Trump Officially Ends Family Separation At The Border

[PSToolman]

They should take the L and move on. The fact that they can't is why they will not win in 2020. It's like arguing with a 18 year old female.

What "L"? Isn't Trump reacting to the overwhelming criticism of his policy which, while coming from all sides is predominantly coming from liberals and Democrats.

[EdwardTheGreat]

The expectation is that Congress has to pass a law to keep families together or Trump will rip them apart the same way they have been ripped apart during the last 22 years...as instructed by Clinton, Bush and Obama.

You don't have to worry about ^^this^^ anymore, Trump is the only one of these 4 who has done something to make sure families are kept together.

[BFast55]

What "L"? Isn't Trump reacting to the overwhelming criticism of his policy which, while coming from all sides is predominantly coming from liberals and Democrats.

LMAO @ you calling it "his policy". When the facts fail, just argue against something that doesn't exist. Like I said, 18 year old females.

[BFast55]

The expectation is that Congress has to pass a law to keep families together or Trump will rip them apart.

LMAO at your hyperbole language.

Well, yes in fact, as the legislative branch, congress is the entity that is charged with the passage of laws. It's right there in the constitution.

The mistake you authoritarian leftists make is the assumption that the president is a proto-dictator. He's not. There is a reason why an EO doesn't have very much teeth. The proper move was to first allow congress to attempt. Thanks to the Dem's opposition, it failed. But wait! Why am I telling you this? You're just gonna ignore it anyways.

I was speaking in the present perfect tense. I believe grammatically it was appropriate. but idk. I don't grammer so good sometimes.

I'd say so, since you botched on your capitalization.

[JediRN]

You don't have to worry about ^^this^^ anymore, Trump is the only one of these 4 who has done something to make sure families are kept together.

LMAO at your hyperbole language.

Well, yes in fact, as the legislative branch, congress is the entity that is charged with the passage of laws. It's right there in the constitution.

The mistake you authoritarian leftists make is the assumption that the president is a proto-dictator. He's not. There is a reason why an EO doesn't have very much teeth. The proper move was to first allow congress to attempt. Thanks to the Dem's opposition, it failed. But wait! Why am I telling you this? You're just gonna ignore it anyways.


I'd say so, since you botched on your capitalization.

I actually do agree that Congress needs to stop unloading it's powers onto the executive branch. There is a reason why the founding fathers gave Congress the powers they did... just incase weee get a POTUS like the one we have today.

I'm hoping that there will be more unjerimandering of districts that are producing such polar opposite Congressman. Maybe then a more centrist, for the people goup of lawmakers can actually get something done on something other than a party line vote.

[PSToolman]

LMAO @ you calling it "his policy". When the facts fail, just argue against something that doesn't exist. Like I said, 18 year old females.

It is his policy. He decides how he enforces the law. He didn't have to go the route he did. He could have kept the catch-and-release policy of past administrations. He could have kept children with their parents, which is what the law says should happen. He could have had families coming across the border seeking asylum taken to one of the "approved" entry points for processing instead of splitting them up and putting them in separate detention centers. But he didn't do these things. He chose to enforce the law in the most Draconian fashion possible. And now, in the face of overwhelming push-back, he's softened his position.

In his defense, his MO always seems to be to blow up whatever it is he thinks needs to change, and hope that forces congress to act. It doesn't seem to be a winning strategy though.

What's most confusing is how his supporters can be thrilled that he's punishing illegal immigrants and their children on one hand, and thrilled that he's changed this policy on the other.

[arn710]

It is his policy. He decides how he enforces the law. He didn't have to go the route he did. He could have kept the catch-and-release policy of past administrations. He could have kept children with their parents, which is what the law says should happen. He could have had families coming across the border seeking asylum taken to one of the "approved" entry points for processing instead of splitting them up and putting them in separate detention centers. But he didn't do these things. He chose to enforce the law in the most Draconian fashion possible. And now, in the face of overwhelming push-back, he's softened his position.

In his defense, his MO always seems to be to blow up whatever it is he thinks needs to change, and hope that forces congress to act. It doesn't seem to be a winning strategy though.

What's most confusing is how his supporters can be thrilled that he's punishing illegal immigrants and their children on one hand, and thrilled that he's changed this policy on the other.

