Immigration

Hundreds of Victims of Trump's Child Separation Policy Still Haven't Been Reunited with their Parents

The government deported the parents without making any provision for reuniting them with their children.

|

A protest against the Trump Administration's family-separation policy. G. Ronald Lopez/ZUMA Press/Newscom.

 

More than two years after a federal court ruled that the Trump administration's migrant family separation policy was illegal and ordered reunification of the children with their families, over 500 of the victims still have not been reunited with their parents. The reason is that the parents in question were deported, and the government officials operating the program didn't bother to make any provision for keeping track of them for purposes of eventual reunification, even though they knew that many young children were unlikely to ever be able to find their parents again on their own:

Lawyers appointed by a federal judge to identify migrant families who were separated by the Trump administration say that they have yet to track down the parents of 545 children and that about two-thirds of those parents were deported to Central America without their children, according to a filing Tuesday from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Trump administration instituted a "zero tolerance" policy in 2018 that separated migrant children and parents at the southern U.S. border. The administration later confirmed that it had actually begun separating families in 2017 along some parts of the border under a pilot program. The ACLU and other pro-bono law firms were tasked with finding the members of families separated during the pilot program.

Unlike the 2,800 families separated under zero tolerance in 2018, most of whom remained in custody when the policy was ended by executive order, many of the more than 1,000 parents separated from their children under the pilot program had already been deported before a federal judge in California ordered that they be found….

To my mind, the family separation policy could well be the greatest evil perpetrated by the Trump administration, which is saying no little, given some of the other things they have done. I discussed the reasons why it was so deeply unjust in this 2018 post, which includes responses to claims that Trump and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions can't be blamed because they were "just enforcing the law." As the court decision striking down the policy makes clear, far from being a proper law enforcement measure, it was actually illegal itself. And even if it were not illegal, it would still be a horrific injustice.

I believe the Ukraine scandal was a serious enough abuse of power to justify impeachment.  But if it were up to me, I would rather have impeached Trump over the family separation policy, which was both more obviously illegal, and caused vastly greater harm to innocent people. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions' central role in the family separation policy is one of the reasons why I cannot agree with those (including some on both the left and the right) who lamented his forced departure from office in 2018, and praised him for supposedly standing up for the rule of law. He and Trump deliberately adopted family separation for the purpose of punishing and deterring migrants. And they applied it even to many migrant families who had not violated any law, but instead legally crossed the border to petition for asylum in the United States.

I suppose I should also briefly address the canard that Trump and Sessions were just continuing policies previously initiated by the Obama administration. This oft-heard excuse just simply is not true. If Trump and Sessions were just continuing Obama's policies, they would not have had to issue a new "zero tolerance" order to get what they wanted. Likewise, there would have been no need for the 2017 "pilot program" for family separation, which—as discussed above—resulted in hundreds of family separations that still haven't been rectified. There would have been no point to the pilot program if the policy it sought to test was already in place.

To say that Obama was not to blame in this case, is not to deny that his administration also had some awful immigration policies. They did, and I condemned them at the time. Trump's, however, have been substantially worse. In any event, previous administrations' abuses of power do not justify those of the current one—and vice versa.

NEXT: What is Court-Packing?

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Who could have imagined that sending or bringing minor children across a border illegally could lead to misfortune?

    Everyone who did the same thing everywhere else in the world every other time in history had a happy carefree family experience, right?

    1. This is not a natural outcome no matter how much you talk about tendencies and risks. This is a choice the US made, and then was negligent about.

      Quit blaming the victim – this one is on the Trump Admin, as the OP explains quite well, though you didn’t for a moment engage with it.

      1. Family separation under Obama?

        1. BUT WHAT ABOUT?????

          1. What about the family separation of Justina Pelletier under Deval Patrick? Most of the lefty folks on this blog supported that, IIRC.

            1. I don’t know enough about that case to comment, but assume Deval Patrick is a horrible human being. What does that have to do with Trump? Does it somehow make it better that hundreds of children may never see their parents again because of Trump?

              1. No. The government does stupid shit all the time.

                I was just responding to your comment.

                1. My comment was directed to Publius’ Apparent belief that something Obama did or did not do somehow has relevance to Trump’s family separation policy destruction of hundreds of families.

          2. BUT WHAT ABOUT?????

            When something is being used as a partisan attack…

            But you already knew that.

            1. Trumps family separation policy would be an abomination no matter which party we’re doing it. But you already knew that. And since it’s indefensible on the merits, you’d rather change the subject to Obama.

              1. you’d rather change the subject to Obama.

                Who, in fact, had a general policy of keeping families together and, when it was ruled that the children could not be held with their parents more than 20 days, they released the families together except in cases where custody could not be established or the parents were being prosecuted for another crime such as drug smuggling. But then, surely everyone upthread knows this because they also read the links in the OP that document these facts.

      2. I, for one, prefer Josh Blackman’s posts about how glowing Amy Barrett is …

        1. Joshie’s got a lawyer-crush.

          1. Is it me, or do Josh Blackman’s Amy Barrett posts also remind you of a Toobin Zoom call?

      3. The US is the victim

        1. The children are victims too.

      4. This is a choice the parents made. When parents choose to break the law, they know they may be separated from their children, through imprisonment, deportation, or other methods.

        And it’s not the fault of the state if the state enforces the law.

        1. You’ve had your fun, kiddies. Sick fun it was.

          The adult supervision is about to begin. Immigrants will no longer be treated like dirt. That scraggly wall will come down. Children will no longer be treated as pawns by downscale bigots.

        2. And it’s not the fault of the state if the state enforces the law.

          CBP was Just Following Orders, right?

          1. It was in fact, following the law. Just like the FBI follow the law when it arrests a criminal, thus separating the criminal from his or her children.

            1. Another great meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian And Cruel Immigration Policies And Practices, convened at faux libertarians’ favorite legal blog.

    2. I agree Cubans and Central Americans have been taking advantage of our asylum laws…but this is just an example of more sheer incompetence by the Trump administration. Sorry, even if foreigners are bad actors we still shouldn’t end up harming children! For people that hold themselves up as pro-life like ACB I would hope the Trump administration’s actions would be unacceptable…of course the pro-life ACB giggled with glee when W Bush slaughtered innocent Iraqi babies so who knows?!?

      1. This wasn’t “sheer incompetence”; it was deliberate.

        1. Apparently Neyland opposed it but others said they could separate families while keeping track of everything. Basically Trump/Stephen Miller wanted to crack down and listened to “yes men” saying they could do it properly…very similar to the lead up to the Iraq War. So Trump/Miller are idiots and ask for idiotic things and then underlings strive to make it happen instead of telling their boss they are an idiot and quitting.

