Democrats’ Border Separation Bill Would Let Nearly All Parents Who Commit Federal Crimes Get Off Scot-Free

[Dashinka 24,765]

Let's see, is this the Democrat's way of saying "Open Borders"?  I guess you have to at least bring a kid with you.

 

By Gabriel Malor

June 19, 2018

 

Democrats’ proposed legislation to prohibit so-called border separations would actually prevent federal law enforcement agencies almost anywhere inside the United States from arresting and detaining criminals who are parents having nothing to do with unlawfully crossing the border and seeking asylum.

Every Senate Democrat has now signed on to cosponsor a bill written so carelessly that it does not distinguish between migrant children at the border and U.S. citizen children already within the United States. The bill further does not distinguish between federal officers handling the border crisis and federal law enforcement pursuing the ordinary course of their duties.

 

Let’s break down Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed “Keep Families Together Act” to see where Democrats went wrong. The bill provides that “[a]n agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States” (with three exceptions to be discussed later). Four immediate warning signs in this provision should put the reader on notice that this bill is not what Democrats claim.

First, “designated agency” here is defined as the entirety of the federal departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services. The scope of the bill is not limited to those portions of these departments involved with the border crisis, and there is no other limiting factor in the bill that would cabin the prohibition on family separation to immigration-related matters. In other words, this bill is going to regulate conduct across a great many federal offices that have nothing to do with separating children from families arriving unlawfully in the United States.

Second, “agent or officer” is not defined by the legislation, except to say that it includes contractors. Federal law, however, already defines “officer” to include (with exceptions not relevant here) every federal employee appointed to the civil service by the head of an executive agency and ultimately overseen by the head of an executive agency.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/19/democrats-border-separation-bill-let-nearly-parents-commit-federal-crimes-get-off-scot-free/#.Wyk-k6wzTxc.twitter

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

From the document itself:

 

(a) In General.—An agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian, at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States, unless one of the following has occurred:

             (1) A State court, authorized under State law, terminates the rights of a parent or legal guardian, determines that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian, in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89), or makes any similar determination that is legally authorized under State law.

             (2) An official from the State or county child welfare agency with expertise in child trauma and development makes a best interests determination that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian because the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to herself or others.

              (3) The Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director in their official and undelegated capacity, authorizes separation upon the recommendation by an agent or officer, based on a finding that—

                           (A) the child is a victim of trafficking or is at significant risk of becoming a victim of trafficking;

                           (B) there is a strong likelihood that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian of the child; or

                           (C) the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to themselves or others.

(b) Prohibition On Separation.—An agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goal of deterring individuals from migrating to the United States or for the policy goal of promoting compliance with civil immigration laws.

(c) Documentation Required.—The Secretary shall ensure that a separation under subsection (a)(3) is documented in writing and includes, at a minimum, the reason for such separation, together with the stated evidence for such separation.

 

I think the (a) "General" statement needs to be a bit more clear. It is quite clear from (b) that they are speaking about in illegal immigration cases. But yes - The first statement could be read to apply to any family. If that is the case, then a 4th option should be that the parent has committed a serious crime (with a definition to go along with that). In my opinion illegal entry would not be sufficient to be considered a serious crime, but if the parent killed someone at the border then yes by all means detain the person and separate the kids. You could argue for separation in that case though under the (C) heading. If a parent is a murderer, the child is likely at danger of abuse or neglect.

 

Regardless - We all know this sort of bill won't pass. So it's really just a "moral stand" type of bill, so they can say "Hey look we supported this", knowing full well it won't go anywhere. Or it's the beginning of negotiations where people meet in the middle somewhere (one could hope, but unlikely).

Edited June 20, 2018 by bcking

[Ironclad43 131]

Trump will veto if it even passes the House or Senate and that's exactly what they want. "Trump wants to keep families separated!!!!"

Edited June 20, 2018 by Ironclad43

[bcking 3,157]

Sadly neither side likely cares much about the individual families, except with how it impacts their poll numbers and public support.

 

Democrats will gladly use it to send a message like you suggest - Trump "wants to keep families separated" by vetoing a bill that does otherwise

Republics will gladly continue the practice to be used as a bargaining chip, to force Democrats to agree to a bill that includes funding for a wall, among other things. 

