That’s what you’ve chosen to go with? They wouldn’t bring children with them because they are parents, but rather because they’re cynical immigrants using children as pawns in their nefarious schemes?
Get a grip man.
I never said all kids are being brought as part of a conspiracy by their accompanying adults, although some plans discussed here would encourage that. I said that the day-to-day lives of some kids brought by adults into the US may in fact be worse than the temporary custody of the HHS.
You indicated it was substantial enough numbers to matter, so don’t play the disingenuous game of saying “I didn’t say all of them!”
There are three problems I identified:
(1) The kids who HHS would detain are the ones with no other relatives in the US beyond the adult who brought them into the country; and that is a dicey situation for a kid, who probably didn’t get much say in the matter;
(2) Providing explicit legal incentives to bring kids on the often dangerous journey across the border is not good, and would lead to abuses of the system that need to be considered;
(3) Adults who are bringing kids into the country and enduring lengthy separations from their kids are either requiring further detention because they are felons (perhaps re-entrants) or are seeking asylum. Both of those factors typically require long separations. In either case, the parents would seem to pose an elevated risk to the child.
I don’t know what you think life is like for kids who come into the country, perhaps against their will, with an adult and no support network, but in some cases HHS custody may be preferable.
So now you’ve gone on this line?
Of all the idiotic hills to die on.
Well, I can’t argue with that well-thought out logic.
You think a firm line of defense for putting kids in cages is “in some cases, this is preferable to what their life would be outside the cages”?
To be clear, the cages are typically holding cells, and HHS facilities are longer-term and look more like this:
From Shiva’s post:
“Womp womp” and “Wa-waaa” (aka sad trombone) are different things? What’s womp-womp?
-Tom
What the hell, why would an asylum seeker pose an elevated risk to his/her kid???
You have an intense love of these political topics, to the exclusion of everything else, and quite a lot of right wing talking points to trot out. That’s strange. Do you happen to write for any right-wing online publications, by any chance? I’m also curious, do you have any opinions about that arrested Utah nurse?
What logic is this? trump supporters are contagious or something?
The media needs to fucking stop with 'let’s find out what motivates trump voters." We know what that is - racism and hatred. Reminder - trump supporters are shit stains on humanity, every last one of them.
https://twitter.com/WajahatAli/status/1009299919348301824
Could have been clearer here. I was referring to bringing a kid into the US without a support network being an elevated risk, not the claim itself.
If you were refering to that, you don’t know how to write a coherent argument (which would be at odds with most of your posting). Or maybe you are changing positions as soon as they become untenable.
A couple of days ago. I made some comments and defended Alan Dershowitiz. I really starting to come around to Alan way of thinking, and while it may not always be practical to do what Alan advocates, it would much more just and in many way simpler country if we just obeyed the Constitution.
Alan was on AC360. He made two main points, first under Article 2. “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” the president has the absolute authority to reverse the decision to prosecute everyone entering the country illegally. Trump is being hypocritical making all the claims that he (and Alan says himself) have argued that has to fire, pardon etc and then not think child separation situation is entirely his decision.
Second, and most importantly we are depriving both children and their parents of their civil liberties. Expanding his argument. Under the 14th Amendment, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Means even non-citizen in the US have rights. Under the 5th and 6th amendment they are entitled to due process and a speedy trial.
This render gman’s arguments about the incentives to commit a misdemeanor to remain in the US, a moot. It also makes my and others handwringing about the immortality equally moot. The only question is a simple one: are we depriving these people of property and liberty without due process? The answer is hell yes, being locked up for more than a week, without seeing a judge is unconstitutional. If Trump administration’s lack of planning and/or Congress lack of funding means there aren’t enough judges, prosecuting attorney’s,and public defenders. Then the President is failing to faithful execute the laws , and that’s tough shit for the government. If some of these people don’t show up (they do have ankle bracelets so it’s not that big of a risk) for their asylum hearing and escape into “interior of the US”. The law of the land requires we follow the constitution and that Trumps (pun intended) making red-state folks feel safe that we’ve kept those dirty brown, drug dealing, murdering, rapist out of the country.
I really think if we faithful protected everyone’s civil liberties (even Paul Manaforts) we’d be so much better off.
I didn’t say deceptive. I said disingenuous. It’s an important distinction and you know that.
To reiterate, you know Trump is doing this deliberately as a deterrent. To suggest that comments to the contrary are anything other than crass prevarication would be naive, and I know you’re not naive. Instead, I think you’re arguing in bad faith, suggestion a loophole as an out when you know better. You personally know better. You know how to have discussions and doing what you’re doing isn’t how to have discussions. It’s how to present a case in an adversarial legal system. You alienate people when you conduct discussions as if you were arguing in a court.
Also, you weren’t banned for anything you posted and I thought you understood that, since I took pains to explain it. In fact, it strikes me as similarly disingenuous to suggest as much.
Actually, I disagree strongly. It is, in fact, not important to “explore” how partisan politics works, has always worked, and will always work during something this exceptionally inhumane, cruel, and immoral. When you put it this way – “it’s important to explore” – you’re just coming across as an an advocate who is similarly inhumane, cruel, and immoral. Which I know personally you aren’t. So what’s going on here? Am I just not understanding you? You’re an articulate guy who can express himself very well, but your “I condemn this, but…” comments in this thread don’t gibe with what I know about you.
-Tom
As I mentioned in another thread, the account was closed because of a mistake on my part. He and I had a conversation about it and since he brought it up here, I’ll leave him to explain the particulars if he’d like. But suffice to say his account wasn’t closed for anything he wrote.
-Tom
And that this is a firm line of defense (my original question) for short-term locking up children in cages, or long-term (since you’ve brought that up) in ‘facilities’?
On this second point, who did Dershowitz say was being denied due process – people with asylum claims, the adults who are going through criminal prosecution w/o asylum claims, or the children? (I agree that non-citizens on US soil gain constitutional rights but I don’t follow the argument beyond that. Have not seen the interview). It sounds like he might be saying the lack of asylum judges for people here (ie, not ports of entry) violates the 14th amendment, which I hadn’t heard before but sounds right.
Yikes. Dude. That’s a seriously fucked up argument on so many levels. If I didn’t actually know you, this is where I would want to stop talking to you. :(
-Tom