So you're ok with the president selectively enforcing the law?

[beowulf10]

Dude...try again.

...

They had to be detained because in the past they were released into the US and never came back for court dates.

Sure, this is part of Trump’s rationale for his zero tolerance policy. It’s not a good rationale for separating families and that’s why Trump reversed the policy.

There is no expedite process for asylum seekers that cross illegally. Never was.

That’s not true. Before this zero tolerance policy a border patrol agent would quickly make a decision whether or not the asylum seeker’s claim was valid or not and then it would go onto the next stage where a judge would eventually decide the claim.

Because they were previously so lax when dealing with those seeking asylum they saw the huge influx in people claiming it because it was a basically a free pass..

It’s true there has been an influx of more people claiming asylum in the past few years, but previous administrations did not separate the families as a standard practice whether they were asylum seekers or not. There were only isolated incidents of separations:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/im...milies-n884856

Further, most asylum seekers were not detained and were put on some sort of parole:

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/pdf/1...dible_fear.pdf

So...no matter how you want to spin it the zero tolerance policy of trying to criminally charge every single person that crosses the border resulting in the cruel practice of separating families — done with the intent to deter as publicly stated by Kelly — is a new policy, conceived and executed by the bigots Trump selected to work for him.

I’m very glad Trump came to his senses. I am still sad and will never forget the hatefulness and bigotry of his supporters.

*mic drop*

[PSToolman]

So you're ok with the president selectively enforcing the law?

Yes. He has to. Congress never provides enough funds to fully enforce every law on the books, so the president doesn't have much choice. He has to be selective. Also, there can be extreme circumstances, such as during a civil war or natural disaster where there is a rapid rise in refugees coming here, where strict enforcement is not only unfeasible but will result in more suffering by innocents.

[Cleveland33]

...Sure, this is part of Trump’s rationale for his zero tolerance policy. It’s not a good rationale for separating families and that’s why Trump reversed the policy.

It’s a perfect rationale – the adults need to be detained, the children should not be detained with the adults as the Marshalls are not adequate for that role.

That’s not true. Before this zero tolerance policy a border patrol agent would quickly make a decision whether or not the asylum seeker’s claim was valid or not and then it would go onto the next stage where a judge would decide the claim.

We talking about the asylum seekers whose claims are being validated. There was no same day with a judge – they were giving a court date and released into the country.

It’s true there has been an influx of more people claiming asylum in the past few years, but previous administrations did not separate the families as a standard practice whether they were asylum seekers or not. There were only isolated incidents of separations:
Further, most asylum seekers were not detained and were put on some sort of parole:

Right there was no need to separate a family if the adults were not detained.

So...no matter how you want to spin it the zero tolerance policy of trying to criminally charge every single person that crosses the border resulting in the cruel practice of separating families is a new one, conceived and executed by the bigots Trump selected to work for him.

You are being disingenuous. If you cross the border illegally you are charged, sentenced to time served and released back on the other side of the border same day, no separation of kids.
If you say you are seeking asylum after crossing illegally, you enter a different system.

It is not cruel, it was the compassionate thing to do as kids should not be detained in the same system as adults, it is not safe and the Marshalls are not prepared for it. They should be with HHS just like any American kid.

[BFast55]

He could have kept children with their parents, which is what the law says should happen.

So Trump is now breaking the law? Interesting, of all the things liberals are claiming, that isn't one of them. Also the 9th circuit of appeals ruling in 2008 is the root of the splitting. But this has been pointed out numerous times, and has been ignored. If you can't acknowledge that, I cant help you.

He could have had families coming across the border seeking asylum taken to one of the "approved" entry points for processing instead of splitting them up and putting them in separate detention centers. But he didn't do these things. He chose to enforce the law in the most Draconian fashion possible. And now, in the face of overwhelming push-back, he's softened his position.

All people who properly declare asylum are not having families split. You do not get to declare asylum after you've been caught sneaking across the border. That is never how the law has been applied, not under Obama, Trump, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, etc.

In his defense, his MO always seems to be to blow up whatever it is he thinks needs to change, and hope that forces congress to act. It doesn't seem to be a winning strategy though.

