Political Christian Morality

[Shad]

This is nonsense.

There is NOTHING...zip, nada, zero...in the law that requires the separation of children from their families.

This is an act of Sessions and the Trump administration.

Actually the law allows it but does not mandate it specifically. Also see Flores vs Reno


8 CFR 1236.3 - Detention and release of juveniles.

 

[Oeste]

There is NOTHING...zip, nada, zero...in the law that requires the separation of children from their families.

This is an act of Sessions and the Trump administration.

Actually the law allows it but does not mandate it specifically. Also see Flores vs Reno


8 CFR 1236.3 - Detention and release of juveniles.

There is NOTHING...zip, nada, zero...in the law that requires the separation of children from their families.

This is an act of Sessions and the Trump administration.

 

[ecco]

'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat;

This reminded me of the lyrics of a Rusted Root song that I hadn't listened to in a long time -Creative Love.

Playing it now on youtube - thanks.

 

[Jumi]

What does this have to do with Europeans? Europeans don't break laws?

The imaginary good guy true Europeans never do or have done anything wrong. It's too bad they really exist in fairy tales. It's true that lots of them are quite tamed by the current social security systems and wealth distributions so there is an illusion that many eurocentrics fall to...

 

[Shad]

There is NOTHING...zip, nada, zero...in the law that requires the separation of children from their families.

This is an act of Sessions and the Trump administration.

Okay ignore the law I just cited.

 

[Oeste]

Okay ignore the law I just cited.

Nothing has been ignored because there is NOTHING...zip, nada, zero...in the law that requires the separation of children from their families.

This is an act of Sessions and the Trump administration.

When Trump signed off on his Executive Order today he did not change or ignore any existent law. What he did change was his Administration's policy. There was and is nothing in 8 CFR 1236.3 that required immigration officials to separate children from families. The law is the same before Trump put his policy in effect as it is now that he's ended it.

 

[Shad]

Nothing has been ignored because there is NOTHING...zip, nada, zero...in the law that requires the separation of children from their families.

This is an act of Sessions and the Trump administration.

When Trump signed off on his Executive Order today he did not change or ignore any existent law. What he did change was his Administration's policy. There was and is nothing in 8 CFR 1236.3 that required immigration officials to separate children from families. The law is the same before Trump put his policy in effect as it is now that he's ended it.

Actually it does by use of the term Juvenile facility. There is Flores v Meese, Flores vs Reno and Flores settlement. There is also the review during 2014 of all those cases which the 9th Circuit ruled as national law against Obama administration practice of putting children in the general population hence my link. Of course you can continue to ignore all of that. After all you stated there is nothing in the law requiring separation but clearly that is false by the two citations I have made

You are missing the point. This is is an application of law issue. The law provides a selection of options. The policy is completely legal in only picking the one option. However by picking the one option it follows it's guidelines which require separation. The policy is rigged but legal.



https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-03-06/pdf/97-5250.pdf#page=49 (page in reader is 51)

(c)
Juvenile coordinator.
The case of a
juvenile for whom detention is
determined to be necessary should be
referred to the ‘‘Juvenile Coordinator,’’
whose responsibilities should include,
but not be limited to, finding suitable
placement of the juvenile in a facility
designated for the occupancy of
juveniles. These may include juvenile
facilities contracted by the Service, state
or local juvenile facilities, or other
appropriate agencies authorized to
accommodate juveniles by the laws of
the state or locality.
(d)
Detention.
In the case of a juvenile
for whom detention is determined to be
necessary, for such interim period of
time as is required to locate suitable
placement for the juvenile, whether
such placement is under paragraph (b)
or (c) of this section, the juvenile may
be temporarily held by Service
authorities or placed in any Service
detention facility having separate
accommodations for juveniles.

His EO is unconstitutional as it overrides law and court rulings. More so Trump is using criminal courts which also require separation of juveniles into their own facilities as adults are put into a Federal Prison under the guise of "Detention Facilities".

 

[sealchan]

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful." -Jeff Sessions

"I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law. That is actually repeated a number of times throughout the Bible,” she said. “It’s a moral policy to follow and enforce the law.”-Sarah Huckabee Sanders

I implore @Sunstone @Faithofchristian and others to watch the following video starting @ 6:50 in relation to this thread, but if you want, I encourage you all to see the whole video especially from the part where you can hear the children crying.

I have to ask the Christians since, after all, many Christians state that this is a so-called Christian nation, at what point do you in light of your religious/spiritual beliefs go against the establishment in this case, laws that appear to be morally defunct?

