5 ms·

>part of a backlash against the agency’s policy of separating children from their families at the U.S. border. Is that a policy that ICE can simply drop?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gameswithgo 8y ago
trump/sessions specifically mandated this policy.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  How is this policy changed from when Obama was in office again? The fakenews that started all this was a few photos from 2014. Russia didn’t stick, yelling about guns didn’t stick, now that Trump wants the wall funded it’s going to be an assault on immigration. Right or wrong, good policy or bad, if “Trump” is coming out of your mouth about this and Clinton, Bush and Obama aren’t... you’re being played.
  - refoundglory 8y ago
    > Immigrant families are being separated primarily because the Trump administration in April began to prosecute as many border-crossing offenses as possible. This “zero-tolerance policy” applies to all adults, regardless of whether they cross alone or with their children. > The Justice Department can’t prosecute children along with their parents, so the natural result of the zero-tolerance policy has been a sharp rise in family separations. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/... Stop spending so much effort trying to sound clever and put it towards actually understanding what you're talking about.
  - cr1895 8y ago
    >How is this policy changed from when Obama was in office again? The fakenews that started all this was a few photos from 2014. Under the Obama administration, families were not separated because the parents were not jailed. The photos to which you refer pertain to unaccompanied minors. What is happening now is that the Trump administration is jailing parents and removing children from their custody; in some instances, deporting the parents back to Central American without their own children. This is explicitely a discretionary change in policy ordered by Sessions and the Trump administration. The Obama adminstration did not have a policy of separating children from their families.
    - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK92pCdBKBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK92pCdBKBs Seems like you're 100% wrong on that.
  - wilsonnb2 8y ago
    For the record, "Russia" did stick. We still get news about the special counsel's investigation on a regular basis. We have plenty of evidence of people in the Trump campaign meeting with Russians and lying about it. I believe the special counsel's investigation is supposed to finish up some time this summer, so we will probably be hearing more about it in the near future. The only reason it seems like it didn't stick is because congressional Republicans and the conservative media benefit protecting Trump.
star-castle 8y ago
Ideally we can move to a more humane system of sending both children and parents right back across the border.
firic 8y ago
Not without the senate changing a ruling that has been in effect since before Trump or Trump choosing not to enforce a law that he is required to enforce.
- zimpenfish 8y ago
  I've seen a lot of people far more well-informed about US politics and law say that there is no such law - this is a pure policy decision by Trump. Can you cite the law he's required to enforce here?
  - firic 8y ago
    Sure: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/06/15-56434.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/06/1...
    - makomk 8y ago
      That does seem pretty unambiguous to me: if they're holding the parents for immigration offences, by law they have to separate their kids from them because they cannot imprison the kids too. I think the US media is outright making people less accurately informed on this. The most I've seen is a brief mention that "US protocol prohibits detaining children with their parents because the children are not charged with a crime, while the parents are", without explaining what this means and the fact that this is a legal settlement that the US administration cannot modify.
  - makomk 8y ago
    To give you some idea of how badly you and everyone else has been had by the media: in the hours since you posted this comment, the New York Times found out that Trump was planning to stop separating families at the border and simultaneously decided that actually, this legal restriction - which the entire press had convinced everyone Trump just made up - exists after all and will probably stop him from doing so. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-order.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigra... Not only is everyone going along with the new narrative, they're confident that Trump supporters are the ones who are too blind to see that today's talking point contradicts the previous talking point.
Consultant32452 8y ago
My post is describing the status quo as I understand it. I'm neither supporting nor condemning it. There is an important legal distinction which determines whether or not you're arrested and separated from your family: asylum seeker vs criminal migrant. If you walk up to the border patrol checkpoint and request asylum you will not be separated from your family. Once we make sure you're not a known criminal we basically let you go and put you in the queue for the asylum process. Conversely, if you attempt to cross the border between checkpoints you are generally an economically motivated undocumented migrant. In this case, if we catch you the first time we'll essentially let you go home with a warning. The second time you do this it's a felony and you go down the felony/criminal process path. If you go down that path you are under arrest, and if you're under arrest in the United States we don't put your kids in jail with you. Children are remanded to the HHS who will either place the children with extended family, in foster care, or other things like that. So what happened and what's changed? If you're an economically motivated migrant the best outcome is you scoot across the border undetected. The second best outcome is you get asylum status (has restrictions like you can't work). The worst outcome is you go to jail. People began gaming the system, attempting to cross the border illegally and when caught would claim to be asylum seekers. The policy difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama's administration was basically more likely to let you get away with going on the asylum track even if you'd tried to cross the border illegally. So as it stands today ICE (if Trump ordered it) could go back to the Obama policy of granting people who cross illegally and then claim asylum status only after they've been caught. This would greatly increase the number of people on the asylum track (no separation) and decrease the number of people on the criminal track (separation). Or I guess technically Trump could order ICE not arrest anyone crossing the border illegally. You give them a court date, release them to the public, and hope they show up. The concern here is the incentives. However, without a change to the law, ICE has no choice but to separate the families when you get arrested. The case law in question is the 1997 Flores settlement, a class action lawsuit which resulted in essentially saying ICE had to release the children since they are not being charged with a crime.
- pluma 8y ago
  That's not entirely true, though. Affirmative asylum seekers have been deported aggressively as well: https://eu.freep.com/story/news/2018/05/17/troy-cile-precetaj-deported-albania/619066002/ https://eu.freep.com/story/news/2018/05/17/troy-cile-preceta...
nmeofthestate 8y ago
I believe it is a consequence of Trump's push to enforcing border controls with the existing legislation. It requires illegal immigrants to be sent to federal jail until their case is looked at, and kids can't legally go with you to jail (obviously). If they want to enforce the border they will need to put in place a less inhuman/bad looking system. In the past presumably the way round this was to not enforce the legislation - let people in?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gameswithgo 8y ago

