Yesterday I found myself in a surreal Facebook exchange.
A friend of mine, someone I considered to be of above average intelligence, refused to accept the reality that Trump was being protested in London to the extent of tens of thousands of people. I gave him video evidence, and he maintained that it was shot and cut to make it look like a lot of people. I gave him legitimate sources such as Reuters and CBS News, and he maintained that the media would have called it huge even if only 20 people showed up. I gave him aerial photos and he simply disappeared.
First things first, Trump wouldn't be the first president to be protested in another country. He might be the first president to be protested in the foreign country of his mother's birth (Scotland), but almost every president since World War II has experienced less than cordial welcoming parties in a variety of countries around the world. So why debate reality on this?
Maybe because it is our closest ally on the planet. Maybe it is because we supposedly have a "special relationship" with the country we waged war upon in order to gain our independence. Maybe it was the sheer number of people in London, and later in Scotland, that protested. Maybe.
But I don't actually think that's it. I think what I am experiencing with many of my friends and family members is the Trumpian faith.
I have stopped using the term Trump-supporter for most of the people who voted for him and continue to espouse their devotion... I mean "support" for him. Any rational person, unless they are racist, misogynistic, nationalists, who love destructive protectionism, trade wars, strong men dictators the world over, and diplomacy not worthy of a second grader, would have ended their "support" of this president by now.
That sounds like hyperbole, but it isn't. Think about it. Here are the most common claims people have made directly to me for their support of this president:
- That he has put America first.
- That he fights for America.
- That he has lowered their taxes.
- That he is making other countries pay their "fair share."
- That he is bringing back jobs.
- That he is good for the economy.
- That a wall is a good idea (no, seriously, smart people have actually said that... I know).
How has he put America first? He has publicly insulted, undermined, delegitimized, or marginalized (in no particular order) African Americans, Mexican Americans, legal immigrants from Haiti or any African country, Chinese Americans, LGTBQ Americans, women, the military, veterans, Democrats, and Native Americans. If you do the math, and there's obviously some overlap there, that's about 93% of the country. If you are going to make the claim that he has put 7% of America first, you might be able to defend that, but not America at large.
How has he fought for America? Did he serve in the military? Has he had any prior experience with civil service? He was elected in an election that included an unprecedented level of foreign interference, and yet instead of working towards preserving our democracy, he has routinely called the investigation a witch hunt and that it is politically motivated (despite the fact that the special prosecutor is a Republican). He has refused to hold the foreign meddlers, in this case, Russia, responsible. He has taken more vacation time in the first eighteen months of his presidency than any president has ever taken for an entire term (at least as far back as we have data). That doesn't sound like "fighting."
Has he actually lowered taxes? Not really, and if so, unless you are a multi-millionaire, it's only temporary. NPR's break down of the non-partisan GAO scoring of the new tax bill states that all tax cuts will actually be tax hikes by 2027 unless you make more than $100k. If you make more than $1 million your tax cut remains relatively large. Any short-term benefits we've seen will be dramatically outweighed in the future. As Americans, we are naturally optimistic and we assume that by that point we'll all be making a lot more money, but history and economics tell us otherwise. Time to own up to it. We've been conned.
Why do we think other countries are taking advantage of us? This is an OLD sales technique; create the need and provide the solution. Politicians have been courting the xenophobic anti-globalization vote on both sides of the aisle for decades, and it's never been an accurate portrayal of the state of our world. Just this past week the president spoke of countries in NATO not holding up their end of the bargain because they weren't spending 2% of their budget on defense. First of all, that was a goal set for 2024, assuming NATO was still engaged in two war zones. Second of all, the 2% goal is a little wonky; Greece is spending more than the 2% goal, but we've never seen Greek forces in Iraq or Afghanistan (all the money is going to building defenses against Turkey, another NATO member), but Denmark is well below the 2% goal, but Danes have been at virtually every military engagement right alongside American troops. So what is the point of the 2% goal? Even the administration that came up with it can't give us a solid answer (that would be Obama, by the way). We are the largest marketplace in the world and as a natural result, there exists significant trade imbalances with many countries. This doesn't mean that countries are taking advantage of us. It means that we buy a lot of stuff. I don't know how to say it more simply than that. And of the countries that actually are dealing in bad faith, such as China and Russia, this president speaks in glowing terms of those leaders, while insulting the leaders of Canada, the UK, France, Germany, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Mexico, and many others, allies all. The global economy is not a zero-sum game, and treating it thus is ignorance run rampant.
