Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

"
If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Trump Boils the Frog and the Good Little Americans Say Nothing

We are a nation that puts children into concentration camps.

There are plenty of Good Little Americans who are just fine with that. To the extent that this nation once held the moral high ground, Trump has surrendered that without a shot being fired.

The Administration of George W. Bush did some awful things, but they were reacting, in part to a large-scale terrorist attack.

Trump only has his fascist tendencies, and those of his inner circle, to blame.

First the children of undocumented immigrants go into the camps.

Who's next?

36 comments:

Tewshooz said...

If illegals did not try to sneak into this country we would not have this problem in the first place. Blame the so called parents.

Richard said...

Not only Trump, Obama did it ,Bush did it ,Clinton did it. Give it a rest already

dinthebeast said...

The Rude Pundit seems to think this is a calculated strategy from Miller and company to bait the left into behavior that will work well in attack ads for the mid terms they're terrified of losing.
He also advises to protest anyway, because if this isn't enough to get us into the streets, what is?

-Doug in Oakland

Comrade Misfit said...

We're taking kids away from parents for a misdemeanor.

You're fine with that?

Comrade Misfit said...

Richard,

Show me the cages in an abandoned Wal-Mart that were filled with children during Clinton's time.

JustMusing said...

Tewshooz, If the U.S. had sound, rational, and viable immigration laws and policies, no one would need to "sneak" in. Blaming traumatized parents for trying to save their children from murder, rape, torture, and starvation (all the same things many of the parents suffered) is a prosaic position to take. It neither offers any solutions nor evinces any kind of understanding of the issues. However, if blaming "so called parents" is in order; just start with Trump's father who was investigated for wartime profiteering and civil rights violations. His mother once reportedly asked of Ivana (Trump's first wife) “what sort of son have I created”. Jeff Session's world view is shaped by the whole of confederate history and he appears to still be trying to win that war. And this: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/methodists-bring-church-charges-against-jeff-sessions_us_5b28fc2ee4b0a4dc9920b9dd

I think what we purport to embrace as a country is framed by Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, "The New Colossus", (Located on a plaque inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal)

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Grey One talks sass said...

Dr Seuss had it correct - as long as those in power are destroying the correct children, those who support the current regime will say nothing. It's historical.

I've learned a hard lesson in my life. A person can do everything correctly and still have a situation turn pear shaped. Parents doing their best for their kids correctly apply for asylum at the correct places only to have their family torn apart. The armchair quarterbacks sagely give their opinion that if they'd obeyed the law this wouldn't have happened.

Only the families have followed the law and the USA tossed the kids into a concentration camp anyway. The USA decided a freaking child didn't NEED to be fed for three days and since the law says it's not necessary for the first 72 hours they've withheld food from children.

Who at ICE can do such things, go home to their families and meals, go to sleep in a bed with a proper mattress and beddings, get up and do it all over again?

I was following orders or the law didn't cut it in Nuremberg, it won't serve as an excuse here. The Constitution is clear. If you see something reprehensible it's on you to address the issue. To walk away from that responsibility means you've walked away from your identity as an American.

So yeah, let's excuse the torture of children who will remember the cruelties imposed upon them. Sure. (/s)

Bradley Pierson said...

Leave the kids unattended wherever their parents were arrested. No more camps. Sound preferable to anyone? Then are the "concentration camps" really the issue? Or is it that their parents were locked up, and thus no longer available for childcare?

We've tried releasing them on their own recognizance. It doesn't work. They don't show up to the hearing and we don't see them again. Then others hear of it and violate our borders in expectation of the same weak opposition.

Not jailing them for this "misdemeanor" allows them to continue it indefinitely. The options are to do this or make the law a fiction.

I've seen Judges issue arrest warrants for people who don't show up for misdemeanor prosecutions. No inquiry was made as to their family situation. If it ever resulted in a child being without care, I expect the government took that child into custody.

That we're seeing it happen in sufficient volume to call the resulting holding facilities "concentration camps" is not a commentary on the moral corruption of our society or the tyranny of our government. It's a census of how many people thought our laws were just for show. It's a reflection of the illegal conduct of illegal immigrants. It's an indication of just how weak we're perceived to be. It's the parent's fault, and no one has less grounds to complain about a nation's laws than someone who broke into the nation.

