🐱 No, Donald Trump’s separation of immigrant families was not Barack Obama’s policy

CatParty
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ald-trumps-separation-immigrant-families-was/

Critics of the Trump administration’s separating of families illegally crossing the U.S. border with Mexico have characterized the practice as a distinctly cruel feature of Donald Trump’s presidency.

But some Republican commentators argue the policy is essentially a continuation of previous administrations.

"You know what's ironic? It's the same way Barack Obama did it," conservative commentator Matt Schlapp said during the June 15 broadcast of Fox News' America's Newsroom. "This is the problem with all of these things, the outrage you see coming from the left. There wasn't outrage over Barack Obama separating kids from adults."

While the Obama administration's immigration approach was not without controversy, it’s simply untrue to say he had a policy of separating families.

Trump policy
Let’s recap what the Trump administration is doing, before turning to Obama’s handling of immigration.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April announced a "zero-tolerance" policy, meaning every person caught crossing the border illegally would be referred for federal prosecution.

A good number of these people are adult migrants traveling with children. By law, when adults are detained and criminally prosecuted, their children cannot be housed with them in jail. Instead, kids are placed in a Department of Health and Human Services shelter until they can be released to a legal guardian.

Some 2,000 children have been separated from the adults they were traveling with across the U.S. border, according to the latest figures from the Department of Homeland Security. The children were separated from 1,940 adults from April 19 through May 31 as a result of border-crossing prosecutions.

Obama policy
Immigration experts we spoke to said Obama-era policies did lead to some family separations, but only relatively rarely, and nowhere near the rate of the Trump administration. (A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said the Obama administration did not count the number of families separated at the border.)

"Obama generally refrained from prosecution in cases involving adults who crossed the border with their kids," said Peter Margulies, an immigration law and national security law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law. "In contrast, the current administration has chosen to prosecute adult border-crossers, even when they have kids. That's a choice — one fundamentally different from the choice made by both Obama and previous presidents of both parties."

Denise Gilman, a law professor who directs the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, said immigration attorneys "occasionally" saw separated families under the Obama administration.

"However, these families were usually reunited quite quickly once identified," she said, "even if that meant release of a parent from adult detention."

In Trump’s case, family separations are a feature, not a bug, of the administration’s border policies, said David Fitzgerald, who co-directs the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies.

"The family separations are not the small-scale collateral consequences of a border policy, but rather, a deliberate initiative," he added.

Former Obama officials in recent interviews drew sharp distinctions between Trump’s policy and that of his predecessors.

The Trump administration's current approach is modeled after Operation Streamline, a 2005 program under the administration of George W. Bush, according to Obama spokesman Eric Schultz. The key difference, he said, is that while the 2005 program referred all illegal immigrants for prosecution, it made exceptions for adults traveling with children.

Jeh Johnson, Obama’s Homeland Security secretary from 2013 to the end of his presidency, said such separations occurred in rare cases, but never as a matter of policy.

"I can't say that it never happened. There may have been some exigent situation, some emergency," Johnson told NPR June 9. "There may have been some doubt about whether the adult accompanying the child was in fact the parent of the child. I can't say it never happened — but not as a matter of policy or practice. It's not something that I could ask our Border Patrol or our immigration enforcement personnel to do."

Obama’s top domestic policy adviser, Cecilia Muñoz, said the Obama administration briefly weighed the separation of parents from children, before deciding against it.

"I do remember looking at each other like, ‘We’re not going to do this, are we?’ We spent five minutes thinking it through and concluded that it was a bad idea," she told the New York Times. "The morality of it was clear — that’s not who we are."

Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute, said that, as a deterrent, the Obama administration began prosecuting border-crossers who had already been deported at least once.

"But very few of those people crossed with children, so it didn’t become as visible an issue," he said. "There was some child separation and some pushback by immigrant advocacy groups around that, but the numbers were quite limited.

"The idea of prosecuting people who cross the border illegally the first time they are caught is entirely new," he added. "So we haven’t seen children separated from their parents on anything near this scale before."

The Obama administration’s immigration policy was not without controversy, to be sure.

In 2014, amid an influx of asylum seekers from Central America, the administration established large family detention centers to hold parents and children — potentially indefinitely — as a means of deterring other asylees. The practice eventually lost a legal challenge, resulting in a 2016 decision that stopped families from being detained together.

Schlapp told us that his claim referred to the fact that both Obama and Trump are bound by the same procedures prohibiting family detention.

However, Schlapp’s full comment gives the misleading impression that Trump is essentially continuing Obama’s policy, when in fact Trump’s zero tolerance policy is quite different.

Our ruling
Schlapp said the Trump administration’s policy of separating families is "the same way Barack Obama did it."

Obama’s immigration policy specifically sought to avoid breaking up families. While some children were separated from their parents under Obama, this was relatively rare, and occurred at a far lower rate than under Trump, where the practice flows from a zero tolerance approach to illegal border-crossings.

We rate this False.
 
