You tell me. If there’s nuance there, then I’m super interested to hear about it. What’s so bad that it outweighs breaking up families, or any of the other things Trump and his government have done over the past four years?
Why don't you find someone who voted for Trump, ask, and listen with an open mind?
There are pro-lifers who think that basically nothing outweighs the 'murder of unborn children' and can't fathom voting for a Democrat. You might have more in common with them than you think.
As a registered Democrat, I would happily support a variety of measures factually proven to reduce (legal or illegal) abortion rates in general, such as easier access to birth control and better sex ed for teenagers, as well as programs that would reduce the appeal of abortion, such as high-quality government-funded adoption programs for newborns.
Strangely enough, pro-lifers generally oppose those kinds of things.
> Thank you for admitting that you are vilifying Trump supporters online in a thread about nuance for beliefs you have ascribed to them without talking to one of them
You’re putting words in my mouth.
> you might think someone who could vote for Trump is vile
Please don’t presume to tell me what I think. You don’t know me or my mind.
> What your worldview has in common with theirs is that it is a hard (read: non-nuanced) stance on a single issue.
Oh, don’t worry about that; I have opinions on a whole bunch of issues; this was just a single example of one that I thought was pretty simple and ought to be relatively uncontroversial.
And also, see my above comment re: not presuming to tell me what I think.
Outside the issue of immigration, it's pretty well accepted that separating children from their parents is to be avoided, but sometimes the alternative is worse so the state steps in and does it anyway. The state steps in when there is abuse or neglect - do you oppose "breaking up families" even then, or do you concede that sometimes it's the right call?
Is it not possible that in the context of immigration there can also be situations where it needs to happen? (e.g. communal housing could put children in the vicinity of harmful people, or fake families with human traffickers posing as parents)
If you’re interested in the real reason, this is not quite true, although I would not disagree that he thought the extra deterrent would be a bonus.
This was not actually a policy. This was a side effect of a different policy. The policy was zero tolerance on criminal immigration law. That means, if an adult crosses the border illegally, they committed a crime and must be arrested for said crime. That part isn’t actually new, Trump just directed them to enforce the law. That’s where the issue comes in. When an adult male goes to jail, such as if I were to get a DUI with my kid in the car, I’m not allowed to take a kid in with me to jail. It doesn’t matter if they’ll be left alone with no one to care for them. No matter what, arrestees can not bring their kids to jail, ever.
So in this situation, the parent is arrested and charged with a crime, and the kids are held until a guardian can be located. And guess what? Many from Mexico or El Salvador actually don’t want to come up to the US and get their kids, if such a person even exists. The Obama admin built these “cages” for that reason. But, they didn’t enforce the law as much, so they were not used so often. They did build them and they did put kids in them though.
The policy absolutely was intended as a deterrence:
the heads of the three major immigration agencies wrote to their boss, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, to present her with three options for how to step up immigration enforcement at the border. They recommended “Option 3” — prosecuting every adult who crossed the border illegally, including those who came with their children — because it would “have the greatest impact on current flows.”[2]
> No matter what, arrestees can not bring their kids to jail, ever.
And yet through some miracle they reversed this policy and issued a new executive order reversing the "zero-tolerance policy" that says:
"The President’s executive order issued on June 20, 2018, directed, among other things, that the Secretary of Homeland Security maintain custody of alien families during any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their family members, to the extent possible. This order stated that the policy of the administration is to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate."[1]
This is a return to how it used to be run - families were detained together.
