Inhumane separation of children from parents

Modellista

Axe_meister said:

modellista said:

Illegal immigrants are criminals.  If they wanted not to be separated from their kids, perhaps they should refrain from involving them in criminal activity.

Or are we to simply allow people to commit crime and be on their way just because they have children?  In other words, "I can't be sent to prison because kids" would become a valid defence.  It would take a particularly bleeding heart to go along with that one.

Either that or you just get rid of all borders and all border controls and see what happens.  Good luck with that.

Illegal immigration is NOT a crime in the US it is a mistemeaner (spelling?), asylum is not either. 
There should be family centres where families can be processed and sent back if need be. Not ripped apart.
If a true crime is commuted then the children should be sent to foster homes, not a mass detention centre.

A quick Google shows me beyond reasonable doubt that it's a crime punishable by jail time. Any source for your assertion that it's a misdemeanour?

Perhaps the time for considering whether you want your family to be "ripped apart" is before you've committed the crime. 

If you believe in borders there is little alternative to the approach being taken now. 

darthed1981

modellista said:

Perhaps the time for considering whether you want your family to be "ripped apart" is before you've committed the crime. 

If you believe in borders there is little alternative to the approach being taken now. 

That only covers the suffering of the parents.

What about the suffering of the children? 

If we accept your unusual logic that cruel punishments fit stupid crimes, (something the US consititution specifically tries to outlaw) and that their suffering is acceptable to maintain borders and keep the US, a fundamentally mongrel nation, pure, but let us run with it anyhow...

This does not in any way diminish the anguish and long-term psychological harm to children of being forcibly taken from their parents?

Cols

“What? I don’t see why you people seem to think this is evil? All I’m doing is using the suffering of children to gain political leverage over my enemies by using their weakness for not liking child cruelty. Haven’t we all done that at one time or another?“

https://newsthump.com/2018/06/19/history-is-littered-with-examples-of-the-good-guys-locking-children-cages-insists-donald-trump/

Chalky

darthed1981 said:

modellista said:

That only covers the suffering of the parents.

What about the suffering of the children?

This does not in any way diminish the anguish and long-term psychological harm to children of being forcibly taken from their parents?

True - but the morality you are offering makes the child's needs paramount, and thereby makes the imprisonment of any parents an immoral act, because the needs of their children are paramount.  It sounds virtuous but in fact is not, and soon decays into lawbreaking without consequence. It can only be judged on a legal case by case basis if it is to be fair and just, not a blanket 'no impact on the children'.

Heartfeltdawn

Chalky said:

darthed1981 said:

modellista said:

That only covers the suffering of the parents.

What about the suffering of the children?

This does not in any way diminish the anguish and long-term psychological harm to children of being forcibly taken from their parents?

True - but the morality you are offering makes the child's needs paramount, and thereby makes the imprisonment of any parents an immoral act, because the needs of their children are paramount.  It sounds virtuous but in fact is not, and soon decays into lawbreaking without consequence. It can only be judged on a legal case by case basis if it is to be fair and just, not a blanket 'no impact on the children'.

A position that has merit and sounds a damn sight more intelligent and thoughtful than anything out of the current administration. Jeff Sessions should be mocked mercilessly for this:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/19/politics/jeff-sessions-immigration-border-separation/index.html

Yes, they were stopping them from leaving the country BY TAKING THEM TO CAMPS WHERE MOST OF THEM WOULD DIE. 

The numbers of children affected from April 19 to May 31 is perfect for Trump: a tiny demographic, win big with your core voter. 

darthed1981

Chalky said:

darthed1981 said:

modellista said:

That only covers the suffering of the parents.

What about the suffering of the children?

This does not in any way diminish the anguish and long-term psychological harm to children of being forcibly taken from their parents?

True - but the morality you are offering makes the child's needs paramount, and thereby makes the imprisonment of any parents an immoral act, because the needs of their children are paramount.  It sounds virtuous but in fact is not, and soon decays into lawbreaking without consequence. It can only be judged on a legal case by case basis if it is to be fair and just, not a blanket 'no impact on the children'.

I'm saying you don't put a policy in place that harms the innocent, especially children.  Yes that should be a blanket thing.  Nothing justifies doing harm to the innocent, least of all the selfish desire of the people of the west not to share our wealth on any level. 

I'm fairly certain a legal case-by-case basis process for immigration itself, exactly what we try to do in Europe, does not involve seperating families.

People aren't criticising the policy because it doesn't allow for blanket immigration, and to suggest that is the only alternative would be obtuse.  You don't need to be cruel to "tackle" migration, you can do it with reception centres, sensitive policing, but not cruelty.  There is no need to ever be cruel.