      2. I don’t think you care about children at all.

        1. Shock and awe motherfuckers!! That’ll teach those Iraqi babies from messin’ with Texas!!

          Amy Coney Barrett in March 2003 while watching Fox News.

    3. Crossing the US border for the purpose of requesting asylum is legal, as stated in the OP.

      Given that the Trump administration enacted child separation on both legal asylum seekers and illegal immigrants suggests that it wasn’t the legal/illegal aspect of the immigration that mattered.

      Who would have guessed that basic constitutional protections and human rights wouldn’t matter to conservative American voters?

      1. Soon, what conservative voters want won’t matter.

        They had their chance. They blew it. Failure and bigotry will have consequences.

      2. The parents were deported because their asylum claims were bullshit.

        1. But we kept their kids? Do you realize which side of the argument you are helping?

          1. The one where sneaking across national borders with minor children (and a bullshit asylum claim) is a wise a reasonable activity that people like you expect to end in happiness?

            1. Ben_ is an advocate of kidnapping and human trafficking by the US Government.

              2020 folks. Not just limited to racists openly behaving like racists anymore.

  2. “Hundreds of Victims of Trump’s Child Separation Policy Still Haven’t Been Reunited with their Parents”

    It’s NOT “Trump’s Policy,” it was in place when he took office, and practiced under Obama before him.

    Somin: Liar, Liar, Liar! In the tank for Biden.

    1. From Sarcastro’s link:

      In June 2019, a group of attorneys who are involved with the Flores settlement visited a Border Patrol center in Clint, Texas. The children told the lawyers that meals consisted of instant oatmeal, a cookie and sweetened drink for breakfast, instant noodles for lunch, and a heated frozen burrito and a cookie for dinner. They said they had not had a clean change of clothing or a bath for weeks. There were no adult caretakers; girls as young as ten were taking care of the younger ones

      Make you proud of the country, proud of your hero Trump?

      Anyone not “in the tank” for Biden is a fool and a moral midget.

      1. I agree, in principle I support the Obama/Trump border policies with Obama laying the groundwork for Trump by labeling Cuban asylum seekers as “economic refugees” thus sending them to detention facilities. That said Obama didn’t separate babies from parents as part of “no tolerance“ policy designed to prevent more economic refugees from taking advantage of our generosity.

      2. It is abundantly clear that wikipedia is in the tank for Biden, et.al., so anything there on politics is suspect. See the recent editors wars regarding Biden and Burisma.

        It is a FACT that family separation was the policy under Obama. Go ahead and check the fact checkers, even the pro-Dem ones.

        1. Obama hasn’t been president for going on four years. Nothing that’s happened since January 20, 2017 is his fault.

          1. Obama hasn’t been president for going on four years. Nothing that’s happened since January 20, 2017 is his fault.

            Because if there’s one thing that everyone with more than two brain cells knows it’s that the effects of 8 years of a president’s policies stop the moment he leaves the White House.

            1. And anyone with more than two brain cells would also know that if Obama’s policies really were the problem, Trump was free to countermand them any time. He certainly hasn’t been shy about reversing other Obama policies he disagrees with.

              1. It seems to me that every Obama policy that Trump has “reversed” has gone through the courts, and the courts keep saying “nah, no takebacks”.

                1. That’s because it doesn’t make the news if Trump reverses an Obama policy and nobody sues, which has been the case most of the time. In this case, though, there was no attempt by Trump to reverse the policy, so we don’t know if (1) anybody would have sued and (2) if so, what the results would have been. I very much doubt that anybody would have sued; who is going to go to court and insist that families be separated?

                  1. Orangemanbad has been a significant factor in clouding people’s judgment. It doesn’t seem that far fetched to me, for there to be a knee-jerk “Trump BAD” reaction.

                    Though, I only took issue with your statement that “Trump was free to countermand them any time.”

                    I want to simplify the immigration process and allow for more people to come on over. I don’t want to separate kids from their parents (assuming they are family, but I have no idea how prevalent that is) for showing up at the border. I don’t think any illegal aliens deserve jail/prison just for being here (criminals *ahem* excepting for their trespass) which might then warrant removal of children for a time. I definitely don’t think that parents should be deported without their children, without undeniable proof that the children aren’t in fact theirs. And, I don’t think that, “well, you’re here illegally, but you’re already here, so screw it you can stay” is a good policy.

                    I do think it’s clear that asylum seeking, 7 countries away from wherever they want asylum from, is something that should be heavily scrutinized. “Why do you think you should be eligible for asylum here, when you were safe from your home country 2000 miles, and 6 countries, ago?”

                    1. “I don’t think any illegal aliens deserve jail/prison just for being here (criminals *ahem* excepting for their trespass) which might then warrant removal of children for a time”

                      This should read:

                      I don’t think any illegal aliens deserve jail/prison just for being her, unless they are criminals (*ahem* excepting for the crime of trespass) which might then warrant removal of children for a time.

              2. And anyone with more than two brain cells would also know that if Obama’s policies really were the problem, Trump was free to countermand them any time. He certainly hasn’t been shy about reversing other Obama policies he disagrees with.

                Did you hurt yourself dragging the goalposts all the way to the other end of the field?

        2. Ad hominem doesn’t disprove anything there.

        3. It is fact that family separation was the exception under Obama except when there was some alleged crime, such as drug smuggling, other than an immigration infraction. The policy during the Obama years was to keep families together and even started releasing entire families when a court ruled that, even together with their families, the children couldn’t be held more than 20 days.

          People may believe a lie if you repeat it often enough, ThePublius, but it will never become true.

      3. I ain’t voting for Trump, just like I didn’t the first time. But I’ve pretty much concluded that I can’t vote for Biden either. I won’t in good conscience contribute to exposing the country to his nasty, violent, racist progressive wing.

        This separation policy was just meanness for the sake of being mean, and the people that enabled it should be shunned by polite society.

      4. Sounds like you think these children should be stripped from their parents and placed in adoption, in loving families across the US.

    2. “It’s NOT “Trump’s Policy,” it was in place when he took office, and practiced under Obama before him.”

      Hmm, I wonder if this dumb point is addressed in the post or not?

      Oh, it is.

      1. Maybe you should post a picture of kids in cages, and claim it’s during Trump’s tenure…

            1. Nope, I’m totally good using one from Trump’s tenure, like you requested.

  3. The only rationale for this policy was racist cruelty. The Trump Administration “justified” it by saying it was punishing the children for the “transgressions” of their parents, which is hardly less horrible.

    1. Really, that’s what the Trump administration said? That’s horrible.

      I’m sure you have links to some of those Trump administration quotes.

