Donald Trump

Trump Signs Executive Order Reversing Family Separation Policy

The administration says it will continue its "zero tolerance" approach to illegal immigration.


Abaca Press/Douliery Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom

Today President Donald Trump signed an executive order that purports to end the separation of migrant families while maintaining his administration's "zero tolerance" approach to illegal border crossing. "We want security and insist on security for our country," Trump told reporters at a White House briefing. "At the same time, we have compassion. We want to keep families together. It's very important. I'll be signing something in a little while that's going to do that."

Some 2,300 children have been separated from their parents and held in cage-like juvenile detention facilities in the last month, thanks to the Trump administration's policy of criminally prosecuting every adult detained on suspicion of illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Under today's executive order, those prosecutions will continue, but the defendants with children won't be automatically separated from them. The order says "it is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources."

Until today, the Trump administration had argued both that it had no family separation policy and that the law required it to break up families in order to prosecute the parents. "Congress and the courts created this problem, and Congress alone can fix it," Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said at a press conference on Monday.

Trump's executive order maintains this argument while backtracking on the policy it was used to defend. "It is unfortunate that Congress's failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law," says the order, which is titled "Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation."

The court orders to which Trump refers require the government to place immigrant children in federal custody with an adult guardian "without unnecessary delay" (typically within 20 days) and to keep children who are in federal custody in the "least restrictive conditions" possible. Trump's executive order instructs Attorney General Jeff Sessions to request an amendment to these decisions that would allow the government to hold families in detention together while criminal charges against the parents run their course.

Two legislative proposals in the Senate would make any temporary suspension of family separations more permanent. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has introduced a bill that would bar the separation of families unless there is clear evidence that children are being abused or trafficked. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is sponsoring similar legislation that would prohibit family separation, expand family detention centers, and provide more immigration judges to adjudicate asylum claims. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said legislation is unnecessary, since the president already has the authority to stop family separation.

Trump's executive order gives Nielsen the authority to construct new family detention centers as needed, and it instructs Sessions to prioritize the adjudication of immigration cases involving families. The order leaves open the possibility that some family separations could continue. The government will not detain families together when there is "concern that detention of an alien child with the child's alien parent would pose a risk to the child's welfare" or when "available resources" do not allow it. The three family detention centers the federal government currently maintains are reportedly near capacity.

Trump's order does not say whether families that have already been separated will be reunited.

NEXT: The Factual and Rhetorical Silliness of Family Separation Whataboutism

Donald Trump Immigration Zero Tolerance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

166 responses to “Trump Signs Executive Order Reversing Family Separation Policy

  1. I miss the clown panic

    1. Has anyone checked to make sure none are lurking outside the children’s detention centers?

      1. Well, do journalists count as clowns?

        1. Yes! Except that they are generally even far more scary than the scary clowns!

          1. Pennywise at least did background research on people, unlike journalists.

      2. “Trump separates children from their parents and then sends his secret clown force in to terrorize them!”

      1. Wait wait. The Washington Post printed this? I thought they were in the bag for Obama and carrying his water and burying stories unfavorable to him. How could this be?

        1. Are you honestly pretending that there is no discrepancy between reporting on this under the Obama administration and the Trump administration?

        2. If the source is not MSM, you would say it was not a reliable source.
          If the source is MSM, you do what you just did and change the subject.

          Under no circumstances do you address the substance of the issue.

          Goebbels would be proud of you, chemjeff.

          1. You think? I think he would have been a casualty of the T4 program.

    2. I didn’t realize it had ended…..oh! you mean panicking ABOUT clowns

    3. “I miss the clown panic”

      Politics is basically the same thing…

  2. So, if I understand this, Congress had a bill ready to go to permanently reverse this policy, but Schumer and Democrats in the Senate refused to allow a vote on the legislation and instead insisted that only Trump can fix a policy that existed before his administration, but no one cared about it then for reasons. Instead now we have a president making law by fiat.

    This policy was “literally Auschwitz”, but not “literally Auschwitz” enough to permanently reverse it via Congress? How does this make sense? How is this not just a gimmick pushed by Democrats and the media (but, I repeat myself)?

    1. Playing political Gotcha games is always more important than actual accomplishing anything.

      1. Let’s just cut to the chase and eliminate Congress. Let’s just accept what we have: an elected tyrant

        1. Let’s just accept what we have: an elected tyrant

          If it’s any consolation, that’s exactly what some of us have done. Some people are just late to the full realization of how far gone we are.

