everlast75 wrote: » No. He's not looking for increased border enforcement. That's not true. He is looking to build a wall. They are two different things. The wall is a glory project for him. Nothing more Secondly, with regard to the deterrent argument, the ends do not justify the means.
Manic Moran wrote: » The latter, very obviously. I'm not even sure it's the best way, but it's obviously intended as a means to an end. There is no inherent value in the criminal prosecution of illegal immigrants. They probably can't pay the fine, and a jail sentence will simply stretch already stretched incarceration budgets. Further, the children would have to be separated anyway, and repatriated back to the child welfare services of the originating country. Not really a fantastic outcome for anyone. The best solution is to reduce the incoming traffic to begin with. Either by increased border enforcement, which is where the leverage aspect comes in, or by reducing incentive, which is where the deterrent effect comes in. This latter seems to be the expected outcome from Border Patrol. See interview here. https://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/what-is-being-done-to-protect-children-at-the-border-1255813187850
Manic, do you think Trump is right to pursue a policy of separating children from their parents? Is it the right thing to be doing, or just the best way to achieve the aim?
Manic Moran wrote: » Not very pleasantly, obviously. But the policy is simple enough. Of all the various options listed, the one which is not listed is the ability for the arrested parent to retain the child. Policies usually have an exemption for newborns. Out of mild curiousity, what is the policy of Gardai when arresting an immigrant, or a sole parent? Is the child taken to the jail cell with the parent?
Captain Obvious wrote: » So you tell me how that policy is applied properly here
Manic Moran wrote: » That's regulation. See http://www.theiacp.org/model-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/07/Safeguarding-Children-of-Arrested-Parents-Final_Web_v3.pdf for standard practice following an arrest of a parent.
It is the policy of this department that officers will be trained to identify and respond effectively to a child, present or not present, whose parent is arrested in order to help minimize potential trauma and support a child’s physical safety and well-being following an arrest.
A teenager at a US Border Patrol facility had to teach other children how to help change the diaper of a young girl who had been separated from family members. According to the Associated Press, a 16-year-old girl in a South Texas facility took care of a four-year-old girl she didn't know for at least three days when they were kept in the same chain-link cage together.
everlast75 wrote: » Where is the law that states that the children must be separated from their parents?
everlast75 wrote: » I just wanted to add, I'm not being pinickity here. It was said that the laws were just being enforced. I want to know which one of those laws insist that children must be taken away from their families in the way in which they are is all.
Manic Moran wrote: » everlast75 wrote: » "1) He has created no new regulation or law. What he has done is started rigorously enforcing laws which have been on the books for years. That sort of thing plays well with large portions of the electorate, and it's fairly hard to tarnish a public official for "He enforced the law." What law(s) exactly? 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien Fine and punishable by up to 6 months in prison for a first offense, fine and up to two years for subsequent offenses. It hasn't been necessary up to now, nothing has changed with the migrants Isn't that the point, though? Nothing has changed. Trump tried to get changed without leverage, he tried to get change by leveraging DACA, now he's trying with children of illegal immigrants.
everlast75 wrote: » "1) He has created no new regulation or law. What he has done is started rigorously enforcing laws which have been on the books for years. That sort of thing plays well with large portions of the electorate, and it's fairly hard to tarnish a public official for "He enforced the law." What law(s) exactly?
It hasn't been necessary up to now, nothing has changed with the migrants
Manic Moran wrote: » 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien Fine and punishable by up to 6 months in prison for a first offense, fine and up to two years for subsequent offenses.
MarinersBlues wrote: » Enforcing a law in a morally questionable way can tarnish officials. He clearly does care about perception and optics. He refuses to talk to anyone who doesn't praise his every action It will reinforce his core support. However I would imagine it will lose him some of the fringe support. Seeing as how the majority voted against him in the election, and his popularity has never risen past 50%, that can't be good for his re-election True. Continuing trade agreements with Mexico which would increase the standard of living, both there and in the US, and create more jobs for the people who are trying to leave might be another way to curb the illegal immigration. In Trump's head a deal where both parties win is a bad deal because there isn't a loser.
Manic Moran wrote: » 1) He has created no new regulation or law. What he has done is started rigorously enforcing laws which have been on the books for years. That sort of thing plays well with large portions of the electorate, and it's fairly hard to tarnish a public official for "He enforced the law."
Manic Moran wrote: » 2) He already doesn't care about optics and perception. The folks most objecting are mainly the ones who aren't so keen on Trump in the first place.
Manic Moran wrote: » 3) If nothing else comes of this, if the policy is reversed tomorrow either by the administration or the "Keep Families Together Act" (Assuming it passes Congress and he doesn't veto it), he has just cemented further his determination to do something about illegal immigration. Given that this was a significant campaign issue for which he was elected in the first place, this seems to be a boon to his re-election campaign. That's the smallest possible win, and I think he's already achieved it.
Manic Moran wrote: » 4) This has very definitely re-focused attention on the border. It sortof dropped off the radar after the idea of a DACA deal fizzled out. Further, it renders relatively toothless the argument that illegal crossings of the Southern Border isn't a big problem. It's obviously big enough that thousands of families are being affected and making a big stink in the news.
Manic Moran wrote: » 5) The problem of the question of what to do with the children of arrested immigrants becomes much more manageable if the source problem is removed. If this is done by physical means (a wall), or because of the deterrence value of families not being sure they want to risk separation, as long as fewer folks come over, problem solved. If he gets a wall out of it, he wins. If immigrants get too scared to cross and the numbers drop that way, he wins. In basically every outcome, be it due to fewer immigrants or a political determination to keep families together, the number of affected families will drop and this will be long gone from the news cycle next year.
Havockk wrote: » Of course it is. It is the same issue I have against the introduction of the covenant in the North, why should a veteran get preferential treatment on the NHS? If you were a conscript I'd have no problem, but you are ALL volunteers.
That might well be the case but this policy is clearly designed to get Trump funding for his wall. It is not about making America safer, or even doing anything about immigration. It is purely being used as leverage so that Trump can get what he wants since he failed to get it any other way.
Looks like the Dems are trying to push back against the narrative that they're doing nothing about it & it's all their fault
Manic Moran wrote: » Well, sort of, which is why he’s not losing too many votes from the law and order types on the conservative side. It is standard practice in the US to separate those arrested from their children, citizens or not. The reason it is suddenly an issue at the border is that unlike the previous two administrations, Trump doesn’t care about the optics, and thus lifted the exemption to this policy that had previously been granted. The line of thinking is break the law, get arrested. Get arrested, and the same thing happens to you as would a US citizen with a family. The main difference is that unlike the scores of arrested parents in the rest of the US, multiple arrestees At the border, and thus multiple children, are all within a single camera-pan. There is no obligation for him to have lifted the exemption by policy, certainly. But neither is he doing anything particularly unusual in the US judicial system. Of note, the lack of a standard process for caring for children of arrestees led to a federal policy and national guideline on the matter in 2014.
eagle eye wrote: » I seen that three country joint World Cup bid for 2026. Like how is that going to work? Surely the wall will be but by them?!
VinLieger wrote: » Water John wrote: » I think, FLOTUS releasing a public statement, says a lot more than a, private word. Not when she is pushing the false narrative that this is congress ie the Dems fault. There is no law causing this, it directly comes from Trump.
Water John wrote: » I think, FLOTUS releasing a public statement, says a lot more than a, private word.