  4. “I believe the Ukraine scandal was a serious enough abuse of power to justify impeachment.”

    Will this still be true if Basement Bunker Biden wins in 2020?
    (Asking for a republican)

    1. Biden should really avoid strong-arming other countries into fabricating dirt on his political opposition.

      The nickname game on Biden is so weak.

      1. Yeah, he should just ACTUALLY sell access, like he has for years now, and pocket part of the proceeds for himself.

        Funny, Trump is impeached for actually investigating a crime. Weird.

        1. The GOP has been manically looking for a Biden crime since 2018. It has found nothing, certainly no selling of access.
          But that hasn’t stopped the right-wing media from blowing a lot of smoke, nor you from deciding that’s proof.

          Now, back to our shameful humanitarian record.

          1. “The GOP has been manically looking for a Biden crime since 2018. It has found nothing, certainly no selling of access.”

            Provided one ignores all of the emails released showing specifically Biden selling access and getting money from Hunter. Which you are doing a remarkable job of doing.

            “But that hasn’t stopped the right-wing media from blowing a lot of smoke, nor you from deciding that’s proof.”

            There’s dramatically more proof of Biden doing what he’s accused of than there is of Trump doing what you’re convinced he did.

            Let’s assume everything Biden has said about his getting the prosecutor fired (which he did, mind you) was true. Can YOU explain why we used a billion US dollars to try and do something on behalf of the EU? To replace Shokin with a guy who dropped the entire investigation a month later?

            1. Sarcastro’s so deep in denial at this point he’s risking nitrogen narcosis. But he’s got a lot of company in that regard.

            2. damikesc : Provided one ignores all of the emails released showing specifically Biden selling access and getting money from Hunter. Which you are doing a remarkable job of doing.

              But there are no emails showing that, not even in this latest operation from Russian Intelligence. But – hey – don’t give up hope. Rudy Giuliani is now claiming there is kiddy porn on his magic laptop (recovered from that blind-trump-fanatic-computer-repairman)

              Whoda thunk it? In addition to collecting the most humiliating pictures of himself imaginable to copy and load onto his laptop, apparently Hunter also added his illegal porn stash before dropping the thing off at Mac Isaac’s shop. That would be the same Mac Isaac who refuses to answer whether Giuliani contacted him BEFORE the alleged Hunter drop-off date. Can’t wait to get that guy in front of a grand jury.

              And let’s not forget Giuliani’s handler, Andrii Derkach. Four days ago, Rudy claimed there was only a 50/50 chance his pal Andrii was a Russian spy, which was news to Trump’s Treasury Department. They have the odds more like 99.9999. Well, Derkach said Monday he’s found more laptops in Ukraine to release – just filled with lots more “evidence” against Joe Biden.

              I say bring it on. Apparently these clowns don’t realize their porn & bonus-laptops just makes the scam all the more absurd. Exactly how does Derkach’s new find jive with the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman anyway?

              So : Is there anyone more dumbass-gullible than a Trump supporter?

              1. “But there are no emails showing that, not even in this latest operation from Russian Intelligence.”

                …Russian intelligence? *snicker* Really? You’re trying to run that one again?

                There is plenty of evidence of exactly the accusations.

                “Whoda thunk it? In addition to collecting the most humiliating pictures of himself imaginable to copy and load onto his laptop, apparently Hunter also added his illegal porn stash before dropping the thing off at Mac Isaac’s shop.”

                Same dude who returned a rental car with a CRACK PIPE inside of it making poor decisions? I cannot fathom that happening. Hunter always seems to be blessed with the best of ideas.

                “And let’s not forget Giuliani’s handler, Andrii Derkach. Four days ago, Rudy claimed there was only a 50/50 chance his pal Andrii was a Russian spy, which was news to Trump’s Treasury Department. They have the odds more like 99.9999. Well, Derkach said Monday he’s found more laptops in Ukraine to release – just filled with lots more “evidence” against Joe Biden.”

                Sorry, I’ll trust DOJ and the DNI over rando commenter. There is zero evidence of this being anything than Hunter is a fucking moron and Joe is corrupt. And you’re OK with that and it’s nice you’re open about that.

                “So : Is there anyone more dumbass-gullible than a Trump supporter?”

                Anybody claiming that was a Russian intel operation?

                1. Hilarious. Prepare to eat those words, unless I’m generous enough to let you off the hook. Here’s another question : How come Giuliani is only bringing up this massive trove of kiddy porn now? Why wasn’t it mentioned previously, say by the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman? Also, I note you didn’t answer my question about Rudy’s Russian spy pal (per Trump’s own Treasury Department). Is it just a coincidence he’s promising Special! Bonus! Laptops! that have nothing to do with the jokey cover story of a repair shop?

                  Hell, you might think it is a coincidence. Trump supporters aren’t known for being very bright. Trump himself has been quoted as saying he prefers’em stupid (or words to that effect). But I’ll give you some credit : I bet you think this farce will hold together just long enough for election day. But, damikesc, what’s the point? Even with a Trump win, that just means impeachment when this garbage falls apart. As it will.

                  1. “Hilarious. Prepare to eat those words, unless I’m generous enough to let you off the hook. Here’s another question : How come Giuliani is only bringing up this massive trove of kiddy porn now?”

                    Because Joe’s corruption is the public story. The kiddie porn is a quieter legal matter that has no involvement with Joe.

                    “Why wasn’t it mentioned previously, say by the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman?”

                    …how would a blind guy know?

                    “Also, I note you didn’t answer my question about Rudy’s Russian spy pal (per Trump’s own Treasury Department).”

                    I do ignore pointless asides.

                    “Hell, you might think it is a coincidence. Trump supporters aren’t known for being very bright. Trump himself has been quoted as saying he prefers’em stupid (or words to that effect).”

                    Care to provide the direct quote? Not saying I don’t tru…actually, I am saying that.

                    “But I’ll give you some credit : I bet you think this farce will hold together just long enough for election day. But, damikesc, what’s the point? Even with a Trump win, that just means impeachment when this garbage falls apart. As it will.”

                    Oh dear, another impeachment over literally nothing. Truly that sounds horrifying. Hopefully, this time, the Republican Senate will save us the time and just summarily say “no” and be done with it.

                    1. (1) Your repairman is only somewhat blind. He’s the one who said he read emails off the laptop. He also has a thing for flying aircraft simulators, which most blind people find hard to do. I have no idea how visually impaired he is beyond what’s necessary for his bullshit story. Strange he scoured the laptop contents and contacted the FBI over email, but forgot to mention massive amounts of child porn in his many interviews. (bless his heart, the man loves to talk. What a grand jury witness he’ll make!)