Most of the world's most terrible problems are because of people being cruel and deciding it is for the greater good.

"If you come here we will hurt you, so be scared" is not the language of freedom and democracy, it is the language of the cruel dictatorships we used to ally ourselves against.

Modellista

darthed1981 said:

Chalky said:

darthed1981 said:

modellista said:

That only covers the suffering of the parents.

What about the suffering of the children?

This does not in any way diminish the anguish and long-term psychological harm to children of being forcibly taken from their parents?

True - but the morality you are offering makes the child's needs paramount, and thereby makes the imprisonment of any parents an immoral act, because the needs of their children are paramount.  It sounds virtuous but in fact is not, and soon decays into lawbreaking without consequence. It can only be judged on a legal case by case basis if it is to be fair and just, not a blanket 'no impact on the children'.

I'm saying you don't put a policy in place that harms the innocent, especially children.  Yes that should be a blanket thing.  Nothing justifies doing harm to the innocent, least of all the selfish desire of the people of the west not to share our wealth on any level. 

I'm fairly certain a legal case-by-case basis process for immigration itself, exactly what we try to do in Europe, does not involve seperating families.

People aren't criticising the policy because it doesn't allow for blanket immigration, and to suggest that is the only alternative would be obtuse.  You don't need to be cruel to "tackle" migration, you can do it with reception centres, sensitive policing, but not cruelty.  There is no need to ever be cruel.

Most of the world's most terrible problems are because of people being cruel and deciding it is for the greater good.

"If you come here we will hurt you, so be scared" is not the language of freedom and democracy, it is the language of the cruel dictatorships we used to ally ourselves against.

So you're seriously saying you would never send anyone with kids to prison?

darthed1981

modellista said:

darthed1981 said:

Chalky said:

darthed1981 said:

modellista said:

That only covers the suffering of the parents.

What about the suffering of the children?

This does not in any way diminish the anguish and long-term psychological harm to children of being forcibly taken from their parents?

True - but the morality you are offering makes the child's needs paramount, and thereby makes the imprisonment of any parents an immoral act, because the needs of their children are paramount.  It sounds virtuous but in fact is not, and soon decays into lawbreaking without consequence. It can only be judged on a legal case by case basis if it is to be fair and just, not a blanket 'no impact on the children'.

I'm saying you don't put a policy in place that harms the innocent, especially children.  Yes that should be a blanket thing.  Nothing justifies doing harm to the innocent, least of all the selfish desire of the people of the west not to share our wealth on any level. 

I'm fairly certain a legal case-by-case basis process for immigration itself, exactly what we try to do in Europe, does not involve seperating families.

People aren't criticising the policy because it doesn't allow for blanket immigration, and to suggest that is the only alternative would be obtuse.  You don't need to be cruel to "tackle" migration, you can do it with reception centres, sensitive policing, but not cruelty.  There is no need to ever be cruel.

Most of the world's most terrible problems are because of people being cruel and deciding it is for the greater good.

"If you come here we will hurt you, so be scared" is not the language of freedom and democracy, it is the language of the cruel dictatorships we used to ally ourselves against.

So you're seriously saying you would never send anyone with kids to prison?

Seriously, a straw man?  You are better than that mate.

I'm saying that the Trump policy is using cruelty to children as a deterrent to would-be migrants, and that putting in a policy like this to tackle immigration is unnecessarily cruel to children.

We aren't talking murderers, rapists, serial thugs or the things you genuinely need to jail people for.  We are talking about people who want to make a better home for themselves and a better life.

I agree, you cannot ignore the swing to the right wing that general distaste for immigration is causing in the west, or the desire of many of the people to restrict it.  There is no need to deal with it with cruelty though, as I said.

Modellista

Chalky said:

True - but the morality you are offering makes the child's needs paramount, and thereby makes the imprisonment of any parents an immoral act, because the needs of their children are paramount.  It sounds virtuous but in fact is not, and soon decays into lawbreaking without consequence. It can only be judged on a legal case by case basis if it is to be fair and just, not a blanket 'no impact on the children'.

This is exactly how I see it, too.  It's easy to say "think of the children" and let all your decisions be made by that one piece of sympathy.  But then of course anyone who has kids can break the law with impunity, knowing they won't be punished in any way that impacts their children negatively.  Essentially, no punishment is available - even simple fines affect the kids.

So your initial sympathy for the wellbeing of children essentially backfires into the above situation - people with kids can do as they please.  So suddenly all the kids of the law abiding have to live in lawless anarchy.

