do you think Trump sealed his own fate?

[Hanafuda]

Uh-huh. The Republicans love law and order. Until it comes to their own leaders facing responsibility for illegal acts.

Well, that's a different topic. But I don't think either party has a great track record on that issue. And, I'm not a registered Republican if that was the insinuation.

 

[Lacius]

I dispute your claim that I haven't given you a direct answer.

1. Acknowledged that parents are taking risks; didn't answer the question.
2. Acknowledged that parents are taking risks; didn't answer the question.
3. Acknowledged that it's a consequence and not a punishment; didn't answer the question.
4. Said that between the separation policy and a secure border, he would choose a secure border; didn't answer the question.
5. Said it shouldn't be a designed part of the punishment but said nothing about it as a consequence; didn't answer the question. Edit: Also said that between families coming across the border and being separated and families not coming across the border, he would choose that they not come across the border; didn't answer the question.
6. Merely disputed my claim that he hasn't given a direct answer; didn't answer the question.

 

[Hanafuda]

1. Acknowledged that parents are taking risks; didn't answer the question.
2. Acknowledged that parents are taking risks; didn't answer the question.
3. Acknowledged that it's a consequence and not a punishment; didn't answer the question.
4. Said that between the separation policy and a secure border, he would choose a secure border; didn't answer the question.
5. Said it shouldn't be a designed part of the punishment but said nothing about it as a consequence; didn't answer the question.
6. Merely disputed my claim that he hasn't given a direct answer; didn't answer the question.

No, I specifically stated above that I don't want to see families separated like this. So don't cross our border, because that makes you a criminal and that happens to criminals.

I also said that I do not think separating parents from children should be a specifically delineated punishment for crossing the border, any more than it is for other crimes. But it is a common consequence for committing crime(s), so it's not surprising or extraordinary. Keeping criminal defendants in custody with their children though ... that is unusual, but I guess we're gonna do that now.

 

[Lacius]

No, I specifically stated above that I don't want to see families separated like this. So don't cross our border, because that makes you a criminal and that happens to criminals.

You're saying that between families coming across the border and being separated and families not coming across the border, you would choose that they not come across the border. That doesn't answer the question. It also ignores how I phrased the question earlier. See the revised #5 on my list.

I also said that I do not think separating parents from children should be a specifically delineated punishment for crossing the border, any more than it is for other crimes.

You said it shouldn't be a designed part of the punishment but said nothing about it as a consequence. That doesn't answer my question. See #5 on my list.

But it is a common consequence for committing crime(s), so it's not surprising or extraordinary. Keeping criminal defendants in custody with their children is unusual, but I guess we're gonna do that now.

The policy you're describing regarding criminal parents is for the well being of the child. Can you tell me anything about Trump's child-separation policy that is about the well being of the child?

You keep using the examples of armed robbers and murders with regard to child-separation, which is in part why I asked if you thought child-separation among border-crossers was a punishment that fit the alleged crime, but you deflected with an argument about the difference between a punishment and a consequence without answering the question.

Edit: It should be noted that when children are separated from murderers and armed robbers, they're usually put in the care of someone like a family member, not put into cages at child camps.

 

[Xzi]

Well, that's a different topic. But I don't think either party has a great track record on that issue.

Neither party has ever had a president like Trump before, so that's a moot point. I'd be saying the same things if GWB or Obama had child internment camps. Justice applied only to the poorest and weakest among us is no justice at all.

 

[Hanafuda]

Trump's child-separation policy

Show me where the US code or any federal regulation was changed to effectuate 'child-separation' where it wasn't in the law before. Show me how (at least before the EO today) the Federal government could be in compliance with the law without separate facilities for minors.

 

[Xzi]

Show me where the US code or any federal regulation was changed to effectuate 'child-separation' where it wasn't in the law before.

There's video footage of Jeff Sessions talking about implementing the policy. He cites the Bible for justification, I shit you not. There's also footage of Trump saying, "you have to take the children."

 

[Lacius]

Show me where the US code or any federal regulation was changed to effectuate 'child-separation' where it wasn't in the law before.

1. You're dodging my question again.
2. The policy is an enforcement aspect, not a written law or regulation.
3. When the policy was unveiled, it was described in part as child-separation.

 

[Fugelmir]

Doesn't matter whether they are criminals are not. These are kids we are talking about, some really young. You have to be heartless to not see what is wrong here. What about if your children were taken away from you? How would you feel then?

If you illegally cross into a country, it makes sense that your children are taken from you. These are people who are dodging the legitimate ports of entry and caught. The children are treated well.

If you want to keep your children, stay where you are and raise them. It's simple.

 

[Xzi]

If you illegally cross into a country, it makes sense that your children are taken from you. The children are treated well.

In what twisted form of logic does that make sense? "We dislike illegals being in our country so we're only going to deport the adults and keep the children." Also, they're being stuck in re-purposed Wal-Marts that we're not allowed to see inside. Nobody can give us confirmation that they're being treated well. All we have is that audio clip which suggests the opposite.