                      (2) Thus the FBI has had Hunter’s laptop for approaching a year, considered it legit, but ignored his massive collection of kiddy porn? And this was because the kid introduced a Burisma exec to daddy, which translates to “Joe’s corruption”?

                      Noticing that none of this adds up?

                      (3) So the FBI warns the White House Andrii Derkach is a Russian spy, looking to feed disinformation thru Giuliani. Simultaneously the magic laptop appears, (supposedly) funneled through Rudy via the Blind Trump Fanatic Computer Repairman. Then Derkach says he has Special! Bonus! Laptops! to come from the Ukraine. Yet you’re such a dupe you believe all this is a coincidence ?!?

                      You know the Brooklyn Bridge is real pretty lit up at night. Wanna buy it?

                      (4) Trump in Nevada, 24 February 2016 : ‘I Love the Poorly Educated’

                    2. “(2) Thus the FBI has had Hunter’s laptop for approaching a year, considered it legit, but ignored his massive collection of kiddy porn? And this was because the kid introduced a Burisma exec to daddy, which translates to “Joe’s corruption”?

                      Noticing that none of this adds up?”

                      Gee, FBI has shined itself in glory for the last 4 years. Cannot figure out why they might be do something corrupt.

                      And the whole Hunter giving half of the money to Joe in the emails is the relevant part here. I’m sure you’ll eventually get around to reading it, but I’m not in the mood to help you avoid spoilers.

                      “So the FBI warns the White House Andrii Derkach is a Russian spy, looking to feed disinformation thru Giuliani.”

                      DNI says there is literally zero evidence of any Russian involvement with this at all. Keep beating a dead horse. You only looked like a fucking moron for over 3 years with this lie. Keep on riding it.

              2. You must know some really well kept together tweakers/crackheads if you think that keeping incriminating information on their computer and then forgetting about it after dropping it off to get repaired is anomalous behavior.

                1. Leaving aside how many crackheads I’ve met, this is what I know : Hunter didn’t go to some acquaintance and say :

                  “You know that picture of me you took showing me huddled under blankets, passed out with a crack pipe dangling from my lips? Yeah – that one – the one that looks like a bad Photoshop job – the one that really makes me look really pathetic & embarrassing. Can you give me a copy to put on my laptop?”

                  You must be really gullible to believe he did….

                  1. Well, the emails are being confirmed as being legit by MULTIPLE sources now.

                    1. “The emails”

                      Really? All of them? From multiple sources that you can’t be bothered to post or reference?

                      https://www.newsweek.com/wsj-newsroom-found-no-joe-biden-role-hunter-deals-after-reviewing-bobulinskis-records-1541553

                      “The Post’s articles have been based on emails that haven’t been authenticated by any mainstream journalistic outlet.”

                      So let’s just clear this up once and for all: you’re a liar, spreading bullshit because you think people aren’t going to call you on it or check what you have to say.

      2. Bad Touch Biden was just looking out for Kiddie Fucker Biden.

    2. What does the Ukraine have to do with the subject of this thread?

  5. I don’t suppose deporting the children back to where their parents were deported to (presumably, their home country) is an option here?

    If the issue here is reuniting the children with their parents, then send the children back to their parents in their home country.

    1. Deporting the kids wouldn’t cure the problem – the issue is the Trump admin deported the parents, kept the children, and didn’t bother to keep records.

      It’s pretty evil stuff.

      1. Evidence that the kids were actually with their parents is…where?

        1. What kind of fairy tale are you going to tell?

          1. Requesting proof that the kids were with their parents is silly how? Shouldn’t be too hard to provide.

            1. Who else would they have been with and why would it matter? Or are you implying that a 6 year old kid crossed the Mexican desert by themselves and thus should be dumped back into their home country without ensuring they have adult care?

              1. “Who else would they have been with and why would it matter?”

                Not their family. Relevant because you wouldn’t send kids back with “not their family”

                “Or are you implying that a 6 year old kid crossed the Mexican desert by themselves and thus should be dumped back into their home country without ensuring they have adult care?”

                The whining in this article is that they were SEPARATED from their family. My question was “How do we know it was their family at all?” And you now come in with “They came here alone so they should be…sent to live with random people?” I don’t get your logic here.

                1. So, your argument is that the Trump administration failed to keep records of who the children’s parents, at least purportedly, were, and now it is the people who care about the children that bear the burden of proving that they have parents and who their parents were? Are you actually Trump, because the Trump administration literally tried to foist responsibility for finding out this information on organizations like the ACLU?

                  Word of advice: If you take the children, you need to document who they were with and you have responsibility for finding their parents.

                  1. “Word of advice: If you take the children, you need to document who they were with and you have responsibility for finding their parents.”

                    If children try and illegally cross borders, no, you do not have to search for their parents. If the parents sent them on their own, c’est la vie.

                    1. If children try and illegally cross borders, no, you do not have to search for their parents.

                      That’s a morally indefensible position to take. But it also completely avoids the question presented.

                      Trump instituted a policy (“zero tolerance”) whereby, when a whole family crossed the border, the children “no matter how young” were separated from the parents. It is in this context that there is a clear moral duty to keep track of the members of the family so they can be reunited (whether in their country of origin or the US, depending how their asylum, etc. claims are resolved). And even you are unwilling to defend the Trump administration’s failure to do that morally required work either at all or competently, probably because it cannot be defended as anything other than gross negligence or deliberate infliction of psychological injury on innocent children.

                      But we knew that the Republican Party has become the home of and controlled by people who delight in imagining the torture of other people. It’s gross in any context. Especially in this one involving desperate parents and innocent children. The Republican Party should never escape the shame of this. It is utterly repulsive.

      2. Right.

        Not keeping records was either stunningly incompetent or stunningly evil.

        What next from the “party of family values?”

        1. Still no evidence that the children were actually with their parents? Weird. This should be basic stuff. Cannot imagine any sense of justice where random kids are sent off into the world with random adults with no evidence of being related at all.

          1. Jesus Christ.

            Maybe everyone is lying about everything, how can we ever know what’s true!

            What the hell is wrong with you?

            1. Sarcastro, we actually know that kidnapped children are being used by immigrant smugglers as props. It’s not speculative. The ICE have been proving it using genetic matching: A significant fraction of the children showing up are with ‘parents’ who aren’t actually related to them.

              1. There were some smuggled kids. That doesn’t prove your case in the least. It’s just a deflection from the plain fact, Brett, the plain fact that Trump adopted the separation policy as an act of deliberate cruelty.

                AFAIK they haven’t even claimed that all the kids were “props,” so you’re just making shit up to fool your conscience about what Trump and Miller did. It’s disgraceful.

