Kids in cages; how does anyone defend this

Also, under Obama, ICE was NOT allowed to use expedited removal unless the criminals were caught within 10 miles of the border, and hadn't been hiding out for more than 2 weeks before being discovered within that distance (that's weeks, not years). If they could evade detection in some cheese-eater's "safe house" for 15 days, then they had to be given a hearing date (which they wouldn't show up for). Of course if they brought a kidnapped child in tow with them, and claimed to be the parent, they couldn't be summarily expedited at all under Obama.

The effect was to make it much more difficult to remove illegal aliens who could make it to a sanctuary city (or any other city, for that matter) in the interior of the country.

That's another reason why the left loves Obama.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

roger wrote:

layman wrote:

2. Aliens can be held, pending resolution of their cases in a "detention center" (which is not a "jail") pending resolution of their case. Whether it's for more than 20 days, or not. Generally this has been done with immigrants who are seeking asylum and who have committed no crime.

Well, I'm having trouble with the distinction.

Well, Rog, adult jails hold more than just immigrants. They also hold murders, rapists, child molestors, and every other kind of criminal. See the distinction now?

So, the difference lies in the occupants, and not function and administration.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Btw, the graph I posted said "Illinois isn't so blue anymore," and was from 2018, not 2016. Demorcrats better not count Illinois as being "in the bag."

It wasn't. It was undated content on some garbage spam site with nonsensical captions; had been lifted from this article from 2010; and was not about any presidential election but the 2010 gubernatorial election result.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

You are making the common mistake of assuming that Americans as a whole share your political opinions. On immigration, this isn't the case.

The reason Congress hasn't done anything is because Americans are deeply divided on the issue. If you look at the polling a majority of Americans think immigrants here illegally should be given a pathway to citizenship, and a majority of Americans think they should be sent back to their own countries. Apparently people will answer yes to both these questions.

Congress is supposed to represent the will of the American people. If the American people are so conflicted... What do you expect from Congress?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I will also point out that Trump got smacked down this week by a broad swath of American society. It wasnt just us cheese eaters, his policy was criticized by conservative Christian leaders (Franklin Graham), Republican figures (Laura Bush), conservative politicians (Ted Cruz).

When Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders and Ben Stasse and Jimmy Carter are all attacking your policy, you've screwed up.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

So, the difference lies in the occupants, and not function and administration

Well, I'm no authority on all the differences, but I think the detention centers are under the auspices of ICE, and are probably not staffed by federal "prison guards," etc. But, yeah, the main difference is the composition of the occupancy. Because of that major difference, children can be detained there.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

It's no different with domestic law enforcement. Cops can, but need not, charge a suspect with a crime and hold them for trial. Another alternative is to forward the facts to the District Attorney's office, and let them decide to prosecute. Either way, the decision to prosecute is never with the cops, it's always the attorney's decision. Here the DOJ makes the decision, not the Border Patrol.

Glad to see you acknowledge that, whether at the level of the cops or that of the DA / DOJ, it is entirely legal and unremarkable for the authorities to make varying calls about whether to charge or prosecute cases and to what extent. Normally you guys tend to insist that everyone from Trump down on has no choice but to insist on the maximum possible punishment in every single case and appeal every case up to the highest possible level, because to do any less would be failing to "enforce the law". Kinda like you did here.

It's not often that I agree with libertarians at the Cato Institute, but I liked how Julian Sanchez broke this down:

Quote:

A bit of rhetorical sleight of hand I haven’t seen called out enough: This admin is in the habit of conflating “enforcing the law” with “applying the maximum legally available sanction to any potential infraction.” But that’s an insane way to “enforce” any law.

The Supreme Court has held that you CAN be arrested and locked up for failure to wear a seat belt (which, like illegal border crossing, is a misdemeanor offense). As a rule, that’s not how we “enforce the law” because it would be wildly disproportionate.

Like he said, nobody thinks we’re not “enforcing the law” if we fail to inflict this sort of humiliating ritual for every misdemeanor. Punishing a misdemeanor with mandatory pretrial detention while your children are put into care with a significant risk of losing them altogether is an insane way to approach criminal justice, and not one that the Trump administration seems to be pursuing for various other kinds of crimes.

1 Reply

@nimh,

Don't try to compare a seatbelt violation with the kinds of problems generated by the massive (50,000/month) invasion by homeless, and generally indigent, foreigners with kids in tow. Those kids deserve protection, even from their own parents in those circumstances.

Furthermore, these people are citizens of another county, and owe their allegiance to that country, not the USA. They need to be detained. Catch and release was a dismal failure that was basically a license for child slave and drug traffickers to waltz into our country illegally with kids that weren't even theirs and abuse them. None of those people are vetted, and no doubt ISIS and others wishing nothing but harm to the US have illegally come across our southern border. Just letting them walk in, unquestioned and unaccosted without even detaining them is ridiculously stupid.

0 Replies

Under normal circumstances, very few people forge and/or bounce checks in this country.

But if the word gets out, decade after decade, that check bouncers will NOT be prosecuted, then everyone and his brother will be forging checks. What's not to like? Everything to gain (free housing, free food, free education, free medical care, pocket money, etc.), and no possible way to lose.

0 Replies

There was a picture on an ISIS website showing two young kids standing over their jihadist father, screaming and sobbing uncontrollably because he had just been shot in the head by a sniper. He had just come home from a hard day's work of chopping the heads off of christian babies.

The mere sight of this picture was designed to, and did, serve to prove to the ISIS faithful just how cruel and barbarous the infidels who shot the man were. They were OUTRAGED!

Nothing like a crying baby to convince me that we shouldn't attack ISIS. Nothing else in the entire world matters. The only question is how does some baby feel.