Christians should read the Bible like Jesus read the Jewish Testament...a people and their rules tend to generate lazy thinking...right and wrong become rule-based decisions and not internal questions of both mind AND heart to decide...as they always were.

So much of literalist Christianity falls for the devil's temptation to take the rules as absolutes. This twists the spiritual into the political or the personal.

It is an ongoing battle that I am sure is experienced within all faiths. Do not fall for the tempting comfort of simple rules to order your moral affairs. One must look to one's own honest story and the story of others and empathize as well as formulate disciplined guidelines (rules/laws) when one wants to act with moral character.

One's faith should teach you how to do this and support you in that struggle to achieve it.

 

[Oeste]

Actually it does by use of the term Juvenile facility.

The use of the term “Juvenile facility” does not mean and has never meant “separating children from families”.

There is Flores v Meese, Flores vs Reno and Flores settlement. There is also the review during 2014 of all those cases which the 9th Circuit ruled as national law against Obama administration practice of putting children in the general population hence my link. Of course you can continue to ignore all of that. After all you stated there is nothing in the law requiring separation but clearly that is false by the two citations I have made

Yes, I stated it before and I'll state it again: Nothing in these cases necessitates or requires separation of children from their parents. Flores vs. Meese addressed the strip searching of minors. Reno vs. Flores originally addressed unaccompanied minors and families being detained for prolonged periods. Neither ruling requires the separation of children or individual family members.

You are missing the point. This is is an application of law issue. The law provides a selection of options. The policy is completely legal in only picking the one option.

However by picking the one option it follows it's guidelines which require separation. The policy is rigged but legal.

Your assertions are confusing.

Earlier you claimed my statement that the law didn’t require the separation of children from their parents was negated by the Flores decision. Now you claim the law provides it as an “option”. Are you claiming it’s an option that’s required, and if so, how is it an “option”?

If the law makes separating children from their parents is optional, then there is nothing in the law that requires separation. It becomes an issue of Administrative policy, and not one of constitutional, Administrative, or Executive law. The policy is determined by the option the Administration wishes to enforce. If there were no option then Sessions would be correct…he is just following the law. If there is an option then he is simply following policy.

Authorities are required to separate children if they believe there is child trafficking (or other “continuous victimization events”), involved. But viewing all illegal immigrants as child traffickers (in essence, treating all illegal crossings as criminal rather than misdemeanor violations…which is what Sessions is doing now) would be a policy decision as there is no law that presumes all illegal immigrants to be child traffickers. I think it’s important for us, as Americans, to understand and discern the difference and not become obfuscated when someone points to a law.

Lastly, I would just like to say the Administration has already admitted the current crisis is due to their “Zero Tolerance” policy, and not due to any “Zero Tolerance” law. But even if there were such a “law” I’m not following why anyone here would support, defend or condone it.

The separation of children from parents during the slave trade was perfectly legal and “lawful”. But I would have been hard pressed to find anyone on this forum claiming such a law was moral much less “on the books”, “legal” or “properly enforceable” two years ago. It seems America has moved from “Separate detention centers for kids whose parents commit misdemeanors…are you kidding me?” to “Sure, so what’s the problem?” in a relatively short expanse of time.

(c)
Juvenile coordinator.
The case of a
juvenile for whom detention is
determined to be necessary should be
referred to the ‘‘Juvenile Coordinator,’’
whose responsibilities should include,
but not be limited to, finding suitable
placement of the juvenile in a facility
designated for the occupancy of
juveniles. These may include juvenile
facilities contracted by the Service, state
or local juvenile facilities, or other
appropriate agencies authorized to
accommodate juveniles by the laws of
the state or locality.
(d)
Detention.
In the case of a juvenile
for whom detention is determined to be
necessary, for such interim period of
time as is required to locate suitable
placement for the juvenile, whether
such placement is under paragraph (b)
or (c) of this section, the juvenile may
be temporarily held by Service
authorities or placed in any Service
detention facility having separate
accommodations for juveniles.

You have to read the law in context and not just pick out the parts you like...it's like any exegesis.

There is no law that says immigrant children must be taken away from their parents and placed in juvenile detention if their parent cross the border illegally. This law doesn't state it and no American law does.

His EO is unconstitutional as it overrides law and court rulings.

Then someone will need to find other court rulings and laws and explain that to Trump.