                1. All we are asking is for PROOF that these kids were the kids of those adults. You seem quite anxious to not provide any evidence. Would any court just accept the word with zero evidence behind it?

                  1. I think you missed the part where the Trump administration didn’t bother to keep records about which kids belonged to which adults, parents or not. If team Trump thought that this information mattered, they would have kept it.

                    So, effectively, you’re demanding evidence that doesn’t exist because part of the crime was.. wait for it… not keeping the evidence.

                    Regardless, just because some rando adult immigrant might have used a kid as a prop doesn’t justify what the United States government did to those kids after it detained them.

                    1. “I think you missed the part where the Trump administration didn’t bother to keep records about which kids belonged to which adults, parents or not.”

                      There was no evidence to keep in the first place.

                      “If team Trump thought that this information mattered, they would have kept it.”

                      Assuming it ever existed, which the author did not bother to demonstrate.

                      “Regardless, just because some rando adult immigrant might have used a kid as a prop doesn’t justify what the United States government did to those kids after it detained them.”

                      Giving them legal representation and feeding and housing them? Yes, sounds horrible. What, precisely, should they have done with kids with no known parents?

                  2. If this was a legitimate concern that the Border Patrol had, shouldn’t they have made that determination first, rather then deport first?

                    That said, as far as I know even the Trump Admin isn’t claiming that the kids they kidnapped were already kidnapped (thus making it okay). They’re just saying they had no intention of returning the kids to their parents, and are now unable to do so.

                    1. You know, if they were their parents, they’d have taken their kids WITH them when deported.

                      Cannot think of a reason why they’d leave them behind. Can you?

                      It’s not like you cannot simply go back home if you request that.

                  3. Maybe someone should take your alleged children from you (presuming anyone is actually willing to procreate with the likes of you).

                    After all, how do we know those small, helpless human beings are actually your children? You’re probably just some pedophile using them as props.

              2. Wow. Just Wow.

                If your idol is a huckster with an hollow shell where his humanity is supposed to go, then I guess the cult faithful are supposed to pull the plug and let all basic empathy & human feelings drain out of them too.

                Emulate the Master & all that. You hope they’ll be able recover some basic humanity when not shackled to loathsome cretin like Trump. Biden’s victory could be the best thing that ever happened to them.

                1. Hyper emotionalism might work when you lack any semblance of evidence. I’m not optimistic for you that it will work, but if you only have that, go with what you got.

              3. Sarcastro, we actually know that kidnapped children are being used by immigrant smugglers as props.

                No. We don’t. That never happened. ICE disproved that assholish claim by evil Trumpkins using genetic matching.

            2. All I’m asking for is proof that parents and their children were actually separated. YOU are making that claim. Some evidence would be lovely.

              You’ve shown adults and kids separated. The whole “parents and kids” things has not been demonstrated. You can get angry if you so wish.

              1. All I’m asking for is proof you kids are your own. Years after I took them from you.
                What’s so crazy about that?

                1. I have my son’s birth certificate and would be more than willing to take a DNA test.

                  See how easy that is?

                  1. Willingness to take a test isn’t proof . . . or evidence.

                    How consistent are you with respect to evidentiary standards? Do you believe (or claim) that fairy tales are true in the context of religion?

                    1. Who the fuck are you?

                    2. Asks the guy incredulously supporting the kidnapping and human trafficking of migrant children because they aren’t white, and therefore don’t matter, and who cares whether they ever see their parents again.

                    3. “Asks the guy incredulously supporting the kidnapping and human trafficking of migrant children because they aren’t white, and therefore don’t matter, and who cares whether they ever see their parents again.”

                      Kidnapping? Well, the assumption is that a lot of the adults did, in fact, kidnap the kids. Would be horrifying to send the kids with them.

                      And given that you support a party that has a hard on for bombing dark skinned folks and killing them en masse, tell me more.

                    4. Your assumption is unsupported by facts, but that doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

                      I hate to break yet another delusion of yours, but I’m an independent, and have never been affiliated with any political party, nor do I support any of them.

                      Swing-and-a-miss, chief. Try your partisan bullshit somewhere else.

      3. No Sarcastr0, the issue is we want to reunite the child with their parent. Yeah, sorry the parents got deported and we can argue about whether that was the right thing to do or not, but the child should not suffer for that. Children should be with their parents. The parents are in their home country, so send the children back to their home countries where their parents are. The home country can sort that out.

        That is the most humane solution I can see.

        1. Their home countries won’t be able to sort it out because the U.S. didn’t keep the records that their home countries would need to reunite them. Most of these kids are going to wind in orphanages.

          1. “Most of these kids are going to wind in orphanages.”

            Most will probably be adopted by US families and acquire US citizenship.

        2. Do you not understand that the assholes in the Administration didn’t keep the records needed to do that?

          Hard to fathom, I know, since the average high school student, if asked to manage such a policy, would realize the importance of this record-keeping, but that’s what we’ve got. These are your guys, XY.

          1. bernard11, the government has the name of the parents they deported, and their country of origin. The government knows where they deported the parents to. The US did not keep track of the parents once they were deported back to their home country.
            That is how I am interpreting what happened here = The reason is that the parents in question were deported, and the government officials operating the program didn’t bother to make any provision for keeping track of them for purposes of eventual reunification…

            So send the children to their country of origin and let the home country sort this out. The parents (or immediate relatives) are there. This to me is the most humane solution. Reunite the child with the parent, or their family; or get them closer to their parents than where they are, presently. Look, it sucks, I know.

            And I agree…the record-keeping here is a problem.

  6. Don’t you mean, “Never reunited with the people who’d purported to be their parents”?

    You would normally not expect children to keep track of their parents, because the parents would be moving heaven and earth to be reunited with their children. But not, of course, if the deported “parents” weren’t really related to the children.

    Kidnapped children are being used as props by illegal immigrants posing as “families with children”, because it gets you better treatment. Should they be reunited with their kidnappers?

    1. Query—in 2000 did you want Elian Gonzalez reunited with his father or forced to stay with his Cuban relatives in Miami??

      1. Are you actually trying to equate a person all parties agreed was the mother who had custody of the child who died on the trip over with kidnappers using the children as props?

        1. Once Elian’s mother died he was no longer with a parent. And in 2000 the Cubans seeking asylum were taking advantage of our asylum laws…the difference is that Cubans wielded political power in Florida so everyone handled them with kid gloves instead of taking measures to stop them from taking advantage of our generosity as Obama finally did in January 2017.

          1. He was where his mother, the custodial parent, wanted him. And he was with relatives. He was returned to a totalitarian state for diplomatic reasons after a family court had already said he could stay.

