Current Events > The law requires if you cross the border illegally and are arrested for it

(+) Yeah! (+)

your children cannot stay in your custody.

It was a 2008 ruling from court ruling from the 9th circuit court of appeals. According to the law you're not allowed to take the children and leave them with their parents in custody.

That's just the way it is.

The 9th circuit court ruled non-detention of minors applies to the custody of illegal immigrants.

It is because of the Flores settlement" a federal settlement that said unaccompanied minor illegal immigrants must be released into a parental figure or guardian. Then the 9th circuit court of appeals mandated that minors need to be released into a parental figure or guardian regardless if they came with a parent or not. This is because they don't want to keep the minors in custody.

Trump is enforcing the laws.

https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/immigrants/flores_v_meese_agreement.pdf

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/08-16484/0816484-2011-02-25.html

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/07/05/17-55208.pdf
---

---

You forgot to add that enforcing the law is in the Bible. Very important detail.
---

Hillary's emails are really causing a ruckus aren't they?
---

It's just ironic that the peeps that clutch their pistols just in case the government turns tyrannical turn around and see Trump snatching kids from their parents and excuse that because the law is the law.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

You forgot to add that enforcing the law is in the Bible. Very important detail.

This is a real post.

Let that sink in.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Hillary's emails are really causing a ruckus aren't they?

Is this what someone looks like when they get schooled?
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

It's just ironic that the peeps that clutch their pistols just in case the government turns tyrannical turn around and see Trump snatching kids from their parents and excuse that because the law is the law.

Pretty sure you posted this same thing in another thread.

Get schooled son.
---

50Blessings posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

You forgot to add that enforcing the law is in the Bible. Very important detail.

This is a real post.

Let that sink in.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/16/jeff-sessions-bible-romans-13-trump-immigration-policy/707749002/
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

It's just ironic that the peeps that clutch their pistols just in case the government turns tyrannical turn around and see Trump snatching kids from their parents and excuse that because the law is the law.

Enforcing immigration laws is not tyrannical.
---

Ha, it's almost like liberals are allergic to facts.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

It's a bird! It's a plane!

It's Straaaawmaaan!
---

VectorChaos posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

It's a bird! It's a plane!

It's Straaaawmaaan!

What part of that is a strawman?
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

Ha, it's almost like liberals are allergic to facts.

They don't seem to understand that laws don't end where their feelings begin.
---

These migrants are presenting themselves to border patrol. They have committed no crimes.
---

right, and the zero tolerance policy announced by jeff sessions in may is why so many are being charged and will have to be separated from their kids
---

Everything A_Good_Boy posts is a strawman
---

1. Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's just
2. Trump has repealed many policies Obama put into place, he can do it to this one as well
3. Obama's policy was focused on illegal immigrants who committed crimes once they were in the US
4. They are applying this policy to legal asylum seekers presenting at the border, who haven't ever crossed illegally, or even ever been in our country

During the Obama & Bush years, the practice of these administrations was to do something called "family detention," where asylum seekers and other immigrants arriving together as families were housed in facilities together until their cases were resolved in some way. That might mean the families were deported or they might be given temporary status while their cases wended their way through the immigration and/or asylum processes.

Enter the Trump administration. Trump campaigned on hard line immigration policies, and in the service of those campaign promises, John Kelly, his current Chief of Staff, who was formerly the director of Homeland Security, floated a policy of 100% child separation as a means of deterrence for both illegal border crossers and legal asylum seekers. Jeff Sessions, the current US Attorney General, announced this new policy several weeks ago.

Now the practice is to separate families from their children regardless of disposition or the status of their case. If you get caught crossing the Rio Grande in the dead of night or present yourself as an asylum seeker at a border checkpoint, your kid(s) will be removed from you. Due to the trauma of child separation under any circumstance, the ACLU and international community have criticized this policy being used indiscriminately. It's traumatic for children to be separated from their parents due to laws being broken, but it is also unnecessarily cruel to also apply this policy to people legally seeking asylum under international law.*
This policy is also creating a detention crisis. Children are living in housing originally meant for a maximum of 72 hours of detention while they wait for placement in larger facilities. Already out of room in the larger facilities, the US is seeking to detain these children in military bases.