How is he bringing back jobs? Has he passed a massive infrastructure bill? Has he brought any foreign investment into the country? Has he done anything to help educate out of work populations for future employment? Nope. He is absolutely laser-focused on coal jobs, and that's a bit absurd. In Kentucky, a state iconically linked to the coal industry, there currently exists more than three solar and wind energy jobs for every coal job this administration has proposed creating. That's not a typo; alternative clean energy sources employ more people in Kentucky than would be employed even if Trump was able to bring all the coal jobs he's proposed back, by a lot. So, why not join the twenty-first century, because his average voter remembers the good old days of coal dynasties, and they're much more easily convinced that it's minorities and Democrats to blame.
How is he good for the economy? Has he provided the stable and predictable investment environment that every economist under the sun agrees is best for our stock markets? Has he put investment back into our workforce, a proven strategy used in the past by both parties? Has he reduced the costs of living such as healthcare, interest rates, or groceries? Nope. In fact, thanks to his trade policies, life is getting a lot more expensive for most Americans. He's easily the least predictable person we've ever had as a president, despite his claims of being "a very stable genius."
And is the wall a good idea? Of course not. Don't be silly. Huge swaths of the border already have a wall or fence or barrier. Most of the rest isn't easily navigated or even passable. It's expensive, ineffective, and an unnecessary and willfully ignorant further militarization of a border we should never have militarized in the first place. And that's not even diving into the completely unreasonable logistics.
So, why do these people actually continue their devotion or support? They must not be rational. I say this because I refuse to believe so many people I know and love are racist, misogynistic, nationalists, that love destructive protectionism, trade wars, strong men dictators the world over, or diplomacy not worthy of a second grader. So, they must be irrational.
The best example of irrational thought for most of recorded history has been religion. Thus, these people must be part of the Trumpian faith.
You can't argue with them. You can't give them contradictory evidence about their savior. You can't try to reason with them. You can't provide proof of his unfitness. You can't... because you can't argue with faith. Trumpians have faith that Trump is here to help them. To be clear, these aren't fans or fanboys. These are devotees.
Even if you were to show them concrete evidence that Trump was using the separated families of refugees and asylum seekers as political bargaining chips, they'd figure out not only how to blame it on almost anyone else, but also how it's the right thing to do (which begs the question of why it must be blamed on someone else to begin with, but now I'm off topic).
The "special relationship" we're witnessing isn't between the United States and the United Kingdom, but instead it is between Trump and his Trumpians. It is irrational, indefensible, and mind-boggling.
Let's hope there's a cure.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
Friday, July 13, 2018
Proven
The claim that someone or some institution is racist is usually pretty hard to prove.
How can we definitively prove what someone's motivations are if they are careful about their rhetoric? How can we know what is in someone's heart? Is it simply a matter of eliminating all other motivations? Is it something that we can only know after they stop being careful?
This administration is actually helping to answer these questions. Turns out, you can prove when someone is racist.
Last year, in response to multiple media sources pointing out that the administration's favorite line about immigrants, that they bring crime to the United States, didn't have any real facts to back it up, the Trump administration commissioned a report about immigration, illegal or otherwise, and the associated crime rates and costs to the country. The report did not read the way they wanted it to; in fact, because it was leaked to the New York Times, we now know that the administration learned that immigrants, and especially refugees have been a net positive to our economy over the past decade, at least as much as $63 billion. But the administration chose to ignore it. White House adviser Stephen Miller even reportedly told the Department of Health and Human Services (the department that issued the original report) that the next report should not include any benefits of immigration, only the costs.