            1. Elian’s mother was an extremely irresponsible mother attempting to game our asylum laws and she is no different than the father and young daughter that died in the Rio Grande. In fact Obama rescinded “wet foo dry foot” on humanitarian grounds in an attempt to discourage reckless behavior like Elian’s mother. Your support for Elian staying in America is evidence of tribalism and not any sort of ideological view of the world. Bottom line is if foreigners want to take advantage of our generosity but vote Republican you would give them citizenship.

              1. “In fact Obama rescinded “wet foo dry foot” on humanitarian grounds”

                As well as because Cubans were the only illegal immigrant group that overwhelmingly voted Republican. Be sure that played a role in the decision.

                I believe that the primary excuse for rescinding “wet foot dry foot” was that Cuba purported to be allowing legal immigration. It wasn’t really, of course.

                1. The primary reason was in 2017 the vast majority of Cuban asylum seekers were economic refugees so they no longer deserved special treatment if they somehow got to America…so they were no longer political refugees seeking asylum for persecution.

                2. For someone who hates asylum seekers, you sure have a soft spot for those who might vote Republican.

                  And what does Cuba have to do with the family separation policy, anyway? Just more deflection and thread-jacking.

                  Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Gonzalez case was handled badly. How the fuck does that justify Trump’s policy? And no you can’t pull a big whatabout.

                  1. I don’t hate asylum seekers. I’m not impressed with “asylum seekers” who keep going after they’ve arrived someplace safe, though.

                    The first safe country you arrive at, you’re a refugee. Once you keep moving, you’re just a migrant.

                    1. Cory Booker helped 4 Cuban women cross into America from Juarez…oddly enough they weren’t fleeing political persecution but were fleeing from abusive spouses. Because Obama rescinded “wet foot dry foot” they were escorted into a detention facility…so ironically Booker was making Obama look bad while trying to make Trump look bad. Another irony is you would have been cheering these women into America in 2016 and wanted them escorted to a relative’s home ASAP so they could register to vote. 😉

      2. Was there no evidence that he was with actual family? Because that would be a comparable situation.

      3. It’s a tough one: Should the kid stay where the parent who had custody wanted him? Or should he be returned to the non-custodial parent living in the totalitarian Communist state?

        Nah, I kid: It’s not a tough one.

        1. So the mother that put her child on a rickety raft to cross the Straits of Florida is a responsible parent?? And how do you know which parent had custody?? And do you really believe Cuba is a worse place to live than Haiti or gang riddled Honduras?? So any Haitian parent that gets their child to Florida should be able to stay?? Sounds like you oppose Trump’s border/immigration policies.

          1. So, you’re saying that parents who force their children on a deadly trek through a blazing hot desert should lose custody? Great, I’m glad we’ve settled that.

            1. Lose custody?? I want them detained and sent back and let Honduras deal with them.

          2. “And do you really believe Cuba is a worse place to live than Haiti or gang riddled Honduras??”

            Yes.

            Next question.

            1. I don’t. Obama rescinded “wet feet dry feet” and Trump didn’t unrescind it so Cuban refugees now get sent to detention facilities…f them.

              1. That Obama made an idiotic foreign policy decision is hardly news. Trump doesn’t have enough time in the day to fix ALL of Obama’s legion of epic cock-ups.

                1. Rubio flipped out when Obama did it…but calmed down fairly quickly when Trump apparently wanted to stick with Obama’s executive order.

                  1. Well, judges have decided that Trump is not allowed to end Obama’s EO’s, so it was probably a waste of time. Obama’s EO’s were just a little more equal than OTHER Presidential EO’s.

                    1. Trump is just too much of a flappy pussy to end DACA or blow up Obamacare…but at least you got those 3 miles of fence built!! Just think how much you got with your last Republican president—a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims while flushing $3 trillion down a toilet and gays weren’t allowed to marry…so worth it!!

                    2. He tried to end DACA. Now, sure, he could’ve ignored courts but I bet you would be calling him worse than a pussy.

                    3. Lol, Trump is a con man and you are the sucker…he never had any intention of doing most of the things he promised.

                    4. You’re aware that there are lawsuits he lost trying to overturn Obama’s EO, right?

    2. They mean [whatever]. Melodramatic performance is motivated by the intention to perform.

      The children are just the subject of their script. You’re arguing the words in the script. The impact of dramatic performances on the audience is the goal, not the precise wording of the script. It’s a drama, not a documentary.

    3. Kidnapped children are being used as props by illegal immigrants posing as “families with children”, because it gets you better treatment.

      No. They. Aren’t.

      At long last, have you no sense of decency?

  7. “I believe the Ukraine scandal was a serious enough abuse of power to justify impeachment.”

    And you say that AFTER the corruption Trump was asking for an investigation of has been proven. Sheesh.

    1. Nah, Brett. They’re still convinced that companies were hungering to hire an idiotic crack addict to high paying jobs because of his overwhelming competency in all things.

      1. Have you ever done business overseas?? Having experience with blow and hookers is the most important experience in dealing with foreign executives. I remember W Bush’s brother
        did business in Hong Kong and he had experience with hookers, but had zero experience with semiconductors even though a Chinese semiconductor business paid him $2 million. Lol.

        1. I’ve done business overseas, though on the technical end of things. Neither blow nor hookers were involved.

          I tend to think the extent of that is vastly exaggerated.

          1. So it’s just a coincidence Neal Bush has very similar business dealings and “hobbies” as Hunter Biden??

            1. No, they’re both relatives of “important” political families. Corruption in political families is endemic. Has been for a long time. Mark Twain famously said that Congress was America’s only native criminal class.

              I’m saying it’s not a normal thing for real business trips.

              1. I was joking about the blow but keep in mind prostitution is legal and apparently somewhat socially acceptable in many other countries. In America prostitution was legal in many places up until young farm boys started getting transported to New Orleans in preparation for WW1 and they went a little crazy and then the same people that gave America Prohibition also shut down the red light districts…assholes.

        2. “I remember W Bush’s brother
          did business in Hong Kong and he had experience with hookers, but had zero experience with semiconductors even though a Chinese semiconductor business paid him $2 million. Lol.”

          I agree we should punish the Bush family for the same bullshit Biden did. I have no problem with jail time for selling access. Are you willing to say the same?

          1. That story came out in 2003…Christian Conservatives came out en masse in 2004 to vote for Bush so he could continue to slaughtering Iraqi babies and keep gays from marrying…how did that work out for you??? Lol.

            1. “That story came out in 2003…Christian Conservatives came out en masse in 2004 to vote for Bush so he could continue to slaughtering Iraqi babies and keep gays from marrying…how did that work out for you??? Lol.”

              …And?

