US immigration breaking up families

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I haven’t seen anyone in the media advocate for “letting the entire population of Guatemala come here”. I’ve seen some criticism from the media and other Conservative Republicans about separating familes.

I support detaining illegals coming across the border, but I support keeping familes detained as a group, not to be separated.

But you do not hear the media say, that Trump's executive order is in direct violation of a court order and it is literally illegal to charge these people with the crime and deport them unless you hold the children somewhere other than with criminals. Perhaps the DOJ's efforts (which began today) to convince the court to change Flores will be successful in the light of what that policy really looks like. But I doubt it.

As the law stands, you cannot choose to keep the children with the parents unless you choose not to charge the parents. Which means letting them come in. So while you may not be hearing the media, it is because you are not listening for the gaps between their lines.

Well, this means Trump is not following the law because he just gave the order not to separate familes crossing the border illegally. Also, I get most of my news from Reuters, and if you’re going to call them left-wing, I’m going to laugh my ass off.

[Greater Miami Shores]

'Yeah yeah, I know. Anything Mr. Trump does is holy and shame on Obama for not putting zero tolerance policies in place that would make it easier for the current admin to bitch and moan about. Mhm."
Lol, you are talking about the Great Deporter In Chief Obama, who deported whenever he felt like it politically, stopped it whenever he felt like it politically and then deported again and ended the Cuban Wet Foot Dry Foot Policy, turning Cubans back at the Mexican border, when he felt like it politically, for his selfish so called legacy on Cuba, and appeasement of the Castro Brothers.

I'm sorry that you're upset that Cubans have to follow the same rules as everyone else now. =^)

Conservative Moraility my friend, that post cant be directed at me, I said I supported the end of the Dry Foot, Wet Foot Policy as unfair to other immigrant groups trying to do the same thing, I hope that post is directed at "Nanatsu no Tsuki, a Lady I like and have exchanged friendly TGs before, despite our political differences.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm sorry that you're upset that Cubans have to follow the same rules as everyone else now. =^)

Conservative Moraility my friend, that post cant be directed at me, I said I supported the end of the Dry Foot, Wet Foot Policy as unfair to other immigrant groups trying to do the same thing, I hope that post is directed at "Nanatsu no Tsuki, a Lady I like and have exchanged friendly TGs before, despite our political differences.

Then I apologize for assuming.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Conservative Moraility my friend, that post cant be directed at me, I said I supported the end of the Dry Foot, Wet Foot Policy as unfair to other immigrant groups trying to do the same thing, I hope that post is directed at "Nanatsu no Tsuki, a Lady I like and have exchanged friendly TGs before, despite our political differences.

Then I apologize for assuming.

Its ok Conservative Morality my friend, the beauty of NS is we can agree to disagree on any issues and RP together as NS Friends, contrary to popular belief by many on NS, despite my strong anti illegal immigration views, I am not a bad guy dude, lol.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Then I apologize for assuming.

Its ok Conservative Morality my friend, the beauty of NS is we can agree to disagree on any issues and RP together as NS Friends, contrary to popular belief by many on NS, despite my strong anti illegal immigration views, I am not a bad guy dude, lol.

I have no issue with you, personally. But I do have an issue with what you stand behind. If you're against the Dry Foot Wet Foot policy, good. However, when you claim that your people legally try to enter the US (and that's not always the case), I want you to remember that there are many Latin Americans who also wait a long time to be granted access to the US legally.

[Mr Conservative]

But you do not hear the media say, that Trump's executive order is in direct violation of a court order and it is literally illegal to charge these people with the crime and deport them unless you hold the children somewhere other than with criminals. Perhaps the DOJ's efforts (which began today) to convince the court to change Flores will be successful in the light of what that policy really looks like. But I doubt it.

As the law stands, you cannot choose to keep the children with the parents unless you choose not to charge the parents. Which means letting them come in. So while you may not be hearing the media, it is because you are not listening for the gaps between their lines.

Well, this means Trump is not following the law because he just gave the order not to separate familes crossing the border illegally. Also, I get most of my news from Reuters, and if you’re going to call them left-wing, I’m going to laugh my ass off.