This isn't necessarily proof of racism. It could be that this administration earnestly believes that immigration is bad for the United States, despite its own reports and dozens upon dozens of other studies to the contrary. It could be that this administration earnestly believes that we bear no responsibility for the refugees coming to our borders. The problem is that other actions have proven these generous assumptions inaccurate.
This administration is only concerned about central American immigrants and people coming from "shithole countries," but wants more from Norway. The Canadian border is more than 2000 miles longer than the Mexican border, but he's only proposed building a wall at our southern border, while actually ending the proposed increased funding to our northern border facilities. Simply put, this administration doesn't like black and brown people, especially those coming from other countries.
How much proof does a population need that this president and his administration is racist?
Earlier this year, the New York Times made a list of Trump's racist statements, and while I don't think all of them are necessarily racist, the vast majority certainly are. Here are a few of my favorites:
- The federal government successfully prosecuted Trump's real-estate company in the 1970s for racist rental practices; giving preferential treatment to whites and avoiding renting to any blacks or Hispanics.
- Trump began his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech that included calling Mexican immigrants as criminals and "rapists."
- Before his campaign officially kicked off he proposed a complete ban on Muslims entering the US, including those legal citizens who are Muslim that were out of the country at the time.
- Trump falsely claimed that President Obama "issued a statement for Kwanzaa but failed to do so for Christmas."
- He has offered completely false crime statistics for some of the blackest cities in America, including Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Oakland, and Ferguson, MO.
- While meeting with Navajo World War II veterans, he publicly mocked Senator Elizabeth Warren calling her, "Pocahontas."
- He publicly called a Hispanic Miss Universe, "Miss Housekeeping."
And these are just words, for the most part. This same administration has separated families at the border to be used as political bargaining chips, refused to follow through with disaster relief funds in Puerto Rico (an American territory), and just today issued a new policy making it possible for asylum seekers to be deported before they are given a hearing!
Trump is the grandson, son, and husband of immigrants. But they were all white Europeans. His nativism isn't based on immigration reduction. It's based on brown and black immigration reduction. The man is a racist.
Stop apologizing for him. Stop making his racism okay by lauding him for not being "politically correct." Stop calling his language "racially-charged," "racially insensitive, or "racially questionable." They are racist words from a racist president who has created a racist administration.
Just to put this in even starker terms, the last time a president's administration was so overwhelming staffed with white men (to the tune of 71%) was Reagan's first term. That was when I was born. So, in my conscious memory, there hasn't been a less diverse administration, Republican or Democrat.
Our president is a racist. Let's stop normalizing it.
How can we definitively prove what someone's motivations are if they are careful about their rhetoric? How can we know what is in someone's heart? Is it simply a matter of eliminating all other motivations? Is it something that we can only know after they stop being careful?
This administration is actually helping to answer these questions. Turns out, you can prove when someone is racist.
Last year, in response to multiple media sources pointing out that the administration's favorite line about immigrants, that they bring crime to the United States, didn't have any real facts to back it up, the Trump administration commissioned a report about immigration, illegal or otherwise, and the associated crime rates and costs to the country. The report did not read the way they wanted it to; in fact, because it was leaked to the New York Times, we now know that the administration learned that immigrants, and especially refugees have been a net positive to our economy over the past decade, at least as much as $63 billion. But the administration chose to ignore it. White House adviser Stephen Miller even reportedly told the Department of Health and Human Services (the department that issued the original report) that the next report should not include any benefits of immigration, only the costs.
This isn't necessarily proof of racism. It could be that this administration earnestly believes that immigration is bad for the United States, despite its own reports and dozens upon dozens of other studies to the contrary. It could be that this administration earnestly believes that we bear no responsibility for the refugees coming to our borders. The problem is that other actions have proven these generous assumptions inaccurate.
