Trump: Dems 'forced' family separation law on the nation

[Falsedawn]

If the Democrats aren't willing to make a more significant overture towards a meaningful compromise on DACA, the Wall, or other priorities of the elected President's agenda, the leader of the GOP, which also enjoys widespread federal control, then the President can (and can be expected to) take matters into his own hands. I didn't cry tears for the Republicans who bemoaned Obama's unilateral circumvention of Congress even when I didn't think it appropriate (such as in root matters of the Bundy protests); play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

You didn't shed a tear of sympathy for what they wrought by virtue of their intransigence, either. That's because it was Republicans, then, and that's the difference between you and me.

I'm not stunted by partisan blinders. Here. There. In both cases I can see beyond any immediate symptom to the source of the breakdown resulting in the most recent outbreak.

Save me the whataboutism. If the Republicans wanted to fix this, they control both houses of congress and the presidency. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that the majority party has a hard time passing anything because the mean ol' minority with no power is forcing them to be a bunch of do nothing bitches. What a joke.

The difference between me and you is that I acknowledge reality instead of trying to downplay circumstances because my hot takes don't stand on their own.

 

[Pupi]

If the Democrats aren't willing to make a more significant overture towards a meaningful compromise on DACA, the Wall, or other priorities of the elected President's agenda, the leader of the GOP, which also enjoys widespread federal control, then the President can (and can be expected to) take matters into his own hands. I didn't cry tears for the Republicans who bemoaned Obama's unilateral circumvention of Congress even when I didn't think it appropriate (such as in root matters of the Bundy protests); play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

You didn't shed a tear of sympathy for what they wrought by virtue of their intransigence, either. That's because it was Republicans, then, and that's the difference between you and me.

I'm not stunted by partisan blinders. Here. There. In both cases I can see beyond any immediate symptom to the source of the breakdown resulting in the most recent outbreak.

Since you're above partisanship, I'm sure you'd agree that the executive branch has gotten too big for its britches. No?

 

[Madmick]

Since you're above partisanship, I'm sure you'd agree that the executive branch has gotten too big for its britches. No?

You sound like a conservative.

I love how you didn't realize this is exactly the conclusion I wanted all readers to reach. But you think you got there all on your own.

Save me the whataboutism. If the Republicans wanted to fix this, they control both houses of congress and the presidency. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that the majority party has a hard time passing anything because the mean ol' minority with no power is forcing them to be a bunch of do nothing bitches. What a joke.

The difference between me and you is that I acknowledge reality instead of trying to downplay circumstances because my hot takes don't stand on their own.

Then spare me the disingenuous outrage. That's not how obstructionism works.

 

[Falsedawn]

Then spare me the false disingenuous outrage. That't not how obstructionism works.

You honestly think that Democrats now are comparable to the GOP then, ignoring ENTIRELY that when Obama was president the GOP held both houses of congress...JUST LIKE THEY DO NOW. You act like the GOP all of a sudden gives a shit about procedure when Mitch McConnell has spent the last decade and some change shitting on the Senate and stealing court vacancies (including a SCOTUS seat). But all of a sudden, i'm supposed to believe that the GOP is so hamstrung by controlling the entirety of the government that Democrats just swooped in and locked the government down like 2010-2016. How fucking dumb do you think I am Mick? Did you really think that was going to make any sense at all to...well, anyone who pays the most cursory attention to the news?

I think we're done here. You're clearly not trolling for any reality based takes.

 

[SMillard]

Are you saying people aren't arrested for misdemeanors in other situations?

really? seriously, don't strawman this, I can understand your fears and anxieties about illegal immigration but this current policy is disastrous.

It's a misdemeanor, so in this case the people should be brought before a judge in a timely manner, normally with 48 to 72 hours. They are offered bail, if they can pay the bail they are released. This isn't normally done due to the "flight" risk, normally they are put into an immigrant detention center where they can and usually are housed with their kids. Putting people into federal prisons and their kids into HHS or some privately paid holding center is not the norm and the fact is the administration was caught off guard by this because they have had to overcrowd well over 100 facilities across the country with these kids.

