and toddlers. But it is defended by a (slight) majority) of Republicans - the "family values" party.

Go figure...

[Sparko]

This allows me to repeat a question that is already in the post you replied to: "Do you think moral discussion ends if you can point to others who did something wrong or perhaps did something even worse?"

no, but you are dodging the question. If it is immoral, why is it just now a problem? It was just as immoral then too right?

I think it is obviously better for children to stay with their parents. I don't feel too certain that the parents have to go to jail. There are so many more options. Making this the case between separating children from their parents or putting children in jail with their parents is so much of a simplification. It is actually the logical fallacy of incomplete enumeration.

If someone breaks the law, they are arrested and go to jail. Sneaking across the border is a crime. This is US Law. It has been this way for a number of years. Seems to be a good law. You don't want people sneaking into your country illegally. There are legal channels to immigrate into a country. Isn't it unfair to all of the people who are waiting in line legally if someone cuts in front of them and sneaks in illegally, taking their place?

Rational Gaze, one of our member here from England, married Quantafille, another member from the USA and he had to wait many months to get a VISA to come over here. And he was married to an American! Was it fair for him to have to wait that long and have hundreds of Mexican people sneak across the border illegally during his wait?


Now if we had a wall, then we could prevent them from crossing in the first place and not have to arrest them.

[Sparko]

Because previous presidents explicitly decided NOT to do this and did NOT prosecute parents of families for exactly this reason. The pictures from the Obama era are falsely being put out as examples of separated children when most of them are of the wave of unaccompanied children that overwhelmed resources for several months. Under Clinton, Bush, and Obama, separating illegally entering families was the exception. And when it DID happen and was picked up by the press, it got howling responses from all media outlets.

Under Trump it is the norm, right down to "tender age" facilities for babies and toddlers. But it is defended by a (slight) majority) of Republicans - the "family values" party.

Go figure...

You keep saying that but it is not true. They did the same things.

[rogue06]

This is an opinion piece, and the Washington Post is categorized as "left-of-center"...

Not according to starlight. He proclaims they're right wing. Then again he said the same thing about Joseph Stalin.

[Charles]

You keep saying that but it is not true. They did the same things.

Which allows me to repeat the question: "Do you think moral discussion ends if you can point to others who did something wrong or perhaps did something even worse?"

[Sparko]

Which allows me to repeat the question: "Do you think moral discussion ends if you can point to others who did something wrong or perhaps did something even worse?"

I answered you above.

You keep avoiding my questions though. odd.

[carpedm9587]

You keep saying that but it is not true. They did the same things.

Then provide the sourcing for that claim, Sparko. I provided several sources for the claims I've made.

[demi-conservative]

Which allows me to repeat the question: "Do you think moral discussion ends if you can point to others who did something wrong or perhaps did something even worse?"

Only moral discussion needed about selective outrage of yours, hypocrite!

[carpedm9587]

no, but you are dodging the question. If it is immoral, why is it just now a problem? It was just as immoral then too right?




If someone breaks the law, they are arrested and go to jail. Sneaking across the border is a crime. This is US Law. It has been this way for a number of years. Seems to be a good law. You don't want people sneaking into your country illegally. There are legal channels to immigrate into a country. Isn't it unfair to all of the people who are waiting in line legally if someone cuts in front of them and sneaks in illegally, taking their place?

Rational Gaze, one of our member here from England, married Quantafille, another member from the USA and he had to wait many months to get a VISA to come over here. And he was married to an American! Was it fair for him to have to wait that long and have hundreds of Mexican people sneak across the border illegally during his wait?


Now if we had a wall, then we could prevent them from crossing in the first place and not have to arrest them.

Except that illegal entry into the country is a misdemeanor under the law. When charged with a felony, incarceration pending a hearing is the norm. When charged with a misdemeanor, it is typically not. The option of providing a citation exists. The law also says nothing about not being able to confine the adults with children in a joint shelter - it simply prohibits sending the kids to the slammer.

