I guess I don't understand the faux outrage on illegal children

[horninchicago]

Mr D
Why doesn't anyone, faux outraged Dems media or panties in a wad politicians who are saying we are cold merciless people for separating them EVER ask if children would be detained in the same facilities as illegal adults are now being kept? I include people like Laura Bush in that clueless category and I admire Laura. Geez people do some research before calling the gov't inhumane or like a nazi.

We are also finding out many of these kids are not actually the children of the adults trying to get into our country.

Exactly. And, is it reasonable to think the people crossing illegally with children know if they are caught they will be separated? They SHOULD know. So, why aren't they the inhumane people? It is they who are taking this chance of having the kids taken from them. The answer is upthread. Many know the kids will be given better quality of life, albeit without their parents or whomever brought them.

These people put these kids at risk and, as usual, the media uses the timing of it to deflect from other stories.

Despicable.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mr D
Why doesn't anyone, faux outraged Dems media or panties in a wad politicians who are saying we are cold merciless people for separating them EVER ask if children would be detained in the same facilities as illegal adults are now being kept?

Because they're not really upset about the children being separated. If they were, then they would have offered a legislative fix like Cruz has.

 

[Horn6721]

At first I did not understand Senator Cruz' proposed lege
BUT speeding up the process and sending back those who are not qualified for asylum which according to many is a pretty large number
so maybe this is way to stop some of this.

 

[Joe Fan]

Do these guys ever get anything correct?

 

[Mr. Deez]

At first I did not understand Senator Cruz' proposed lege
BUT speeding up the process and sending back those who are not qualified for asylum which according to many is a pretty large number
so maybe this is way to stop some of this.

It's a pretty fair and, frankly, moderate proposal. The reason Dems won't like it is because it still allows the law to be enforced, which interferes with their political ambitions and strategy. That's what they're really angry about - not the breaking up of families.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Because they're not really upset about the children being separated. If they were, then they would have offered a legislative fix like Cruz has.

The policy that changed this was the decision to process all immigrants with criminal statutes rather than civil. It doesn't take legislation to reverse that decision.

 

[Htown77]

Since these asylum seekers (cubans aside) are not actually escaping government persecution and are really just economic immigrants, can they not apply for asylum at our varous embassies and consulates thoughout mexico and central america?

If you do not want to be detained, apply within your own country.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The policy that changed this was the decision to process all immigrants with criminal statutes rather than civil. It doesn't take legislation to reverse that decision.

The policy that requires criminal prosecution wasn't set by the DOJ. It was set by Congress when it criminalized entering the United States without authorization. Other administrations simply ignored that policy, but it was and still is the official policy of the United States, duly enacted by its elected officials. If we don't like the results of a new adminstration that chooses to actually enforce the policy, then the problem isn't with the administration. They're simply following the law Congress handed to them (which is the whole purpose of having an executive branch and the first duty of the executive branch). The problem is with the law. Well, we can change that, and somebody is trying to do that. If someone cares about the children, I don't understand why he or she would resist doing so.

 

[bystander]

So are we saying that the Executive Branch ordered to follow the law strictly and the separation of children followed that order?

The question then becomes this; how much discretion does the President have with an executive order for mitigation purposes (or realign priorities) if there appears (or is) to be a public interest (or humanitarian) problem with the strict adherence to a law that may or may not have been poorly written?

 

[Horn6721]

Thank you Mr D for explaining it.

So the ONLY children being ripped so cruelly from so called parents are children accompanying people who got caught trying to enter illegally.
I guess the faux outraged want the children kept with the so called parent in the same detention centers where other illegals are kept. Many of whom are no doubt drug smugglers,human traffickers, ms13 etc.
And that is so much better than the facilities our govt is setting up for the children now?
Or do the faux outraged want to go back to catch and release?

Someone should duct tape these people's mouths since they keep spouting untruths.
IF they really cared for the children they would cheer the millions we are spending to make safe clean places for them,treating them far far better than we do children of Americsns sent to prison.

We musr stop our border from being a sieve and our first priority must be to American citizens

Enough of the phony bs.

 

[bystander]

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/imm...port-feds-drafting-plan-end-family-separation

 

[Phil Elliott]

So are we saying that the Executive Branch ordered to follow the law strictly and the separation of children followed that order?

Yes, that is the case. The Trump Administration is only enforcing existing law that predates them by several presidents.

 

[Clean]

The Trump Administration is only enforcing existing law that predates them by several presidents.