I saw some savage on the internet respond to this horrifying picture by saying "**** happens." That callous S.O.B. should be slaughtered in front of his children. I'm with Peter Fonda. I HATE those kind of insensitive people. They have no compassion, like I do.

1 Reply

@layman,

It's ok for the United States law enforcement to hurt immigrant children because ISIS. Right.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Heh, Max, leave it to you to completely miss the point of a post. Well, maybe I should say you ignore the point. Well, then again, maybe not. I guess I should say that you deliberately misconstrue and misrepresent the point.

1 Reply

@layman,

Here is the question Layman is adressing: under what circumstances is it morally acceptable to hurt children. The answer seems to be...

1. You can hurt children when you are worried their parents might skip a court hearing.

2. You can hurt children when their parents have broken the law.

3. You can hurt children when you are afraid of Muslim terrorists.

4. You can hurt children when Democrats don't compromise with Trump.

5. You can hurt children when law enforcement nis just doing it's job.

I get your point exactly, Layman. Did I miss anything.

The issue is that the effects of this Trump administration policy are deeply offensive to the majority of Americans. These excuses aren't cutting it.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Did I miss anything.

Yeah, you missed a shitload, Max, including, but certainly not limited to, this:

You can hurt your kids and subject them to unavoidable danger and pain when all you want is a better life for them.

I wonder if any of those kids ever expressed displeasure and, God forbid, actually broke down and CRIED, while they were trekking thousands of miles through Mexico?

But you still miss the point.

0 Replies

Predictably, the ACLU is bitching about Trump's attempt to solve this problem:

Quote:

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, offered the following reaction:

"...Kids should not have been separated from their parents in the first place and they still don’t belong in jail....This crisis will not abate until each and every single child is reunited with his or her parent

.

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-statement-proposed-trump-executive-order-family-separation

Trump never put kids in jail. Where does that red herring come from, I wonder. It was the ACLU who made it mandatory to separate kids from their families after 20 days. It is my understanding that they intend to adamantly insist that the law continue to require this.

Go figure, eh?

0 Replies

More from the ACLU:

Quote:

Wednesday’s executive order, while purporting to stop future family separation, calls for families to be detained together, which was this administration’s goal from the get-go. The Trump administration would have liked to simply detain everyone who crosses the border, children or otherwise, but was unable to because the United States has protections in place that prevent the prolonged detention of children...We plan to fight them every step of the way.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/despite-trumps-order-many-families-nightmare

So, let me get this straight, eh? The ACLU says Trump's goal, from the beginning, was to keep families together, but says they will fight this every step of the way. Hmmm, the ACLU sounds kinda barbarous and cruel in wanting to keep on assuring that kids get ripped from their families after 20 days, know what I'm sayin?

1 Reply

For those of you who don't know, a couple of years ago the ACLU (and/or similarly situated cheese-eaters) filed a lawsuit contending that the Flores settlement agreement, which they drafted, compelled the government to release parents of minor immigrants after 20 days too.

The contention was rejected by...guess who? The ultra-liberal nutty ninth circus court of appeals, that's who. The U.S. Supreme Court, when petitioned to hear their appeal from that ruling, declined.

Apparently they have little respect for court rulings. They are trying to make the same argument all over again now.

0 Replies

@layman,

This was posted a long while back. Worth repeating here for easy reference, I figure:

layman wrote:

Dershowitz, a life-long liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton, had this to say about the ACLU:

Quote:
Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz torched the American Civil Liberties Union in a new op-ed for The Hill on Tuesday. For Dershowitz, a liberal lawyer who served on ACLU's national board early in his career, it pains him to see how the organization has become a bastion of partisan politics.

"The ACLU is no longer a neutral defender of everyone’s civil liberties," he writes. "It has morphed into a hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group."

Dershowitz regrets how the group has officially strayed from its original commitment to nonpartisanship. Dershowitz recalled the ACLU's glory days, when it was committed to defending core civil liberties and was made up of Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives. After all, freedom of speech is for everyone. How times have changed.

"Today, the ACLU wears only one shoe, and it is on its left foot. Its color is blue. The only dispute is whether it supports the progressive wing of the Democratic Party or its more centrist wing. There is little doubt that most board members today support the progressive wing, though some think that even that wing is not sufficiently left."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/06/12/alan-dershowitz-torches-the-aclu-n2489858

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

More from the ACLU:

Quote:
Wednesday’s executive order, while purporting to stop future family separation, calls for families to be detained together, which was this administration’s goal from the get-go. The Trump administration would have liked to simply detain everyone who crosses the border, children or otherwise, but was unable to because the United States has protections in place that prevent the prolonged detention of children...We plan to fight them every step of the way.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/despite-trumps-order-many-families-nightmare

So, let me get this straight, eh? The ACLU says Trump's goal, from the beginning, was to keep families together, but says they will fight this every step of the way. Hmmm, the ACLU sounds kinda barbarous and cruel in wanting to keep on assuring that kids get ripped from their families after 20 days, know what I'm sayin?

To point out the obvious, this AINT about the children at all. Who cares if they suffer if that's what it takes for us to achieve our true objective, open borders?

0 Replies

Being cute and crying is all it takes to play the chumps, sho nuff:

Quote:

Reality Leigh Winner, the 25-year-old government contractor who recently stole classified documents from the National Security Agency, has revealed her strategy for avoiding jail time: play the “pretty, white and cute” card.

“I’m going to play that card being pretty, white and cute, braid my hair and cry and all,” Winner told her sister during a phone call from the jailhouse, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Solari said in a court hearing in Atlanta on Thursday.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/nsa-leakers-legal-defense-im-pretty-white-cute/

She must have studied the ACLU's tactics, eh?

0 Replies

Kids in cages; how does anyone defend this

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know