"Who's next?" Well, whichever group of people elects to violate the law, en masse, with the apparent position that they'll continue doing it until they're locked up. So, head to your nearest criminal court on their next arraignment day, and see if any other demographic decided to commit crimes on this scale.

Deadstick said...

George Takei just pointed out that even when we took him out of his home in 1942 and locked him up in the desert, we at least let his parents stay with him.

We have outdone that. And that little redneck troll from Ala-goddam-Bama is singing hosannas about it.

True colors.

Bradley Pierson said...

"The Constitution is clear. If you see something reprehensible it's on you to address the issue."

The Constitution says nothing on the subject. You're perhaps stating natural law.

"So yeah, let's excuse the torture of children who will remember the cruelties imposed upon them."

During the Holocaust, how many Jews were trying to break *into* Germany, or German occupied Europe? How many Armenians were caught sneaking into Turkey during the time of the Young Turks? How many people tried to become Kulak's during the heyday of communist Russia?

For all the sensationalism, the fact remains that people are breaking into the country. If you'd prefer that crimes be permitted #ForTheChildren, that laws be enforced only as it suits delicate sensibilities, then argue for that. If you'd prefer reform in the particulars of ICE's policies (and 72 hours without food is a prima facie case for it), then argue for that.

But cut the hyperbole. Nothing here is new or unusual and the only part that's cruel is, if true, the governments lousy care of the children. It's being reported to be VA level "bad." Maybe a bit less, if the kids aren't dying. But government incompetence is old hat, and it's not a boiling frog.

And if our actions are remembered? We've seen what looking "nice" has got us. Perhaps it is better to be feared than loved.

Comrade Misfit said...

Bradley, I hope that you are young, so that, in fifty years, when your grandchildren and/or great-grandchildren ask you "Paw-paw, what did you do when that happened", you can proudly tell them that you cheered it on, all the way.

Kids being kept in cages. DHS planning to build tent cities in the Southwest to hold kids. Brutality against children being used as a negotiating tool. Brutality against children being proudly flaunted as a deterrent.

What a country.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

"We're taking kids away from parents for a misdemeanor. You're fine with that?"

What alternative is there? Just release the kids, let em free roam? Do we give coupons for a few Happy Meals?

Comrade Misfit said...

we weren't doing it, at least in these numbers, before.

So why now?

Trump's been clear that this is a negotiating ploy so that he can get money for his wall. He is taking kids from their parents to pressure Congress to do things his way. That's about as reprehensible as it gets.

DTWND said...

Comrade, I opined repeatedly on another blog about the repugnant separation of children from their parents, which I find reprehensible. Every response was along the lines of "Well, if they didn't break the law..." or "They should follow the rules..." Either that or "Are you willing to pay for them or house them?" All of the tactics were to deflect from the main argument of separating children from their parents.

What these closed minded, Nazis wrapped in the American flag can't understand is that if "they" do follow the procedure, their lives and their children's lives will be over prior to any decision made on the status of their request to emigrate. The attitude of "sucks to be them" is prevalent on the right, where they present a complete lack of empathy for anyone from another country.

If anything, THAT is sad.

Dale

Bradley Pierson said...

Misfit, I ask again: Leave the kids unattended wherever their parents were arrested. No more camps. Sound preferable to anyone?

If I ever have kids, I fully expect to be able to tell them that, should I commit crimes, that I will be locked up for it - even for minor ones, should it be apparent that I will ignore the summons. And that, should their mother do the same, she'll be treated the same. And that if we both do it, and there is no one else to take care of them, that they'll become wards of the state for the duration. And that the state will probably suck at the job.

And I'll be able to tell them that there isn't a damn thing wrong with that. (Except the state sucking at the job, but that's only partially fixable.) Because the alternative is letting criminals hide behind their children's welfare while still in the act of the crime. In the present context, it's one step worse: the arrested parents are the ones who isolated the child from any potential caretakers who would not be subject to arrest. They cannot be allowed to plead that self-created exigency as a defense against arrest.

I'll also hope that, at some point, they'd be able to understand that fair and uniform application of that rule to a large group of lawbreakers who are the only caretakers of their children would result in large numbers of wards of the state, and that, if they outstripped current capacity, would require new lodgings. But maybe they'd never mature sufficiently to see that past an obstructing emotional haze.