*"but they should apply for asylum before they get here"
No. "You may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States." A port of entry is the US border or rather specific points on the border (including Airports, Seaports, and Landports), which these people are doing.
Asylum seekers to the USA are not required to register in the first country they get to. This confusion is caused by The European Court of Justice (ECJ), supreme court for the European Union, ruling that would-be migrants must seek asylum in the first country they reach. So this only applies to the EU, not UN Asylum Laws.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-and-answers-asylum-eligibility-and-applications

Do some research: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/06/02/a-cruel-and-unusual-border-policy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/top-homeland-security-officials-urge-criminal-prosecution-of-parents-who-cross-border-with-children/2018/04/26/a0bdcee0-4964-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html
---

Think of the children!! Damn conservatives! Damn you all to Hades.
---

SageHarpuia posted...

Everything A_Good_Boy posts is a strawman

Who are you?
---

M_Live posted...

Like, if there was an intentionally obtuse law saying you had to crabwalk everywhere instead of regularly walk, and if you were caught doing so, you'd be punished by death, and so people were dying around you left and right because they didn't want to walk like dumbasses, would you just be like like yeah, screw those guys? Because that's a damn shame.

It says a lot about a person when they have to conjure up a ridiculous situation in order to make a completely unrelated situation look bad.
---

We did have laws saying that black people were property and that run away slaves must be returned to their slavemasters. Did those things only become bad once they were no longer laws?
---

M_Live posted...

Like, if there was an intentionally obtuse law saying you had to crabwalk everywhere instead of regularly walk, and if you were caught doing so, you'd be punished by death, and so people were dying around you left and right because they didn't want to walk like dumbasses, would you just be like like yeah, screw those guys? Because that's a damn shame.

---

Same thing happened under Obama just not at this scale. Trump administration has taken a stronger approach with their zero tolerance policy.

Whats next, schooling us by telling us the Justice Department is enforcing the law by going after marijuana? Well no s***, all they did was update their enforcement policy.

Topic is dumb but thats expected from Trumps biggest supporter on this site.
---

M_Live posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

We did have laws saying that black people were property and that run away slaves must be returned to their slavemasters. Did those things only become bad once they were no longer laws?

Here's a more grounded example

It's almost like you guys are trying to insinuate that conservatives haven't been complaining about immigration reform for years.
---

If you believe bad laws must be obeyed and enforced simply because they are the law, you need to confront the fact that you probably would have taken issue with people disobeying other bad laws in the past.
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

M_Live posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

We did have laws saying that black people were property and that run away slaves must be returned to their slavemasters. Did those things only become bad once they were no longer laws?

Here's a more grounded example

It's almost like you guys are trying to insinuate that conservatives haven't been complaining about immigration reform for years.

Who knew that by "immigration reform" that what you really meant to say was "snatch kids away from their parents".
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

Who knew that by "immigration reform" that what you really meant to say was "snatch kids away from their parents".

It's almost like you didn't even try to comprehend the sources provided in OP and decided to keep on shit posting a shitty narrative.
---

iPhone_7 posted...

Same thing happened under Obama just not at this scale. Trump administration has taken a stronger approach with their zero tolerance policy.

Whats next, schooling us by telling us the Justice Department is enforcing the law by going after marijuana? Well no s***, all they did was update their enforcement policy.

Topic is dumb but thats expected from Trumps biggest supporter on this site.

I honestly imagine most of these conservatives would not care if states with legal marijuana started being raided by the feds
---

This thread basically rekt the "Trump hates kids" argument.
---

And it reks the "Trump hates the Bible" arguments too.
---

When the government legalizes this tyranny that gun nuts are ready to fight, I expect them all to sit and do nothing since "The law is the law even if you don't like it. Work to change it through proper channels or move somewhere else."
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

Ha, it's almost like liberals are allergic to facts.

Stop throwing facts!

Happens after 7:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F2ukbrVb1M" data-time="
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

Ha, it's almost like liberals are allergic to facts.