There are ways to process, prosecute and deport these people in a manner where their kids aren't taken from them in a manner that the parents in many cases don't know where their kids are, when the border patrol does tell them their kids will be taken they have been told for as little as a couple hours to a couple days, not the weeks and soon to be months we are seeing. Again, not saying they should just be left to their own devices but there are more humane and better ways to deal with this than what's being done.

 

[Pupi]

You sound like a conservative.

I love how you didn't realize this is exactly the conclusion I wanted all readers to reach. But you think you got there all on your own.

Not at all. You must not be in academia, because the power of the president has been criticized by the left much more than ever under recent years. Fact of the matter is that it has been historically demonstrated that the executive is the primus inter pares. Its power in practice transcends the control of congress and the supreme court. This is not me being "conservative" - I am just stating that its the reality that we have allowed to solidify.

 

[waiguoren]

Most kids go to a relative if mother or father is arrested. I'm a social worker and if the child wasn't removed from the hone because of abuse or safety hazards, we transport children to relatives and even friends by parents request.

Other poster example was terrible.

That's the same thing that happens here. ORR places the minors with relatives or sponsors if available.

 

[second sight]

didn't this all start with people that couldn't prove they were the kids parents, not being able to claim the kids were theres and taking them

 

[Madmick]

You honestly think that Democrats now are comparable to the GOP then, ignoring ENTIRELY that when Obama was president the GOP held both houses of congress...JUST LIKE THEY DO NOW. You act like the GOP all of a sudden gives a shit about procedure when Mitch McConnell has spent the last decade and some change shitting on the Senate and stealing court vacancies (including a SCOTUS seat). But all of a sudden, i'm supposed to believe that the GOP is so hamstrung by controlling the entirety of the government that Democrats just swooped in and locked the government down like 2010-2016. How fucking dumb do you think I am Mick? Did you really think that was going to make any sense at all to...well, anyone who pays the most cursory attention to the news?

I think we're done here. You're clearly not trolling for any reality based takes.

Obama had a majority until he lost it. The Republicans opposed him when he had it, and perhaps the most frustrating thing is that those midterm results indicate it played into their favor. Trump inflamed that base for all those years on the back of FOX and the birther myth. Tell me, Dawn. Did it hurt him? Did it hurt the GOP?

The same will be true for Trump if the Democrats can stop being crazy and stupid long enough for everyone else to see how crazy and stupid Trump is. But that's not their strategy, and just as it was with the Republicans, unfortunately, this "strategy" amounts to little more than a perpetual tantrum where they play Matadors to the other side, taunting them into their boldest and most undiluted form of opposition, which in turn riles their base, and hopefully pays dividends at the next election.

Real conservatives would never support this. You don't tear families apart when you're a conservative. That's the line. If they cross that merely as a matter of legislative tactics and negotiation, then what the fuck do they even stand for, anymore?

You're upset. That's exactly what the Democrats want. They don't want to go into November on this economy without an identity politics wedge issue, or they'll get creamed, and they know it. They're going to fan these flames.

What they're NOT going to do is reasonably handle illegal immigrants inside their counties or municipalities where Trump's reach is most feeble. What they're NOT going to do is make any meaningful concession to Trump on his wall. Well, that's what he got elected on, Dawn. He won. That was one of the three pillars of his platform. So who is truly being anti-Democratic?

This is the political Olympics, and the sport is who can pour more gas on which side.

Not at all. You must not be in academia, because the power of the president has been criticized by the left much more than ever under recent years. Fact of the matter is that it has been historically demonstrated that the executive is the primus inter pares. Its power in practice transcends the control of congress and the supreme court. This is not me being "conservative" - I am just stating that its the reality that we have allowed to solidify.