This administration is only concerned about central American immigrants and people coming from "shithole countries," but wants more from Norway. The Canadian border is more than 2000 miles longer than the Mexican border, but he's only proposed building a wall at our southern border, while actually ending the proposed increased funding to our northern border facilities. Simply put, this administration doesn't like black and brown people, especially those coming from other countries.
How much proof does a population need that this president and his administration is racist?
Earlier this year, the New York Times made a list of Trump's racist statements, and while I don't think all of them are necessarily racist, the vast majority certainly are. Here are a few of my favorites:
- The federal government successfully prosecuted Trump's real-estate company in the 1970s for racist rental practices; giving preferential treatment to whites and avoiding renting to any blacks or Hispanics.
- Trump began his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech that included calling Mexican immigrants as criminals and "rapists."
- Before his campaign officially kicked off he proposed a complete ban on Muslims entering the US, including those legal citizens who are Muslim that were out of the country at the time.
- Trump falsely claimed that President Obama "issued a statement for Kwanzaa but failed to do so for Christmas."
- He has offered completely false crime statistics for some of the blackest cities in America, including Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Oakland, and Ferguson, MO.
- While meeting with Navajo World War II veterans, he publicly mocked Senator Elizabeth Warren calling her, "Pocahontas."
- He publicly called a Hispanic Miss Universe, "Miss Housekeeping."
And these are just words, for the most part. This same administration has separated families at the border to be used as political bargaining chips, refused to follow through with disaster relief funds in Puerto Rico (an American territory), and just today issued a new policy making it possible for asylum seekers to be deported before they are given a hearing!
Trump is the grandson, son, and husband of immigrants. But they were all white Europeans. His nativism isn't based on immigration reduction. It's based on brown and black immigration reduction. The man is a racist.
Stop apologizing for him. Stop making his racism okay by lauding him for not being "politically correct." Stop calling his language "racially-charged," "racially insensitive, or "racially questionable." They are racist words from a racist president who has created a racist administration.
Just to put this in even starker terms, the last time a president's administration was so overwhelming staffed with white men (to the tune of 71%) was Reagan's first term. That was when I was born. So, in my conscious memory, there hasn't been a less diverse administration, Republican or Democrat.
Our president is a racist. Let's stop normalizing it.
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Indecency Exposed
Yesterday my son turned seven months old.
He can crawl, climb, cry, coo, scream, smile, sit-up, spit-up, poop, pee, play,
and peek-a-boo. He's amazing and everything he does and every facial expression
he makes I take pride and pleasure in. I love this little guy more than I
thought I could love anything.
And I can't help imagining what I would do (or more appropriately, wouldn't do) if a government official took him from my wife and I.
A Class B Misdemeanor in Texas carries a penalty of up to a $2000 fine and 180 days in prison. This is a list of Class B Misdemeanors here in the Great State of Texas:
Criminal mischief
Criminal trespass
Certain types of terroristic threats
Certain types of assault
Indecent exposure
Prostitution
Graffiti
Theft of property worth more than $20, but less than $500
Possession of up to 4 ounces of marijuana, and
Public intoxication
Now, my parents (not to mention my in-laws) won't be thrilled to read this, but, depending on the definition of "terroristic threats," I've been guilty of all of these crimes, other than prostitution, at one point or another in my widely misspent youth. I have never been arrested for or convicted of any of them, thankfully, but that doesn't change my actual actions.
Another crime that carries similar penalties (the fine, under Title 18, maxes out at $5000 instead of $2000) is "improper entry."
"Improper entry" is defined by 8 U.S. Code § 1325 as: any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
I'm actually guilty of a similar crime as well, just not in this country. I wasn't arrested or convicted of that either.
Obviously I bring this up because of the atrocities that have been created at our southern border. I say "created" because that's exactly what has happened.