        2. I’d prefer it to the unelected and unaccountable Deep State tyrants.

        3. So you haven’t researched Obam’s harsh treatment of kids at the border? NO? why not? did you protest Obama? Why not? so now you are wanting to enact a Hitler tactic and have the children locked up with their parents in jail while waiting for a hearing which could take months? Talk about inhumane and cruel. The intent of the law passed by congress and signed into law by Clinton was to protect children from being thrown in jail with their parents. Hell, we don’t allow children in the jails here in the US and yet no one is protesting the split up of those families. The Hitler lefties are really stupid, they don’t think about the consequences of their idiocy. Children in jail, who would have thought. Disgusting.

    2. Same reason why Avenatti isn’t living on CNN any more. They need their new outrage du jour.

    3. I missed when we entered the world where the minority leader allows votes. What color is the sky there?

      1. The assumption that the minority party cannot prevent legislation is amusing.

        1. The minority party can filibuster, but only when there is a vote. Is there a bill presented? Is the bill so bad that they can’t get enough Democrats to vote for it?

          The minority leader cannot prevent a bill from coming to the floor nor prevent senators from voting to break a filibuster.

          1. The bill is bad, because Republicans are passing it. That is what’s wrong with it

            1. Is there a bill on the floor?

              1. There is a bill in both the House and Senate and the Democrats are holding it up in the Senate

                1. Aw man, I guess I look pretty stupid now.

                2. What’s the Senate Bill number? I don’t see anything on the floor. Democrats can’t hold that up.

                  1. I don’t know the number, but yes,*looking* stupid is the least of your problems:
                    “”There’s no need for legislation,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D?N.Y.) said yesterday, explaining why he opposed a bill from Sen. Ted Cruz (R?Tex.) that would add additional immigration judges so that asylum cases could be heard more quickly. “Mr. President, you started it, you can stop it, plain and simple.”

                    1. There is one senator opposing a bill. That is not blocking the bill. There is no vote scheduled and no filibuster active. The bill is not being blocked, it hasn’t been brought to the floor. That’s McConnell’s choice.

                      Not that it matters, because the House GOP can’t pass a bill.

          2. If McConnell has a brain he brings that Ted Cruz bill, which is the right solution, and forces Cryin Chuck to filibuster. And not a bullshit filibuster. A talking filibuster where video from it can be boomeranged on those socialists in the midterms.

      2. Hmmmm…maybe you don’t understand how the Senate works. You can’t be that dumb, right? You’re not being honest here, are you?

        1. He’s named after Chandler Bing. Of course he can be that dumb.

          1. You must not be into baseball history, huh? It was a nickname I had for a semester in college. No relation to Friends.

            There is a relation to Happy Gilmore, but I guess that doesn’t look any better?

            1. Tap, Tap, Taparoo

              1. I’ll see you in the parking lot!

    4. only Trump can fix a policy that existed before his administration

      You don’t understand it. The zero tolerance aspect of the policy was new.

      1. I thought you said the media was totes covering this in the last administration? I could have sworn that that was the talking point you woketarians were going to stick by?

        1. Now the policy is different for “reasons” and that’s why everything is suddenly totally not the same?


          “This is different guys. I’m totally not just a soft progressive that likes Uber and food trucks and selectively employs freedom of association when it suits the policy I desire!”

          – Cathy

          1. You have a very developed fantasy world.

            1. Cathy, I know your positions and they aren’t any different from progressives. Let’s drop the act, OK

              1. You clearly do not know my positions.

                1. OK, that’s fair. I honestly don’t like the fact that I’ve clashed with you so much. I apologize for my harsh tone.

        3. The media was covering Obama’s shitty immigration policies, and the media was covering the treatment of unaccompanied minors and the minority of children who were separated from families when family members were detained.

          There was not a policy of detaining and criminally prosecuting 100% of people caught illegally entering the country. Now there is.

          It’s not that hard to understand.

          1. So, you’ve decided to go with: the media is not employing double standards in its coverage, they called Obama’s immigration policies Aushwitz too and they all virtue signaled about how much they hated his immigration policies?

            “There was not a policy of detaining and criminally prosecuting 100% of people caught illegally entering the country. Now there is.”