I'm on board with fixing the care for children in the custody of the government. However, what I've been seeing is the employment of motte and bailey tactics, with a motte of how the children are being taken care of (or not) and a bailey of enabling rampant and ongoing criminal behavior. A motte of stopping child brutality, and a bailey of lawlessness.

And I'm not taking the motte's factual basis on faith. I've seen instances of the left asking for condemnation of bad behavior, then using that as the sole evidence that the bad behavior occurred. My sense of trust has suffered.

I'm fine with taking parents away from kids - and that is the correct characterization - for a misdemeanor if there is good reason to believe that they will not show up to court if a summons is issued in lieu of arrest. Doubly so if there is good reason to think that they'll continue to commit that misdemeanor if not arrested. Both are the case here. I am fine with this regardless of whether the arrested parent is American. And if that leaves a kid without a caretaker, there really isn't much choice. As I understand it, there is a jurisprudential rule that the kid can't come along to the parent's jail. I don't know whether that's a bad rule, but it is presently the rule. So, kids alone on the street. Take them or leave them. See Happy Meals, supra.

Perhaps I'm asking the wrong question of my opposition. Would anyone in opposition to the new zero tolerance policy like to state their preference that no misdemeanor offense be prosecuted, or even stopped, if doing so would leave a child without a non-government caretaker?

Bradley Pierson said...

Motte: All of the tactics were to deflect from the main argument of separating children from their parents.

Bailey (with bonus ad hominem & Godwin's law): What these closed minded, Nazis wrapped in the American flag can't understand is that if "they" do follow the procedure, their lives and their children's lives will be over prior to any decision made on the status of their request to emigrate. The attitude of "sucks to be them" is prevalent on the right, where they present a complete lack of empathy for anyone from another country.

You want immigration reform. You're arguing for it in an improper manner.

Bradley Pierson said...

If the "main argument" is "separating children from their parents" then *the* thing that the other side isn't understanding cannot be how bad our immigration policies affect people who follow them. Missing that point wouldn't affect reasoning on the "main argument" as you stated it.

Grey One talks sass said...

I was asked - "The Constitution says nothing on the subject. You're perhaps stating natural law."

The idea is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. My bad. And Natural Law is neither.

Generally I was also asked "Would anyone in opposition to the new zero tolerance policy like to state their preference that no misdemeanor offense be prosecuted, or even stopped, if doing so would leave a child without a non-government caretaker?"

I regularly see folks disobeying traffic laws - I'd love to see Zero Tolerance when it comes to white folks on that subject. As for those who request asylum - the families are allowed by law to request asylum. The Border Patrol as I've heard it have closed down those stations where asylum can be requested so they enter where they can and take care of the paperwork later. Tearing families apart is not necessary for people who HAVE NOT BROKEN ANY OF THE USA'S LAWS. Is that clear enough?

As for immigration - I want work visas for everyone so anyone can work wherever an employer needs an employee. Taxes are accrued based on the country where the work is performed. Seems like logic to me but then I'm a win/win kind of person.

In my opinion the only reason the zero tolerance policy is in effect is bigotry and prejudice, and those who support such cruelty must own it. By not resisting you are agreeing and by agreeing you become the monster you purport to fear. I honestly don't know how you sleep at night.

Bradley Pierson said...

Grey One, thank you for the response.

I figure the Declaration of Independence for an articulation of natural law, but I'll admit that's rather subjective.

Traffic violations are, by my understanding, a lesser class than misdemeanor. But I'd support arresting white folks (and anyone else) whose behavior indicated that their response to the issuance of a speeding ticket would be driving off at 90MPH and a subsequent failure to appear on the court date. I would cheer it. I would condemn allowing someone to keep speeding because they had a child in the car, and were the only available caretaker. I would consider such inaction by the police to be either an indication of a fundamental absence of resolve, or a tacit admission that the laws they were hired to enforce were illegitimate. I consider those to be analogous, at least for those points. Do you think them not analogous, or perhaps have a different opinion on them?

Closing down asylum stations is new to me. My initial thought is that any station that could be reached legally ought to have been kept open. Entering "where they can" makes me wonder if that condition is met. But if it was, then what the government's done is back themselves into a corner for a false arrest.

