Topic: Ben Shapiro shines a light on the separation of children
Anonymous A started this discussion 8 years ago#75,816
Can't say I disagree with his analysis.
> Finally, take the widely-parroted claim that President Trump has been forcing children out of the arms of their illegal immigrant parents. Here’s the truth: That’s what the law requires. In 1997, the federal government — then run by President Clinton — came to a settlement agreement that forced the government to discharge unaccompanied illegal immigrant minors to guardians within 20 days. Similarly, the 2008 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act requires unaccompanied minors to be settled with guardians in the United States while undergoing removal proceedings. And in 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision extending those rules to accompanied minors as well as unaccompanied minors.
> This meant that if illegal immigrant parents and children were arrested crossing the border, they could not be detained together by law: Within 20 days, children had to be remanded to the care of a guardian outside detention.
> So Trump didn’t simply decide to separate families. President Obama separated families, too. The only difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is prosecuting illegal immigrants more consistently than Obama did — meaning that more adults are being arrested, which automatically means that children will be separated from their parents.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#893,858
@893,574 (D)
Attack the man, not the message? How far left are you?
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#893,860
@893,709 (A)
He is wrong about how the laws were being used, and he hopes no one will notice him doing that by sandwiching his claims between a lot of crying about how "the media" is persecuting Trump. The 2008 Wilberforce act put government processes in place for unaccompanied minors, because children don't always come in with their parents. Sometimes parents are facing separate criminal charges or falsely claim to be the parents, and that is what the ninth circuit decision he is referencing addresses; it gives protections to children in those cases similar protection to children who cross alone. That's where Shapiro starts mischaracterizing things.
Having a procedure in place for something doesn't mean it happens all the time or that it necessarily has to happen. The fact that a city has jaywalking laws on the books doesn't mean that they have a problem with rampant jaywalking or that anyone crossing a street is immediately prosecuted. Shapiro is ignoring that it wasn't policy to separate families until just recently. Children still crossed alone or were separated if the parents needed to be prosecuted for something separately, but it wasn't policy to separate them all the time - and it wasn't happening all the time just because a court ruled in favor of it in one instance.
Both Sessions and Kelly have remarked on the recent policy change and the separation of families in particular, but Shapiro isn't mentioning that; he's hoping you will assume the recent problem is the result of Obama-era decisions rather than the current administration's loose interpretation of them.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 33 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#893,867
@previous (D)
wow that Shapiro sounds like a fuckin asshole
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 53 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#893,870
“Unaccompanied minors” is not “accompanied minors taken from their parents”