Correct, Trump's current plan is not legal and he is aware of this. The Department of Justice today requested the court reverse the Flores decision which would make the executive order legal. Either that request will be granted, and the law will change which allows Trump to stop separating families, or, more likely, the court does not reverse the decision which means the government will have to start separating children from their families (or, choose to not charge people crossing the border illegally with any children, thus opening the flood gates wide again).

Flores gives a time limit of 20 days. So the court has just short of three weeks to grant Trump's DOJ request to change the law. Otherwise, yes, the policy of keeping families together will remain illegal and they will have to be separated.

[Mr Conservative]

Correct, Trump's current plan is not legal and he is aware of this. The Department of Justice today requested the court reverse the Flores decision which would make the executive order legal. Either that request will be granted, and the law will change which allows Trump to stop separating families, or, more likely, the court does not reverse the decision which means the government will have to start separating children from their families (or, choose to not charge people crossing the border illegally with any children, thus opening the flood gates wide again).

Flores gives a time limit of 20 days. So the court has just short of three weeks to grant Trump's DOJ request to change the law. Otherwise, yes, the policy of keeping families together will remain illegal and they will have to be separated.

But doesn't the US Supreme Court have the last say over the lower courts, and what do you think the US Supreme Court would say?

The Supreme Court certainly could reverse a lower court. As of this post it has not done so, so that's not very important. The possibility that maybe the Supreme Court will one day reverse the decision of a lower court does not mean the decision can be ignored until that has happened or definitely not happened however.

Flores is a standing agreement that will remain binding until the court says otherwise, based on my understanding of the settlement agreement in that case.

[Rio Cana]

Found this video on some government higher ups being shamed for this immigration fiasco.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YozjHQw9j4o

[Costa Fierro]

LMAO that's desperate, even by your standards. So if I don't condemn this, I'm automatically in favour of it?

Hey, if that litmus test is good enough for moderate Muslims, why not moderate Trump supporters?

Because it's not a zero-sum issue? Condensing an argument to "us versus them" is stupid because it serves nothing more than reinforcing the petty tribalism that exists in modern American political discourse. There is such a thing as having a nuanced view on something.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm not even asking anyone to do anything. I'm not asking anyone to stick their neck out. In a private, anonymous conversation, "Putting people into concentration camps is not okay" is all that it would have taken. But that was too much. It's rather typical of CF's sort.

What is my sort exactly?

[Conserative Morality]

What is my sort exactly?

The alt-right spectrum, of course. I thought that was obvious considering I've leveled this accusation towards you in the past.

[Galloism]

Yeppers. It's even more pronounced with minority men (black men in particular, although I would suspect in the current political environment, those from Mexico and Latin America would definitely get similar treatment).

That's... depressingly unsurprising.

I know it's a couple days late, but I also wanted to add to this - treating fathers like second class parents isn't exactly unusual behavior in any country that I know of.

Here's an article from Canada - although nicer than the US (by a fair margin), it's still expressly sexist against fathers.

In detention, mothers are normally permitted to stay with their children. Fathers, on the other hand, are kept separate and only allowed to visit their spouse and children twice a day for about 15 to 30 minutes, according to the study.

In some cases, detained asylum seekers have lived in the country without status for years. In detention, they are given the option of keeping their Canadian-born children with them or sending them to live with extended family or in the custody of provincial youth protection services.

[Costa Fierro]

The alt-right spectrum, of course. I thought that was obvious considering I've leveled this accusation towards you in the past.

Considering most people have considered me "left wing", that's an odd observation to make.

[Mystic Warriors]

What concentration camps? Do you mean internment?

Definitionally they're pretty much the same thing, just tend to be used differently contextually.

Since there is no mass murders going on I don't think they are concentration camps.

[Costa Fierro]

Since there is no mass murders going on I don't think they are concentration camps.

They are detention facilities, which a number of countries employ. Australia has a lot of them.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

That's... depressingly unsurprising.

I know it's a couple days late, but I also wanted to add to this - treating fathers like second class parents isn't exactly unusual behavior in any country that I know of.

Here's an article from Canada - although nicer than the US (by a fair margin), it's still expressly sexist against fathers.

In detention, mothers are normally permitted to stay with their children. Fathers, on the other hand, are kept separate and only allowed to visit their spouse and children twice a day for about 15 to 30 minutes, according to the study.

