Some Evangelical Leaders Speaking Out Against Separating Child/Parent Migrates

[camille70]

More than appropriate -- holy. The government are the ones who dictate what is or isn't legal, and what they do is sanctioned by God. Sessions said so himself.



And who holds the government accountable when their behavior is morally reprehensible?

God? Not likely -- He's on Team Donald now.



Sessions could have cited statute or case law if he believed it to be relevant. He chose the Bible instead.




He used the Bible to justify the government's actions when nothing else would do... fall for it this time, and you can expect him to do it some more.

By his reasoning North Korea is awesome and the United States has been wrong anytime we've tried to take down a leader because of how they have treated their people. God ordained it, why are we interfering with how the world works? That means socialism, communism, and dictators are good. Perhaps we should aspire to their examples?

 

[camille70]

Beware Democrats, you not only need worry about Republicans. Independents, of which I am one, are growing in numbers. We do not cling to party instead we choose wisely. So we watch while you attack and the Republicans achieve.

Democrats have nothing but complaints. Our country is doing very well and the Republicans are working on immigration.

Trump is not one to kick the can down the road... Like past administrations. Trump is a problem solver and he has set out the 4 pillars of an immigration plan that he would sign.

Both bills coming to congress contain these 4 pillars. It may be this week or Ryan may need another week or so, but it will happen .
Trump will have another win. Time for democrats to get on the right side of history. We can do this

This crisis is all on Trump. As well as the DACA folks who were deported. He could have demanded a fix like he demands everything else, but he didn't. He can call Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell out by name and force action if he wanted to, but he's not going to do it. He broke it, and laid the blame at the foot of the dems. The fact is he doesn't want immigrants or refugees here, nor does the majority of his base. He is even revoking citizenship from naturalized citizens. He can SAY what he wants, but I'm looking at his actions. He wants a wall, which is not practical and a waste of money. Thanks to his tax scam bill they are already saying we need to get rid of Medicare, but we are supposed to have billons for a wall? SMH

 

[NotreDame]

Probably not the best thing to say in a post devoted to begging the question. "The person is a criminal, they committed a crime, hence the criminal is to blame." C'mon...



He didn't poison the well. The whole premise of this thread is that discretion is being abused. While it's fair of you to disagree with that premise, Iluvator is just restating that premise and pointing out that your argument doesn't actually make a case for or against prosecutorial leniency.

Look, you're certainly within your right to believe that anything done within the bounds of the law is justified. But the real question here is whether that should be the case. I've seen you make a lot of interesting points in other threads. Why do you believe, in this case, that this should be prosecuted to a greater extant? My understanding here is that the crimes committed are misdemeanors, not felonies. Do you believe prosecutors are always justified, as long as they're operating with the bounds of the law? (genuine questions)

Probably not the best thing to say in a post devoted to begging the question.

My post did not beg the question.

The person is a criminal, they committed a crime, hence the criminal is to blame." C'mon...

C’mon to where exactly? None of these events are possible without probable cause to believe someone charged with a crime committed the crime. None. Want to avoid these consequences? Do not engage in criminal activity.

He didn't poison the well.

He absolutely did poison the well as his loaded phrase assumes, as true, the prosecutor is being “needlessly harsh.” Similar to “he stopped beating his wife.”

Iluvator is just restating that premise and pointing out that your argument doesn't actually make a case for or against prosecutorial leniency.

Restating an unproven premise as a reply to an argument doesn’t make any sense. Your charitable characterization of what he did makes what he did worse, not better.

And I do not have to make an argument for or against leniency because the argument, when you interjected yourself into the middle of the dialogue, was about blame. Whose to blame?

You’ve completely misread Illuvatar’s reply to me, as he was assigning blame to the prosecutor and DOJ. The argument was about blame, not leniency.

Someone else may have been discussing leniency but my interaction with Illuvatar, Camille, and others, was about blame.

The whole premise of this thread is that discretion is being abused. While it's fair of you to disagree with that premise, Iluvator is just restating that premise

That may be the premise of the thread, but Illuvatar, Camille, and others were discussing whose to blame, not leniency.

Why do you believe, in this case, that this should be prosecuted to a greater extant?

Greater extent? What are you taking about? There’s a statute they are being accused of violating and they are prosecuting people within the bounds of the statute. Where are you getting this greater extent idea?

Do you believe prosecutors are always justified, as long as they're operating with the bounds of the law?

Where the facts show at least there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed? Yes.

 

[camille70]

“Ripping children out of their parents’ arms to inflict harm on the child to influence the parents,” he added, “is unacceptable.”

How Trump Came to Enforce a Practice of Separating Migrant Families

 

[NotreDame]

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

Oh really? Tell me, is anperson who A.) Never attempts to cross the border except as provided by law capable of B) Being arrested, held, and charged for illegally crossing?

