https://www.npr.org/2019/04/09/711446917/fact-check-trump-wr...
If indeed it was inappropriately withheld in the past, I don't see any moral necessity to remain consistent, even if the flip-flopping turns out to be politically convenient.
For example, at least one of the infamous chain-link-cage detention centers was indeed built under Obama. That's worth knowing, and it's also worth knowing that, by law, children were to be kept there for no more than 72 hours before being transferred to better quarters.
The zero-tolerance policy that separated children from parents as the norm rather than an exception, that resulted in children being stuffed in those cages far beyond their intended capacity and left there for weeks, in unsanitary conditions, was all Trump. The deaths of an unprecedented seven children in one year in ICE custody, despite the total number of detainees nationwide being lower, was on Trump's watch.
Sources:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigran...
https://www.apnews.com/fdfbafe1f2784a759bc7c3a8e8ddbcab
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/why-are-migrant-children...
Downvoters: I'm curious if you believe my facts are incorrect, or if you're just downvoting because you don't like my politics.
What abhorrent behavior? They've attempted to disincentive people abusing asylum policies. You don't have to come and apply for false asylum, and you're free to self-deport.
Did you ignore my comment two comments up from yours? Read it, and the links.
What a miserable, angry world you inhabit, that you're willing to hurt some of the most vulnerable people on the planet, because of a useless worry that someone somewhere might be taking advantage of us.
Perhaps you should climb down off of your ivory tower and visit blue-collar America from time to time. You're accusing me of hurting others, while defending policies that... hurt others.
There is no "unchecked migration" to the United States. There's a hard cap on the number of refugees that can be admitted every year, and the asylum process is long, complex, and stressful.
Over the past 10 years, more than 50% of asylum claims have been denied. So it's not like claiming asylum comes with any sort of guarantees either.
That was just a lie Pence told.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/26/how-many-...
The claim is regarding the current flow on the southern border, not historical trends across the nation as was cited. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
This is like that old chestnut, "Bill Gates and I have a combined average net-worth of 40 billion dollars!"
Well, I have none and he has 80 billion. You can't use broad statistics to disregard specific, regional trends.
> Something like 90+% of claimants disappear after their initial catch-and-release
Citation needed. The claimants who are eligible for release are ones that _CBP_ deemed low risk, and are fitted with ankle monitors. They're also only released in the first place because we make very little (to now nearly zero) effort to process them in a timely manner.
Arguably if the migrants are not stopping to apply at a port of entry then they broke the law.
How about you provide a citation.
> Families are given court dates, a head of household is often fitted with an ankle monitor, and they are dropped off at a charity-run shelter or bus station.
https://www.apnews.com/dfcdc6302e154753a526c04706df45d6
https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-electronic-m...
> Electronic monitoring devices, or ankle monitors, are increasingly being used as ATDs since Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have found them to be both economical and effective. Motivated by cost savings, their use is appropriate for immigrants who are neither a flight or safety risk
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2019/09/23/imm...
> private contractor, BI Industries Inc., monitors migrants through check-ins at ICE offices, in-person home visits, telephonic monitoring and electronic ankle bracelets. ICE determines how a migrant will be monitored based on factors including flight risk and likelihood of showing up to court.
Acceptable?
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107056/download
Page 33 shows that, from FY 2013 to 2017, more than 92% of asylum applicants have in fact appeared in court to receive their final decision.
It shows that the people in US, are influenced, to a large degree by selective outrage.
Selective outrage, is not just a sign of intellectual dishonesty.
Selective outrage leads to selective justice, selective justice leads to unfair justice, and that leads to Orwellian state or dictatorship.
So showing the poison in selective outrage is totally appropriate.