Yup, Obama separated lots of families, but you didn't hear a peep about it during those eight years and somehow, there is no condemnation of his administration now. That's how you know it truly is faux outrage.

It's just another way to try to bring down Trump. The Russia probe failed, so the Dems discovered this little issue rings a bell with the American people and they're gonna ring it for all it's worth.

 

[mb227]

The policy that changed this was the decision to process all immigrants with criminal statutes rather than civil. It doesn't take legislation to reverse that decision.

The basic practice used to be the first removal WAS civil, each one after that resulted in federal prosecution. I found that repugnant. it encourages illegals to come across the border in the hopes of not getting caught.

If I am going to have to pay for them anyway, I would much rather pay to incarcerate them where they are at least not out committing additional crimes in my community!

 

[Mr. Deez]

So are we saying that the Executive Branch ordered to follow the law strictly and the separation of children followed that order?

Yes.

The question then becomes this; how much discretion does the President have with an executive order for mitigation purposes (or realign priorities) if there appears (or is) to be a public interest (or humanitarian) problem with the strict adherence to a law that may or may not have been poorly written?

The President can certainly prioritize judicial resources and make policy changes in how the law gets enforced. However, he can't exempt entire classes of people from following the law or pretend it doesn't exist as previous presidents largely did.

People freak out about removing the children, and that's now how I would be doing this. However, there's nothing unusual about it. When Paul Manafort got arrested, the FBI didn't go get his kids and throw them in the slammer with him. (I don't know if he has minor children, but if he did, they wouldn't be in jail with him.) And as a general rule, isn't that how we'd want things done? If you got arrested for DWI and thrown in jail with rapists, murderers, drug dealers, etc., would you want your children in there with you hanging out with those guys? I assume not.

 

[Horn6721]

These faux outraged screamers never explain logistically what we the Gov't should do with these illegals.
Do they think we have unlimited facilities staffed and ready to house illegals ?

 

[bystander]

Say a person crosses the international bridge in Laredo and declares to the first custom agent they see that they are here seeking asylum are they breaking the law?

 

[Htown77]

Say a person crosses the international bridge in Laredo and declares to the first custom agent they see that they are here seeking asylum are they breaking the law?

But can they do that at an embassy or consulate? There is a consulate in Laredo.

I’ve already said I am not for separating the families and agree with the Ted Cruz bill to change the policy, but these people are choosing this situation. They have alternatives.

 

[bystander]

But can they do that at an embassy or consulate? There is a consulate in Laredo.

I’ve already said I am not for separating the families and agree with the Ted Cruz bill to change the policy, but these people are choosing this situation. They have alternatives.

I'm being hyper-technical just to understand because when we hear people say they are following the law then I want to know what it is. I lived in Laredo. I don't even know where the consulate is. I just know you can walk or drive across and you have to go through customs. They could declare their intention on the spot right? Then what?

 

[Htown77]

I meant to say Nuevo Laredo. That’s on me.
Anyway, carry on.

 

[bystander]

I meant to say Nuevo Laredo. That’s on me.
Anyway, carry on.

I should have figured that out myself too! Ha... I'm not up on that international stuff. Would we have our own consulate on our soil? Boy do I feel dumb. That's why it's hard for me to have an opinion because I know there are some critical facts that I lack.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The policy that requires criminal prosecution wasn't set by the DOJ. It was set by Congress when it criminalized entering the United States without authorization. Other administrations simply ignored that policy, but it was and still is the official policy of the United States, duly enacted by its elected officials. If we don't like the results of a new adminstration that chooses to actually enforce the policy, then the problem isn't with the administration. They're simply following the law Congress handed to them (which is the whole purpose of having an executive branch and the first duty of the executive branch). The problem is with the law. Well, we can change that, and somebody is trying to do that. If someone cares about the children, I don't understand why he or she would resist doing so.

Let's be clear. The current administration's interpretation and enforcement of the law is not what was intended by Congress as demonstrated overwhelming unpopularity. To continue to blame this on the "law" is disingenuous, IMHO. We know the infamous law that Trump is leveraging to separate parents and children was passed with the intention of protecting children from child traffickers. Leveraging that law to separate all parents and children is a policy decision and one that different elements of the Trump admin have openly admitted is both a negotiating and intimidation tactic. As long as you are OK with leveraging children to achieve the end goals, call it what it is, a strategy to combat illegal immigration. Don't hide behing "just enforcing the law" because that doesn't hold water on any number of fronts.