What's most confusing is how his supporters can be thrilled that he's punishing illegal immigrants and their children on one hand, and thrilled that he's changed this policy on the other.

You've exposed yourself to be pretty ignorant of the actual realities and laws that govern this illegal immigration crisis. You can appeal to emotion all you want, but it's pretty clear you are just repeating what you've heard from other liberals.

[beowulf10]

It’s a perfect rationale – the adults need to be detained, the children should not be detained with the adults as the Marshalls are not adequate for that role.

It makes logical sense for sure, it just ignores a wide range of solutions that could secure the border, and also mitigate the problem of immigrants being separated from their families on such the scale we’ve seen.

We talking about the asylum seekers whose claims are being validated. There was no same day with a judge – they were giving a court date and released into the country.

That’s your restriction on the discussion, not mine. People crossing the border illegally and claiming asylum weren’t always automatically detained for long periods of time. A big chunk of these cases were decided on the spot by border agents, within hours, after they were apprehended but before it went through a more formal process and ultimately before an immigration judge.

Right there was no need to separate a family if the adults were not detained.

And the fact that the zero tolerance policy lends itself to situations where families are going to be separated, and for increasingly longer periods of time, should factor into our government’s decision on how to process the cases.

You are being disingenuous. If you cross the border illegally you are charged, sentenced to time served and released back on the other side of the border same day, no separation of kids.
If you say you are seeking asylum after crossing illegally, you enter a different system.

I personally don’t believe it’s that quick. If they are overflowing with immigrants and are considering building tent cities in 106 degree weather, it’s likely the detainment period, even for those do not use the asylum defense, is longer than a day

Further, the assumption Trump officials have made is that the asylum claims are all bullsh*t so the tact they’ve taken is to punish the people making the asylum claims to deter everyone from making such claims.

And the propagandistic argument that Trump pundits have been pushing, which we’ve seen mirrored on this forum, is that because all these people must certainly be lying about their asylum claims they deserve to be punished and everything would be okay for them and we wouldn’t be forced to take their dirty subhuman kids from them. So it’s on them to just stfu, plead guilty, and go back without making their bullsh*t claims.

And if they really believe all the claims are bunk why don’t they allow voluntary returns or expedited removal, giving the border agents the authority to decide, instead of locking them up?

That’s the argument, and the people making that argument I do not recognize as good people and I will criticize them and oppose them politically.

It is not cruel, it was the compassionate thing to do as kids should not be detained in the same system as adults, it is not safe and the Marshalls are not prepared for it. They should be with HHS just like any American kid.

If they weren’t prepared for it they should have waited to enforce the policy. They knew this would happen and that’s why they did it.

The people being charged do not have to be detained in a jail. There are other less draconian solutions such as placing them in less restrictive housing with their families.

[InstantLoser]

What "L"? Isn't Trump reacting to the overwhelming criticism of his policy which, while coming from all sides is predominantly coming from liberals and Democrats.

It wasn't his policy. Stop lying.

[sawoobley]

Remember Elián González.

[Cleveland33]

It makes logical sense for sure, it just ignores a wide range of solutions that could secure the border, and also mitigate the problem of immigrants being separated from their families on such the scale we’ve seen.



That’s your restriction on the discussion, not mine. People crossing the border illegally and claiming asylum weren’t always automatically detained for long periods of time. A big chunk of these cases were decided on the spot by border agents, within hours, after they were apprehended but before it went through a more formal process and ultimately before an immigration judge.



And the fact that the zero tolerance policy lends itself to situations where families are going to be separated, and for increasingly longer periods of time, should factor into our government’s decision on how to process the cases.



I personally don’t believe it’s that quick. If they are overflowing with immigrants and are considering building tent cities in 106 degree weather, it’s likely the detainment period, even for those do not use the asylum defense, is longer than a day

Further, the assumption Trump officials have made is that the asylum claims are all bullsh*t so the tact they’ve taken is to punish the people making the asylum claims to deter everyone from making such claims.

And the propagandistic argument that Trump pundits have been pushing, which we’ve seen mirrored on this forum, is that because all these people must certainly be lying about their asylum claims they deserve to be punished and everything would be okay for them and we wouldn’t be forced to take their dirty subhuman kids from them. So it’s on them to just stfu, plead guilty, and go back without making their bullsh*t claims.