And the easiest way to stop an impoverished nation from collapsing? Stop making it impoverished. We have the money to prop up a government, or create a puppet state like we did in Central and South America (See the banana republics) earlier. Except in this instance, instead of creating a pseudo-libertarian hellhole where almost nobody profited, we'd create something probably on par with a somewhat shitty Western European country. Just gotta figure out how to stop all democratically elected leaders from getting shot and work from there.

Worst case scenario, just freaking make America look like a total shithole, which we're doing an admirable job of doing (troons, identity politics, Trump salt/Trump anything, widespread hatred of the government, the government breaking its own laws to spy on people, blah blah blah...)

The closest example of this sort of "propped-up banana republic" we have is Puerto Rico, and it's a corrupt shithole and a money sump.

And that's a best case scenario. That's the best we could hope to "improve" Mexico. Make it a gigantic Puerto Rico, but without even a moat to protect us. It's not worth it.
 
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. There is no course in this whole theoretical mess that we could take that wouldn't cost us more than is worth in money and standing across the globe. We'll always be the villains in the rest of the world's eyes. Mexico isn't our problem, it has never been our problem, and we're not responsible for it being the way it is today. As much as it's going to hurt - even if you're not a MAGA sperg - this is the time to start reinforcing our borders even if it means deporting those families back into that shithole; but detaining people and separating them from their children is quite literally the most retarded way you could go about it short of lining them up in a firing squad.

This is entirely Donald's problem now, and he's fucking it up if even half of these claims regarding ICE's procedures are proven true no matter how much he'll scream "Fake News".
 
But those both required the kinds of total war and brutal long term occupations that Americans no longer have the stomach for.

And directly because we no longer have the stomach to actually suffer and die for a cause, we're stuck here screeching about Russians, Mexicans, troons, the U.N, and China instead of actually doing anything. There's no will to do anything anymore.
 
Looks like we're going to have a bad choice either way. Either America goes total war om the Cartels, or we build a solid wall with no door and let the place burn itself down.

Hey, turns out looks like Trump's just trying to fight slavery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...465050-c542-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

Hm. What happened the last time a bumch of democrats pitched a fit over a republican president trying to stop slavery???
 
Looks like we're going to have a bad choice either way. Either America goes total war om the Cartels, or we build a solid wall with no door and let the place burn itself down.

Hey, turns out looks like Trump's just trying to fight slavery.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...465050-c542-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

Hm. What happened the last time a bumch of democrats pitched a fit over a republican president trying to stop slavery???
Man, I can't believe trump sold those kids into slavery while obama was president. And wait, so those "Lost" kids were actually lost because they were forced to allow caretakers to not have follow up visits by Obama's agencies? Oh well, I look forward to never seeing anything about this on the news.

And directly because we no longer have the stomach to actually suffer and die for a cause, we're stuck here screeching about Russians, Mexicans, troons, the U.N, and China instead of actually doing anything. There's no will to do anything anymore.

Uhh... what would you have people do? What should we do about the russians? Seriously, I'll give you control over the entire apparatus of the US, no need for congressional approval, absolute power. Now what do you do about russia?

Mexicans? I don't hear a lot of complaining about mexicans, maybe you mean illegal immagrants coming over the mexican border? Most of them are not mexicans, they just walked through it. Are you saying we should annex Mexico? Then keep annexing south until we hit water? Otherwise I don't see how exactly you're going to have any control to fix anything.

troons? I mean, it's a cultural thing, people are talking about it a lot, this really isn't a cause anyone needs to suffer and die over. I think discussion actually is the thing to do here.

U.N.? Do what? I can't imagine what exactly armed conflict would accomplish here.

China? See russia.
 
Man, I can't believe trump sold those kids into slavery while obama was president. And wait, so those "Lost" kids were actually lost because they were forced to allow caretakers to not have follow up visits by Obama's agencies? Oh well, I look forward to never seeing anything about this on the news.



Uhh... what would you have people do? What should we do about the russians? Seriously, I'll give you control over the entire apparatus of the US, no need for congressional approval, absolute power. Now what do you do about russia?

Mexicans? I don't hear a lot of complaining about mexicans, maybe you mean illegal immagrants coming over the mexican border? Most of them are not mexicans, they just walked through it. Are you saying we should annex Mexico? Then keep annexing south until we hit water? Otherwise I don't see how exactly you're going to have any control to fix anything.

troons? I mean, it's a cultural thing, people are talking about it a lot, this really isn't a cause anyone needs to suffer and die over. I think discussion actually is the thing to do here.

U.N.? Do what? I can't imagine what exactly armed conflict would accomplish here.

China? See russia.

Russians: Stop kissing their ass as much as Trump does, with his glowing praise for Putin and Kim Jong Un. Maybe actually make sense and place sanctions on them.

Mexicans? It wasn't a big issue until Trump inflated it to use it as a shield for his underdeveloped sense of geopolitics and it worked beyond anyone's wildest dreams. A moderate increase in border security from the baseline should be deterrence enough. Instead of simply deporting them and forgetting about it, which is exactly what Trump will do, they'll be incarcerated, told that the U.S isn't for them, and then airdropped over southern Mexico so they'll have to run over the entire country to try again.