 

[Oeste]

His EO is unconstitutional as it overrides law and court rulings. More so Trump is using criminal courts which also require separation of juveniles into their own facilities as adults are put into a Federal Prison under the guise of "Detention Facilities".

Exactly, and on this I couldn't agree with you more.

We know that crossing the border is a misdemeanor, punishable in civil or criminal court with a fine, up to 6 months in jail, or both ( A misdemeanor is a "less punishable crime", usually <1 year in American jurisprudence).

Let's say you live in a state with a large highway going down the middle. Every year state troopers are out on the road arresting people speeding down the highway. Folks are caught in speed traps, issued citations, pay fines or appear in court.

But one year a new potential sheriff arrives. If elected, he promises to crack down on speedsters who are endangering themselves, their children, and citizens traveling the highways of your great State. Everyone thinks this is a great idea, and no sooner are they elected than the sheriff and deputy put a plan into action.

They adopt a "Zero-tolerance" policy for speedsters. The highway's speed is dropped from 65 to 55 (to make it safer) and anyone doing 56 or above will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, 24-7.

The next day you wake up late and are rushed to get the kids to school. Unfortunately you're one of the hundreds of motorists pulled over by the Sheriff's deputy for speeding. But instead of being presented with simple speeding ticket (a misdemeanor) you are charged with reckless driving and endangerment (which carries a much higher, criminal penalty).

Our scofflaw drivers are shocked, surprised and angered to find they've been pulled over for going 58 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone, but the new sheriff proudly explains to you and the public "the law is the law". Many of his constituents agree, waving and honking as they pass you by...at the nice safe pace of 55 miles per hour.

Like every other motorists you expect to receive a ticket, but the sheriff announces "No more catch and release!". Yes, our sheriff is a serious law and order sheriff, and unlike the former sheriff, he's not kidding around. You are no longer given a simple ticket and released. Now you are handcuffed and brought to the county jail, where the court will hear your case as soon as it gets around to it, which the sheriff promises will be no more than 21 days.

At this time, while you're being booked, you notice your son and daughter who were with you a moment ago in holding are no longer there. "Where's my kids?" you ask.

That's when the sheriff's deputy explains they had no choice but to charge you with "child abuse" since you were an obvious endangerment to your kids. He then points to a small crumpled booklet which contains the "Juvenile Detention and Facility Act". The Act, he explains, leaves them with no choice but to send your kids, "if they really are your kids", to a detention center.

"What do you mean "if they really are my kids?" Of course they're my kids! They were in the car with me!"

"My deputy didn't find any evidence the kids were yours. Besides, no sane parent would travel 58 in a 55 mph zone. We need to sort this out and it may take a little paperwork and a few months to get them back."

"You could just ask them!" you protest, but the sheriff says its' not possible because they're not too sure where any of your alleged children are. All they can tell you is that the boy in the back seat was brought to one facility and the girl was brought to another. "For all we know" the Deputy explains "they could be in another state by now".

You feel panic, realizing your kids have been summarily separated and escorted to different detention centers. You are about to vent your anger and outrage once again, and you think it's about time this Sheriff and Deputy got an earful. But they've seen this look before, and in calm and measured tones they dutifully explain that if you had simply obeyed the law, and not placed yourself and your kids in jeopardy you wouldn't be in the situation you find yourself in now. In fact, the Sheriff states, it was child abuse as soon as you put the pedal to the metal. "You should have entered the roadway legally instead of trying to jump in front of traffic", the Sheriff explains. "Don't you know that's unfair to all the other moms and dads using the highway?"

You turn and notice you recognize the guy sitting in the room across the hall. "Steve!" you exclaim, "Are you in here for speeding too?"

Steve looks dejected. "Nah...I missed the school bus by 10 seconds! They tell me I lost my 7 year old when I decided to weave my van in and out of traffic..."​

The mental gymnastics necessary to rationalize Trump's "Zero tolerance" policy goes beyond me. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. Sure, you could charge them criminally, just like any cop could charge you criminally for speeding or weaving through traffic, but it's certainly not a charge the law requires and I'm baffled why anyone would claim it is.

But that's not the case for thousands of illegal immigrants. Ronald Reagan's promise of a "shining city upon a hill" (an attractive scenario, no matter where you lived) is now a living nightmare for many and it seems incredulous to find so many Americans eagerly justifying the Administration's immoral policy as appropriate dispensation of law.

 

[Shad]

The use of the term “Juvenile facility” does not mean and has never meant “separating children from families”.