How does one become subjected to arrest, being held, and charged for illegal border crossing?

Are people who NEVER cross the border illegally or attempt to cross illegally exposed to being arrested, held, and charged for illegal border crossing?

I’d love for you to explain how exactly someone, other than the offender, is to blame for their predicament.

 

[rambot]

Right I agree. There's a couple of problems though.

1. These kids don't have relatives to put them with. If they do, that's where they will go.
2. The HHS doesn't have the resources for all the kids or enough foster parents for them.

So they HAVE to do something with the kids in the mean time. We are not going to toss the kids into jail with their parents. So, they go somewhere where they can be held until something else is done. These kids are not being starved, they are being taken care of.

So we can agree that the current set up (holding centres) is untennable, not ideal and maybe not ethical?

 

[NotreDame]

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.



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



That needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.

There ya go again, using the pejorative word “harsh” in the phrase “harsh measures,” which does poison the well.

And it’s not at all clear this is “harsh.” You just assume it’s harsh.

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?

Is it required to enforce a law on the books? Your analysis is insane. No prosecutor should have to engage in the above analysis before choosing to enforce a criminal statute.

Well, I have no evidence charging people with the misdemeanor offenses of driving without ever receiving a license, driving with a suspended license, drinking under age, deters anyone. Therefore, I shouldn’t charge people with those offenses.

That’s just a poor argument.

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.

So, send the kids to the federal detention with the parents?

 

[NotreDame]

That needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.

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

I need to validate this negative of the claim you made? You can’t even demonstrate the conduct is harsh and I’m to show the negative of your unsupported claim is true?

Charging someone with a crime, when there is PC to believe the crime is committed, is an integral part of maintaining an orderly society. Law enforcement and prosecutors exist for the very purpose of enforcing criminal laws and prosecuting violators. Prosecutors and law enforcement facilitate an orderly society by arresting, charging, and prosecuting people where PC exists to believe they of committed a crime.

If charging someone with a crime where PC exists is “harsh,” or presumed harsh, then neither law enforcement or the prosecutor can perform their jobs, enforce the laws, or protect society and order in society. It’s not harsh to charge someone with a crime where PC exists to believe they committed the offense.

In regards to immigration, an orderly process for entering the country is essential as it protects society. A step to enforcing immigration law, to enforcing orderly and lawful entry, to protecting society, is prosecuting violators. Doing so isn’t harsh and I’ve read no argument and seen no evidence it’s harsh.

 

[wing2000]

They can’t be charged criminally unless there is probable cause to believe they’ve committed a crime! It’s not as if Trump forced them to illegally enter the country or attempt to illegally enter the country. The person responsible for being charged with the crime is the person committing the crime.

The government made a choice to charge them "criminally".

 

[camille70]

Oh really? Tell me, is anperson who A.) Never attempts to cross the border except as provided by law capable of B) Being arrested, held, and charged for illegally crossing?

How does one become subjected to arrest, being held, and charged for illegal border crossing?

Are people who NEVER cross the border illegally or attempt to cross illegally exposed to being arrested, held, and charged for illegal border crossing?

I’d love for you to explain how exactly someone, other than the offender, is to blame for their predicament.

Everyone is having their children separated, even the ones presenting themselves for asylum.

 

[wing2000]

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

Did you snicker when Sessions quoted Romans 13?

 

[TLK Valentine]

By his reasoning North Korea is awesome and the United States has been wrong anytime we've tried to take down a leader because of how they have treated their people. God ordained it, why are we interfering with how the world works? That means socialism, communism, and dictators are good. Perhaps we should aspire to their examples?

Donald's gushing praise of Kim would seem to indicate leanings in that direction.

 

[NotreDame]

The government made a choice to charge them "criminally".

That’s true of ALL people charged with the crime. So, what? The government is to blame? Really? So, ALL those people charged with a crime the blame and responsibility is with the prosecutor choosing to charge em? Listen to yourself. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

Not just anyone can be subjected to a prosecutor’s choice to charge someone criminally. Only people whose conduct creates PC are subjected to such discretion by a prosecutor.

 

[NotreDame]

Did you snicker when Sessions quoted Romans 13?

No.

I rolled my eyes.

 

[wing2000]

That’s true of ALL people charged with the crime. So, what? The government is to blame? Really? So, ALL those people charged with a crime the blame and responsibility is with the prosecutor choosing to charge em? Listen to yourself. Do you know how absurd that sounds?

Not just anyone can be subjected to a prosecutor’s choice to charge someone criminally. Only people whose conduct creates PC are subjected to such discretion by a prosecutor.

The government made the choice to prosecute parents as criminals knowing the consequences would result in family separation. In fact, that was the stated goal to use family separation act as a deterrent. I am holding the government responsible for the choice they made.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The government made the choice to prosecute parents as criminals knowing the consequences would result in family separation. In fact, that was the stated goal to use family separation act as a deterrent. I am holding the government responsible for the choice they made.