The Trump administration, under the leadership (if you can call it that) of President Donald John Trump, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Michele Nielsen has manufactured a scenario through willful misinterpretation of the law and executive policy shifts where the United States of America is aggressively separating children, some still breast-feeding, from their parents at the border. I am using these officials' full names because that is how you address misbehaving children who don't seem to have the capacity to understand their wrongdoings.
Maybe that is being too generous. Maybe they completely understand what they have been doing. If so, they are evil, callous, inhuman monsters.
I'm going to choose to believe that the American people didn't elect monsters. (Whether or not we elected them is a rant for another day.)
This started last year when the Justice Department began to ramp up a "zero-tolerance" policy of criminally prosecuting anyone suspected of improper entry at our southern border. Under the new policy, according to the Attorney General, anyone who crosses "the Southwest border unlawfully, then the Department of Homeland Security will arrest you and the Department of Justice will prosecute you."
In combination of a complete misreading of a law that was a result of an extensive court case known as the Flores settlement, this more aggressive and comprehensive prosecution tactic has resulted in the separation of children from their parents. Here's how their logic works:
- Immigrants, including asylum seekers, are a bad influence on this country and we can't afford to allow them to stay here.
- All border crossings and asylum applications should be prosecuted as improper entries, because those who belong here have nothing to fear from due process and will be released.
- Because of the 1997 law (referenced above) it is illegal to detain juveniles in an immigration facility for more than three days.
- Therefore, while we detain their parents in immigration facilities awaiting their hearings, the children must be removed to facilities legally allowed to house them.
- The Democrats are to blame because the Flores law was signed by President Clinton and this president is only restoring the rule of law to an immigration system that President Obama allowed to violate these statutes.
The real motivation here has nothing to do with border security, lawlessness, or any of the other talking points this administration and its lackeys have promoted as a narrative for this action.
The real motivation is the emotional blackmail of crying children to be used to force Congress to authorize the construction of the president's border wall.
Here are the problems with their logic, just in case they weren't already painfully obvious:
- Immigrants, especially asylum seekers, are a long-term economic positive to this country. And even if they weren't, this country is supposedly founded on the ideal of pluralism and providing a haven for those willing to try to make a new life for themselves and their loved ones.
- Apparently, innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to brown people. I specifically call out the racism inherent here because nobody is attempting to separate families at our northern border.
- The 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement was the result of over a decade of litigation responding to the U.S. government’s detention policy of children. The agreement set national standards regarding the detention, release, and treatment of all children in immigration detention and underscores the principle of family unity. It requires that: 1) Juveniles be released from custody without unnecessary delay, and in order of preference to the following: a parent, legal guardian, adult relative, individual specifically designated by the parent, a child welfare licensed program, or, alternatively when family reunification is not possible, an adult seeking custody deemed appropriate by the responsible government agency; and, 2) Where they cannot be released because of significant public safety or flight risk concerns, juveniles must be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate to age and special needs, generally, in a nonsecure facility licensed by a child welfare entity and separated from unrelated adults and delinquent offenders.
- You can't take people into custody and they claim their children were unaccompanied because you've taken their parents into custody and then turn around with your hands in the air saying there's nothing to be done about it. At least not if you don't want to be shamed out of restaurants.
- You also can't blame your political rivals because YOU changed a policy in YOUR administration and YOUR executive enforcement goes beyond any previous measure and purposefully reads a law inaccurately. I mean, I guess you can, because that's what this administration is doing, but it's incredibly stupid. And the people defending it have imbibed a children's sugary drink embodied by a large anthropomorphized pitcher that enjoys the destruction of structural building elements.to a degree more ridiculous than this description.
The goal has always been the wall. This administration has called this policy a negotiating tool. They've defended it by misquoting the Bible. They've attempted to justify it by saying the children are "just fine." They've tried for a week to put all the blame on the party with virtually no political power in Washington today. And they've done it all to try to get a legislative bill that includes funding for the least responsible use of tax dollars imaginable.