Trump got elected, and suddenly the left grew a conscience about executive power. It's practically cold-fusion.

Yeah, I know how this bullshit partisanship game works, and that's why I'm done with it, and done with partisan hacks. All the asshole partisans who pretend not to be down-the-line voters, to the man, they appeal to the genuinely open-minded centrists like me on principle when they're not in power...then when they're in power they ditch those principles. In the meantime, I am importuned from the other side.

Rinse wash repeat.

Kind of tired of being used. Ready to popcorn.gif and watch. After all, the centrists sure as hell aren't in the driver's seat.

 

[SMillard]

In what other country can someone be apprehended crossing the border illegally, then get released into the interior of the country within three weeks to await a court date that won't arrive for three years?

Unaccompanied alien children and entire families have been pouring across the southern border in recent years. End 'catch and release' and I guarantee you those numbers fall by at least 25%. People respond to incentives.

Edit: Also @MuyThaiTom above makes a great point. If you're a kid being raised by a single mother who also happens to be a prostitute, you're going to be separated from your mother when she goes to jail for prostitution and disorderly conduct.

First off the problem is that people come and apply for asylum, they are released and disappear since the court dates are taking so long. The fact that you ignore the difference between illegal crossings and asylum seekers. That's the first problem, many of these people are trying to do this legally.

Your second point would be a great one if the administration had announced that this was going to be the case, they didn't, they still haven't they're banking on word of mouth. So if the government enacted a law that if you speed your vehicle would be confiscated but didn't tell anyone, you found out after a few thousand people lost their car; you'd be fine with that?

I also think you are being a little melodramatic about the "pouring across the southern border in recent years". Actually the immigration has been down, in fact the numbers of people going back to their home countries has increased. Which is why, despite the administration's actions on this matter they have been increasing the number of temporary work visas because the companies and farms that need the migrant workforce have been complaining. So by that alone the administration is being hypocritical.

IF the mother is a prostitute, so now someone applying for asylum is on the same level as a prostitute? Hell if that's the case, let's just start shooting people for petty crimes, they're all the same right? Only problem is in most cases where the mother is a prostitute they assign a case worker who works with the woman to help improve the situation for her and her child, only in the most extreme situations do they take a child away.

You are all acting like this is a "let all the illegals run free or this current policy" There are other ways to handle this that wouldn't involve ripping a breastfeeding baby from the mothers tit mid-sip.

 

[SMillard]

To my knowledge, and this goes back FORTY YEARS, no. He never has. He's had lawyers fix things all his life.

Trump was a student of Roy Cohn, very interesting although detestable person. For those that don't know he was involved with Senator Joseph McCarthy's "red scare" and was eventually disbarred. One of the funniest quotes about him was about his sexuality "Roy Cohn wasn't gay, he just liked to have sex with men. Gays are weak , effeminate. He always seemed to have these young blond boys around. It just wasn't discussed. He was interested in power and access.". In fact, despite this fact he was also part of the lesser known "lavender scare" with McCarthy which despite not being as well known as the "red scare" was actually more damaging to more people in the hunt to expose gays in government and in the upper ranks of society.

He basically lived by the mantra that you never admit you are wrong. He ended up getting disbarred and dying a few months after.

 

[Falsedawn]

Obama had a majority until he lost it. The Republicans opposed him when he had it, and perhaps the most frustrating thing is that those midterm results indicate it played into their favor. Trump inflamed that base for all those years on the back of FOX and the birther myth. Tell me, Dawn. Did it hurt him? Did it hurt the GOP?

The same will be true for Trump if the Democrats can stop being crazy and stupid long enough for everyone else to see how crazy and stupid Trump is. But that's not their strategy, and just as it was with the Republicans, unfortunately, this "strategy" amounts to little more than a perpetual tantrum where they play Matadors to the other side, taunting them into their boldest and most undiluted form of opposition, which in turn riles their base, and hopefully pays dividends at the next election.

