Originally Posted by
pbjosh
Actually, how effective it would be is based on how much it decreases the number of people crossing the border.
Say, East Germany was very effective. It was not moral. These are different things. Compared to shooting kids, I would say this is significantly morally superior.
No. What is causing families to be separated was a ruling under Flores and the state of California. It existed and was in affect before Trump was elected president. It happened under Bush and related also. There are a lot of reasons, some of them being a worry that the child was in danger from the parent, others being the child was held in a separate facility while the parent, who was caught breaking a law in a foreign country there were not residents of, were dealing with the court proceedings of that country before being released to the border or allowed passage. It also involves child trafficking laws, and protecting them from parents who are a risk to the child. The original work was done in 2002 under homeland security iirc. Edit - All of this stems from 1996 or so changes to immigration law under Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.
The separations had happened before the law. Just on the families who were detained vs being turned back to the border. This has been gone over plenty I would have thought by now.
There was no EO from Trump that caused border separations. Or any EO from Obama, or Bush. It was generated under existing laws for the protection of the children from potential harm, and to shield them from going through the court system. [edit - It has not been driven by any president, but by Congress or state courts.] It all existed before Trump, and he has petitioned the court to reverse that law. I have linked to the EO's for anybody to read, and I have taken out the relevant quotes concerning how children are treated, with previous existing laws.
At this point there has been plenty of sources on this, and not getting this very crucial part of the argument is kind of on you.