            That seems like a convenient talking point that isn’t supported by reality. But, you’re totally not just a progressive


            1. The ACLU story is about unaccompanied minors. But sure, only progressives are against arresting and prosecuting every person who crosses the border illegally. That’s totally not a libertarian position, in any way, shape, or form.

              1. WTF? That is not what I have argued at all. If you ever read my first post, I’m bemoaning the fact that the executive is making legislation via fiat once again. I am also upset that Democrats are preventing Congress from taking action.

                You are fine with both issues, because you are a progressive

                1. I read your first post. It had incorrect information, which I pointed out. You claimed I was wrong, and your evidence did not support your argument.

                  You inferred from this that I am a progressive.

                  1. OK. The Welch article didn’t really argue that this is somehow different, so do you have a link to an article explaining how this is different from the previous policy?

                    1. Here is info from DOJ on the implementation of Sessions’ zero tolerance policy for prosecuting all illegal entries.

                      This story has some information on the prior practice, where USAs had discretion about whether to criminally prosecute illegal entry as a misdemeanor.

                    2. I’ll read it

          2. Hillary Clinton on YouTube: “Just because your child gets across the border that doesn’t mean your child gets to stay”

            In 2014, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was questioned on illegal immigration into the United States. “Just because your child gets across the border that doesn’t mean your child gets to stay” Clinton said.

            1. Is that supposed to refute anything I said? Again, that’s about unaccompanied minors.

              1. You realize that the policy that you are criticizing was imposed, because of a court order mandating that children reaching the border illegally cannot be detained for more than 20 days and after it was found, during the last administration, that unaccompanied minors were being given to human traffickers?


                1. If you’re responding to me, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. The family separation that generated the past several days of outrage is not about unaccompanied minors.

                  1. But, the court ruling and the incident with traffickers is what led to the policy in the previous administration. They began separating children from their adult companions because they had to determine if they were their parents.

                    So, your main issue is the zero tolerance and not the child separation, if I understand

                    1. That is correct.

          3. I thought Obama just drone murdered them before they got here.

            1. Woketarians are fine with war and murdering foreigners overseas. That’s why Bill Kristol is such a big fan of Reason

          4. There was not a policy of detaining and criminally prosecuting 100% of people caught illegally entering the country. Now there is.

            And you have a problem with that? Why?

            If the law exists, it should be enforced. If it’s a bad law, change it. Or do you suggest enforcement officers should selectively apply the law according to their own subjective view at any given time?

    5. “Trump unilaterally ends holocaust that Democrats refused to end.”

  3. Thank God, if I saw one more headline I was going to break those kids out of the cage myself.

    1. Despite all your rage, they will still keep those kids in a cage.

      1. But it’ll be a slightly bigger cage, and they’ll be in it with people who are ostensibly their parents.

        Of course, I don’t expect citizens to be treated with the same level of compassion. I also expect few to none of the American populace to notice.

        1. who are ostensibly their parents.

          You would think that with all the international sex trafficking going on that it would be exceedingly likely that more than once we’d reunited a victim with their captors.

          Assuming of course that fervent white nationalists aren’t driving 100% of the demand for trafficked sex.

      2. +1 for the Smashing Pumpkins reference. Funny enough, I was already thinking of using this lyric to make some clever trivia team name for tonight… it will be a battle of among the wittiest team names which are all going to be sourced in family separation.

  4. “We want security and insist on security for our country,” Trump told reporters at a White House briefing.

    I’ve got some bad news for you dude.

    1. What is your bad news?

      1. Security is an illusion that only morons buy into.

        1. Hugh, you just responded to a racist moron

          1. I do a lot of that in this comment section these days.

            1. Are you comparing me to a guy who peddles race IQs?

          2. Hugh, you just responded to a racist moron open borders troll doing a lousy impression of a conservative


  5. We should have had the military conduct a My Lai style operation against these invaders. Then mother and child wouldn’t ever be separated again. They’d be united forever in the loving arms of Hay-Sus!

    1. Oh goddammit having Kirkland come over was bad enough.

    2. Get fucked. You’re a shittier parody account then when “newly woke” Welch writes an article.

      Or you’re just a rabid asshole

    3. Now if we can just get OBL and this guy to reply to eachother.

      1. Do you want a black hole? Because that is how you get a singularity.

  6. Trump supporters must be having a major sad right now. I mean, those dirty illegal parents deserve to have their illegal children taken from them.


