Separating Children From Parents At The Border
I've read very little about the crisis du jour at the border, but sometimes it helps to jot down some thoughts before getting the details.
It seems to me that both of the following are reasonable:
But I doubt that it's such separation that's really the problem--it's more like: separating children from all their available parents. If we were throwing the fathers in jail but letting the mothers go free, with custody of the kids, that would be less bad, and there'd likely (though...who knows?) be less of an uproar.
But...if a single mother goes to prison for, say, larceny or murder, her children don't go with her, right? That's a case of separating children from all available parents. But I suppose the children tend to be taken in by other relatives. So maybe the real problem is: separating kids from parents when no other family-members are available to take custody.
But undoubtedly there are many cases in which no other family-members are available to take custody. What do we normally do in those cases? I'll bet money that we don't just let the parent go free. Maybe in the current case it's the extent of the problem that's changing things. I don't know.
The policy in question sounds to me like a fairly straightforward application of reasonable policies antecedently established and consistently applied. Nobody's jumping for joy about the idea of kids separated from their parents...but I don't recall a major outcry about separating kids from parents because of incarceration in the past.
Maybe there are better ways to do it--e.g. keeping the families together. Was that the previous policy? If we do that, the headlines will likely be: TRUMP IMPRISONS BABIES. Which doesn't mean it wouldn't be better.
Catch and release is a joke. I'd hope we could agree on that, but I'll bet not.
This kinda sounds to me like another case in which many on the left are going to freak out about any actions taken to decrease illegal immigration. They've got a tacit (or not-so-tacit) open-borders position, as I noted years ago to much derision. But it can't be denied anymore. I can't remember the last time the left favored any action that would decrease illegal immigration.
The vanguard of progressivism opposes every effort to slow the rate of illegal immigration because they aren't opposed to illegal immigration. In fact, some of them want more of it. One possible reason: more illegal aliens = more eventual Democrats. At least some progressives also want the kinds of cultural and demographic changes that massive illegal immigration will bring. Leftier lefties are fairly open about wanting whites to be as much of a minority as possible as fast as possible...and massive illegal immigration helps fast-track that project. Liberalism was indifferent to race, and opposed what seemed like a conservative preference for a majority-white nation. But such liberalism no longer exists, apparently. At least, it's unwilling to oppose the progressive preference for a majority non-white nation. Since I remain an unreconstructed liberal, I see both preferences as weird. (And, as I've said before, I have no doubt that progressives would be singing a very different tune if we were experiencing massive illegal immigration by, say, ethnic Russians who were likely to eventually become Republicans...)
I've always been in favor of giving priority to asylum-seekers who are fleeing political violence and war, and that hasn't changed. I'm not immediately sympathetic to giving asylum because of domestic violence. In fact, that sounds insane to me. Not every bad thing that happens to someone is grounds for asylum. But I'll listen to arguments. Gang violence seems like a borderline case--the more powerful the gang becomes, the more such violence resembles government violence. So perhaps that's case-by-case.
But something has to be done to stop what has, basically, become a kind of invasion. Many progressives want the invasion, and they'll rabidly oppose anything the Trump administration does. (See: their recently-discovered affinity for MS-13.) So they aren't going to be any help. The GOP seems to have its head on more-or-less straight about the problem--despite repeated attempts by the left to pretend that they're "anti-immigrant." They want people coming into the country to use the goddamn system. And that's the only reasonable view, IMO.
One option might be to make an even bigger push to kick out illegal aliens who have come for non-asylum-relevant reasons--overstaying their student visas and suchlike. The smaller that problem is, the more asylum-seekers we can take in. In fact, by working to prevent us from solving the background problem of illegal immigration, progressives have made the current crisis more acute. But we simply can't take in everyone from every messed-up country. Immigration is good. Massive, unregulated, illegal "immigration" is bad. It just can't be tolerated. That would be the end of us. And remember: refugees from Latin America could stop in any of the countries between here and their country of origin. But they're passing right through and past several other countries, including Mexico, and coming here--likely for economic reasons. People have made this point over and over, but progressivism simply won't hear it. At least conservatives are trying to wrestle with the actual problem instead of automatically opposing every proposed solution.
The craziest consequence of all of this, to my mind, is: progressive irrationality on this point may have made Trump right about that ridiculous wall. Since progressives seem to be approaching a position that opposes taking any action to kick out illegals who have already set foot across the border, perhaps our only option is to prevent them from setting foot across the border. And if that's our only option, then a massive, crazy, Game-Of-Thrones-esqe wall/fence may really turn out to be our only option. I mean, I still don't see it happening. But I still think that expanded fencing at crucial points is a good idea. And the more intractable progressives become on this point, the more reasonable it becomes to favor more expansive fencing.