 

[Hanafuda]

1. You're dodging my question again.

Your question is should a person who has committed an illegal border crossing and also committed child endangerment and smuggling of a minor over that border should be separated from the child? If they're to be incarcerated pending the outcome of those criminal charges, then yes. Same as with any other adult put in "jail."

1. The policy is an enforcement aspect, not a written law or regulation.

If you're getting at prosecutorial discretion, then you're saying you want the executive branch to just ignore the laws passed by the legislative branch. Not good. Prosecutorial discretion is supposed to be applied on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts, not wholesale avoidance of enforcing the law.

1. When the policy was unveiled, it was described in part as child-separation.

By operation of the law as written, it is. Federal regulation requires that children that come into federal custody as a result of a parent being charged criminally can only be held in 'detention' for 72 hours. After that they have to be placed with DHHS. This WaPo article says its taking an average 45 days to place the kids with other relatives or into foster care after that. So in announcing that they were going to actively enforce the law as-written, making the inevitability of this regulatory mess requiring the children being separated was just fair warning.

 

[Lacius]

Your question is should a person who has committed an illegal border crossing and also committed child endangerment and smuggling of a minor over that border should be separated from the child? If they're to be incarcerated pending the outcome of those criminal charges, then yes.

Thank you for finally answering my question. That would make you opposed to today's executive order then.

 

[Hanafuda]

Thank you for finally answering my question. That would make you opposed to today's executive order then.

Hmmm. Opposed to it? Yes, as a special exception made for a certain type of criminal defendant, I find it concerning. As a practical/human matter, no I'm not opposed to it and didn't like that families were being separated by the operation of law. But I don't hold Trump responsible for the law saying and doing what it does - all he ordered was that the law be enforced and followed. That criminal activity results in regrettable and even heart-wrenching circumstances is nothing new. But that just goes again to the root of our differences -- this wouldn't happen if they didn't enter our country illegally in the first place.

 

[Lacius]

Your question is should a person who has committed an illegal border crossing and also committed child endangerment and smuggling of a minor over that border should be separated from the child? If they're to be incarcerated pending the outcome of those criminal charges, then yes.

As a practical/human matter, no I'm not opposed to it and didn't like that families were being separated by the operation of law.

Which is it?

 

[Hanafuda]

Which is it?

Ah, see that's where we were having some communication issues. You want to know how I personally feeeeeeeel about it? Sure, I don't like it. I understand they're not violent people, if they're bringing kids with them then they're probably doing so to obtain a better life for them, etc. I get all that. It's illegal and they have no right to try except by legal processes, but I get it. But the other side I was considering is how this works in criminal law. If the government is going to follow the law as-written (and Trump's EO doesn't really change it, it just end-runs it) then the kids can't be kept in criminal detention with the adults who are being prosecuted. I can't think of any legal reason to carve an exception for this particular type of incarcerated person vs. others incarcerated for other crimes. It's not a wise precedent.

 

[Darkshade]

Which is it?

I can't say this is a topic I really want get into, but you've asked him the same question about 7 times now and he's been pretty straightforward with answering it:

• He doesn't like children getting separated from their parents as a general rule (Who would?).
  
• However, if those parents have broken the law and the repercussions for that indirectly cause a child to be separated from their parents then so be it.

If you break the law, you don't have the luxury of having it both ways.

Just because something evokes an emotional response doesn't necessarily mean it's an overall negative.
As has already been pointed out - nobody is forcefully taking children away from their parents as punishment (although it is a side-effect), they're being punished for the crime of illegally immigrating.
Don't break the law and you won't be punished for it (And in turn, will avoid being separated from your children).
I'm not from the US, but it's not a hard concept to understand.

 

[chrisrlink]

don't forget bout the Mexican drug lords if you escape from them and you get turned away better start digging your grave and don't go saying "but other gangs do that..." not at the Cartel's level picture being tortured for days,weeks before getting murdered you'll be begging for the drug lords for your execution there has been one report a deported teen just got killed by the cartel only a week after forced deportation why you think travel advisories are in place for mexico because the cartel kidnaps foreigners for extortion as political bargaining chips

 

[Fugelmir]

In what twisted form of logic does that make sense? "We dislike illegals being in our country so we're only going to deport the adults and keep the children." Also, they're being stuck in re-purposed Wal-Marts that we're not allowed to see inside. Nobody can give us confirmation that they're being treated well. All we have is that audio clip which suggests the opposite.

It's not as simple as mainstream media depicts. In many cases, they can't even determine if they are legitimately related.

 

[Xzi]

It's not as simple as mainstream media depicts. In many cases, they can't even determine if they are legitimately related.

A Youtube spinshop as a source, yikes.

 

[lordkaos]

don't forget bout the Mexican drug lords if you escape from them and you get turned away better start digging your grave and don't go saying "but other gangs do that..." not at the Cartel's level picture being tortured for days,weeks before getting murdered you'll be begging for the drug lords for your execution there has been one report a deported teen just got killed by the cartel only a week after forced deportation why you think travel advisories are in place for mexico because the cartel kidnaps foreigners for extortion as political bargaining chips

where did you get that info about the kidnappings?