    Trump is being a total pussy for keeping these illegal families together. Illegal parents don’t deserve illegal children, because they’re illegal.


    Fucking liberal media is to blame for this outrage. After all, they didn’t care when Obama did it. So that made it OK. But then they ran with this to distract from the FBI scandal, and now fucking Trump had to reunite those illegal families like a fucking pussy.

    What is this country coming to? Not separating illegal families at the border?

    Shame on you America. Shame on you for forcing the president to reunite illegal families not stop taking illegal children from illegal parents.


    1. I was going to see if Just Say’n and loveconstitution1789 were going to flip on this to defend Trump among lefties. Just Say’n is quasi-flipping?more annoyed that this isn’t going through Congress than anything, but defending Trump from “AAAACK!” girl’s ramblings. lc hasn’t shown up yet among lefties.

      1. I don’t care about defending Trump, but I do care about people being hypocrites and I really don’t like a president passing laws via fiat, especially when Congress wants to pass a law, but the minority party wants to keep this issue alive for political benefit

        1. Re: Just Say’n,

          ??? I don’t care about defending Trump, but I do care about people being hypocrites ???

          Yes, you’re a very caring person…


          1. Oh shit he’s drunk on Cuervo again

      2. John must be having a cow.

    2. I’d think libertarians would have the sadz about the fact that the executive is making law through fiat again, but I guess restraining government is not necessary when there is woke street cred to be had

      1. “…but I guess restraining government is not necessary…”

        Listen up, you obtuse moron, stopping people (paid with my tax money) from ripping little babies out of the arms of loving parents ***IS*** an example of restraining a Government Almighty run berserk! Even if it takes a fiat decree by the Emperor-POTUS to restrain a Government Almighty run berserk, that is a GOOD thing!

        Is this really so hard for you to see, or are you blinded by a ravening hatred of illegal humans?

        Inquiring minds want to know!

        1. Take down the fake indignation a notch. Yes, I agree that not having the policy is preferable to having the policy. But, if you really cared about the issue wouldn’t you want the change to be permanent? That can only happen with Congress. In fact, why do we even have Congress if the president can just rule by fiat?

          1. Take down the fake indignation a notch.

            Not to mention that he could, without an EO, re-/de-schedule a bunch of drugs and stop using/dealing kids from being ripped out of the arms of their using/dealing parents like Reason actually proposed under the Obama administration. Presumably, with an EO, he could likely do similar with CPS or, at the very least, with LEOs automatically contacting CPS at the drop of a hat.

            But I guess the ship has sailed on those kids. Unfortunate that they just happen to be natives and/or specifically protected by the CRA.

            1. Presumably, with an EO, he could likely do similar with CPS or, at the very least, with LEOs automatically contacting CPS at the drop of a hat.


              CPS is state-level gov.

        2. Ah, utilitarianism and fiat legislation based upon emotion. It’s never far behind us.

          1. I would rather live under a dictator who respected basic human rights and minimizing the size of Government Almighty, than a democracy run by blindly ideological haters of illegal humans and other sub-humans… Legal niceties can kiss my ass, I care about RESULTS and being NICE to all humanoids, as much as is practical! Love of humans = love, a mere “emotion”… Is sneering at this “emotion” the hill you want to die on?

            Yes, Congress is SUPPOSED to be a safe-guard against tyrants, and I would LOVE to see them actually do their jobs!!! Make decency and humanity permanent, yes, by all means! (Yes, I am a libertarian; I prefer private humanity and decency over the attempts of Government Almighty to attain the same).

            1. Dictators are known for respecting human rights. Go with that

              1. Ancient kings were basically dictators, yet some of them actually DID respect some basic human rights. It is possible, it doesn’t violate any laws of physics. See CYRUS THE GREAT AND RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE at…..-tolerance …

                Now I do admit that “personality change over time” and “succession” are issues even with benevolent dictators…

                1. Your right honorable Righteous Feelz, you shall be our resident Achaemenid Empire expert.

      2. Who cares? What matters is that illegal families aren’t being broken up. They’re illegal and they deserve to have their illegal children taken from them because they’re illegal. Did I mention that they’re illegal? They’re illegal.

      3. If the president abolished, for example, the Dept. of Homeland Security by executive order and everyone followed the order and actually dismantled it, should I complain?