              Just said I am thoroughly supportive of punishing pols for selling access. Punish the Bushes. Punish the Clintons. Punish the Obamas.

              You…don’t seem anxious to hold pols you like to that standard. I’d say it’s odd but it really, really isn’t.

              1. I don’t have a problem with Americans conning corrupt foreigners out of money. What I have a problem with is Americans like the Cheneys that got Liz Cheney a made up job at the State Department while her father was VP. I bet she is the only woman to work at State that was able to queef out 5 babies all the while dragging her kids to Azerbaijan to engage in important diplomacy. 😉

                1. Am I supposed to defend the Cheneys?

                  I notice you seem to have no problems with Dems selling access while I seem to dislike both parties doing it.

                  At least you have consistency…

                  1. I haven’t seen any evidence that Hunter actually sold access…I think what Hunter was most likely doing is conning corrupt Ukrainians out of money. So in the emails just released involving a Ukrainian businessman that Ukrainian met with Trump State officials and Republicans in Congress…so he would have inevitably met with Joe Biden.

                    1. “I haven’t seen any evidence that Hunter actually sold access”

                      Ah, you should check up on the emails that have been released. Not exactly subtle. And given that he had Secret Service coverage during some of that time, the trips mentioned in the emails ALSO lined up with the schedules from agents. Weird.

                    2. Once again, the Ukrainian businessman in those emails met with the Trump State counterparts just like he met with Biden. Most of the other emails I have seen concern the period Joe was a private citizen so they are irrelevant.

                    3. Well, one of the people mentioned in the payoff information verified everything and states Joe Biden was specifically mentioned in it.

                      Not a solid piece of ground you decided to stand on there.

                  2. I mean, you like Trump just fine. Or are you claiming his kids suddenly all becoming highly qualified government executives is legit?

                    1. Well, his son-in-law is dramatically better at getting peace deals than any person we’ve had in the government in decades.

                    2. Sick burn bro…Jared Kushner is also really good at relaying advice to Trump from his brother on how to reform Obamacare so Oscar Health grows more profitable.

                    3. I have actual proof of Biden being involved in taking money for access selling.

                      You have…well, diddly.

      2. They don’t think that. They see the corruption. They simply don’t care about it.

    2. Nothing has been proven,Brett. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

      Of course, if you want to gripe about children of high officials cashing in, let me suggest you take a look at the Trump kids.

      1. The Trump family is using the campaign donations as a slush fund. So Lara and Kimberly Gillfoyle are on the campaign payroll and that’s why Parscale wasn’t fired because he was doing a great job of raising money. And Parscale gets a % of the money he raises so Trump donors paid for his wife’s big boobs and lipo…and Brad apparently never got to touch the new boobs, so sadz. 🙁

  8. One of the things the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was known for – indeed notorious for — was a stern refusal to personify the impersonal. Whatever the prenatal was, it was not a “baby.” It was a thing. Humanize it, and people might start developing sympathetic feelings for it. And where would our rights be if that were allowed to happen?

    Perhaps the same could be said of the extraterritorial. Perhaps the problem is that we use words like “family” to describe those impersonal lumps of flesh on the other side of the border. Perhaps Justice Ginsburg was right, we should be stern, and using this kind of language is as wrong for Americans as using a word like “baby.” Humanize them, and the impersonal may start to seem personal, and people might start developing an inappropriate sympathy there too. And where would our rights be then? Humanize them, and exercising our freedom of choice to terminate their stay here, safely, effectively, and legally, and at minimal cost, might start giving us unwanted bouts of primitive and patriarchal hang-ups.

    We might start getting pangs of moral conscience. We might even start getting religion. And where would our rights be then?

    1. I don’t have a problem with calling families “families”, though some of the groups of adults and children apprehended at the border aren’t genuine families.

      The real families should be kept together, and deported as a unit. Unfortunately, legal rulings have prohibited housing the children with their parents. Prohibited really detaining the children at all. Which means either they must be separated, or the family must be released, in many cases never to be seen again.

      Were it not for such legal issues, and, of course, the Congressional determination to underfund illegal immigrant processing, families would never have to be separated.

      1. I know a solution—the Hondurans should just say they are Cubans and then Republicans would want them to stay in America…that was easy. 😉

    2. You know, when people say that pro lifers only care about babies until they’re born, shit like this makes it clear that they’re right at least some of the time.

  9. There is too little information provided to really have an opinion on this topic let alone write a ranting article about it.

    First off, it would be natural to assume that the government would as a rule deport children along with the parents. That the ‘parents’ would leave the children in the US would speak volumes. On the other hand there is the possibility that the government simply by default packs up the parents and deports them without giving the children the chance to join them. I don’t see Trump’s lawyers and by extension Obama’s bureaucrats, who originated these types of deportations would overlook something so obvious yet I could be wrong. There is also the possibility that the government reunite or don’t reunite the ‘families’ based upon whether they are actual families and not smugglers or criminals posing as families.

    Also it is extremely odd that these ‘parents’ make no attempt to reunite with their ‘children’ and just disappear without a trace into the woodwork. They are not being deported to Mars, or even Ye Merry olde England in the 1800s. Likewise if you are some savage eating people in the jungle it is highly unlikely that you would know enough to make an intercontinental trip to the US. Certain places in South and Central America are poor but they have infrastructure. The most illiterate country in the Americas (besides Haiti) that I could find has a literacy rate of 77%. If you can walk all the way to the US you can spare a few minutes over the period of years Ilya has been whining about ‘family separations’ to ask your buddy Juan to dictate a letter for you for the sake of your flesh and blood.

    Again the mechanics of how these deportations work is everything in a story like this. Depending upon how they work the (Obama and Trump) government is either incredibly stupid(er) than they usually were. Or there is more to this story than meets the eye. Nobody I’ve talked to about this subject seems to have more than a vague idea of what happens and I’m guessing Ilya doesn’t either since he doesn’t address it at all.

    1. Ilya is simply ignoring the issue that not every “family” that illegally crosses the border is genuine. Some fraction of them, and a considerable fraction, consist of kidnappers and kidnapping victims.

      Naturally, the government can’t send kidnap victims back to Mexico or points South along with their kidnappers. And locating the real parents of foreign kidnapping victims can be tough.

      1. I hope Ilya is more thorough in his legal work than he is in his writing.

      2. I think most people would agree there should be some sort of mechanism at each deportation that evaluates whether there is a family unit that should be deported together. And they should not just bag a person and throw them on a plane to Guatemala

        Obviously they probably don’t do that but unfortunately every person that I talked to without exception on this topic doesn’t really know what the process is beyond a few piecemeal tidbits about what might happen in this or that specific situation. The details and a comprehensive overview of how the deportation works is everything. And the Administration and anti illegal immigration side have really dropped the ball in educating people in this case.