That's funny while America is being run by an administration of "alternative facts" and "relative truth".
---

hockeybub89 posted...

When the government legalizes this tyranny that gun nuts are ready to fight, I expect them all to sit and do nothing since "The law is the law even if you don't like it. Work to change it through proper channels or move somewhere else."

You expect people to engage in firefights over stupid laws that can be changed the right way?
---

VectorChaos posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

When the government legalizes this tyranny that gun nuts are ready to fight, I expect them all to sit and do nothing since "The law is the law even if you don't like it. Work to change it through proper channels or move somewhere else."

You expect people to engage in firefights over stupid laws that can be changed the right way?

I'm just saying "It's da lurrr" is a dumb argument that people only make when they agree with something. That isn't exclusive to one side, but gun nuts are a good example as they are the type of people who are a-ok with what's going on here.
---

The Democrats want to do nothing to secure our border.

Until they're willing to negotiate, this administration will enforce current immigration law. We will have a country.
---

It's super weird how the Democrats were able to suddenly ratchet up immigrant internment this year when Republicans own all the branches of government. How did they manage that, iyo?
---

Hinakuluiau posted...

1. Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's just
2. Trump has repealed many policies Obama put into place, he can do it to this one as well
3. Obama's policy was focused on illegal immigrants who committed crimes once they were in the US
4. They are applying this policy to legal asylum seekers presenting at the border, who haven't ever crossed illegally, or even ever been in our country

During the Obama & Bush years, the practice of these administrations was to do something called "family detention," where asylum seekers and other immigrants arriving together as families were housed in facilities together until their cases were resolved in some way. That might mean the families were deported or they might be given temporary status while their cases wended their way through the immigration and/or asylum processes.

Enter the Trump administration. Trump campaigned on hard line immigration policies, and in the service of those campaign promises, John Kelly, his current Chief of Staff, who was formerly the director of Homeland Security, floated a policy of 100% child separation as a means of deterrence for both illegal border crossers and legal asylum seekers. Jeff Sessions, the current US Attorney General, announced this new policy several weeks ago.

Now the practice is to separate families from their children regardless of disposition or the status of their case. If you get caught crossing the Rio Grande in the dead of night or present yourself as an asylum seeker at a border checkpoint, your kid(s) will be removed from you. Due to the trauma of child separation under any circumstance, the ACLU and international community have criticized this policy being used indiscriminately. It's traumatic for children to be separated from their parents due to laws being broken, but it is also unnecessarily cruel to also apply this policy to people legally seeking asylum under international law.*
This policy is also creating a detention crisis. Children are living in housing originally meant for a maximum of 72 hours of detention while they wait for placement in larger facilities. Already out of room in the larger facilities, the US is seeking to detain these children in military bases.

*"but they should apply for asylum before they get here"
No. "You may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States." A port of entry is the US border or rather specific points on the border (including Airports, Seaports, and Landports), which these people are doing.
Asylum seekers to the USA are not required to register in the first country they get to. This confusion is caused by The European Court of Justice (ECJ), supreme court for the European Union, ruling that would-be migrants must seek asylum in the first country they reach. So this only applies to the EU, not UN Asylum Laws.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-and-answers-asylum-eligibility-and-applications

Do some research: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/06/02/a-cruel-and-unusual-border-policy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/top-homeland-security-officials-urge-criminal-prosecution-of-parents-who-cross-border-with-children/2018/04/26/a0bdcee0-4964-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html

hey, look at that, TC ignored this
---

HypnoCoosh posted...

Trump is enforcing the laws.

He can shred international treaties, openly defy the Emoluments Clause and claims he could literally get away with murder, but his hands are tied when it comes to setting the White House policy on immigration. Right.
---

Polycosm posted...

HypnoCoosh posted...

Trump is enforcing the laws.

He can shred international treaties, openly defy the Emoluments Clause and claims he could literally get away with murder, but his hands are tied when it comes to setting the White House policy on immigration. Right.