Real conservatives would never support this. You don't tear families apart when you're a conservative. That's the line. If they cross that merely as a matter of legislative tactics and negotiation, then what the fuck do they even stand for, anymore?

You're upset. That's exactly what the Democrats want. They don't want to go into November on this economy without an identity politics wedge issue, or they'll get creamed, and they know it. They're going to fan these flames.

What they're NOT going to do is reasonably handle illegal immigrants inside their counties or municipalities where Trump's reach is most feeble. What they're NOT going to do is make any meaningful concession to Trump on his wall. Well, that's what he got elected on, Dawn. He won. That was one of the three pillars of his platform. So who is truly being anti-Democratic?

This is the political Olympics, and the sport is who can pour more gas on which side.

Correction, Obama had a supermajority. And you know what they did with it? Consulted the GOP on a piece of legislation that they marked up and didn't vote for. They HAD input, and they still spit in his face. What input do the Democrats have? "Give me the wall or i'm going to keep fucking things up" isn't going to cut it. It's extortion, tantamount to domestic abuse. "I wouldn't have to hit you if you would just act right!" Are you really going to keep going on and excusing that? As if this is just some knife fight and whoever has an intact kidney at the end gets the votes.

The crazy thing about all this is that while you seem to think the least of the Democrats for opposing this, they're opposing it on valid policy grounds. It's a boondoggle, it would only serve to be a money pit, you can't wall everywhere, along those lines, those are the criticisms I hear from them. Even if there's an election night strategy into it, attributing disingenuous effort when the complaints are valid is asinine. Trump got elected on locking up Hillary Clinton too, should we convene a kangaroo court so that we can appease the rubes, or can we dissent on the reality that nobody investigating her found anything worthy of putting her in jail?

I find it amusing that you supposedly advocate good policy in one breath and then turn around in the next and say the Democrats should give Trump his wall because he was elected for it. Should a party that cares about the country not oppose bad policy as a matter of principle? Why are your policy standards so arbitrary that a shit idea becomes a good one when the designated person says it?

 

[TheFirstEMP]

What a POS. Your administration is the one currently spear heading this enforcement. Don't blame it on Democrats.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ms-forced-family-separation-law-on-the-nation

Liberal hypocrites gonna liberal hypocrite.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f12403f3e321

Note that this is during the previous administration.

 

[SMillard]

didn't this all start with people that couldn't prove they were the kids parents not being able to claim the kids were theres and taking them

Yes, the original policy was to protect children from being used as drug mules or for exploitation/being sold into sexual slavery. In some instances the government has tried to use this argument at least at the beginning of this policy but as more stories have come out from mostly mothers it has fallen out of favor. Now it's a combination of the Jeff Sessions/ John Kelly "this is a deterrent" and "the bible says it's alright to do this" and the Trump/and some others "this is a democrat policy, it's horrible, but what can we do? If only the Democrats would vote for our immigration bill that funds the wall this could all go away".

People can try to defend it all they want, but the fact that the reasoning goes varies shows that the policy has become a tar baby that the administration refuses to drop.

 

[waiguoren]

First off the problem is that people come and apply for asylum, they are released and disappear since the court dates are taking so long. The fact that you ignore the difference between illegal crossings and asylum seekers. That's the first problem, many of these people are trying to do this legally.

I did not conflate asylum seekers with those apprehended crossing the border illegally, although I do suspect that both avenues are frequently abused.

Your second point would be a great one if the administration had announced that this was going to be the case, they didn't, they still haven't they're banking on word of mouth. So if the government enacted a law that if you speed your vehicle would be confiscated but didn't tell anyone, you found out after a few thousand people lost their car; you'd be fine with that?

Come on, re-read what you just wrote. The quality of your other responses was much higher than this. No law has been changed. Making an analogy involving a legislative change is not going to persuade me or any other careful reader.

