Some Evangelical Leaders Speaking Out Against Separating Child/Parent Migrates

[NotreDame]

Ergo, the current solution is acceptable?

The current situation is an unfortunate and difficult consequence, which exists because A.) someone chose to break the law and B) chose to involve their kids in the commission of the crime.

 

[NotreDame]

--Rather like the folks on the Left who have lately taken to quoting the Bible to us and reading the Bible on TV news shows who, until now, lectured us about the importance of keeping Church and State separate, of keeping from having a "theocracy" in this country, etc etc.

Yep! Cuomo did it the other night on his CNN show. I snickered.

 

[iluvatar5150]

No it’s not Session’s fault. The policy is applicable only to those people committing a crime! If no crime is committed, then the policy is inapplicable. Whose to blame then? The person committing the crime. Committing a crime comes with risks. This isn’t Session’s fault.

What next? Blame prosecutors for charging a crime?

The family is divided because of the criminal conduct of the person. They violated a law, you understand? They committed a crime. Committing a crime comes with risks, one risk is being charged and detained. NONE of this happens without a criminal act by a criminal actor. Hence, the person acting criminally is to blame.

Your argument is a wreck of irrationality and fueled by nothing but emotion and pity.

Prosecutors (including the DOJ in immigration cases) often have wide latitude in choosing how to prosecute their cases, do they not? They're the ones who chooses which charges to bring, how high to set bail, etc.

 

[Albion]

There may be a middle ground. I doubt it though. You’re talking about housing a lot of adults, which presents itself as a security risk, necessitating an environment less like those facilities those kids are presently kept in while parents await prosecution.

Those facilities are an improvement over the ones they knew before migrating to the USA, so that at least would not seem to be a problem.

 

[NotreDame]

Prosecutors (including the DOJ in immigration cases) often have wide latitude in choosing how to prosecute their cases, do they not? They're the ones who chooses which charges to bring, how high to set bail, etc.

Yep. But how does one find themselves exposed to such discretion and the wide latitude of a prosecutor?

Is a law abiding citizen exposed to such latitude and discretion? No.

So, who is then? The person violating the law.

 

[NotreDame]

Those facilities are an improvement over the ones they knew before migrating to the USA, so that at least would not seem to be a problem.

I’m not opposed to a middle ground, so long as it can be done safely to the officers at the facility and minimizing flight risk.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yep. But how does one find themselves exposed to such discretion and the wide latitude of a prosecutor?

Is a law abiding citizen exposed to such latitude and discretion? No.

So, who is then? The person violating the law.

That still doesn't absolve the prosecutor for being needlessly harsh. Being afforded a certain amount of authority doesn't necessarily mean it's proper or good or productive or beneficial to always exercise it to its maximum extent.

 

[rambot]

The current situation is an unfortunate and difficult consequence, which exists because A.) someone chose to break the law and B) chose to involve their kids in the commission of the crime.

So they had to pen them up in an abandonned walmart? They had to put weird trump posters up around the facility? They had to limit their time outside to 2 hours a day?

I GET That their parents broke the law. My understanding (at least in Canada) is when parents get incarcerated, the children, if they cannot be left with relatives (due to safety), are held by child and family services and put in a placement?
Is that not the same thing that happens in the US?

 

[Hank77]

No it’s not Session’s fault. The policy is applicable only to those people committing a crime! If no crime is committed, then the policy is inapplicable. Whose to blame then? The person committing the crime. Committing a crime comes with risks. This isn’t Session’s fault.

What next? Blame prosecutors for charging a crime?

There are families seeking asylum at the border port of entry that are being allowed to come but are then having their children taken away from them until their case goes through the court system.

 

[rjs330]

Not held hostage by the administration in exchange for political favors, for one:

Trump cites as a negotiating tool his policy of separating immigrant children from their parents

I agree. If the parents are detained then the children should be placed in care. Once the parents are adjudicated and shipped back home they should have the oprltion of taking their kids it leaving them. I can't figure out how it is possibly legal to force the kids to stay. I am honestly wondering if this is really true.

 

[NotreDame]

That still doesn't absolve the prosecutor for being needlessly harsh. Being afforded a certain amount of authority doesn't necessarily mean it's proper or good or productive or beneficial to always exercise it to its maximum extent.

I like what you did. You poisoned the well with the “needlessly harsh” phrase. Tantamount to the, “Have you stopped beating your wife,” phrase.

I reject your assumption of “needlessly harsh.” That needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.

And one is only subjected to the authority of the prosecutor, harsh or otherwise, by violating the law. So, the person violating the law put themself in peril.

And there’s nothing “harsh,” much less “needlessly” in charging someone with a crime when illegal conduct has been perpetuated.