I know this type of rant isn't going to change anyone's mind. But over the course of the past few days in discussions on Facebook, the phone and in person, I've been physically threatened (that doesn't really happen in person too often, as I am 6'2" and 390 lbs.), called a "libtard," called "ignorant" and told by loved ones that if I committed a crime, I wouldn't get to take my son to jail with me.
This country has tried improper entry violations in civil courts for most of the past forty years, and before that, we didn't really prosecute anyone at all for immigration violations. We have militarized the southern border to such an extent that we are barely jarred by the images of children in detention centers crying for their parents, who, as of yet, have been convicted of no crime (as much as people like to call them criminals for crossing an imaginary line in the desert). Children, some no older than my son.
If I committed a violent or serious crime and was imprisoned for it, I shouldn't have rights to my son during my imprisonment. But if I streaked down the street in the middle of the night after having too much to drink and trespassed onto the grounds of the private dorm only a few blocks from here and nakedly spray-painted a giant poop emoji on the wall (because who doesn't think poop is funny), I would have committed at least five Class B Misdemeanors... and nobody would even consider taking our son away from us. If they did, I'd probably make some "terroristic threats" and probably perform a few "types of assault" on the people who tried.
We need to be better than this.
And I can't help imagining what I would do (or more appropriately, wouldn't do) if a government official took him from my wife and I.
A Class B Misdemeanor in Texas carries a penalty of up to a $2000 fine and 180 days in prison. This is a list of Class B Misdemeanors here in the Great State of Texas:
Criminal mischief
Criminal trespass
Certain types of terroristic threats
Certain types of assault
Indecent exposure
Prostitution
Graffiti
Theft of property worth more than $20, but less than $500
Possession of up to 4 ounces of marijuana, and
Public intoxication
Now, my parents (not to mention my in-laws) won't be thrilled to read this, but, depending on the definition of "terroristic threats," I've been guilty of all of these crimes, other than prostitution, at one point or another in my widely misspent youth. I have never been arrested for or convicted of any of them, thankfully, but that doesn't change my actual actions.
Another crime that carries similar penalties (the fine, under Title 18, maxes out at $5000 instead of $2000) is "improper entry."
"Improper entry" is defined by 8 U.S. Code § 1325 as: any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
I'm actually guilty of a similar crime as well, just not in this country. I wasn't arrested or convicted of that either.
Obviously I bring this up because of the atrocities that have been created at our southern border. I say "created" because that's exactly what has happened.
The Trump administration, under the leadership (if you can call it that) of President Donald John Trump, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Michele Nielsen has manufactured a scenario through willful misinterpretation of the law and executive policy shifts where the United States of America is aggressively separating children, some still breast-feeding, from their parents at the border. I am using these officials' full names because that is how you address misbehaving children who don't seem to have the capacity to understand their wrongdoings.
Maybe that is being too generous. Maybe they completely understand what they have been doing. If so, they are evil, callous, inhuman monsters.
I'm going to choose to believe that the American people didn't elect monsters. (Whether or not we elected them is a rant for another day.)
This started last year when the Justice Department began to ramp up a "zero-tolerance" policy of criminally prosecuting anyone suspected of improper entry at our southern border. Under the new policy, according to the Attorney General, anyone who crosses "the Southwest border unlawfully, then the Department of Homeland Security will arrest you and the Department of Justice will prosecute you."
In combination of a complete misreading of a law that was a result of an extensive court case known as the Flores settlement, this more aggressive and comprehensive prosecution tactic has resulted in the separation of children from their parents. Here's how their logic works:
- Immigrants, including asylum seekers, are a bad influence on this country and we can't afford to allow them to stay here.
- All border crossings and asylum applications should be prosecuted as improper entries, because those who belong here have nothing to fear from due process and will be released.
