Sara Huckabee: Separate kids from Mom because of the Bible

[_ajax18]

It's essentially a paperwork violation, not double homicide. You don't get to reap whatever misery you want on a person if they do something that violates a law. Either we have something resembling a just legal system or we have the barbarism you yearn for. This is plainly a serious human rights violation and in a more just world the people responsible for it would be tried at the Hague.

Moreover, this is happening to asylum seekers just the same. They aren't even breaking any law. Asylum seekers aren't "illegal immigrants." The goal is to reap such cruelty upon them that word gets out to stop trying to seek asylum.

If I didn't have my paperwork stating I had a right to be in Colombia, I was put in jail. One missionary was. Given what jail is like in South America, why isn't this considered a human rights violation?

I don't see why illegal immigrants are even permitted to be in American prisons. They should be met at the border wall with armed guards and never be allowed to cross in the first place.

[_DoubtingThomas]

The ones who do hear about it and support it, however, are inhumane assholes, plain and simple. It's difficult to imagine why anyone should care what they want.

I hope I am not right, but we will see in the midterms. If Americans don't go out to vote it means they really don't care.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I don't see why illegal immigrants are even permitted to be in American prisons. They should be met at the border wall with armed guards and never be allowed to cross in the first place.

This was somewhat how Operation Hold the Line worked (sans the paramilitary motif) under George W Bush. It seemed to be pretty effective too (72% drop in apprehensions in border area between Tucson, AZ and Marfa, Texas).

It also had the advantage of being much more humane and compassionate than the asshat-shitburger-douche-canoe-cock-juggling-thunder-twat madness of the current administration.

[_honorentheos]

I don't see why illegal immigrants are even permitted to be in American prisons.

Remember the conversation we had a while back about all being endowed by their creator with unalienable rights? And that respect for those rights is foundational to the vision set out by the founders if imperfectly? If we don't believe in human rights at all, and that a certain dignity should be afforded anyone under the umbrella of foundational democratic values, then what is left to define what it really means to be American? You seem to want that to be the equivilent of being born with royal blood rather than something we inherit through an obligation to carry the same light into the darkness that was lit in 1787.

[_honorentheos]

I feel that this thread would also benefit from this point so that it's clear the issue isn't about whether or not asylum seekers should be classified as criminals to justify separating them from their children. It's about the Trump administration subverting existing laws that otherwise would require the families to be released to await their hearings.

From the other thread -

The issue isn't how to house kids taken from their families. The issue is caused by laws that limit the length of time a minor can be detained as well as laws that require children from Central America to be given a hearing before they can be deported.

Check here:
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. ... -responses

Relevant quote -

The original Trafficking Victims Protection Act was signed into law in 2000 to address human trafficking concerns. It was subsequently reauthorized during both the Bush and Obama Administrations in 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2013.

The TVPRA of 2008, signed by President Bush, responded to concerns that unaccompanied children apprehended by the Border Patrol “were not being adequately screened” for eligibility for protection or relief in the United States. The TVPRA also directed the development of procedures to ensure that if unaccompanied children are deported, they are safely repatriated. At the outset, unaccompanied children must be screened as potential victims of human trafficking. However, as described further below, procedural protections for children are different for children from contiguous countries (i.e., Mexico and Canada) and non-contiguous countries (all others). While children from non-contiguous countries are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for trafficking screening, and placed into formal immigration court removal proceedings, Mexican and Canadian children are screened by CBP for trafficking and, if no signs of trafficking or fear of persecution are reported, may be summarily returned home pursuant to negotiated repatriation agreements. The TVPRA in 2008 also ensured that unaccompanied alien children are exempt from certain limitations on asylum (e.g., a one-year filing deadline). It also required HHS to ensure “to the greatest extent practicable” that unaccompanied children in HHS custody have counsel, as described further below—not only “to represent them in legal proceedings,” but to “protect them from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking.”

So what is going on under the Trump administration is the families are now being separated so the kids can be classified as Unaccompanied so that their parents can be detained while awaiting their trials.

It's about the policy of the Trump administration taking a zero tolerance approach to immigrants. And it's shady as “F” to subvert the law that way.

[_MeDotOrg]

Kudos for your last 2 comments, Honoretheos. This policy is being done partially as a negotiating tool to force Democrats to the table. So the Administration is hoping that the compassion that Democrats feel about this suffering will move them to support the wall.

What this says about the Administration's total lack of compassion, and their cynicism to use this as a negotiating ploy is another story. It is another piece of the 'sanctity of life' that miraculously disappears with the cutting of the umbilical cord. A sense of morality and decency shouldn't stop at our border. Even Franklin Graham is opposed to this one.

[_honorentheos]

I couldn't agree more, MeDotOrg.

[_ajax18]

and that a certain dignity should be afforded anyone under the umbrella of foundational democratic values

It's too expensive to let everyone born into the third world illegally enter the US and clog up the court system arguing whether or not its humane for the US to enforce the border or not. I don't think an illegal immigrant has the right to anything but to be sent back to his native country. If we don't have a right to stop people at the border and turn them back, we might as well just have open borders.

[_honorentheos]

and that a certain dignity should be afforded anyone under the umbrella of foundational democratic values

It's too expensive to let everyone born into the third world illegally enter the US and clog up the court system arguing whether or not its humane for the US to enforce the border or not. I don't think an illegal immigrant has the right to anything but to be sent back to his native country.

You don't think they have a right to anything but to be sent home? So you don't believe in basic human rights on principle?

If we don't have a right to stop people at the border and turn them back, we might as well just have open borders.

The US is a sovereign nation with all that implies. That includes policing its borders and creating/enforcing immigration law. But it is also obligated by international law to treat asylum seekers a certain way. And lest you get all panty-twisted about the international community trying to tell the US how to do its business, it was our commitment to human rights that led the charge on seeing those laws put into place. We used to be a civilized country you know.

[Guest]

“It is very biblical to enforce the law, that is actually repeated a number of times throughout the Bible,” Sanders said.

So when Moses led the slaves out of Egypt, he wasn't being biblical, correct? He disobeyed Egyptian law.

This is about the biggest piece of crap to come out of Sessions and Sanders.

Think about one of the most important Old Testament Stories: King Solomon and the two mothers.. The mother who was willing to accept the legal solution of splitting the baby was not the true mother.

When Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the Temple, did he have the legal right?

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery Bus for a white man, did she commit the sin of not being biblical?

Justifying the immorality of your position behind the skirt of a couple of Bible verses is reprehensible.

If it is very biblical to enforce the law, any law, what does it mean to be biblical?