Actually it does by defination

Yes, I stated it before and I'll state it again: Nothing in these cases necessitates or requires separation of children from their parents. Flores vs. Meese addressed the strip searching of minors. Reno vs. Flores originally addressed unaccompanied minors and families being detained for prolonged periods. Neither ruling requires the separation of children or individual family members.

Flores 2014 review set is as accompanied as well and made it law. Your information is wrong as you got it from media and Youtube instead of courts. You read the wrong Flores v Meese.

Flores v. Meese - Stipulated Settlement Agreement Plus Extension of Settlement
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/06/15-56434.pdf

Your assertions are confusing.

Trump's policy is selecting which options are priorities and which are not. Detention vs Bonds. It's not an assertion.

Earlier you claimed my statement that the law didn’t require the separation of children from their parents was negated by the Flores decision. Now you claim the law provides it as an “option”. Are you claiming it’s an option that’s required, and if so, how is it an “option”?

I said there was a law requiring separation of children. This law has set criteria which the subject and government must meet as per my link. The Flores cases created the law I linked.

If the law makes separating children from their parents is optional, then there is nothing in the law that requires separation.

No that law still require separation based on criteria. Most children will not be released on bonds as they are too young and the state would run afoul of negligence laws. If there is no guardian or created guardian in the form of relatives children are not released. Also the 20 day window forces government to house children outside general population detention

The policy is determined by the option the Administration wishes to enforce. If there were no option then Sessions would be correct…he is just following the law. If there is an option then he is simply following policy.

There are still laws being followed

Authorities are required to separate children if they believe there is child trafficking (or other “continuous victimization events”), involved. But viewing all illegal immigrants as child traffickers (in essence, treating all illegal crossings as criminal rather than misdemeanor violations…which is what Sessions is doing now) would be a policy decision as there is no law that presumes all illegal immigrants to be child traffickers. I think it’s important for us, as Americans, to understand and discern the difference and not become obfuscated when someone points to a law.

Of course there is no law presuming guilt. That part of policy is an attempt judicial intimation by using criminal charges. These charges for the most part are going to either not be prosecuted or tossed out in court.

Lastly, I would just like to say the Administration has already admitted the current crisis is due to their “Zero Tolerance” policy, and not due to any “Zero Tolerance” law. But even if there were such a “law” I’m not following why anyone here would support, defend or condone it. The separation of children from parents during the slave trade was perfectly legal and “lawful”. But I would have been hard pressed to find anyone on this forum claiming such a law was moral much less “on the books”, “legal” or “properly enforceable” two years ago. It seems America has moved from “Separate detention centers for kids whose parents commit misdemeanors…are you kidding me?” to “Sure, so what’s the problem?” in a relatively short expanse of time.

You are mistaken in the assumption that arguing the legality of the policy and what is in the law is support of, defense of and/or condone of policy. I am providing information so people know how old and new laws are being used, which laws those are, and when these were created and why. For example I have seen no one besides myself pointing out anti-terrorism laws can be used when government determines an illegal immigrant is an "unknown person".

You have to read the law in context and not just pick out the parts you like...it's like any exegesis.

Which I provided by linking it days ago.

There is no law that says immigrant children must be taken away from their parents and placed in juvenile detention if their parent cross the border illegally. This law doesn't state it and no American law does.

Yes it does. It also stipulates the ground for doing so.

Then someone will need to find other court rulings and laws and explain that to Trump.

He probably already knows. The EO is for optics as it makes him look like he is doing something while Congress couldn't pass a Bill. More so if someone filed suit against the EO leading to the EO being tossed out Trump can just shrug his shoulders, say he did what he could then blame Dems in Congress again. Especially after Cruz's Bill failed.

Granted I doubt Trump thought about this. Someone in his staff did.

 

[ecco]

The separation of children from parents during the slave trade was perfectly legal and “lawful”.

The laws allowing slavery were enacted by atheists who had no Christian morals.

Yes, that is sarcasm.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves. Consistent and fair application of the law is in itself a good and moral thing, and that protects the weak and protects the lawful." -Jeff Sessions
"I can say that it is very biblical to enforce the law. That is actually repeated a number of times throughout the Bible,” she said. “It’s a moral policy to follow and enforce the law.”-Sarah Huckabee Sanders
I have to ask the Christians since, after all, many Christians state that this is a so-called Christian nation, at what point do you in light of your religious/spiritual beliefs go against the establishment in this case, laws that appear to be morally defunct?