Bottom line, Trump is CHOOSING to...

...prosecute these people
...send them to a federal penitentiary (which the children cannot go to)

There is simply no way around it. They were very clear that they were doing this specifically as an inducement against illegal immigration. Trump could also chose to...

...hold parents with children in family shelters until their court date (Bush and Obama's approach)
...issue a citation requiring appearance in court (not something I would suggest)

[Littlejoe]

This is what we call the ad hominem. Not a good argument but actually a fallacy and furthermore you do not seem to take the perspective of immagrants into consideration. It strikes me as likely that your reality, my reality, is their dream world. I am not denying receiving immigrants is not easy in every aspect of it. Neither do I claim that acting morally, human and in a decent way is always easy or for your own material best.

No, it's not an ad hom fallacy, I'm attacking your position as someone who doesn't really know the situation. Your in the UK right? So you DON'T have a border that pours 11 million ILLEGALS across your border annually. I live in Texas, a border state with a long and very porous border...So, saying you don't understand the reality is a true statement. Again, it's easy to judge from where you sit. I've personally had a property that illegals broke into and stole a bunch of stuff. (The clue was that they left behind an empty Mexican cigarette pack in our trash can). The Sheriff confirmed that this was a common occurence in that area and that it was no surprise to him that we had been burgled by illegals. (this was a trailer way back in the woods on a locked and private property. No one but us even knew the trailer was even there. I've since released that property.

It's very much of a simplification isn't it? Who says everyone who "boos"sit in the cheap seat. And if they do, you are still not further than genetic fallacy. Basically you need to show how their arguments fail. That is going to be rather diffucult without taking into account the situation of the immigrants. And if you do so, I suspect you might change your view.

It's a saying dude! But, if the shoe fits and all that!


I'm not sure how you can take our personal experiences and turn that into a genetic fallacy. You need to walk a mile in our shoes before you critize our choice of footwear IMO.

[Charles]

no, but you are dodging the question. If it is immoral, why is it just now a problem? It was just as immoral then too right?

Right. What makes you think I wouldn't agree on that? Why the need to point to something so obvious?

If someone breaks the law, they are arrested and go to jail. Sneaking across the border is a crime. This is US Law. It has been this way for a number of years. Seems to be a good law. You don't want people sneaking into your country illegally. There are legal channels to immigrate into a country. Isn't it unfair to all of the people who are waiting in line legally if someone cuts in front of them and sneaks in illegally, taking their place?

Rational Gaze, one of our member here from England, married Quantafille, another member from the USA and he had to wait many months to get a VISA to come over here. And he was married to an American! Was it fair for him to have to wait that long and have hundreds of Mexican people sneak across the border illegally during his wait?


Now if we had a wall, then we could prevent them from crossing in the first place and not have to arrest them.

So now the Christians want to build walls. Perhaps you are planning to decorate the wall with Bible quotes like:

I still don't see how any of what you write adresses the problem of separating an innocent child from its' parants. Experts have repeatedly said this is, or is at least close to, torture. But you skipped that part. Other than that I agree that acting illegally should have consequences, I just fail to see that the consequences in this case in which they are put onto those who have suffered so much more than we have are proportionate and just.

And you just can't avoid the appeal to common practice fallacy, can you: "This is US Law. It has been this way for a number of years." Quite many things have been law for a number of years while still being unfair.

[Littlejoe]

Except that illegal entry into the country is a misdemeanor under the law. When charged with a felony, incarceration pending a hearing is the norm. When charged with a misdemeanor, it is typically not. The option of providing a citation exists. The law also says nothing about not being able to confine the adults with children in a joint shelter - it simply prohibits sending the kids to the slammer.

Bottom line, Trump is CHOOSING to...