 

[rjs330]

Because what you are witnessing is people reacting viscerally while ignoring the facts. Is it emotionally tough when immigrant parents, who are charged with a crime, are separated from their children? Yes.

But this practice isn’t unique to immigrants. When citizens are charged with a felony, and some misdemeanors, they are arrested, detained, and separated from their kids. Sometimes DCS is involved and places the children when no relative is available to take the children.

Oh the horror and injustice of charging criminals, detaining them, and not allowing the children to accompany the defendant into jail.

I missed the Bible verse deriding as an immense injustice the act of charging people with a crime, and detaining them, which separates them from their children. The Bible apparently teaches that no person should be charged with a crime and detained for the sake of the children.

The Bible clearly creates two classes of people who commit crimes. Those with kids and those without. Sorry partna, you do not have kids so, we can detain you for the criminal charge. What? Why is your neighbor not being charged? Because he has kids. How’s that? He was charged with a crime but released unlike you? That’s because he has kids and heaven forbid if we detain people charged with a crime if they have kids. We can’t separate em.

What you are witnessing is a combination of bad argument, emotional response, and ignoring the facts. It’s a recipe for some of the bad posts on the subject.

THIS IS AWSOME!

 

[rambot]

So they had to pen them up in an abandonned walmart? They had to put weird trump posters up around the facility? They had to limit their time outside to 2 hours a day?

I GET That their parents broke the law. My understanding (at least in Canada) is when parents get incarcerated, the children, if they cannot be left with relatives (due to safety), are held by child and family services and put in a placement?
Is that not the same thing that happens in the US?

Ok, so I see in the post that rj quoted, that is in fact how DCS handles these kids.


May I ask why these kids are not given that same treatment and why it is okay that they are given different treatment?

 

[camille70]

The family is divided because of the criminal conduct of the person. They violated a law, you understand? They committed a crime. Committing a crime comes with risks, one risk is being charged and detained. NONE of this happens without a criminal act by a criminal actor. Hence, the person acting criminally is to blame.

Your argument is a wreck of irrationality and fueled by nothing but emotion and pity.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[camille70]

--Rather like the folks on the Left who have lately taken to quoting the Bible to us and reading the Bible on TV news shows who, until now, lectured us about the importance of keeping Church and State separate, of keeping from having a "theocracy" in this country, etc etc.

One of my main complaints about progressive and democratic Christians is letting the far right set the narrative and not being vocal and pushing back when religion is used to justify bad policy. That said, You will continue to see bible quotes on liberal tv for so long as the government is using scripture to justify child abuse and sins being committed against children. Sessions brought this into conversation.

 

[camille70]

 

[Albion]

That said, You will continue to see bible quotes on liberal tv for so long as the government is using scripture to justify child abuse and sins being committed against children.

They're hypocrites, you're saying?

 

[iluvatar5150]

I like what you did. You poisoned the well with the “needlessly harsh” phrase. Tantamount to the, “Have you stopped beating your wife,” phrase.

I haven't poisoned any well. The entire argument is that the administration is choosing to take these harsh measures when they don't have to.

I reject your assumption of “needlessly harsh.” That needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.

Ok, we have "harsh" and we have "needless".

Needless: Is the administration's chosen zero tolerance strategy needed in order to ensure safety and compliance with the law? Are there other ways to achieve the same ends? This is a question of efficacy and I haven't seen much evidence supporting the administration's position that this will act as a deterrent. Do you have any?

Harsh: Is it harsh to prosecute, jail, and separate from their children someone fleeing violence and seeking asylum here? Whether or not it is "harsh" is a subjective call, but compared to previous administrations, it's my understanding that this new policy is at the very least "more harsh" than previous policies.

And one is only subjected to the authority of the prosecutor, harsh or otherwise, by violating the law. So, the person violating the law put themself in peril.

And the prosecutor has discretion on how much peril to mete out.

And there’s nothing “harsh,” much less “needlessly” in charging someone with a crime when illegal conduct has been perpetuated.

That needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.

 

[camille70]

They're hypocrites, you're saying?

No. If they are twisting scripture to defend this mess, expect others to use scripture to show they are wrong. Also expect for people who have basically branded themselves as the party of God to be called out using scripture when they are engaging in behavior and enacting policies not in line with Christian principles.

 

[Albion]

No. If they are twisting scripture to defend this mess, expect others to use scripture to show they are wrong.

But those who respond this way have previously argued against mixing religion and politics, against using the Bible to justify public policy, etc. and have lampooned those whom they accuse of doing that. Now, however, it is apparently OK with these same people when they, themselves, mix religion and politics, etc. etc.

The conservative Christians, OTOH, are NOT similarly hypocritical.