Troons? Laugh like a shithole about them.
 
Oh really? The flood of unaccompanied minors from central america wasn't an issue during Obama's presidency? Illegal immigration over the southern border hasn't been a conservative talking point for decades?

Place sanctions on Russia for what right now? I mean, I agree we shouldn't lift any sanctions on them for the whole Crimea thing, but just dropping sanctions out of nowhere doesn't play well.

Sanctioning NK while we're negotiating with them would be highly counterproductive. I'd argue trying to get a disarmament agreement with them is "doing something". Remember a couple years ago they were test firing nukes?

I would be happier if Trump wouldn't praise Un or Putin. I would be happier in general if Trump had a filter.
 
Russians: Stop kissing their ass as much as Trump does, with his glowing praise for Putin and Kim Jong Un. Maybe actually make sense and place sanctions on them.
He already put sanctions in place against Russia, and more than once. Even CNN actually covered that, so it wasn't even like the story was kept on the down-low. The sanctions against North Korea were some of the largest they've ever been hit with, and even after the Summit meeting, all of the sanctions are still in place until North Korea proves that they've disarmed their nuclear capabilities. I'm not even sure what you mean by "glowing praise" because the fact that Trump was shit-talking Kim was international news for the better part of a year. If you're expecting to call him Fat Boy during a peace summit, you might not want to take up a career in negotiating.
 
Half of those articles were condemning Russia for electing in the U.S election, most of those sanctions were already in place, and at least one person in the Trump cabinet said they weren't enough, and that's the first article. The second one repeats what the first said, and the third notices that most of the executive orders were made by Obama and Bush.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/mcmaster-russia-costs/index.html
 
Half of those articles were condemning Russia for electing in the U.S election, most of those sanctions were already in place, and at least one person in the Trump cabinet said they weren't enough, and that's the first article. The second one repeats what the first said, and the third notices that most of the executive orders were made by Obama and Bush.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/mcmaster-russia-costs/index.html
I'm not surprised that half of the articles are useless, considering it's CNN. I was only referencing them to show that even they were talking about it, not because it's an ideal source for information. The point was that significant sanctions have already been aimed directly towards Russia and its oligarchs, and when it comes to sanctions, in some situations you're better off leveling them towards a country or an administration, but not actually enforcing them so long as they're complying. It's similar to how just because you've aimed a gun at someone, it doesn't mean the best course of action is turning them into Swiss cheese. In this case, additional sanctions are being used as leverage, rather than a blunt instrument.

When it comes to North Korea, those sanctions became a blunt instrument. Most of the sanctions against North Korea were drafted in 2008 for Executive Order 13466, but additional ones were piled on sometime in February of 2018, I think it was. Trump's administration hasn't lifted those sanctions nor the additional ones imposed earlier in the year. North Korea is still being held "under the gun" on both counts until they can prove they've held up their end of the Summit agreement, so I'm confused as to what you're expecting the administration to do. If they're complying with the agreement so far, what sense would it make to pile even more of them on top of the country?
 
db7813aca94768944f1818165e6854ff.png

c5c643229557c1cd6d840f7ffd605b14.png

That's basically the gist of it. He's talking about this story which is based on this lawsuit, which I believe is an extension of the report that the ACLU put out, detailing all of the abuses and problems that were allegedly being carried on in the detainment centers from 2009-2014. I won't argue that if even a single one of these allegations and reports is true that it's a serious problem that should be addressed, but I'm absolutely going to refuse to let them frame this as something that the current administration should shoulder the blame for, while assigning none at all to the prior, even though it happened on their watch.

As far as I'm concerned, if we're going to have this discussion we're going to do it legitimately. It makes absolutely no sense at all to not only completely ignore the problems with the prior administration, but to shove those problems forwards and blame the next person in line. The simple fact that they completely sat on this kind of thing for eight years and didn't start making a racket until just now leads me to believe that not a single breath of their outrage is real, and not a single bone in their body wants to see this problem fixed, or will even care in the next week or two.

They didn't actually care about the taxes, they didn't actually care about North Korea, the economic numbers, the unemployment rates, the homelessness problem, the Veterans Association problems, the healthcare problem, the gun control debate, or the DACA legislation, so why the Hell should I assume they actually care about this, either?
It's not easy for the government to get stuff done.
 
Here's something I'm curious about...

I know Americans love their dogs and all - yet listening to VDH he'll talk about finding dog corpses and abandoned animals from dog fighting rings. Now I'm having trouble finding exact stats. It seems everything on dog fighting doesn't talk about the demographics of those who perpetrate it (which already tells me almost anything I need to know*).

So... if some enterprising memers start bringing up the idea to Americans that they'd have to pick between their dogs and immigrants...

*Example:
"While organized dogfighting activity seemed to decline in the 1990s, many law enforcement and animal control officials feel that it has rebounded in recent years, with the Internet making it easier than ever for dogfighters to exchange information about animals and fights." -Source
Hm. What happened around the 90s...
line-graph-decade.gif
 
Back