...prosecute these people
...send them to a federal penitentiary (which the children cannot go to)

There is simply no way around it. They were very clear that they were doing this specifically as an inducement against illegal immigration. Trump could also chose to...

...hold parents with children in family shelters until their court date (Bush and Obama's approach)
...issue a citation requiring appearance in court (not something I would suggest)

Incarceration for a misdemeanor when it's very likely the suspect will disappear and not show up for the hearing would seem to be to logical, even prudent...and we have a long history of this happening, they promise to appear, are released and disappear. Not sure why this is so difficult for people to understand.

[carpedm9587]

Incarceration for a misdemeanor when it's very likely the suspect will disappear and not show up for the hearing would seem to be to logical, even prudent...and we have a long history of this happening, they promise to appear, are released and disappear. Not sure why this is so difficult for people to understand.

Agreed - but there is nothing that says this incarceration cannot happen in a family shelter, rather than a federal penitentiary. That was exactly what the Bush and Obama decision was.

[carpedm9587]

No, it's not an ad hom fallacy, I'm attacking your position as someone who doesn't really know the situation. Your in the UK right? So you DON'T have a border that pours 11 million ILLEGALS across your border annually. I live in Texas, a border state with a long and very porous border...So, saying you don't understand the reality is a true statement. Again, it's easy to judge from where you sit. I've personally had a property that illegals broke into and stole a bunch of stuff. (The clue was that they left behind an empty Mexican cigarette pack in our trash can). The Sheriff confirmed that this was a common occurence in that area and that it was no surprise to him that we had been burgled by illegals. (this was a trailer way back in the woods on a locked and private property. No one but us even knew the trailer was even there. I've since released that property.

It's a saying dude! But, if the shoe fits and all that!

I'm not sure how you can take our personal experiences and turn that into a genetic fallacy. You need to walk a mile in our shoes before you critize our choice of footwear IMO.

I'm addressing the bolded part. Do you have substantiation for this? It is my understanding that we have 11M TOTAL illegal immigrants in the U.S., and that this number has been falling since it peaked at 12.2M in 2007. This means that the past 11 years have either seen more people leaving than coming. Since deportations have never exceeded 500K/year, unless a lot of people are voluntarily walking out, annual illegal immigration is nowhere near 11M.

[Charles]

No, it's not an ad hom fallacy, I'm attacking your position as someone who doesn't really know the situation. Your in the UK right? So you DON'T have a border that pours 11 million ILLEGALS across your border annually. I live in Texas, a border state with a long and very porous border...So, saying you don't understand the reality is a true statement.

I am not sure you understand the ad hominem fallacy because in the text above you have just repeated it. You are not confronting the arguments and points made but saying that solely based on where I or others live what we state is wrong and we are ignorant. It is and remains a fallacy and the funny thing is it should be so much easier to prove that what we say is actually nonsense if we were so wrong as you seem to indicate. By the way I find it a little funny that you make all those statements while admitting you don't know where I live and even when guessing you miss it. (If I was from the UK my English would be far better).

Again, it's easy to judge from where you sit. I've personally had a property that illegals broke into and stole a bunch of stuff. (The clue was that they left behind an empty Mexican cigarette pack in our trash can). The Sheriff confirmed that this was a common occurence in that area and that it was no surprise to him that we had been burgled by illegals. (this was a trailer way back in the woods on a locked and private property. No one but us even knew the trailer was even there. I've since released that property.

You don't know where I sit and even if you did you are still finding yourself making a logical fallacy. I have had stuff stolen from illegals too in case you find that interesting.

I'm not sure how you can take our personal experiences and turn that into a genetic fallacy. You need to walk a mile in our shoes before you critize our choice of footwear IMO.

It is not my intention to treat you personal experiences as a genetic fallacy. It rather seems you want use my personal experiences, or your claim that I don't have personal experiences, and use that as an argument that people should not listen to my points. And my point is you should rather confront them. Or those of Carpe and Startlight and the other good guys.