If someone was arrested without probable cause to believe they had broken a law, they should sue under 1983. Damage quantum for the child separation alone should send a message and it is, at least initially, borne by the individual who performed the arrest. (Insurance and department policy then step in.) There should absolutely be no tearing families apart when they've broken no laws; there should be no arrests of lone individuals without families when they've broken no laws. Are you saying this has happened? And gone unaddressed?

Whether or not bigotry or prejudice are present on Trump's part, the zero tolerance policy is, in my view, necessary to enforce the law. That's enough to warrant its implementation, his possible personal sins notwithstanding. I'm agreeing with enforcing the law, and I'm not going to resist it based on an uncharitable inference of one man's bigotry, or even to thwart a wicked man who is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I've not purported to fear a monster. I sleep at night because I act consistent with my convictions. That you do not share them does not make them less compelling to me.

Doug T. said...

First, I agree with you totally. The obvious solution is compounds with parent and kids. Let's call the internment camps, shall we. But this wasn't the first. The first was "Lock her up." This is a deeply ingrained mentality.

Grey One talks sass said...

Bradley,

You asked for my ideas on immigration and then ignored what I provided. I do wonder why (no I don't - I'm being snarky here).

I brought up traffic violations because that's the easiest to define when a person tells me they just want the laws on the books to be upheld. Funny how you had all kinds of conditions as to why Certain People are shot more than others at routine traffic stops. Evidence backs me up - white folks have privileges that others do not. That's not equal enforcement under the law - just saying.

As for asylum posts being closed, it is standard operating procedure for an abusive regime to restrict access; it's historical. Once the public settles on the treatment of the immigrant population the regimes next move is to detain other undesirables - for the good of the nation of course.

Regarding convictions, I'm fond of For the Good of All and May it Harm None.

I'm seeing harm done in the here/now and the fact you can ignore it means I'm deleriously glad we don't share convictions.

B said...

Y'all seem to feel that these parents have every right to enter our country.

They don't.

They ahve no right to cross our borders. And. when caught, it is no longer unreasonable to consider that they might show up for the court hearing, but will, instead, vanish int out country and work and live illegally.

The fact that Barry allowed them to do so does not mean that Trump should.

Again, if y'all want to house and feed these people, feel free to sponsor them for immigration. I see a bunch of folks decrying the upholding of the laws. I don't see you helping these folks IN fact, all I see is a bunch of folks reacting to a bunch of news stories and hating on Trump.

When are you going to start sponsoring immigrants, housing them, feeding and clothing them, etc? Or are y'all just Hypocrites?
Put up or shut up

dinthebeast said...

Well, B, here in Oakland we have found that they don't need much "housing and feeding" at all. In fact, they are participating members of our community who pay their own way, and since they aren't citizens, pay taxes into programs they'll never collect from.

This sure has knocked all of the new developments in the Mueller probe off of the front page right as the midterms get underway, while inflaming the prejudices of the most hard core of the Republican base.

-Doug in Oakland

dinthebeast said...

"If someone was arrested without probable cause to believe they had broken a law, they should sue under 1983. Damage quantum for the child separation alone should send a message and it is, at least initially, borne by the individual who performed the arrest. (Insurance and department policy then step in.) There should absolutely be no tearing families apart when they've broken no laws; there should be no arrests of lone individuals without families when they've broken no laws. Are you saying this has happened? And gone unaddressed?"

Tell that to the Congolese woman who is still incarcerated in San Diego while her daughter is being held in Chicago. She applied for asylum at a port of entry, just like Sessions said she should, and she hasn't seen her daughter for months.
Do you really believe she has the resources to file a lawsuit?

-Doug in Oakland

Anonymous said...

Here are pictures from Obama's era. Why no outrage then?
http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/photos-obama-immigration-detention-facilities/

Jim in Monroe

Eck! said...

Its not about what obama did or Bush(es) did. history is hard to accpet but its also unchangeable.

Its about what is the current president going to do about it. He has the power to act and is if only by inaction guilty of doing worse.

As to the people coming in. Its my understanding that at the border they
are applying then and there for asylum and then being separated as criminals
before they are granted or denied.

Is that fair?
Is that due process?
Is that humane?