As an aside, we know that children have been separate from their "parents" under the previous administration. The difference was that the separations occurred to assist the children in potential trafficking situations. In this case, Trump is acting as if every parent is a child trafficker with no custodial rights over those children.

In the end, this also slows down the adjudication process for these immigrants.

 

[bystander]

Let's be clear. The current administration's interpretation and enforcement of the law is not what was intended by Congress as demonstrated overwhelming unpopularity. To continue to blame this on the "law" is disingenuous, IMHO. We know the infamous law that Trump is leveraging to separate parents and children was passed with the intention of protecting children from child traffickers. Leveraging that law to separate all parents and children is a policy decision and one that different elements of the Trump admin have openly admitted is both a negotiating and intimidation tactic. As long as you are OK with leveraging children to achieve the end goals, call it what it is, a strategy to combat illegal immigration. Don't hide behing "just enforcing the law" because that doesn't hold water on any number of fronts.

No doubt they are stung by the criticism. They are scrambling to cover the asses for sure. The thing is that children are being leveraged by those who send them north or bring them (I am convinced they are being coached) but nobody seems to care about that. I personally believe we are being over-whelmed, the Left has no solution and has no intention of enforcing the immigration laws in an election year (or at least their rhetoric on that end has gone silent). There are anarchists on the Left who act like borders are to ignored by anyone who wants to cross. The entire situation is a blatant disregard for our laws, enabled by LULAC, La Raza and every Liberal Democrat around. So Trump kicks back and he over-extended himself. He did not cause the immigration flood. He is trying to stop it. Anyone on the Left want to help? Any ideas would be welcome.

 

[Seattle Husker]

No doubt they are stung by the criticism. They are scrambling to cover the asses for sure. The thing is that children are being leveraged by those who send them north or bring them (I am convinced they are being coached) but nobody seems to care about that. I personally believe we are being over-whelmed, the Left has no solution and has no intention of enforcing the immigration laws in an election year (or at least their rhetoric on that end has gone silent). There are anarchists on the Left who act like borders are to ignored by anyone who wants to cross. The entire situation is a blatant disregard for our laws, enabled by LULAC, La Raza and every Liberal Democrat around. So Trump kicks back and he over-extended himself. He did not cause the immigration flood. He is trying to stop it. Anyone on the Left want to help? Any ideas would be welcome.

Without a doubt their are would be crossers leveraging children that are not their own to try and get into the country. We also know there are a great proportion of unaccompanied minors coming across than children being separate from adults, at least prior to this policy change.

There are "open border" extremists that are just that, extremists. Is their perspective a minority opinion? I believe so. The problem is that both sides want to shout at the other sides extremists.

 

[bystander]

Without a doubt their are would be crossers leveraging children that are not their own to try and get into the country. We also know there are a great proportion of unaccompanied minors coming across than children being separate from adults, at least prior to this policy change.

There are "open border" extremists that are just that, extremists. Is their perspective a minority opinion? I believe so. The problem is that both sides want to shout at the other sides extremists.

I think it's true that we're shouting at the extremists. And we're imputing the extremists onto the entire party/side. You have to be willing to forcefully repudiate your own extremists if you really want to get something done.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Let's be clear. The current administration's interpretation and enforcement of the law is not what was intended by Congress as demonstrated overwhelming unpopularity. To continue to blame this on the "law" is disingenuous, IMHO. We know the infamous law that Trump is leveraging to separate parents and children was passed with the intention of protecting children from child traffickers.

That isn't the law I'm talking about. I'm talking about the law against entering the United States improperly, and no, I'm not being disingenuous by bringing it up. I shoot straight, and I don't ******** and will admit I'm wrong if shown. You know that as well as anybody.

If you read the statute, it's pretty clear. If someone "enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers," it's a crime. There really isn't much room for interpretation. It's pretty much never OK. It's not OK if you're poor. It's not OK if you plan to later apply for asylum. It's not OK if you're Hispanic. It's not OK if you're gay. It's not OK if you're Muslim. It's not OK if you dragged your kid with you. It's still a crime. The people who are upset about this can dance around that all they want, but it's still true.

And popularity has nothing to do with statutory construction and interpretation. That's not how this works. We interpret statutes by looking at the language used and reading it.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Horn6721]

I wonder how people like SH would handle illegals who bring children illegally?

It seems like all those people want to do is cry outrage,even misrepresenting what Trump is doing.

 

[huisache]

There are a couple billion people in horrible circumstances who would like to come here and we should greet them all. There is no reason middle class Americans should have one person mow their effing lawn when 40 could do a better job for no more money