Well, ok. Just thinking out loud before I plunge into actually trying to learn something about all this.
It seems to me that both of the following are reasonable:
[1] Children should not be incarcerated with their parentsIt certainly sounds awful to separate kids from their parents...but...isn't that already something we do when parents are incarcerated? I mean, every parent in prison (and jail) has been separated from their children. I don't remember many people complaining about this in the past.
[2] At least some people who illegally cross the border (intentionally) should be incarcerated.
But I doubt that it's such separation that's really the problem--it's more like: separating children from all their available parents. If we were throwing the fathers in jail but letting the mothers go free, with custody of the kids, that would be less bad, and there'd likely (though...who knows?) be less of an uproar.
But...if a single mother goes to prison for, say, larceny or murder, her children don't go with her, right? That's a case of separating children from all available parents. But I suppose the children tend to be taken in by other relatives. So maybe the real problem is: separating kids from parents when no other family-members are available to take custody.
But undoubtedly there are many cases in which no other family-members are available to take custody. What do we normally do in those cases? I'll bet money that we don't just let the parent go free. Maybe in the current case it's the extent of the problem that's changing things. I don't know.
The policy in question sounds to me like a fairly straightforward application of reasonable policies antecedently established and consistently applied. Nobody's jumping for joy about the idea of kids separated from their parents...but I don't recall a major outcry about separating kids from parents because of incarceration in the past.
Maybe there are better ways to do it--e.g. keeping the families together. Was that the previous policy? If we do that, the headlines will likely be: TRUMP IMPRISONS BABIES. Which doesn't mean it wouldn't be better.
Catch and release is a joke. I'd hope we could agree on that, but I'll bet not.
This kinda sounds to me like another case in which many on the left are going to freak out about any actions taken to decrease illegal immigration. They've got a tacit (or not-so-tacit) open-borders position, as I noted years ago to much derision. But it can't be denied anymore. I can't remember the last time the left favored any action that would decrease illegal immigration.
The vanguard of progressivism opposes every effort to slow the rate of illegal immigration because they aren't opposed to illegal immigration. In fact, some of them want more of it. One possible reason: more illegal aliens = more eventual Democrats. At least some progressives also want the kinds of cultural and demographic changes that massive illegal immigration will bring. Leftier lefties are fairly open about wanting whites to be as much of a minority as possible as fast as possible...and massive illegal immigration helps fast-track that project. Liberalism was indifferent to race, and opposed what seemed like a conservative preference for a majority-white nation. But such liberalism no longer exists, apparently. At least, it's unwilling to oppose the progressive preference for a majority non-white nation. Since I remain an unreconstructed liberal, I see both preferences as weird. (And, as I've said before, I have no doubt that progressives would be singing a very different tune if we were experiencing massive illegal immigration by, say, ethnic Russians who were likely to eventually become Republicans...)
I've always been in favor of giving priority to asylum-seekers who are fleeing political violence and war, and that hasn't changed. I'm not immediately sympathetic to giving asylum because of domestic violence. In fact, that sounds insane to me. Not every bad thing that happens to someone is grounds for asylum. But I'll listen to arguments. Gang violence seems like a borderline case--the more powerful the gang becomes, the more such violence resembles government violence. So perhaps that's case-by-case.
But something has to be done to stop what has, basically, become a kind of invasion. Many progressives want the invasion, and they'll rabidly oppose anything the Trump administration does. (See: their recently-discovered affinity for MS-13.) So they aren't going to be any help. The GOP seems to have its head on more-or-less straight about the problem--despite repeated attempts by the left to pretend that they're "anti-immigrant." They want people coming into the country to use the goddamn system. And that's the only reasonable view, IMO.
One option might be to make an even bigger push to kick out illegal aliens who have come for non-asylum-relevant reasons--overstaying their student visas and suchlike. The smaller that problem is, the more asylum-seekers we can take in. In fact, by working to prevent us from solving the background problem of illegal immigration, progressives have made the current crisis more acute. But we simply can't take in everyone from every messed-up country. Immigration is good. Massive, unregulated, illegal "immigration" is bad. It just can't be tolerated. That would be the end of us. And remember: refugees from Latin America could stop in any of the countries between here and their country of origin. But they're passing right through and past several other countries, including Mexico, and coming here--likely for economic reasons. People have made this point over and over, but progressivism simply won't hear it. At least conservatives are trying to wrestle with the actual problem instead of automatically opposing every proposed solution.