        1. Yes, if you actually believe in having a restrained executive. But, not if you’d prefer to have a king

    3. Flashback: Both Hillary And Obama Advocated Separating Migrant Families, Strict Border Control [with videos]

      While the left rages against “separated migrant children” which they blame on President Trump’s “zero tolerance” enforcement policy of Bush-era rules, several “inconvenient” video clips have cropped up revealing both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama advocating virtually the same border policy they are currently attacking Trump over.

      For example, Hillary Clinton said during a 2014 CNN Town Hall;

      “We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border – doesn’t mean your child gets to stay”

    4. I’m not sure what a “Trump supporter” is anymore. Somehow, it feels like anybody who doesn’t denounce everything Trump does on whatever grounds is somehow a “Trump supporter”.

      I opposed Trump’s raid in Syria on constitutional grounds.

      I oppose Trump using trade policy with China as leverage on North Korea.

      I support Trump on securing the border, pulling out of the Iranian deal, withdrawing from the Paris accord, deregulation, his tax reform package, among other things.

      If I now say I oppose Trump on separating families, does that even make sense anymore? He just did what he needed to do to put a stop to that. If I say I support Trump on separating families, doesn’t that mean I support his EO, which just put a stop to that practice? What does it mean to oppose or support Trump on that issue now?

      Somehow, I suspect those who oppose Trump for being Trump will still find ways to blame him for families being separated–even though he’s done what he needs to do to stop that. Is anybody who doesn’t blame Trump for that now that he’s taken steps to stop it still a “Trump supporter”?

      Seems to me that a “Trump supporter” is something that mostly exists in the mind of a “Trump opposer”. If a “Trump opposer” is someone who opposes everything Trump does because Trump is the one that did it, then I guess a “Trump supporter” is someone who supports everything Trump does because Trump did it.

      1. “Trump supporter” is essentially the current shorthand for ‘fuck you, buddy’.

      2. Trump flip-flops almost as often as he inhales and exhales! Being a Trump supporter in all things, at all times, would give one severe mental whiplash, one would think!

        I am told that woodpeckers have had to evolve very special quadruple-plus or who-knows-what, padding around their brains, to protect them from their constant jack-hammer-like high-frequency, high-amplitude wood-pecking activities. If there really are Trump supporters who support Trump in all things, at all times, I must wonder, have they had themselves genetically engineered to steal some brain-padding genes from Woody the Woodpecker?

        I personally have stolen some some genes from Woody, truth be told, but they are NOT for the brain padding!

        1. What are they for, Feelz Righteous?

          1. The pure essence of Woodiness, stolen from Woody himself!!! It is sometimes hard on my circulatory systems, but it does wonders for my love life!

            1. See…..nt_7199091 , wherein one finds some lovely poetry mostly written by “Juice”:

              It was twenty years ago today
              That Viagra passed the FDA
              It’s been going in and out of style
              But it helps your boner last a while
              So may I introduce to you
              My chubby maker dressed in blue
              Sgt. Pecker’s lovely hardon clan!

              So I now hereby propose that to supplement this lovely poetry, we should have a poetry-hoe-down fest to sing the praises, instead, of GMO thefts from Woody the Woodpecker! Let the poetry slam BEGIN!

              1. Poetry slam entry:

                Well Woody the Woodpecker
                Gonna go down town,
                He gonna see his gal,
                He gonna sing ‘er a song,
                He gonna show her his ding-dong!
                But his DNA got stolen by King Kong,
                King Kong, he’s a big Ding-Dong,
                He left the woodpecker genes unguarded,
                His flunkies, they were all SOOO retarded,
                SQRLSY One stole the woodpecker genes,
                Now SQRLSY, he’s ALL cool with the beauty queens!

            2. Oh Righteous Feelz, what are your thoughts of two other Woodies?

              Woody Harrelson

              Woody Allen

              1. From limited knowledge, top of the head…

                Woody Harrelson, either a fun guy or a mushroom (AKA fungi), just like me in many ways, a hoot and a toot!

                Woody Allen was creepy! He got it on with a young woman who he and his then-wife had adopted, as I recall! Well, she was 18 or more when Woody got it on with her, as I recall! But that’s entirely too woody for me!

                But then again I guess I am a geezer-prude, truth be told…

                1. But, you are an expert on Cyrus the Great and the Achaemenid Empire.

                  Yeah, what filmmaker Woody did was too icky woody for my tastes as well.

                  The other Woody does like his weed and I don’t think he is a natural born killer.