There's no other current alternative that is tough on border security.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

It's just ironic that the peeps that clutch their pistols just in case the government turns tyrannical turn around and see Trump snatching kids from their parents and excuse that because the law is the law.

Enforcing immigration laws is not tyrannical.

aaaannnnndddddd

this is how the whole holcaust thing was justified too. It was all legal, according to its authors

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Hinakuluiau posted...

1. Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's just
2. Trump has repealed many policies Obama put into place, he can do it to this one as well
3. Obama's policy was focused on illegal immigrants who committed crimes once they were in the US
4. They are applying this policy to legal asylum seekers presenting at the border, who haven't ever crossed illegally, or even ever been in our country

During the Obama & Bush years, the practice of these administrations was to do something called "family detention," where asylum seekers and other immigrants arriving together as families were housed in facilities together until their cases were resolved in some way. That might mean the families were deported or they might be given temporary status while their cases wended their way through the immigration and/or asylum processes.

Enter the Trump administration. Trump campaigned on hard line immigration policies, and in the service of those campaign promises, John Kelly, his current Chief of Staff, who was formerly the director of Homeland Security, floated a policy of 100% child separation as a means of deterrence for both illegal border crossers and legal asylum seekers. Jeff Sessions, the current US Attorney General, announced this new policy several weeks ago.

Now the practice is to separate families from their children regardless of disposition or the status of their case. If you get caught crossing the Rio Grande in the dead of night or present yourself as an asylum seeker at a border checkpoint, your kid(s) will be removed from you. Due to the trauma of child separation under any circumstance, the ACLU and international community have criticized this policy being used indiscriminately. It's traumatic for children to be separated from their parents due to laws being broken, but it is also unnecessarily cruel to also apply this policy to people legally seeking asylum under international law.*
This policy is also creating a detention crisis. Children are living in housing originally meant for a maximum of 72 hours of detention while they wait for placement in larger facilities. Already out of room in the larger facilities, the US is seeking to detain these children in military bases.

*"but they should apply for asylum before they get here"
No. "You may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States." A port of entry is the US border or rather specific points on the border (including Airports, Seaports, and Landports), which these people are doing.
Asylum seekers to the USA are not required to register in the first country they get to. This confusion is caused by The European Court of Justice (ECJ), supreme court for the European Union, ruling that would-be migrants must seek asylum in the first country they reach. So this only applies to the EU, not UN Asylum Laws.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/questions-and-answers-asylum-eligibility-and-applications

Do some research: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/06/02/a-cruel-and-unusual-border-policy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/top-homeland-security-officials-urge-criminal-prosecution-of-parents-who-cross-border-with-children/2018/04/26/a0bdcee0-4964-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html

hey, look at that, TC ignored this

A_Good_Boy posted...

It's just ironic that the peeps that clutch their pistols just in case the government turns tyrannical turn around and see Trump snatching kids from their parents and excuse that because the law is the law.

Why? They're fucking with brown people, what's ironic about that? It shouldn't be a surprise that they're ecstatic about it
---

Shuto-uke posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

It's just ironic that the peeps that clutch their pistols just in case the government turns tyrannical turn around and see Trump snatching kids from their parents and excuse that because the law is the law.

Enforcing immigration laws is not tyrannical.

aaaannnnndddddd

this is how the whole holcaust thing was justified too. It was all legal, according to its authors

We're specifcally detaining people who enter the country illegally. Get back to me if the government plans to start rounding up people of a certain ethnicity or religion and executing them.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Shuto-uke posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

It's just ironic that the peeps that clutch their pistols just in case the government turns tyrannical turn around and see Trump snatching kids from their parents and excuse that because the law is the law.

Enforcing immigration laws is not tyrannical.

aaaannnnndddddd

this is how the whole holcaust thing was justified too. It was all legal, according to its authors

We're specifcally detaining people who enter the country illegally. Get back to me if the government plans to start rounding up people of a certain ethnicity or religion and executing them.

It's what Arpaio was doing when he was still a sheriff in Arizona. He even admitted that's what he was doing when he accepted Trump's pardon. Pretty weird how conservatives celebrate a man for rounding up brown people and then housing them in the desert.
---