 

Just like with the Dreamers, if both sides actually cared they could solve the issue together and move on. That's not how politics works. It's likely why most "good people" don't go into politics. I for one would go crazy.

Edited June 20, 2018 by bcking

[Ironclad43 131]

This is a democrat policy to begin with, so I don't see how any blame can be cast on the 'publicans at this point. 

 

The wall is desperately needed, chain migration and the visa lottery need to end. Trump 2020.

[bcking 3,157]

13 minutes ago, Ironclad43 said:

This is a democrat policy to begin with, so I don't see how any blame can be cast on the 'publicans at this point. 

 

The wall is desperately needed, chain migration and the visa lottery need to end. Trump 2020.

Immigration reform is needed. I have serious doubts a physical wall will do much other than incur massive costs. Republicans have already added to our debt with their tax reform. Lets not add more by applying 2,000 year old thinking to address the problem. It will costs billions in building, and billions more for maintenance, not to mention the manpower required to monitor the wall. 

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Immigration reform is needed. I have serious doubts a physical wall will do much other than incur massive costs. Republicans have already added to our debt with their tax reform. Lets not add more by applying 2,000 year old thinking to address the problem. It will costs billions in building, and billions more for maintenance, not to mention the manpower required to monitor the wall. 

 

Billions for maintenance. Do you have any data to back up these claims, without data its just hyperbole 

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Billions for maintenance. Do you have any data to back up these claims, without data its just hyperbole 

I'll go back and pull up the estimates.

 

Obviously since the building of the wall hasn't occurred yet there is no actual data, only predictions and estimates. You have to work with what is possible. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trumps-immigration-tab-166-billion-121500

 

Pretty decent reasoning:

 

"In this year’s budget request, the Obama administration asked for $274 million to maintain the fence that’s already there. Upkeep for a fence that’s nearly three times longer would cost at least $750 million per year, assuming that a Trump administration wants to make sure its fence is in tip-top shape."

 

And that would be upkeep for a border fence. He's asking for a wall. To be maintained in perpetuity. 7.5 billion in 10 years, etc...

Edited June 20, 2018 by bcking

[Ironclad43 131]

A lot less than keeping 20+ million illegals employed.

 

Yes immigration reform is needed. Mandatory E-Verify is needed, penalties are needed for employers who hire illegals. Sanctions are needed on Mexico for not doing enough to stop the flow of people on their southern border wall, as well as being a corrupt hellhole run by cartels in general.

 

Trump ought to hold NAFTA hostage to achieve border security. It's one place where he has near unlimited power. 

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, Ironclad43 said:

A lot less than keeping 20+ million illegals employed.

 

Yes immigration reform is needed. Mandatory E-Verify is needed, penalties are needed for employers who hire illegals. Sanctions are needed on Mexico for not doing enough to stop the flow of people on their southern border wall, as well as being a corrupt hellhole run by cartels in general.

 

Trump ought to hold NAFTA hostage to achieve border security. It's one place where he has near unlimited power. 

I'd support most of what you are listing before I'd support a Wall. Again not because I don't support border security, but just because I don't think a Wall is the answer.

 

Though I'm not sure what I feel about punishing Mexico for how they handle their SOUTHERN border. A border that we have no direct involvement in. We can involve them with what happens at our shared border, but I think addressing their other borders is a step too far.

[Dashinka 24,765]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

From the document itself:

 

(a) In General.—An agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian, at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States, unless one of the following has occurred:

             (1) A State court, authorized under State law, terminates the rights of a parent or legal guardian, determines that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian, in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89), or makes any similar determination that is legally authorized under State law.

 

             (2) An official from the State or county child welfare agency with expertise in child trauma and development makes a best interests determination that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian because the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to herself or others.

 

              (3) The Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director in their official and undelegated capacity, authorizes separation upon the recommendation by an agent or officer, based on a finding that—

                           (A) the child is a victim of trafficking or is at significant risk of becoming a victim of trafficking;

 

                           (B) there is a strong likelihood that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian of the child; or

 

                           (C) the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to themselves or others.

 

(b) Prohibition On Separation.—An agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goal of deterring individuals from migrating to the United States or for the policy goal of promoting compliance with civil immigration laws.