And if they really believe all the claims are bunk why don’t they allow voluntary returns or expedited removal, giving the border agents the authority to decide, instead of locking them up?

That’s the argument, and the people making that argument I do not recognize as good people and I will criticize them and oppose them politically.



If they weren’t prepared for it they should have waited to enforce the policy. They knew this would happen and that’s why they did it.

The people being charged do not have to be detained in a jail. There are other less draconian solutions such as placing them in less restrictive housing with their families.

You're not actually reading what I write and just respond.

If you sought asylum you were given a court date in the future and released in the US. That was NOT an expedited process on the spot. That's what we stopped because they didn't show up for court.

The rest of your post is equally incorrect.

[goody1]

You're not actually reading what I write and just respond.

If you sought asylum you were given a court date in the future and released in the US. That was NOT an expedited process on the spot. That's what we stopped because they didn't show up for court.

I think it was reported that less than 10% of them showed back up to their court date

[beowulf10]

You're not actually reading what I write and just respond.

If you sought asylum you were given a court date in the future and released in the US. That was NOT an expedited process on the spot. That's what we stopped because they didn't show up for court.

The rest of your post is equally incorrect.

Prior to the zero tolerance policy a big chunk (75 percent in at least one of the sources I’m looking at) of those caught illegally crossing the border AND also claiming asylum were determined to have bullsh*t claims within a few hours or days of being caught and sent back within this very short period of time using expedited removal.

So there were two steps in the process:

1. An initial determination by immigration officials that the asylum claim was credible or not, and if found to be credible it would go on to the second stage. At the border these interviews can be conducted by border patrol agents.

2. A lengthy asylum application and review process the conclusion of which is ultimately determined by an immigration judge that the asylum claim was credible or not. It’s this second stage of the process where it takes a very long period of time. Months and years. It is within this second stage that people would get lost or not return for their court dates.

Why is this important? The claim being made by people like Sessions and Miller is that the problem of asylum seekers clogging up the process and getting lost on our side of the border is so terrible that they’ve been forced to take more aggressive measures. So now, with that excuse as ammo, instead of quickly returning most people, EVEN in those cases when they’ve claimed asylum, they are going out of their way to make the lives of the immigrants as miserable as possible. And they are using this misery as a deterrence.

[Cleveland33]

Prior to the zero tolerance policy a big chunk (75 percent in at least one of the sources I’m looking at) of those caught illegally crossing the border AND also claiming asylum were determined to have bullsh*t claims within a few hours or days of being caught and sent back within this very short period of time using expedited removal.

Yes again. We are not talking about those.

[beowulf10]

Yes again. We are not talking about those.

I’m talking about these and it is relevant to the discussion because it demonstrates most of the asylum claims in the past did not result in long periods of detention before the change in policy.

But all of this sort of misses what’s really going on propaganda-wise. Part of the justification for this brutal process is this idea that the Asylum seekers are a bunch of liars and if they didn’t want to be separated from the kids then they shouldn’t be making bullsh*t claims and they should all just stfu, stop whining, plead guilty and go back to their countries, and if they don’t they should not cry about having their stupid dirty subhuman criminal children taken away from them. That’s their basic argument. It’s wrong I’m not going to support politicians who are too cowardly to stand up to this immoral practice.

[Cleveland33]

I’m talking about these and it is relevant to the discussion because it demonstrates most of the asylum claims in the past did not result in long periods of detention before the change in policy.

But all of this sort of misses what’s really going on propaganda-wise. Part of the justification for this brutal process is this idea that the Asylum seekers are a bunch of liars and if they didn’t want to be separated from the kids then they shouldn’t be making bullsh*t claims and they should all just stfu, stop whining, plead guilty and go back to their countries, and if they don’t they should not cry about having their stupid dirty subhuman criminal children taken away from them. That’s their basic argument. It’s wrong I’m not going to support politicians who are too cowardly to stand up to this immoral practice.

You're right, and they still aren't as they are still same day deporting the asylum claims they warrant as meritless. They just stopped claiming them as asylum seekers and reclassified them as illegal immigrants.

