Kids in cages; how does anyone defend this

@oralloy,

Good.

It is not just liberals opposing this... traditional conservatives from Ben Stasse to Franklin Graham to former first lady Laura Bush are condemning the Trump policy on moral grounds.

This will not play well for Republicans in November.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This will not play well for Republicans in November.

We'll see.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

My first career as a community mental health counselor put me in a position to see children removed from parents.

Cops see it all the time.

If a parent commits a crime or becomes unsafe to himself or others, the child has to be rescued from the situation they’be been placed in by a unstable or dangerous parent. Even in *these* cases, it’s ******* nightmarish for every decent human present, including hardbitten cops, medical personnel, and community mental health specialists who’ve been involved in the process many, many times.

It happens all the time.

I do understand needing a better approach to what’s happening at our borders, but you guys don’t seem to know that this happens many times every day.

You also seem not to know Trump didn’t start this policy.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Bullshit Lash.

1. This is a new policy, enacted by the Trump administration, announced in April by Jeff Sessions who called it "zero tolerance".

2. Our legal system does everything it can to put the welfare of children first. This includes considering the needs of children in bail decision and in sentencing decisions after a conviction.

There is no excuse for this new Trump policy.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Teachers, mental health counselors, and others are sometimes forced to play a role in the removal of children to facilities because of situations in the home.

I was a part of two last year, and two more during the last four years.

You can bullshit all you want—it happens a lot.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Heh, Max, your "I want a sanctuary state" position is so transparent. Why not be honest? You want no enforcement of laws enacted by congress if YOU don't like them.

You don't like "zero tolerance?" How much "tolerance" would suit you?

Let's say that on a given night 1,000 completely drunk drivers were stopped by cops. How many of them should be told: "You're drunk, but I'm a tolerant kinda guy so I'm not going to arrest you. Just go on home now, and be careful not to kill anybody on the way, OK?"

100 of them (10%)?

500 of them (50%)?

Certainly not zero percent, so how much should we "tolerate?"

1 Reply

@Lash,

The issue is whether we should ignore the welfare of the children involved. How many times did a teacher or counselor not consider what is best for the children?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. This is a new policy, enacted by the Trump administration, announced in April by Jeff Sessions who called it "zero tolerance".

What exactly are you characterizing as a new policy here?

The detention camps for children were set up by Obama.

1 Reply

@layman,

That is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

What is best for these children in many cases is to be kept with their parents while they are processed. In these cases, there is no good reason for this cruelty.

1 Reply

Just let anyone with a kid in the car go on home, so we don't have to take temporary custody of the kid, maybe?

Or maybe just ones with 5-6 kids in the car, because we only want a few kids to suffer the trauma of seeing their parents hauled off in handcuffs?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

What was announced by Jeff Sessions in early April as a new get tough policy.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

What is best for these children in many cases is to be kept with their parents while they are processed. In these cases, there is no good reason for this cruelty.

No "good reason" other than that the law requires the kids to be taken into protective custody, eh?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

What was announced by Jeff Sessions in early April as a new get tough policy.

What does that have to do with these Obama-era detention camps for kids?

1 Reply

If you think a temporary separation from parents is "evil," what about permanent separation?

Can you even imagine the trauma of a kid who finds out he will never see his parents again because they were gunned down by cops when they were indiscriminately killing everyone they saw in a Waffle House? Best to just let the parents keep shooting in order to avoid inflicting that kinda pain on an innocent kid, eh?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

In the Obama era, the government considered what was best for the children involved.

Under the new Trump policy, there is no consideration for what is best for the children involved.

There is no real comparison.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

What was announced by Jeff Sessions in early April as a new get tough policy.

Quit weasling around Max. Say it. The "new policy" of arresting criminals is all you're bitching about. Nothing about the authorities taking protective custody of the kids in those circumstances is "new."

Max wrote:

What is best for these children in many cases is to be kept with their parents while they are processed.

I guess your solution would be to charge the kids with a crime too, so they could go to jail with their parents, eh?

But even that wouldn't work. They would just put the kids in a juvenile jail.

1 Reply

@layman,

In any other legal proceesings, in the US or in any civilized country, the needs of the children involved are taken into account. They are taken into account in bail hearings and in sentencing decisions. They were taken into account under the Obama administration.

It is basic human decency. The current DHS under the new Trump policy is the sole exception where what is best for children is ignored.

1 Reply

Max wrote:

What is best for these children in many cases is to be kept with their parents while they are processed.

Euphemisms like "processed" won't make your case, I'm afraid.

In the case of criminal arrest, "processed" means being fingerprinted, strip searched, then thrown into a cell full of other adult criminals. You want the kids to be present at, and a party to, that "process!?"

Sounds to me that you're the barbaric evil person here, know what I'm sayin? You want young, innocent kids to go through that?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

In any other legal proceesings, in the US or in any civilized country, the needs of the children involved are taken into account. They are taken into account in bail hearings and in sentencing decisions. They were taken into account under the Obama administration.

It is basic human decency. The current DHS under the new Trump policy is the sole exception where what is best for children is ignored.

Heh, straight back to the vague euphemisms, eh? What does "taken into account" mean? That no criminal with kids can be prosecuted, that it?

I don't think so! Homey don't play dat.

1 Reply

@layman,

Putting the needs of children first is not that difficult. If you have two policies, one that is rips kids away from parents cause trauma and hardahip, and another that keeps parents and kids together while they go through a legal process... a civilized person chooses the second option.

There is nothing to be gained by putting kids and families through this.

It is unecessary, which is why it is unexcusable. I would say the same thing for drunk drivers or for bank fraud. Either can be arrested, charged and punished in a way that is least traumatic for the children involved. Law enforcement should always make accommodations to minimize the impact on children. It's basic humanity

1 Reply

Kids in cages; how does anyone defend this

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know