I see nothing ethically dubious about the executive branch of the federal government enforcing federal law as it is written. I, like Trump, also don't like the idea of separating children from their parents even for short periods. That's why I support the efforts of Jeff Sessions to reduce the backlog in the immigration courts and why I would support legislation to create a new system of detention for these criminal parents which would allow them to stay with their kids.

I also think you are being a little melodramatic about the "pouring across the southern border in recent years".

Nothing melodramatic about it:

Actually the immigration has been down, in fact the numbers of people going back to their home countries has increased.

Although I disagree, let's stay on topic. This was a conversation about UAC and family units, not immigration as a whole.

Which is why, despite the administration's actions on this matter they have been increasing the number of temporary work visas because the companies and farms that need the migrant workforce have been complaining. So by that alone the administration is being hypocritical.

Where is the hypocrisy? Migrants with visas are legal. UAC and the family units we were discussing are not legal immigrants.

IF the mother is a prostitute, so now someone applying for asylum is on the same level as a prostitute?

Please be more sensible. We were talking about misdemeanors. Prostitution is a misdemeanor. Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor. Improper entry by an alien is a misdemeanor. The point is that if a parent commits a misdemeanor and is arrested for it, she will be separated from her children so that she can be jailed.

You are all acting like this is a "let all the illegals run free or this current policy" There are other ways to handle this that wouldn't involve ripping a breastfeeding baby from the mothers tit mid-sip.

Strawman much?

 

[SMillard]

I did not conflate asylum seekers with those apprehended crossing the border illegally, although I do suspect that both avenues are frequently abused.

You may not be conflating the issue but the policy of the administration and actions of the border patrol are.

Come on, re-read what you just wrote. The quality of your other responses was much higher than this. No law has been changed. Making an analogy involving a legislative change is not going to persuade me or any other careful reader.

No law has been changed, but policy has. Jeff Sessions came out and announced his "zero tolerance" policy yet they didn't give directive on the policy. No where did they say "we are going to jail you and prosecute you, oh and if you bring your kids with you we are going to take them away from you". Quite honestly, that's even worse than changing the law.

I see nothing ethically dubious about the executive branch of the federal government enforcing federal law as it is written. I, like Trump, also don't like the idea of separating children from their parents even for short periods. That's why I support the efforts of Jeff Sessions to reduce the backlog in the immigration courts and why I would support legislation to create a new system of detention for these criminal parents which would allow them to stay with their kids.

I have no problem with what you said here, and honestly I'd support it. My big problem though is that this is tied to a much bigger "build that wall, give us the 25 billion dollars to do it" Trump got his ass reamed by his base over the last budget, he threatened to shut down the government next budget and now he is using this situation to force his will for something that a majority of Americans don't want and quite honestly we don't need, at least not on the scale and grandeur he has proposing. You want to improve the wall by Tijuana? Go for it, you want to build a wall along the Rio Grande or along some area out in BFE, sorry not for it.

Nothing melodramatic about it:

That chart is regarding the southern border, a VAST majority of illegals come in either on boat or plane, if that was the only people coming into the country illegally we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Although I disagree, let's stay on topic. This was a conversation about UAC and family units, not immigration as a whole.



Where is the hypocrisy? Migrants with visas are legal. UAC and the family units we were discussing are not legal immigrants.

It's hypocritical in the sense that there are people coming here that want to apply for asylum and would gladly take those jobs. Instead we have a government that wants to treat them like disposable assets and would prefer to just use them then send them back. The conditions these people have to work in is not pleasant to say the least, it's work no one else wants to do. Hell second and third generation latin american immigrants don't want to do this crap. Yet we have an administration that acts like "yeah, you can do our shit work, but don't think about trying to stay here, by the way we are still going to tax you while you are doing the shit work for us" does that sound like a situation you'd want to live with? I sure wouldn't.

Please be more sensible. We were talking about misdemeanors. Prostitution is a misdemeanor. Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor. Improper entry by an alien is a misdemeanor. The point is that if a parent commits a misdemeanor and is arrested for it, she will be separated from her children so that she can be jailed.