- Because of the 1997 law (referenced above) it is illegal to detain juveniles in an immigration facility for more than three days.
- Therefore, while we detain their parents in immigration facilities awaiting their hearings, the children must be removed to facilities legally allowed to house them.
- The Democrats are to blame because the Flores law was signed by President Clinton and this president is only restoring the rule of law to an immigration system that President Obama allowed to violate these statutes.
The real motivation here has nothing to do with border security, lawlessness, or any of the other talking points this administration and its lackeys have promoted as a narrative for this action.
The real motivation is the emotional blackmail of crying children to be used to force Congress to authorize the construction of the president's border wall.
Here are the problems with their logic, just in case they weren't already painfully obvious:
- Immigrants, especially asylum seekers, are a long-term economic positive to this country. And even if they weren't, this country is supposedly founded on the ideal of pluralism and providing a haven for those willing to try to make a new life for themselves and their loved ones.
- Apparently, innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to brown people. I specifically call out the racism inherent here because nobody is attempting to separate families at our northern border.
- The 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement was the result of over a decade of litigation responding to the U.S. government’s detention policy of children. The agreement set national standards regarding the detention, release, and treatment of all children in immigration detention and underscores the principle of family unity. It requires that: 1) Juveniles be released from custody without unnecessary delay, and in order of preference to the following: a parent, legal guardian, adult relative, individual specifically designated by the parent, a child welfare licensed program, or, alternatively when family reunification is not possible, an adult seeking custody deemed appropriate by the responsible government agency; and, 2) Where they cannot be released because of significant public safety or flight risk concerns, juveniles must be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate to age and special needs, generally, in a nonsecure facility licensed by a child welfare entity and separated from unrelated adults and delinquent offenders.
- You can't take people into custody and they claim their children were unaccompanied because you've taken their parents into custody and then turn around with your hands in the air saying there's nothing to be done about it. At least not if you don't want to be shamed out of restaurants.
- You also can't blame your political rivals because YOU changed a policy in YOUR administration and YOUR executive enforcement goes beyond any previous measure and purposefully reads a law inaccurately. I mean, I guess you can, because that's what this administration is doing, but it's incredibly stupid. And the people defending it have imbibed a children's sugary drink embodied by a large anthropomorphized pitcher that enjoys the destruction of structural building elements.to a degree more ridiculous than this description.
The goal has always been the wall. This administration has called this policy a negotiating tool. They've defended it by misquoting the Bible. They've attempted to justify it by saying the children are "just fine." They've tried for a week to put all the blame on the party with virtually no political power in Washington today. And they've done it all to try to get a legislative bill that includes funding for the least responsible use of tax dollars imaginable.
I know this type of rant isn't going to change anyone's mind. But over the course of the past few days in discussions on Facebook, the phone and in person, I've been physically threatened (that doesn't really happen in person too often, as I am 6'2" and 390 lbs.), called a "libtard," called "ignorant" and told by loved ones that if I committed a crime, I wouldn't get to take my son to jail with me.
This country has tried improper entry violations in civil courts for most of the past forty years, and before that, we didn't really prosecute anyone at all for immigration violations. We have militarized the southern border to such an extent that we are barely jarred by the images of children in detention centers crying for their parents, who, as of yet, have been convicted of no crime (as much as people like to call them criminals for crossing an imaginary line in the desert). Children, some no older than my son.
If I committed a violent or serious crime and was imprisoned for it, I shouldn't have rights to my son during my imprisonment. But if I streaked down the street in the middle of the night after having too much to drink and trespassed onto the grounds of the private dorm only a few blocks from here and nakedly spray-painted a giant poop emoji on the wall (because who doesn't think poop is funny), I would have committed at least five Class B Misdemeanors... and nobody would even consider taking our son away from us. If they did, I'd probably make some "terroristic threats" and probably perform a few "types of assault" on the people who tried.
We need to be better than this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)