The craziest consequence of all of this, to my mind, is: progressive irrationality on this point may have made Trump right about that ridiculous wall. Since progressives seem to be approaching a position that opposes taking any action to kick out illegals who have already set foot across the border, perhaps our only option is to prevent them from setting foot across the border. And if that's our only option, then a massive, crazy, Game-Of-Thrones-esqe wall/fence may really turn out to be our only option. I mean, I still don't see it happening. But I still think that expanded fencing at crucial points is a good idea. And the more intractable progressives become on this point, the more reasonable it becomes to favor more expansive fencing.
Well, ok. Just thinking out loud before I plunge into actually trying to learn something about all this.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:44 AM
7 Comments:
No. The parents are incarcerated without bail on a misdemeanor charge--including people who are trying to get asylum. In the past, they would be simply 'detained.'
A little more background
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/laura-bush-separating-children-from-their-parents-at-the-border-breaks-my-heart/2018/06/17/f2df517a-7287-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/how-you-can-fight-family-separation-at-the-border.html
Note: minor misdemeanor is used as a technical term here (a crime with a short sentence.)
A few more points.
1. One of the rationales for separating children is the following: "DHS does … have a legal obligation to protect the best interests of the child whether that be from human smugglings, drug traffickers, or *nefarious actors who knowingly break our immigration laws and put minor children at risk*."
This is straight up doublespeak. It isn't parents with children who are smuggling-- humans, drugs or otherwise. And families are on the move with children not for nefarious reasons, but because they are desperate for one reason or another.
2. La Migra is separating children as young as 18 months from their mothers. (That is the documented youngest, not the absolute youngest.) You can be sure that toddlers would do better in detention with their mother than they would in some hypothetical utopian permanent day care. (Other articles suggest that separated children are not getting such care.)
3. There are no visitation rights. Parents have no idea where there children are. They are givan no communications. And they are given the runaround on when they might see them. (The articles focus on the parents, because the journalists *don't know where the children are* either.)
Detained and given a court date for their asylum hearing that they rarely attend, because the vast majority of asylum seekers from latin america are not fleeing government persecution, but some sort of private violence that doesn't target them for protectable reasons.
The asylum hearing should take place at the border and a decision handed down at the hearing. The potential asylee can either prove their persecution or not, I don't see how a delay in a foreign country is going to help them get their documents together. Also mandatory E-Verify with crippling fines per worker on the business and personal liability for corporate officers would pretty much stop illegal immigration in its tracks.
Gang violence in El Salvador is not really private violence, as the police are thoroughly infiltrated. The country is a basket case, in part because of MS13 types deported from the US. The country is a good candidate for the Blue Helmets.
If this were a knee-reflex 'progressive' freakout, Laura Bush wouldn't be involved.
A comparison between no-warning separation from children of people guilty of a misdemeanor (if anything) and possibly with a legitimate asylum case, with separation from children of people found guilty of a serious crime after due process and in accordance with public statute... doesn't bear much scrutiny.
But the nitty-gritty of the arguments isn't what matters here. It's a bit like 'Hey, you're more likely to die from a nut allergy / traffic accident / spontaneous combustion than in a school shooting!' What is the point of such comparisons? It looks like a faux-objective attempt to distract attention, tbh. It reminds me a bit, in a mirror-image kind of way, of the chin-stroking 'roundtable' musings of 'intellectuals' in the London Review of Books just after 9-11 -- Frederic Jameson & co insisting on the importance of contextualization. It was like you'd established your non-naive 'master of suspicion' wised-up intellectual credentials just by not saying This is horrible!
If something really is outrageous, the chances are that a lot of otherwise wrongheaded people are going to be outraged along with everyone else.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with that all that much, DJ...except that we seem to have been kinda driven to this policy by desperation. In practice, the real alternative is catch-and-release...and, since most people don't show up for court, it's the rough equivalent of open borders. Which would be a disaster.
I think you can be led by steps to such a policy...and then when someone who *hasn't* been led there by steps says "Whoa, dude, look at what you're doing", you say "yeah, WTF was I thinking? This is not cool." Which is basically what we, as a nation, did.
The 9/11 analogy is an interesting one...but I'd have to think about that more. I mean, what are we going to do given that we simply can't *de facto* open the borders?
I think it *is* a knee-jerk progressive freakout...though not everyone freaking out is progressive, nor knee-jerking. There has to be better way...but part of the problem is that there is a knee-jerk progressive freakout at *any policy whatsoever* that makes it harder for people to come into the country illegally.
I'm not in favor of the policy. But it's not the Holocaust it's being represented as--not that you're disagreeing with that point. It's a kind of act of desperation.
I disagree about school shootings and whether such comparisons are informative...but I'm not sure about it, and it actually seems like a kind of a hard question to me.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home