 

(c) Documentation Required.—The Secretary shall ensure that a separation under subsection (a)(3) is documented in writing and includes, at a minimum, the reason for such separation, together with the stated evidence for such separation.

 

I think the (a) "General" statement needs to be a bit more clear. It is quite clear from (b) that they are speaking about in illegal immigration cases. But yes - The first statement could be read to apply to any family. If that is the case, then a 4th option should be that the parent has committed a serious crime (with a definition to go along with that). In my opinion illegal entry would not be sufficient to be considered a serious crime, but if the parent killed someone at the border then yes by all means detain the person and separate the kids. You could argue for separation in that case though under the (C) heading. If a parent is a murderer, the child is likely at danger of abuse or neglect.

 

Regardless - We all know this sort of bill won't pass. So it's really just a "moral stand" type of bill, so they can say "Hey look we supported this", knowing full well it won't go anywhere. Or it's the beginning of negotiations where people meet in the middle somewhere (one could hope, but unlikely).

I agree, this bill will not pass, but it has been the closest to the Democrats saying they are for Open Borders, they need to own that come November.

[Dashinka 24,765]

32 minutes ago, bcking said:

Immigration reform is needed. I have serious doubts a physical wall will do much other than incur massive costs. Republicans have already added to our debt with their tax reform. Lets not add more by applying 2,000 year old thinking to address the problem. It will costs billions in building, and billions more for maintenance, not to mention the manpower required to monitor the wall. 

 

We could cut it by getting rid of some of the wasteful socialist programs.  Since when did the government become the nanny for all?

[jg121783 3,921]

27 minutes ago, bcking said:

Immigration reform is needed. I have serious doubts a physical wall will do much other than incur massive costs. Republicans have already added to our debt with their tax reform. Lets not add more by applying 2,000 year old thinking to address the problem. It will costs billions in building, and billions more for maintenance, not to mention the manpower required to monitor the wall. 

 

I actually somewhat agree with you on the wall. While I would like to see illegal aliens kept out I don't think a wall will do it. We need more man power on the border. Anyways your statement about tax cuts adding to the deficit simply isn't true. While it could be argued it reduces the amount of money we have to pay down the deficit (thought it could be argued cutting taxes actually brings in more revenue by stimulating economic activity) cutting taxes certainly doesn't add to the deficit. That is like sayong getting a pay cut at your job adds to your debt. While it may affect your ability to pay your debt it doesn't make your debt larger. Its funny the people who complain about tax cuts and the deficit are calling for all illegal alien kids to have immediate DNA testing to determine who their parents are and to have them housed in 5 star hotels.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

I actually somewhat agree with you on the wall. While I would like to see illegal aliens kept out I don't think a wall will do it. We need more man power on the border. Anyways your statement about tax cuts adding to the deficit simply isn't true. While it could be argued it reduces the amount of money we have to pay down the deficit (thought it could be argued cutting taxes actually brings in more revenue by stimulating economic activity) cutting taxes certainly doesn't add to the deficit. That is like sayong getting a pay cut at your job adds to your debt. While it may affect your ability to pay your debt it doesn't make your debt larger. Its funny the people who complain about tax cuts and the deficit are calling for all illegal alien kids to have immediate DNA testing to determine who their parents are and to have them housed in 5 star hotels.

That is true. Thank you for the clarification. Tax cuts don't directly add to the deficit, but it makes it harder for us to pay it back (unless, as you suggest, it stimulates the economy enough to make up the difference). The economy was already quite stimulated, so I'm not sure how much we'll be able to attribute to the tax cuts. This is all off topic though.

 

I would love to see alternate plans proposed where they take the estimated cost of the wall, and applies those costs elsewhere for immigration reform. I think we could get A LOT for 10 billion dollars if we went another direction other than a wall.

 

As for the conditions - No one is advocating 5 star hotels, but some are suggesting chain link fences is inappropriate. I'm sort of in the middle. You need some system to keep people detained. I would prefer for the families to be detained together, but they still need to be kept secure. They are clearly flight risks so you can't just let them hang out without some sort of barrier. Also I don't think DNA testing every child that comes across the border is a great use of our money. I've been asking for some estimate for how many people are "false parents". I realize people on this forum likely don't have the information, but I think it would be helpful if our Immigration Services had the data. It's hard for me to make judgments without knowing the magnitude of the problem.