trump/sessions specifically mandated this policy.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
How is this policy changed from when Obama was in office again? The fakenews that started all this was a few photos from 2014. Russia didn’t stick, yelling about guns didn’t stick, now that Trump wants the wall funded it’s going to be an assault on immigration. Right or wrong, good policy or bad, if “Trump” is coming out of your mouth about this and Clinton, Bush and Obama aren’t... you’re being played.
- refoundglory 8y ago
  > Immigrant families are being separated primarily because the Trump administration in April began to prosecute as many border-crossing offenses as possible. This “zero-tolerance policy” applies to all adults, regardless of whether they cross alone or with their children. > The Justice Department can’t prosecute children along with their parents, so the natural result of the zero-tolerance policy has been a sharp rise in family separations. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/... Stop spending so much effort trying to sound clever and put it towards actually understanding what you're talking about.
- cr1895 8y ago
  >How is this policy changed from when Obama was in office again? The fakenews that started all this was a few photos from 2014. Under the Obama administration, families were not separated because the parents were not jailed. The photos to which you refer pertain to unaccompanied minors. What is happening now is that the Trump administration is jailing parents and removing children from their custody; in some instances, deporting the parents back to Central American without their own children. This is explicitely a discretionary change in policy ordered by Sessions and the Trump administration. The Obama adminstration did not have a policy of separating children from their families.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK92pCdBKBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK92pCdBKBs Seems like you're 100% wrong on that.
- wilsonnb2 8y ago
  For the record, "Russia" did stick. We still get news about the special counsel's investigation on a regular basis. We have plenty of evidence of people in the Trump campaign meeting with Russians and lying about it. I believe the special counsel's investigation is supposed to finish up some time this summer, so we will probably be hearing more about it in the near future. The only reason it seems like it didn't stick is because congressional Republicans and the conservative media benefit protecting Trump.

star-castle 8y ago

Ideally we can move to a more humane system of sending both children and parents right back across the border.

firic 8y ago

Not without the senate changing a ruling that has been in effect since before Trump or Trump choosing not to enforce a law that he is required to enforce.

zimpenfish 8y ago
I've seen a lot of people far more well-informed about US politics and law say that there is no such law - this is a pure policy decision by Trump. Can you cite the law he's required to enforce here?
- firic 8y ago
  Sure: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/06/15-56434.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/06/1...
  - makomk 8y ago
    That does seem pretty unambiguous to me: if they're holding the parents for immigration offences, by law they have to separate their kids from them because they cannot imprison the kids too. I think the US media is outright making people less accurately informed on this. The most I've seen is a brief mention that "US protocol prohibits detaining children with their parents because the children are not charged with a crime, while the parents are", without explaining what this means and the fact that this is a legal settlement that the US administration cannot modify.
- makomk 8y ago
  To give you some idea of how badly you and everyone else has been had by the media: in the hours since you posted this comment, the New York Times found out that Trump was planning to stop separating families at the border and simultaneously decided that actually, this legal restriction - which the entire press had convinced everyone Trump just made up - exists after all and will probably stop him from doing so. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-order.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigra... Not only is everyone going along with the new narrative, they're confident that Trump supporters are the ones who are too blind to see that today's talking point contradicts the previous talking point.

Consultant32452 8y ago

My post is describing the status quo as I understand it. I'm neither supporting nor condemning it. There is an important legal distinction which determines whether or not you're arrested and separated from your family: asylum seeker vs criminal migrant. If you walk up to the border patrol checkpoint and request asylum you will not be separated from your family. Once we make sure you're not a known criminal we basically let you go and put you in the queue for the asylum process. Conversely, if you attempt to cross the border between checkpoints you are generally an economically motivated undocumented migrant. In this case, if we catch you the first time we'll essentially let you go home with a warning. The second time you do this it's a felony and you go down the felony/criminal process path. If you go down that path you are under arrest, and if you're under arrest in the United States we don't put your kids in jail with you. Children are remanded to the HHS who will either place the children with extended family, in foster care, or other things like that. So what happened and what's changed? If you're an economically motivated migrant the best outcome is you scoot across the border undetected. The second best outcome is you get asylum status (has restrictions like you can't work). The worst outcome is you go to jail. People began gaming the system, attempting to cross the border illegally and when caught would claim to be asylum seekers. The policy difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama's administration was basically more likely to let you get away with going on the asylum track even if you'd tried to cross the border illegally. So as it stands today ICE (if Trump ordered it) could go back to the Obama policy of granting people who cross illegally and then claim asylum status only after they've been caught. This would greatly increase the number of people on the asylum track (no separation) and decrease the number of people on the criminal track (separation). Or I guess technically Trump could order ICE not arrest anyone crossing the border illegally. You give them a court date, release them to the public, and hope they show up. The concern here is the incentives. However, without a change to the law, ICE has no choice but to separate the families when you get arrested. The case law in question is the 1997 Flores settlement, a class action lawsuit which resulted in essentially saying ICE had to release the children since they are not being charged with a crime.

pluma 8y ago
That's not entirely true, though. Affirmative asylum seekers have been deported aggressively as well: https://eu.freep.com/story/news/2018/05/17/troy-cile-precetaj-deported-albania/619066002/ https://eu.freep.com/story/news/2018/05/17/troy-cile-preceta...

nmeofthestate 8y ago

I believe it is a consequence of Trump's push to enforcing border controls with the existing legislation. It requires illegal immigrants to be sent to federal jail until their case is looked at, and kids can't legally go with you to jail (obviously). If they want to enforce the border they will need to put in place a less inhuman/bad looking system. In the past presumably the way round this was to not enforce the legislation - let people in?