        After the ‘zero tolerance’ rule went into place they allowed the narrative that they literally did bag people off the streets in the middle of the night and threw them directly on the next plane to Guatemala no questions asked to run unchallenged. Only after the whining simmered for awhile did the Admin lamely put up a 1 or 2 paragraph clarification on a well hidden government website that the ‘family’ separations at least partially had to do with evaluating whether kidnappers/criminals were using props. And really not much detail after that other than what stray tidbit a journalist can pry out of them or a stray document.

        Most likely there is some mechanism by which the government decides whether a family is actually a family and they are usually deported together since 500 stray ‘children’ seems an awfully low number if they were just for years literally kidnapping people left and right who had no way of every getting into contact again but in the absence of any effort by the Admin to counteract the prevailing narrative you simply have the activist claims that they do and whether or not to take them at face value.

    2. “That the ‘parents’ would leave the children in the US would speak volumes.”

      Do you think deportation is some voluntary process where you can say “hey, I don’t have my kid with me so you’ve got to let me stay”?

      1. Yes, I’m pretty sure there is a process where they evaluate people to see if they have minor children that should be sent along with them. They probably don’t just chuck people right into the van and then dump them off in Belize the next day no questions asked and leave little Felipe just standing by the bus station with nary a clue. You’re welcome to provide proof otherwise.

        1. From https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5761155-Status-Report.html (this is a filing from the Trump administration, so this is their data):

          “As discussed in the last JSR, Plaintiffs have requested that the government submit to them and to the Court a “baseline” number for removed parents. Defendants understand the “baseline” number to refer to the total number of possible class members who were removed from the United States without their children, and without being given the opportunity to elect or waive reunification in accordance with the preliminary injunction. Defendants have identified 471 such parents.”

          It sounds like more recently they’ve been forced to ask parents if they want to be reunited with their kids prior to being deported, so hopefully the number isn’t going up at least.

          1. “and without being given the opportunity to elect or waive reunification in accordance with the preliminary injunction. ”

            This doesn’t read the parents were removed without the government evaluating whether they had kids or and should be reunited. Its possible that the government suspected they were criminals using the children as props.

            1. Seriously, dude.

              You (intentionally?) left out the part of the sentence where it said “their children”. The government isn’t taking the position that the adults weren’t related to the kids–you don’t need to conjure up fantasies for them.

              1. On the very first page it says:

                “As explained in the data table below and in prior status reports, Defendants have determined that some children originally counted in this number are not, in fact, children of class members. Defendants continue to report this number to allow for transparency in their data reporting, and to minimize confusion.”

                So yes, it does look like like even though the government uses the term “their children” while reporting on the data, they have determined that at least some of the children that they’re reporting on were not related to the plaintiffs and that others may not be as well.

    3. How many years into this and you think there is “too little information”?

      Dude, sometimes ignorance is a choice.

  10. When parents were sent to jail under Harris’s truancy law, I wonder if the kids were sent with them?

    1. Whattaboutism of this magnitude is lame as hell, TiP. Engage the issue. See if you can do better than ‘all these seemingly separated families are probably faking it.’

      1. Oh, so separating AMERICAN kids from their parents is OK. Thanks for clarifying.

      2. “Engage the issue. ”

        Sure. The policy sucked.

  11. If the talking point is ‘this was just healthy skepticism about kids and parents saying they are related’ you’ve really got nothing.

    This is a pretty ugly thread.

    1. Yes, courts would always be willing to send a kid off with an adult who claimed to be family with literally no proof of this.

      I don’t like sending kids off with random adults but, apparently, you are on board with that. That is rather ugly.

  12. Article relying on one side of a lawsuit attacks Trump.

    Somin jumps and then the rest of the left lemmings here follow.

    Is there any actual proof that what the ACLU claims is factual?

    Lemmings so eager to find Russians under all beds completely lose sceptitism when their priors are confirmed.

    1. It’s pretty funny to read this in the same section where people credulously retell every detail from Fox News about Hunter Biden’s hard drive, including the weird child porn claim that there’s literally no primary source for at all.

      1. Well except for the emails that have already been corroborated as true and that the FBI agent who signed for the laptop is the one who usually handles kiddie porn cases.

        1. Very credulous indeed.

          “Well except for the emails that have already been corroborated as true”

          That’s definitely not correct. Literally the only thing that we’ve seen so far to “corroborate” anything is some screenshots that anyone with Photoshop could forge. Having said that, I believe that even the Post has enough journalistic integrity that they do indeed have some files that resemble e-mails. I’ve seen nothing to corroborate them that wasn’t already well-known before the e-mails were published.

          “and that the FBI agent who signed for the laptop is the one who usually handles kiddie porn cases”

          So, like I said–no primary source at all. The very most generous reading of this allows for some sort of inference that the FBI might be interested in child porn on the laptop, but certainly not that they found any. But there’s a lot of problems with this theory: It seems like Josh Wilson actually mostly works in child abduction cases, although he worked one child porn case back in 2012. The subpoena is not actually for the laptop, but for testimony from the guy who had it. The FBI has had the laptop for almost a year but for some reason are taking a very lackadaisical attitude towards child porn. And when the Post got the laptop contents, they somehow neglected to mention the child porn.

          Meanwhile, Giuliani is apparently in possession of child porn and making copies of it for various people as he shops the story around.

          But sure, let’s just keep repeating that Hunter Biden had a bunch of child porn on his laptop that he gave to an outspoken Trump supporting laptop repairman and then totally forgot about it despite it having said porn along with all of his incriminating e-mails. Oh, and apparently he didn’t bother to spend the ten seconds it takes to turn on drive encryption on Macs. Yes, yes. That is much more likely than that the Trump administration flubbed recordkeeping when it deported a bunch of people so they don’t know how to reconnect the parents with their kids.

  13. So, mere moments ago I happened to catch an interview on the radio with somebody from ICE, explaining the “hundreds of victims of child separation”.

    This article from the Federalist explains what’s actually going on here:

    If You Don’t Know That ‘Coyotes’ Are Human Smugglers, Shut Up About The Border

    “The report claims that “the parents of 545 children still can’t be found,” but that’s not quite right. The NPR report omitted a statement issued by Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Chase Jennings explaining that in fact the vast majority of these parents have been found but have refused reunification with their children, which is why the children are still in DHS custody.

    “In the current litigation, for example, out of the parents of 485 children whom Plaintiffs’ counsel has been able to contact, they’ve yet to identify a single family that wants their child reunited with them in their country of origin,” Jennings said.”

Please to post comments