    5. What’s hilarious is that the upshot is theas kids now get to go into the clank with the adults claiming to be their parents. All this huffing and puffing and all you guys manages to pull of was a prison merger. Tears of laughter.

  7. We’ll see if any follow up via legislative action is taken.

    My guess? Nothing else changes.

    1. Not in an election year. That’s presumably why Trump took action. He’s saving the Republican party from ripping itself apart in an election year. The whole House is up for election, not just the guys in the deep red states, but the Republicans running in blue and purple states, too. If Trump takes care of it, they don’t have to go on the record.

      The election five months from now may be over an issue like the national anthem at NFL games, but it won’t be a referendum on stripping children from their mothers.

      That’s what’s really going on.

      1. Seems likely, especially with Democrats sharpening their knives while promising no action on any bill.

        As you note, the Republican party isn’t in lock-step like the Democrats are. That’s both good, and bad, depending on how you look at it. Needless to say, immigration is an issue that divides the party.

        Nothing happens in D.C. that doesn’t involve political considerations for keeping hold of power or blocking said power from being exercised.

        1. You know what else is needless to say?

          Immigration is an issue that divides the commentariat.

          1. Then why did you say it?

            1. Presumably for dumb motherfuckers like you.

        2. Like how exactly zero Republicans have signed on to the Keep Families Together Act?

          1. My understanding is that it is so poorly written that it would effectively prevent federal arrest of anybody with a minor child, not just immigrants, but anybody.

            1. 1) It only applies to minors without immigration status.
              2) Authorities can still arrest people, they just can’t remove the children.

      2. No, every Democrat will be ranting and raving about how their steadfast opposition forced evil president to relent and only by electing them will we be able to keep this evil president from his next nefarious scheme. It will be 24/7 bragging about standing up to Trump and showing him what good Democrats can do to save the country.

      3. You think this is over? Not a chance. The leftists are already starting the drumbeat that it’s wrong to imprison families and comparing it to the Japanese interment camps. You just know they’re already forum shopping for a leftist judge who will issue a nationwide order for the families released into the US.

        1. That’s because they haven’t seen the polling. It’s a blood bath for team soros. 17 percent support catch and release that less than support separated detention. Trump just defused a land mine it’s gets to shove his nuts in the face of the stupid Flores decision. Wait the republicans get to run against legislating from the bench from the the ninth circuit on an issue where less than 20 percent of voters support the Dems stance. Holy crap veto proof senate majority here we come.

          1. Interesting. Do you have a link to the polling?

    2. My guess? Nothing else changes.

      At least until we elect Hitler again.

  8. “Until today, the Trump administration had argued both that it had no family separation policy and that the law required it to break up families in order to prosecute the parents.”

    Which is entirely true.

    But we have government by the pen and the phone now, and only monsters who won’t think of the children want it otherwise.

    1. I think it’s okay to argue about this stuff from the perspective of what you want congress to do.

      If this were before congress, I would support the president signing a bill with what he put in this EO.

      Just because you condemn the means doesn’t mean you have to condemn the content of the change.

      I opposed Trump’s raid in Syria on constitutional grounds only–even though I would have supported it otherwise.

      It’s the same thing. Just because congress never voted on it doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on what they should do if they were doing their fucking job.

  9. “I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.”
    – Ulysses Grant

    1. “The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is [its] inefficiency.”

      —-Eugene McCarthy

      1. “The quoting of an aphorism, like the angry barking of a dog or the smell of overcooked broccoli, rarely indicates that something helpful is about to happen.”
        -Lemony Snicket

  10. There are no alien families crossing the border.

    Just a borderline personality disorder President who can’t get enough attention, so he hurts people, including children, so he will get more notice. But he is never satisfied.

    He is envious of unrestrained power exercised by Putin, Erdogan, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, Duterte, and seeks to emulate them.

    He is disappointed when people resist him, rather than bow down to him.

    What a guy!

    1. Yes!!!! Yes all around!

      “He is envious of unrestrained power exercised by Putin, Erdogan, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, Duterte, and seeks to emulate them.”

      And he also shits all over our good friends like Canada, while sucking up to authoritarian assholes!

  11. ??? Trump’s order does not say whether families that have already been separated will be reunited. ???

    The Pu$$y Grabber-In-Chief’s order doesn’t say if those pre-pubescent immigrant girls taken from a foster facility in Harlem to NYC under cover of night are going to be reunited with their parents?