Strawman much?

I don't see how that is strawman, there have been confirmed cases where the kids are infants. In most cases for disorderly conduct or prostitution the people are booked and normally let go after either paying a fine or being released on bail. It's only in the most extreme cases or habitual repeat offenders do you see this level of action and in most of those cases they get bumped up to a felony. That's not a viable option in this case due the flight risk, but that still doesn't change the fact it's a misdemeanor and treating these people on the same level as felons who are detained until their trial dates in federal prisons (again, tell me of any other misdemeanor that has a mandated Federal prison assignment).

Prior policy treated immigrants as a kind of stand alone or anomalous crime which was handled in it's own way. Just lumping every immigrant in the same level as individuals that are criminal is beyond wrong, it's a stunt to force funding for the wall.

 

[drstrangelov]

The optics here could hurt Trump in places like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan. He can pass the buck all he wants, this is happening under his watch, and he's empowered to stop it. If he asks the democrats to fix this, he never gets the issue back.

His hardcore supporters will blame the families, but those people were already definite votes for him. Hes gotta correct this, as unilaterally and quickly as possible, or risk losing control of the story, and alienating voters he needs for reelection.

 

[Pupi]

Trump got elected, and suddenly the left grew a conscience about executive power. It's practically cold-fusion.

Yeah, I know how this bullshit partisanship game works, and that's why I'm done with it, and done with partisan hacks. All the asshole partisans who pretend not to be down-the-line voters, to the man, they appeal to the genuinely open-minded centrists like me on principle when they're not in power...then when they're in power they ditch those principles. In the meantime, I am importuned from the other side.

Rinse wash repeat.

Kind of tired of being used. Ready to popcorn.gif and watch. After all, the centrists sure as hell aren't in the driver's seat.

The Left critique of state power began way before Trump, Mick. It picked up dramatically after 9/11 in case you don't remember.

Partisans targeting centrists to assimilate them into their cause is the overall strategy of the war. If you don't want to be a part of politics then you are able to (of course at the severe cost of social alienation), but the discourses are not intended to stop. They're on 24/7 365. Spectators never do anything. It's literally in the name - spectators are not agents - they just look at the show and choose not to do anything about it. How can you expect centrists, who oftentimes take no real definitive stance on anything meaningful and are content to be non-political humans, to not just exert, but to also define and lead political agency? If centrists were in the drivers seat the car wouldn't move, because they'd be too busy arguing about the proper direction to take.

 

[SMillard]

The optics here could hurt Trump in places like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan. He can pass the buck all he wants, this is happening under his watch, and he's empowered to stop it. If he asks the democrats to fix this, he never gets the issue back.

His hardcore supporters will blame the families, but those people were already definite votes for him. Hes gotta correct this, as unilaterally and quickly as possible, or risk losing control of the story, and alienating voters he needs for reelection.

Unfortunately for him, that won't happen. The only way he'll do that is if he uses someone in the administration as a scapegoat. Trump never admits failure, mistakes or bad ideas. Again, he's a student of Roy Cohn and it has served him well.

Personally I think they'll hurt him in other places too. Oddly I think one such place is Texas, although I doubt it'll hurt him enough to lose the state but I think it will close the margin.

Honestly I think the Eagles/super bowl whitehouse visit will hurt him more in PA than this issue.

 

[MaxMMA]

So then you're okay with a wall being built where possible?

No, for several reasons. The main reason being there is no contractor in the United States that I would trust with a project this size.

Government contracts for constuction are notoriosly corrupt and they take years and years to complete far simpler projects like road improvements. A wall stretching across the entire southern border? Lofl, 50 years from now the contractors would be telling the government they still need more time and $ to complete it.

This isn't even getting into the effectiveness of a wall... a wall isn't effective at all without guards to man it. And even if we forked over all that money to man the wall at effective intervals they would still tunnel under it or find ways to bypass border entrance points like they do now.