[fitnessislife]

[chaunce54]

[dhawkeye1980]

I’m talking about these and it is relevant to the discussion because it demonstrates most of the asylum claims in the past did not result in long periods of detention before the change in policy.

But all of this sort of misses what’s really going on propaganda-wise. Part of the justification for this brutal process is this idea that the Asylum seekers are a bunch of liars and if they didn’t want to be separated from the kids then they shouldn’t be making bullsh*t claims and they should all just stfu, stop whining, plead guilty and go back to their countries, and if they don’t they should not cry about having their stupid dirty subhuman criminal children taken away from them. That’s their basic argument. It’s wrong I’m not going to support politicians who are too cowardly to stand up to this immoral practice.

They were not sent back. Under obamas "catch and release" program they were walked out the back door with a piece of paper and a promise to return to court to be deported or granted asylum

93% never came back

[redmelly]

Remember Elián González.

This case was actually a different situation entirely. Elian's mom drowned on her way from Cuba (fleeing with Elian and her boyfriend, essentially kidnapping her son), and the US coast guard rescued Elian from the water. His father (back in Cuba) wanted him back but his Miami based relatives wanted him to stay. Eventually the US ruling was to return Elian to his father in Cuba, and that's what happened.

This demonstrates how pictures can be totally used to tell a whole different story than what the reality was. Similar to the picture of the little girl on the Time cover, who was never taken from her mother but ended up being the poster child the media used to convince people all illegal immigrant children are being snatched from parents.

[beowulf10]

They were not sent back. Under obamas "catch and release" program they were walked out the back door with a piece of paper and a promise to return to court to be deported or granted asylum

93% never came back

I don’t know where you’re getting this statistic from, but it’s wrong.

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download

Recently, it’s closer to 25 percent of the cases where people never show up. Go to Page 49 of the above documents.

And it bounced around from around 20 to 40 percent over the past 5 years:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/1...eparation.html

[Cleveland33]

Might want to read the document you cite

[Forty0zFreedom]

If there's one meme that sums up modern day liberalism, this is it.

[dhawkeye1980]

I don’t know where you’re getting this statistic from, but it’s wrong.

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb16/download

Recently, it’s closer to 25 percent of the cases where people never show up. Go to Page 49 of the above documents.

And it bounced around from around 20 to 40 percent over the past 5 years:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/1...eparation.html

Lmfao NYT? You really are delusional.

Again you are quoting ALL of the illegals that did not show up. I stated all of the ones in obamas "catch and release"

Try to keep up.

[Cleveland33]

Lmfao NYT? You really are delusional.

Again you are quoting ALL of the illegals that did not show up. I stated all of the ones in obamas "catch and release"

Try to keep up.

You'll have to forgive him his world is imploding

[beowulf10]

Lmfao NYT? You really are delusional.

That’s fine if you don’t believe the NYT. That’s why I included the DOJ stats. Did you read that document or does that one have too many words in it? I even gave you a page reference. Heaven knows you might have to read the whole page.

Again you are quoting ALL of the illegals that did not show up. I stated all of the ones in obamas "catch and release"

Try to keep up.

There’s no way to put it that isn’t impolite so I’m just going to say it. You don’t know wtf you’re taking about.

The term catch and release has been used and abused so much you’re going to have to clarify what you mean. If you’re talking about the cases involving asylum claims, and families making some sort of legal argument to stay in the country that’s what these stats refer to.

If you’re talking about voluntary return and expedited removal procedures where they basically turn people away at the border that’s a different story. In those instances it has been the policy of previous administrations to not criminally charge the vast majority of the immigrants and they are almost immediately sent back over the border or back on a plane. So in those instances they wouldn’t have court cases to worry about, and your bullsh*t statistic wouldn’t have any relevance, because there would be no case, they would just return back to wherever they came from. They would not have any obligation whatsoever to return to court.

I don’t blame you for this confusion. Trump is the moron who incorrectly used this term. Not you. He’s the idiot that doesn’t understand how the process worked before, or even how it works now. He’s the one that expanded the term in a way that makes no sense.

Anything else? And could you please reference your statistic? Where did you get the 93 percent bullsh*t statistic from that you just made up out of thin air. I gave you my references. Where are yours?