In some cases, detained asylum seekers have lived in the country without status for years. In detention, they are given the option of keeping their Canadian-born children with them or sending them to live with extended family or in the custody of provincial youth protection services.

Darling, lets focus on the entire family, and not just your pet project. It's rather bad to see the abuse, but I don't think we need to segment it in gender demographics. I really would prefer not to see this thread turn into a Feminist vs MRA thing.

[Galloism]

Darling, lets focus on the entire family, and not just your pet project It's rather bad to see the abuse, but I don't think we need to segment it in gender demographics. I really would prefer not to see this thread turn into a Feminist vs MRA thing.

Understood. I was just remarking on his previous post from Salan about the US denying fathers from taking their children from the detention centers.

This isn't exactly unusual.

I'm done.

[Fartsniffage]

Since there is no mass murders going on I don't think they are concentration camps.

They are detention facilities, which a number of countries employ. Australia has a lot of them.

Do the Australians usually separate the children from their parents?

[Farnhamia]

Since there is no mass murders going on I don't think they are concentration camps.

They are detention facilities, which a number of countries employ. Australia has a lot of them.

21 and 13 of them are closed.

[Galloism]

They are detention facilities, which a number of countries employ. Australia has a lot of them.

Do the Australians usually separate the children from their parents?

A cursory reading of the wiki article indicates no.

National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention
Dr Sev Ozdowski OAM Human Rights Commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) held an inquiry into mandatory detention of children who arrived without a valid visa over the period 1999–2002 (with updates where possible – the report was completed in April 2004) . The vast majority of children arrived and were put into mandatory detention facilities with their families for indefinite periods of time with no real opportunity to argue their case before independent tribunal or court. The inquiry found that between 1 July 1999 and 30 June 2003, 2184 children were detained after arriving in Australia seeking asylum without a visa. Approximately 14% of those children came to Australia alone (unaccompanied children). Most of them came from Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Almost 98 percent of the Iraqi children were recognised as refugees;

The inquiry found that children detained for long periods of time were at a high risk of suffering mental illness. Mental health professionals had repeatedly recommended that children and their parents be removed from immigration detention. The inquiry found that the Australian government's refusal to implement these recommendations amounted to "..cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of those children in detention".[10]

The inquiry also found that many basic rights outlined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child were denied to children living in immigration detention.

The key recommendations of the Inquiry were that children with their parents be released immediately into the community and that detention laws should be amended to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Howard government released the children and introduced limited changes to Migration Act 1958 as a result of the report.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrati ... _Detention

[Costa Fierro]

They are detention facilities, which a number of countries employ. Australia has a lot of them.

Do the Australians usually separate the children from their parents?

No, although my understanding is that not a lot of children are part of the people that are often detained by the Australian border authorities.

21 and 13 of them are closed.

Which means eight are still operational. Not surprising given there was one point where the Coast Guard and Navy were intercepting a boatload of people virtually every day.

[Ifreann]

Definitionally they're pretty much the same thing, just tend to be used differently contextually.

Since there is no mass murders going on I don't think they are concentration camps.

While the Nazis quite famously put a lot of people in concentration camps for the express purpose of murdering them en masse, a concentration camp is not defined as a place where people are sent to be murdered en masse. So the fact that there is no mass murder does not mean that these camps are not concentration camps. If you feel more comfortable with another term, internment camps are a synonym with less Nazi-ish implication.

[Fartsniffage]

No, although my understanding is that not a lot of children are part of the people that are often detained by the Australian border authorities.

So I'm sure you understand now why the two are not comparable. And why you were silly to bring it up.

[Costa Fierro]

No, although my understanding is that not a lot of children are part of the people that are often detained by the Australian border authorities.

So I'm sure you understand now why the two are not comparable. And why you were silly to bring it up.

Except that wasn't my original argument, I was agreeing with the notion that they are not concentration camps and that they are used by more countries than just the United States.

[Fartsniffage]

So I'm sure you understand now why the two are not comparable. And why you were silly to bring it up.

Except that wasn't my original argument, I was agreeing with the notion that they are not concentration camps and that they are used by more countries than just the United States.

Which other countries frequently separate the kids of immigrants from their parents and put them in cages? Australia doesn't so the two systems are not comparable, so what else you got?