Policy makers should make decisions based on population-level benefits rather than individual-level benefits.  This is anathema to many these days, I'm sure, but Spock was right - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  Since we still have borders in this world, they need to be policed, and those that break the law should be punished as society sees fit.

I'm not denying it must be shit to have a criminal for a parent, though.

Modellista

darthed1981 said:

modellista said:

So you're seriously saying you would never send anyone with kids to prison?

Seriously, a straw man?  You are better than that mate.

I'm saying that the Trump policy is using cruelty to children as a deterrent to would-be migrants, and that putting in a policy like this to tackle immigration is unnecessarily cruel to children.

We aren't talking murderers, rapists, serial thugs or the things you genuinely need to jail people for.  We are talking about people who want to make a better home for themselves and a better life.

I agree, you cannot ignore the swing to the right wing that general distaste for immigration is causing in the west, or the desire of many of the people to restrict it.  There is no need to deal with it with cruelty though, as I said.

How is that a straw man?  An illegal immigrant is a criminal.  There are ways to immigrate legally, and illegal immigrants, by definition, have made a decision to break the law rather than follow it.  The only way it's a straw man is by believing breaking immigration law is somehow different to any other kind of law and due process should somehow not need to be followed.  

Either you deal with the criminal in the way the law states, or change the law.  I'd be happy to debate either.  But this weird thinking that because it's an immigration offence somehow the law should be chucked in the bin just doesn't make sense to me.

To say these people just "want to make a better home/life for themselves"  is justifying breaking the law to achieve it.  I'd personally would like a better home and life for myself but have been able to prevent myself from breaking the law to achieve it because I know there are consequences.

Like being away from my kids.

darthed1981

modellista said:

How is that a straw man?  An illegal immigrant is a criminal.  There are ways to immigrate legally, and illegal immigrants, by definition, have made a decision to break the law rather than follow it.  The only way it's a straw man is by believing breaking immigration law is somehow different to any other kind of law and due process should somehow not need to be followed.  

Either you deal with the criminal in the way the law states, or change the law.  I'd be happy to debate either.  But this weird thinking that because it's an immigration offence somehow the law should be chucked in the bin just doesn't make sense to me.

To say these people just "want to make a better home/life for themselves"  is justifying breaking the law to achieve it.  I'd personally would like a better home and life for myself but have been able to prevent myself from breaking the law to achieve it because I know there are consequences.

Like being away from my kids.

It is the definition of a straw man, whether it was intentional one, well I will take your word it wasn't if so given.

I've no idea what the fact of the law has to do with it though.  The US has enforced immigration law for years by arresting and detaining families while they are processed, and they were kept together.

The controversy in the news is the new process seperating parents from children.  This seems to be a deliberately cruel step designed to deter future migrants.

The only way you could in any way compare yourself to a Mexican migrant is if you happen to also be a Mexican migrant and you chose the legal route.  Otherwise you are comparing your incomparable privilege of being born British to the rather crappy fate of being born Mexican, which is loopy.

If your fundamental point is "cruel punishments are ok if they deal with big problems like migration" then I disagree with every point of that statement, and think you are being rather heartless given it is hurting children.

I get your point, but the policy is cruel, and hurts the innocent for reasons that cannot simply boil down to "don't do crime, crime is bad mmm'kay"

I'm not sure we can find any common ground there!

Seriously it is just a weird thing to put across, there is a massive, massive list of options between "do nothing" and "take their kids to discourage others like we are in a Dickens novel", literally a massive list.  There is no reason to be this cruel.

JezWynd

darthed1981 said:

modellista said:

How is that a straw man?  An illegal immigrant is a criminal.  There are ways to immigrate legally, and illegal immigrants, by definition, have made a decision to break the law rather than follow it.  The only way it's a straw man is by believing breaking immigration law is somehow different to any other kind of law and due process should somehow not need to be followed.  

Either you deal with the criminal in the way the law states, or change the law.  I'd be happy to debate either.  But this weird thinking that because it's an immigration offence somehow the law should be chucked in the bin just doesn't make sense to me.

To say these people just "want to make a better home/life for themselves"  is justifying breaking the law to achieve it.  I'd personally would like a better home and life for myself but have been able to prevent myself from breaking the law to achieve it because I know there are consequences.

Like being away from my kids.

It is the definition of a straw man, whether it was intentional one, well I will take your word it wasn't if so given.

I've no idea what the fact of the law has to do with it though.  The US has enforced immigration law for years by arresting and detaining families while they are processed, and they were kept together.