'At what point.... ' the answer I found at Acts of the Apostles 5:27-29.
When there is conflict between God's absolute laws and men's relative laws, then we are to obey God as Ruler.....
So, Christians live by verse 29 B.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

'At what point.... ' the answer I found at Acts of the Apostles 5:27-29.
When there is conflict between God's absolute laws and men's relative laws, then we are to obey God as Ruler.....
So, Christians live by verse 29 B.

Do you not get the point of the thread? This isn't a Biblical discussion. It is about a man who uses the Bible to justify rules that appear to be immoral. The immorality as such reflects upon the separation of small children and their parents. Regardless of your political affiliation or stance on immigration, children should not be subjected to any psychological trauma such as being removed from their parents regardless of the acts committed by the parents. It is also reprehensible to justify this by using the Bible.

 

[ecco]

It is also reprehensible to justify this by using the Bible.

In the grand scheme of things it's not so bad.
Killing witches was justified Biblically.
Slavery was justified Biblically.
Killing gays was justified Biblically.
Killing Jews was justified Biblically.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Do you not get the point of the thread? This isn't a Biblical discussion. It is about a man who uses the Bible to justify rules that appear to be immoral. The immorality as such reflects upon the separation of small children and their parents. Regardless of your political affiliation or stance on immigration, children should not be subjected to any psychological trauma such as being removed from their parents regardless of the acts committed by the parents. It is also reprehensible to justify this by using the Bible.

Justify what ?
Acts of the Apostles 5:29 says to obey ( relative subjection ) to man, but obey ( absolute subjection ) to God.
God's 'absolute subjection' would 'Not be' to separate the children from parents.

 

[Oeste]

The use of the term “Juvenile facility” does not mean and has never meant “separating children from families”

Actually it does by defination

No it doesn't, and it's certainly not something required as you claim.

If "Juvenile facility" means "separation from parents" then juveniles without parents cannot be placed in juvenile facilities.

Why?

Because there would be no parents to separate them from!!!

Flores 2014 review set is as accompanied as well and made it law. Your information is wrong as you got it from media and Youtube instead of courts. You read the wrong Flores v Meese.

No, I read the right "Flores v. Meese" case law and my information, which cited CBS and the Washington Post are correct. The notion "it's wrong because it's came from the media" never made much sense to me. You'd have to tell me how that's different from "it's wrong because it came from people" first.

But in order to understand a case like Jenny Lisette Flores v. Edwin Meese III [later v. Reno], it helps to understand the underpinnings or the historical case law prior to it's appearance before the Supreme Court, and one of these underpinning concerned the strip searching of minors held in INS (ICE) custody.

The settlement concerned a number of legal issues, including when, if, how, and how long juveniles were to be held in INS (ICE) custody.

Flores v. Meese - Stipulated Settlement Agreement Plus Extension of Settlement
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/06/15-56434.pdf

Very good! Now simply pull out the section you believe requires juveniles to be placed in detention centers.
Your prior assertion of "by definition" doesn't work. If the law requires juveniles to be held in juvenile detentions centers because "by definition" they are juvenile detention centers, then "by definition" adults must be held in prison because "by definition" prisons are adult correctional facilities.

But being charged with a crime is not enough to land you or your kids in prison. I'm not trying to pick on you, but there is something missing (two very important words) from your legal analysis. Rather than simply point it out and have it go by the wayside, I'd like to discuss it with you.

Trump's policy is selecting which options are priorities and which are not. Detention vs Bonds. It's not an assertion.

Right now I'd like to stay focused on your previous assertion that the Sessions/Trump Administration has no choice but to separate children from parents who cross the border illegally.

I said there was a law requiring separation of children. This law has set criteria which the subject and government must meet as per my link. The Flores cases created the law I linked.

Yes, Flores created the law. But neither the Flores case or settlement created a law that requires separation. Your link doesn't prove this Shad, it disproves it.

No that law still require separation based on criteria.

Okay, let's look at something you quoted before:

(c) Juvenile coordinator.
The case of a juvenile for whom detention is determined to be necessary should be referred to the ‘‘Juvenile Coordinator,’’ whose responsibilities should include, but not be limited to, finding suitable placement of the juvenile in a facility designated for the occupancy of juveniles. These may include juvenile facilities contracted by the Service, state or local juvenile facilities, or other appropriate agencies authorized to accommodate juveniles by the laws of the state or locality.

(d) Detention.

In the case of a juvenile for whom detention is determined to be necessary, for such interim period of time as is required to locate suitable placement for the juvenile, whether such placement is under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, the juvenile may be temporarily held by Service authorities or placed in any Service detention facility having separate accommodations for juveniles.

