Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen: "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."
Even by the standards of the current administration, this is a particularly blatant and outrageous lie. I can't even imagine what she was thinking of when she made such a statement. We do have such a policy, and we declared it officially in precisely those words, and we specifically called it our "policy."
Here is what Jeff Sessions said: "I have put in place a zero tolerance policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law."
Moreover, Nielsen herself was forced to admit this under oath. (Start at the 56:22 point in her testimony.)
And we even have an official document that explains what to do when when you are separated from your children! (It is also in Spanish.)
Sec. Nielsen was being hyper technical in the vein of "depends on what the meaning of is is." What she is saying is they have a policy of criminally prosecuting all adults (including parents with children) who cross the border illegally. Since children can't be detained with their parents for more than 20 days (due to a consent degree) the children must be separated. In other words the policy is prosecute the parents which requires separation, the policy is not the separation itself. A distinction (most would say) without a difference.
ReplyDeleteThe administration could announce a policy of releasing adults with children who promise to appear for future court dates. But that might actually be worse for children in the long run because it will encourage adults to make the trip with children, and lead to more children making the dangerous trip. The only way to avoid that happening is to release all adults without children as well.
She is incorrect even in that sense. Please note the wording of Sessions' policy. He did not say "we will prosecute adults and AS A RESULT will have to separate them from children." He said the policy is we will prosecute you AND that child will be separated from you.
DeleteOr, to word it in terms that even the apparently illiterate Secretary might understand (OK, I doubt it, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she took a logic course at some time in her education), our policy is prosecute and separate. Therefore, our policy is prosecute and our policy is separate. That's the way the "and" conjunction works. If I am tall and thin, therefore I am tall and I am thin.
If she is making a distinction. she is utterly stupid. Since I assume she did not actually take the short bus to school, and has a J.D. degree, the only possible conclusion is that she is lying.
Although I guess she could just be stupid, since she's the same person who didn't know whether Norway was a predominantly white country, which I assume would be common knowledge to a third grader.
(Snark aside, she was obviously lying there as well. Telling the truth is obviously an unfamiliar concept to her.)
To her minimal credit, however, the reports were that she fought tooth and nail against this inhumane policy, but finally had to accede to pressure from above.
To further complicate (or maybe simplify), improper entry (which is what illegally crossing the border is called) is a misdemeanor crime. It is akin to jaywalking or speeding. Most misdemeanor crimes involve a fine and if any jail time is required it is less than a year. So... imagine a police officers site you for jaywalking and as a result arrests you and locks you up and while they’re at it take away your 5 year old kid who was with you at the time. They then place that child ina separate holding facility... see where I’m going here? When suspects are picked up for illegal border crossing they are detained, not jailed. There’s a difference. And up until recently families were detained together in holding facilities that are not gen pop prisons so there’s no reason to separate them.
ReplyDeleteThere was a lawsuit and a consent degree settlement that prohibits keeping children in a holding facility for more than 20 days. That is the law Trump wants to change, that consent degree. But I have to wonder, are people going to be much happier about keeping these kids confined to holding/detention facilities even if they are with their parents?
DeleteOnce upon a time I used my own law degree and was representing a client suing a very large company in a case with anti-trust elements. During discovery I found a memo from a VP that said "this acquisition will allow us to monopolize the industry in an expeditious and timely manner." I asked her in a deposition why she wrote that and she replied, she thought the acquisition was a bad idea, but had been instructed to write a memo in support of it. Sometimes when a person disagrees with a course of action, they do a terrible job of defending it.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind, the real shame of all of this is that unless and until the United States manages to effectively secure the border and reduce illegal immigration to a trickle, we will never be able to do anything for the otherwise law abiding illegal immigrants trapped in the shadows. There was a general amnesty under Reagan in the 1980's to solve the illegal immigrant problem "once and for all." Until the border is secured it would be irrational, not to mention politically impossible to have another amnesty. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for Trump's stupid wall. We need a plan that will work and then we can hopefully help the people here already.