I think the current situation has arisen due to a court ruling during Obama's presidency that said children cannot be detained with their parents. As a result of that ruling the catch and release program was instituted. Trump and Sessions are using that court ruling to detain the children up separately from their parents in a social welfare type setup (with cages). It's all about semantics and wilful cruelty to try and stop people approaching the border.

It's a reap what you sow situation. They're sowing at present. God knows what they'll reap down the line. (Sessions isn't the only one who can get his bible on ).

Chalky

Can we agree on two facts.

First, having children or any other innocent dependants means that if you are punished for your crime then your innocent dependants will be impacted, potentially in life-changing ways. But the existence of such impact should not protect you from justice and due punishment. Therefore, it is acceptable that the punishments imposed by the law will impact the innocent dependants.  Even to the cruel levels of seperating the child from their beloved criminal parent, be they a bank robber, killer, forger, repeat offender for drink-driving, guilty of contempt of court, etc.

Second, Trump is using the current law and ruling to apply punishment of seperation during the process, before justice has concluded.  He is, in effect, elevating the seriousness of the crime of illegal immigration to be more in line with far more dangerous crimes. 

He is being wilfully cruel as a deterrent.  I doubt it will lose him many votes.  Many Americans feel ambivalent towards him but I'd still bet on him getting re-elected in the absence of any new contender.  They dislike him as a person but they like him for not being a typical Washington politician.

darthed1981

Im personally out of this one, because I think equating what is happening in the US with the normal application of the criminal justice system is a bit scary.

So many horrific cruel abuses in history have been justified to the public by condemning the victims as criminals, I cant help but see a dark end to all this. 

JezWynd

Chalky said:

He is being wilfully cruel as a deterrent.  I doubt it will lose him many votes.  Many Americans feel ambivalent towards him but I'd still bet on him getting re-elected in the absence of any new contender.  They dislike him as a person but they like him for not being a typical Washington politician.

I think it will lose him votes; how many is uncertain. It will definitely appeal to his core support base but they'll follow him whatever he does. If the tariffs situation gets out of hand that could hurt them too.

But you're right, the Democrats need a candidate that can create some excitement and reasoned push-back. Emotional appeals to decency aren't going to work in a society driven by money and status.

Several responses in this thread stress that the rule of law should be obeyed but what if the law is a bad one? Trump has done a good job of demonising these people and while there are undoubtedly going to be some bad apples, I'd wager the vast majority are simply migrants seeking a better life, much the same as 9/10th of Americans before them. According to trump, America is on the up, there's jobs galore, investment is up. In this scenario (his own) these people will be needed to keep the wheels of industry turning. They trumpet the figure of 50,000 crossing the border monthly, which sounds a lot but as a percentage of USA population thats 0.184% annually. Factor in that many of these people are fleeing economic and social deprivations worsened by the usa's insatiable desire for cocaine and the CIA's incessant meddling in Central American affairs, then a little payback could be seen to be in order.

Hadley Freeman has a good opinion piece on this today - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/19/donald-trump-child-cruelty-american-pedigree

Fretwired

**STOP PRESS **

Trump has demanded Congress urgently pass a bill to stop parents and children being separated.

Cols

Fretwired said:

**STOP PRESS **

Trump has demanded Congress urgently pass a bill to stop parents and children being separated.

Does it need a bill?  I’m reasonably sure that the Trump administration can unilaterally revoke the policy.

Emp_Fab

Let me guess....  any day now, after a bill is rushed through, he will claim all the credit for ending this (Trump voice) "Terrible big problem that was all Hillary's idea.  The Democrats split poor families up and I have put a stop to it."

Fretwired

Cols said:

Fretwired said:

**STOP PRESS **

Trump has demanded Congress urgently pass a bill to stop parents and children being separated.

Does it need a bill?  I’m reasonably sure that the Trump administration can unilaterally revoke the policy.

Needs a bill apparently for the reason I stated before.

Trump says migrant separations are ‘nasty’

President Trump has told Congress to pass new immigration legislation that deals with the controversial policy of separating undocumented immigrant families entering the US.

The president told a meeting of Republicans in the House of Representatives last night to pass a bill. “We have to take care of separation,” one congressman quoted him as saying, according to the Wall Street Journal. “It’s too nasty, it’s too nasty.”

“We had a great meeting,” he said afterwards, adding that he backed both immigration bills under discussion in the legislature.

olafgarten

Cols said:

Fretwired said:

**STOP PRESS **

Trump has demanded Congress urgently pass a bill to stop parents and children being separated.

Does it need a bill?  I’m reasonably sure that the Trump administration can unilaterally revoke the policy.

Trump can revoke it without Congress but it's unconstitutional and I don't think Congress will have an issue with passing it especially with all of the outrage in the media.