A.The law clearly states "in the case of a juvenile for whom detention is determined to be necessary".
That is a far legal cry from saying "in the case of a juvenile, detention is determined to be necessary". Can you see the difference between your assertion and the law?


B. The law clearly states"...may include juvenile facilities..." and "...may be temporarily held...". That is a far legal cry from "...shall (or must)include juvenile facilities..." and "...shall (or must) be temporarily held... . Can you see the difference?​

Most children will not be released on bonds as they are too young and the state would run afoul of negligence laws. If there is no guardian or created guardian in the form of relatives children are not released. Also the 20 day window forces government to house children outside general population detention

Released on bonds??! Wouldn't they have to show why they're being detained first?

For example I have seen no one besides myself pointing out anti-terrorism laws can be used when government determines an illegal immigrant is an "unknown person".

Unknown to whom, and why would anyone presuppose all children crossing the border as "terrorists"?

Granted I doubt Trump thought about this. Someone in his staff did.

On this point I agree with you. However even if what you stated were true, and we could just classify anyone crossing our borders as "terrorists" and dump them into prison (which sounds more North Korean then American), would you not rail against it as immoral even if it were deemed "legal"?

 

[Shad]

No it doesn't, and it's certainly not something required as you claim.

If "Juvenile facility" means "separation from parents" then juveniles without parents cannot be placed in juvenile facilities.

Juvenile facility means one for juveniles as they are different than adults. Words... I know...

No, I read the right "Flores v. Meese" case law and my information, which cited CBS and the Washington Post are correct. The notion "it's wrong because it's came from the media" never made much sense to me. You'd have to tell me how that's different from "it's wrong because it came from people" first.

Which sets the conditions. Add Lynch and Reno to it to cover accompanied minors.

Very good! Now simply pull out the section you believe requires juveniles to be placed in detention centers.

Already have. You ignored it

Your prior assertion of "by definition" doesn't work.

Yes it does as that why words have definitions rather than not...

If the law requires juveniles to be held in juvenile detentions centers because "by definition" they are juvenile detention centers, then "by definition" adults must be held in prison because "by definition" prisons are adult correctional facilities.

Words.. I know.

But being charged with a crime is not enough to land you or your kids in prison. I'm not trying to pick on you, but there is something missing (two very important words) from your legal analysis. Rather than simply point it out and have it go by the wayside, I'd like to discuss it with you.

To land in detention it is. It is called "Flight risk"

Right now I'd like to stay focused on your previous assertion that the Sessions/Trump Administration has no choice but to separate children from parents who cross the border illegally.

I never said no choice. I said their policy bound them to specific actions as it ruled out alternatives as failures

Yes, Flores created the law. But neither the Flores case or settlement created a law that requires separation. Your link doesn't prove this Shad, it disproves it.

Already linked the relevant law.



Okay, let's look at something you quoted before:

A.The law clearly states "in the case of a juvenile for whom detention is determined to be necessary".
That is a far legal cry from saying "in the case of a juvenile, detention is determined to be necessary". Can you see the difference between your assertion and the law?

B. The law clearly states"...may include juvenile facilities..." and "...may be temporarily held...". That is a far legal cry from "...shall (or must)include juvenile facilities..." and "...shall (or must) be temporarily held... . Can you see the difference?

​

​

You still ignored what I said about policy. Bonds were not an option by the determination of the administration which pass this on as policy to the agency. Instead of individual cases it was at the agency policy level.

Released on bonds??! Wouldn't they have to show why they're being detained first?

No as people do not get to walk into a nation illegally and are freed to do whatever they want until their case is heard. Hence why people are release on bond as adults or to guardians under the adults bond with a case date. Bonds were the primary option used but the bond system has been a central options creating the larger immigration issue.

Unknown to whom, and why would anyone presuppose all children crossing the border as "terrorists"?

The use of anti-terrorism laws have been stretch to absurdity. It is not that they are terrorists but if one has a lack of ID the government can declare them "unknown persons" thus detain on those grounds.

On this point I agree with you. However even if what you stated were true, and we could just classify anyone crossing our borders as "terrorists" and dump them into prison (which sounds more North Korean then American), would you not rail against it as immoral even if it were deemed "legal"?

See the above about this specific policy.

The answer is yes but I argue based on different grounds than merely morality. Morality as an augment is problematic given different idea about morality in general and something I avoid.