    1. Dude I gotta say, I’m not sure that those girls were taken from their families at the border or not, but stalking pre-teen girls around the streets of NYC to show footage of nothing in particular is pretty smarmy. “Ring No. 6” in the lobby was a bit of a dickish, doxxing move as well.

  12. In what has become a routine occurrence, 26 states sued the government in response to this executive action and a federal district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015. The injunction was allowed to stand by SCOTUS. That means if you support DACA we can keep the kids but their illegal alien parents are subject to immediate deportation. DACA. For the last year Obama’s DACA program of international child stealing to promote corporate welfare and separates families was just wonderful. Where was the outrage?
    What Democrats and pro-business (thus pro-immigration “establishment” Republicans) advocate is the crime of international child stealing to accommodate corporate welfare at taxpayer expense but then it was just wonderful. Where was the outrage? This is exactly what MSM’s globalist Madison Avenue schemers do best. Build the wall. Save our sovereignty. At least open your eyes.

  13. Fuck this and fuck them.

  14. A bully, after the blustery bluff is called, is customarily soft. Trump is not just soft — he’s flabby.

    Trump caved. Folded like a Trump university. Capsized like a Trump casino. Failed like a Trump steak.

    He probably has already issued the predictable dodge — ‘I haven’t caved. Some nasty people say I caved, but I actually did not cave. And my people, the forgotten Americans, will know I didn’t cave because now I have told them’ — but only the most gullible element of the audience misses what happened here:

    Trump caved.

    Like a bitch.

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|6.20.18 @ 7:16PM|#
      “Trump caved.
      Like a bitch.”

      And here’s our annoying asshole acting like someone scored a touchdown!
      What a ‘superior person’ you are, asshole!

      1. It has been a good day.

        America became more moral.

        The Trump administration was diminished by weakness, lying, and ineptitude.

        Stephen Miller made his boss a pariah.

        Corey Lewandowski handed Democrats a ready-made, bulletproof campaign advertisement.

        The Stones committed to touring the United States again.

        Making America touchdowny again!

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|6.20.18 @ 10:53PM|#
          “It has been a good day.”

          Yes, it has.
          The hypocrisy of assholes like you has been clearly evident, asshole.

  15. Huge mistake. Caving to leftists in the vain hopes of obtaining peace and quiet is as foolish as giving a candy bar to a five year old in the hopes he will never scream that he wants one again. You have to hold the line.

    They’re already now comparing the new hypothesized family detention centers to the Japanese interment camps. Nothing short of releasing the detainees entirely will stop the current drumbeat, and after that the left just starts demanding a path to citizenship for them.

    1. Yes, indeed. Trump should hold the line and die on the hill in support of baby jails. Right before the election! Brilliant!

      1. Legalize a few million more mestizos, and a Republican can never win any office again. That’s why we need to keep them out.

      2. So you think Chuck Schumer is trying to help the GOP in the coming election? Schumer wanted Trump to do this, remember. Rather than having Congress change the underlying law.

        Now they can go to a leftist judge and declare the detention centers unfit for families or something, and get them released completely, so they can disappear completely into the illegal underground. Trump is a chump.

        1. Hopefully Trump ignores the judge when that happens.

        2. And then the GOP can ride a tide of anti-judicial activism to a mid term shelackng of the Dems.

          1. Sounds good to me. Or if they had any balls, they’d defund the marshals and leave these leftist kooks on their own. If the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give us any rights, they shouldn’t get their taxpayer paid security.

          2. Good luck with that. If it hasn’t happened already it ain’t going to happen.

      3. “Trump should hold the line and die on the hill in support of baby jails.”

        This is why people laugh you.

        Well, not your sexual partners, they laugh for a different reason.

    2. You’re free to explain, of course, what makes tent cities holding immigrant families, in violation of a legal settlement and court opinion restraining the practice, discernibly different from the Japanese internment camps.

      Oh, is it that you don’t give a shit about immigrants’ rights in our legal system? Was that a difference or a similarity, again?

  16. Wait, I must be slow, I hadn’t caught on to the fact that illegal border-crossers were being criminally charged. I thought they were being deported administratively, with the hearings delayed for them to file asylum claims.

    Well, then, let’s discuss how criminal defendants will be treated during pretrial detention and (if applicable) after conviction – is it generally a good idea for them to have their kids with them?