I can't even be rational about our immigration policies. I've seen too much
up close to know it is seriously screwed up.

Until we fix this we have no say in the works how other countries behave. None!


Eck!

Anonymous said...

Isn't it Congress' duty to enact legislation? They tried, but the Dems voted no.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/senate-democrats-reject-gop-legislative-fix-to-stop-family-separations

Jim in Monroe

Dark Avenger said...

“Democrats insist Trump could end the policy on his own, and every Senate Democrat has backed a proposal by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to stop the family separation. Republican leaders, meanwhile, are working on their own bill. But there hasn’t been much bipartisanship. “With both parties largely entrenched, centrist senators are increasingly worried that there will be rival partisan ‘fixes’ to ending the crisis -- with no give from either side that can lead to 60 votes in the Senate,” they write. For their part, moderate senators are beginning preliminary talks. But they have no bill or consensus on how broadly to go.”


https://politi.co/2MIeCBV

The Washington Examiner is a partisan fishwrap.

Dark Avenger said...

Specifically, the GOP bills up for consideration in the House and Senate would dramatically cut the time immigrants have to present their bids for asylum. The version drafted by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), for example, mandates the hiring of thousands of new immigration judges who must hear families’ cases within 14 days of them crossing the border.

“The whole purpose of this is to adjudicate their claims very quickly and make a determination whether they have a valid asylum claim or if they can be deported,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), who supports a bill from Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), told TPM.

Human rights advocates say the two-week timeline would make it nearly impossible for asylum-seekers to put together the evidence needed for a successful application, especially since the families are being held in remote facilities where access to lawyers is difficult.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-bills-to-lock-up-families-together-are-fulfilling-the-trump-admins-wishes

But the Democrats are being ‘partisan’.

AC2usn said...

AC2usn, These individuals are not breaking the law. They are turning themselves into authorities and asking for asylum. Instead of "catch and release" we are enforcing detention. We are only enforcing this provision (option) on our southern border. The easiest and most common way to become an illegal alien is to over stay a vise (work, student, tourist, etc). In the Boston metro area the Irish are the largest number of illegal aliens.


We are citizens of the greatest country in the world. We are currently lead (??) by god knows what,



AC2usn









in an

Mike Jones said...

For the better part of two decades 80-85% of people polled supported immigration reform. Right, Left, business, worker bees whatever. You would think that would be a no brainer for Congress? In one sense this is just deck chairs on the Titanic. Every Congress-critter seems to be allergic to the greatest good. It's why small winning coalitions is always bad for the peoples. https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1529538313&sr=8-1&keywords=dictators+handbook&dpID=51t8ojwHg3L&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

After the Civil War, the North advanced faster than the South due to larger winning coalitions. The science part is on page 265.

Anonymous said...

Link to U.S. Asylum Codes:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

Long, but very interesting read. The Trump Administration and DOJ are ignoring and twisting existing U.S. codes.

Anonymous said...

https://www.juancole.com/2018/06/refugee-morally-illegal.html

Sessions is breaking the law. And then there is transporting minors across state lines without parental permission which may violate the Mann Act. Let the prosecutions begin.

Anonymous said...

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/390743-people-fleeing-persecution-have-the-right-to-seek-asylum

A concise summary of right to seek asylum.

CenterPuke88 said...

Let us count the ways some of the above statements are wrong:

There is an absolute right, in U.S. law, to cross the border and request asylum. It is NOT limited to a specific location(s).

There is a reason the Obama administration released for return, and its called the fact that some places are setting court dates 3 or 4 years into the future for Administrative hearings. Until the hearing is held, under this little piece of paper called the U.S. Constitution, continued detention has been held to be unreasonable for such a length of time.

If they disappear and work, how are we “house and feed(ing) them”?

Donnie’s latest Executive Order is in violation of a Court Order due to Sessions direction to charge first time offenders, on the southern border only, with a criminal act versus an administrative violation. This then causes inprisonment versus detention, and yes it is different.

The CBP has already begun releasing border crossers WITHOUT prosecuting, and instead gong back to the old policy, because they have no place to stack the bodies. This has resulted in conflict in the White House.

CenterPuke88 said...

Sorry, forgot:

The pictures of the detention from the Obama administration were different in that the parents and children were together then, rather than being torn apart, that’s the difference in the outrage.