Right... the thought of your children rounded up in a government camp must positively terrorize their parents

 

[NotreDame]

Everyone is having their children separated, even the ones presenting themselves for asylum.

“Presenting themselves for asylum”? Presenting themselves to whom?

It’s my understanding, I could be wrong, those who present themselves in accordance to immigration law, including those seeking asylum, are not subjected to criminal prosecution under 8 USC 1325.

It’s my understanding, again I could be wrong, those charged with violating 8 USC 1325 but who are seeking asylum entered the country illegally. Those entering illegally are caught, or encountered after unlawful entry, but make an asylum claim are being charged with violating 8 USC 1325.

 

[NotreDame]

The government made the choice to prosecute parents as criminals knowing the consequences would result in family separation. In fact, that was the stated goal to use family separation act as a deterrent. I am holding the government responsible for the choice they made.

NONE of that is POSSIBLE without first A.) a criminal act by B) a criminal actor. The person committing the crime is to blame. Their criminal act exposes them to those possibilities. No criminal act, no exposure to those possible outcomes.

Indeed, if EVERYONE obeyed the immigration law, then none of this happens, none of this exists, this conversation is non-existent.

Now, you do realize this happens routinely in the U.S. in regards to U.S. citizens?

 

[wing2000]

NONE of that is POSSIBLE without first A.) a criminal act by B) a criminal actor. The person committing the crime is to blame. Their criminal act exposes them to those possibilities. No criminal act, no exposure to those possible outcomes.

Indeed, if EVERYONE obeyed the immigration law, then none of this happens, none of this exists, this conversation is non-existent.

Now, you do realize this happens routinely in the U.S. in regards to U.S. citizens?

Yes of course. The consequence of separating American families and Central AMerican families are vastly different however. If an immigrant child is separated, he is spending on average - 60 days in a detention center - without an advocate. He may be able to communicate...or not. He may be eventually placed with a relative. He may be eventually reunited with his parents. Then again, he may not.

Of course, the parents are responsible for their own choices. As I have said at least 5 times now, the government has a choice on how they prosecute families. That choice is immoral.

The Trump administration’s solution, now codified in policy, is to stop treating them as families: to detain the parents as adults and place the children in the custody of Health and Human Services as “unaccompanied minors.”

They don’t have to charge parents in criminal court to separate them. But filing criminal charges and transferring defendants to the custody of the US Marshals Service requires children to be separated and sent into HHS custody.

Trump’s DHS is using an extremely dubious statistic to justify splitting up families at the border

 

[AllButNone]

My post did not beg the question.
C’mon to where exactly? None of these events are possible without probable cause to believe someone charged with a crime committed the crime. None. Want to avoid these consequences? Do not engage in criminal activity.

Your argument seems to be:
a) X is a criminal
b) Therefore X is responsible for whatever happens to himself as a result of the law

But, and why I say you're begging the question, is because X is responsible for whatever happens to himself as a result of the law that he's been defined as a criminal.

He absolutely did poison the well as his loaded phrase assumes, as true, the prosecutor is being “needlessly harsh.” Similar to “he stopped beating his wife.”

Restating an unproven premise as a reply to an argument doesn’t make any sense. Your charitable characterization of what he did makes what he did worse, not better.

You misunderstand. Your previous posts had already indicated that you acknowledged and were arguing against the premise "needlessly harsh". While I certainly agree that premise is unsubstantiated, Iluvatar reiterating it is just a precondition for his subsequent statement.

What I take issue with is that you've singled out Iluvatar for a thread continued through many posts, one that you'd already engaged in by nature of your own arguments.

**edited a typo

Greater extent? What are you taking about? There’s a statute they are being accused of violating and they are prosecuting people within the bounds of the statute. Where are you getting this greater extent idea?

Not sure if that's a legal term of art here. I'm using the phrase in the colloquial sense. (that was supposed to be extent, not extant, too) Where you said, "Yep. But how does one find themselves exposed to such discretion" to iluvatar, I was referring to this. Maybe I misunderstand such discretion, but to me this implies there's a lesser and greater degree to which a person can be prosecuted. Is that mistaken? That's where my question is directed.

Where the facts show at least there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed? Yes.

And this point is where I think you'll find the most disagreement, on the basis that different people have different circumstances. I could be mistaken, but I think you probably wouldn't argue that if two people commit the same crime under the same conditions, one person should be executed, and the other person should get a slap on the wrist. I'd say, and I'd imagine you'd agree the incongruity of the punishment is unjust. Likewise, having to separate a child from a parent creates an incongruity in the nature of the punishment, and I think a lot of people here feel that this incongruity itself places some onus on prosecutors to restrain themselves in some way, or the attorney general to direct some restraint.