  17. Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle

    “Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers…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.”

    1. And since we commonly don’t toss the kid in the jail with the parent, the kids get separated, correct?
      And this is the law that wasn’t the law when Obama was POTUS and the media covered it with appropriate outrage at that time and, goddamit TRUMP!!!
      I think I see it now…

      1. Many people who commit misdemeanors are cited and released, or brought to the station, booked, and released. For instance, it is legal (affirmed by the conservative court members) for a police officer to arrest a person for not wearing their seatbelt (in the case, a max $50 fine). If we have to enforce every law, then every person not wearing a seatbelt should be arrested and booked, right?

        1. In fact, there was a successful program where 99% of participants met all court obligations:

          It was shuttered early in the Trump administration and was replaced by the more expensive detention policies.

          This wasn’t about enforcing the law. It was deliberate cruelty to use as a negotiating tool.

  18. You think this is fun, wait until October. And after that, the 2020 census. The leftists are already talking about temporary relocations to blue states and especially cities and college towns to give them more clout in the House and the Electoral College. In addition to pouring illegals into those places.

    1. They’re not going to like what happens when we stop paying the bills and stop producing.

  19. Trump dismantles yet another Obama left over, leftists rejoice, then wonder why they keep losing.

  20. You are again witnessing a reversal in response to the danger of losing government paychecks thanks to spoiler votes. Do not be surprised if the Dems completely delete all global warming and shut down power generation claptrap from their pathetic platform. By the way, this salutary action by the Don is in response to the expected action of voters, not non-voters who make excuses for wasting potential LP spoiler votes with 6 to 4000 times the law-changing clout.

  21. There are so many ways in which Trump could’ve created a policy that would’ve addressed his policy goals and headed off most criticism, but that would’ve taken a little effort on his part, and that’s apparently asking for too much.

    On the other hand, and while noting I don’t favor the zero tolerance policy, it is possible to defend that policy without being a monster. The continuing assumption by many that people who come across the border illegally are really the victims in all of this really stretches the definition of compassion.

  22. This is disgusting. Congress and POTUS using people as political footballs to gain votes in an upcoming election. I’m ashamed of my government. In other words, it’s business as usual for all concerned.

  23. Bing (aka MS) is providing some evidence of the mobiltiy of people, but ya gotta look before midnight:
    You can gripe about the US reception, but you really need to look at the hell-holes people are leaving and also where they are going.
    The hell-holes are religious or commie dictatorships, but whether by US policy or choice, they are headed toward the wondrous socialism of Europe!
    OK, let Europe provide that wondrous socialism, and let them pay for their own defense, too.

  24. Sooo he’s basically just going to ignore the law/case law as it stands and selectively enforce again… Giving illegal immigrants being held on charges BETTER treatment than US citizens.

    Ugh. It’s not like this was a nice thing or whatever, but in some ways I really wish he would stick to his guns even more on some of these issues. The left keeps going insane over things most normal people recognize are nothing burgers, and while painful in the short term, I think all of the outrage peddling is going to do nothing but help Trump in the long run. It’s alienating sane people from the Democrats!

    1. Are you saying that citizens face 100% arrest, charging, and enforcement of misdemeanors?
      Every time a cop sees a jaywalker in a jurisdiction that it’s a misdemeanor, they are directed to arrest and detain the citizen?

      1. No, but illegally entering a foreign country, using forged documents, and then utilizing government services you’re probably not paying enough into the system to cover (like ALL native born poor as well) is a more serious crime than jay walking.

        It’s less serious than murder mind you… But it’s not an absolute nothing. I’m from California. If you want to see what having too many low income people who don’t pay enough in to support the system does, go look at my hometown nowadays.

        I’m against low skill immigration of all sorts, legal or not. Illegals just add in extra layers of problems.

  25. Trump’s executive order instructs Attorney General Jeff Sessions to request an amendment to these decisions that would allow the government to hold families in detention together while criminal charges against the parents run their course.
    seo service

  26. “Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has introduced a bill that would bar the separation of families unless there is clear evidence that children are being abused or trafficked.”

    That sounds promising, since a clear statement like that from Congress could conceivably be used by non-criminal Americans who get their children removed by Children’s Aid or whatever. Sure, the law wouldn’t address that issue, but I think it could be argued that, as an equal-protection thing, families not charged with federal crimes should have the same legal protection as those that are.

Comments are closed.