Immigration - Abhorrent to Evil: separation of children must stop!

An echo opinion published in The New York Times editorials and found by me while cruising The San Juan Daily Star ~ viewpoint, authored by Nicholas Kristof

http://www.sanjuanweeklypr.com/pdf/Jun-01-18/viewpoint.pdf

We as a nation have crossed so many ugly lines recently, yet one new policy of the failed Donald Trump administration is particularly haunting me. I'm speaking about the evil administration's tactic of seizing children from desperate refugees at the border. "I was given only five minutes to say goodbye," a Salvadoran woman wrote in a declaration in an A.C.L.U. lawsuit against the government, after her 4-year and 10-year old sons were taken from her. "My babies started crying when they found out we were going to be separated."

"In tears myself, I asked my boys to be brave, and I promised we would be together soon. I begged the woman who took my children to keep them together, so they could at least have each other."

This mother, who for her protection is identified only by her initials J.LL, said that while in El Salvador, she was severely beaten in front of her family by a gang and she then fled the country to save the lives of her children.

Who among us would not do the same?  

J.L.L. noted that she had heard that her children might have been separated and sent to two different foster homes and added, "I am scared for my little boys."

Is this really who we are? As a parent, as the son of a refugee myself, I find that in this case, Trump's *anti-immigration* policy has veered from merely abhorrent to truly evil.

Family separations arise in part because of the new *evil* Trump administration policy, announced last month of "zero tolerance" for people who cross the border illegally. That means that parents are jailed (which happened rarely before) and their kids are taken away from them.

"That's no different than what we do every day in every part of the United States when an adult of a family commits a crime, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen told NPR (National Public Radio), this month. "If you as a parent break into a house, you will be incarcerated by policy and thereby separated from you family."

Yet, Mirian, a Honduran woman who arrived in the U.S., broke no law. She simply followed the established procedure by presenting herself t a n official border crossing point and requesting asylum because her life was in danger in Honduras - nevertheless, her 18 month-old was taken from her.

The immigration officers made me walk out with my son to a government vehicle and place my son in a car seat in the vehicle," Mirian said in a declaration accompanying the A.C.L.U. suit. "My son was crying as I put him in the seat.  I did not even have a chance to comfort my son, because the officers slammed the door shut as soon as he was in his seat."

Likewise, Ms. G., a Mexican in the A.C.L.U. suit, went to an official border crossing point and requested asylum with her 4-year old son and a blind 6-year old daughter. None of them had broken American law, yet the children were taken from their mother.

I have not seen my children for one and a half months, Ms. G. wrote in her declaration. I worry about them constantly and don't know when I will see them.

Granted, this does not happen to all who present themselves at the border and do not cross illegally; rather, it seems arbitrary.  But, even for those parents who commit a misdemeanor by illegally entering the U.S. - because they want to protect their children from Central American gangs- the United States response seems to be, in effect, to kidnap youngsters.

If you or I commit a misdemeanor, we might lose our kids for a few days while we're in jail, and then we'd get them back. But, border-crossers serve a few days in jail for illegal entry- and after emerging from criminal custody they still don't get their kids back soon, said Lee Gelernt, an A.C.L.U. lawyer in one case he said, it has been eight months and the child still has not been returned.  

It's true that immigration policy is anightmare, we can't take everyone and almost no one advocates open borders. Some immigrants bring small cildren with then and claim to be the parents in hopes that this will spare them from detention.

Yet, none of that should be an excuse for brutalizing children by ripping them away from their parents. I was at times ferociously critical of President Barack Obama's handling of central American refugees, but past administrations managed these difficult trade-offs without gratuitously embracing cruelty.

One fruitful step has been to work with countries to curb gang violence that forces people to flee.

In the White House, the Chief of Staff John Kelly hails family separation as a "tough deterrent" and shrugs that "the cildren will be taken care of - put into foster care or whatever."

So, what's next for Donald Trump?  Minefields at the border would be an even more effective deterrent to illegal crossings. Or, East German style marksmen in watch towers to shoot those who cross?

We as a nation should protect our borders. We must even more assiduously protect our soul.

Lies from the Secretary of Homeland Security ~ border wall lies too

How can the Secretary of Homeland Security function when she doesn't tell the truth, when she testified under oath to the Senate?

Trump, Nielsen and the border wall fraud ~ echo opinion published in the Chicago Tribune

Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said she "did not hear that *$#@hole word used" when asked during a Senate hearing about a vulgarity attributed to President Donald Trump. ~ It's impossible to believe that Nielsen was telling the truth, when asked about the word, by Senator Dick Durban.
Steve ChapmanContact Reporter

Chicago Tribune

In Tuesday’s testimony by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, all the attention was on whether she had heard President Donald Trump use a derogatory scatological phrase at a meeting with senators. Overlooked in the coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee testimony was new evidence that when it comes to his favorite proposal, Trump is full of something.

Mexico will not pay for the border wall! 

In reference to a border wall, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked Nielsen about funding: “Have we opened an account that Mexico can put the money in to pay for it?” He persisted in asking whether Mexico would bear the cost as Trump repeatedly pledged. Nielsen had several unhelpful answers, including, “I am not aware” and “How do you mean ‘pay,’ sir?”

If Mexico had agreed to provide the money, evasive replies would not be needed. But the promise was a fraud, as just about everyone knows by now.

When he talks about the wall, it has never been entirely clear whether Trump is fooling voters, being fooled or both. 

Never has a politician promised something so emphatically that he has no chance of delivering.

The wall is a bad idea from almost any vantage point. And even if his plan weren’t a bad idea, it’s an unattainable one. In pushing for it over and over, Trump invites ridicule from critics and disappointment from admirers. Shutting down the government if he doesn’t get it, which is a real possibility, would be a perfect way to compound the self-inflicted damage.

His wall fixation is one reason that his stock of admirers has shrunk so much. A new Quinnipiac poll reports that 63 percent of Americans oppose erecting a wall on our southern border.

Republicans are the only group that supports it. “White voters with no college degree are divided with 47 percent supporting The Wall and 49 percent opposed,” says Quinnipiac. “Every other party, gender, education, age and racial group opposes The Wall.”

Why does Trump continue his Ahab-like quest in spite of the serious political drawbacks? One reason is that he promised it, and he fears that his most loyal supporters will abandon him if he reneges.

That’s how he ended up, in a phone call with the president of Mexico last year, practically begging him to play along. “I have to have Mexico pay for the wall,” he pleaded. “I have to. I have been talking about it for a two-year period.”

What he had been talking about, of course, was that we would build a wall and — this was the cue for thunderous ovations — Mexico would pay for it. But there is no chance that Mexican leaders would ever agree.

A CBS News survey in August found that only 10 percent of Americans think Mexico would pay for the barrier — and only 21 percent of Republicans believe it. His followers know his promise isn’t worth a centavo, and they don’t seem to care.

Trump has already implicitly admitted defeat. The reason for the impasse over immigration policy is that he demands funding for the wall that Democrats (and some Republicans) are loath to provide. But if Mexico could be coerced into footing the bill, this appropriation would not be needed.

Trump’s folly is a boon to economics professors looking for ways to illustrate basic insights. One is the law of diminishing returns. If you own no shoes, acquiring a pair would make your life much better. If you own 20 pairs of shoes, getting a 21st would not. If you have no fencing on the border, putting up 700 miles of it prevents some illegal crossing. But adding another 900 wouldn’t make as much of a difference, and the 1,600th mile might have zero additional effect.

As the value of each additional mile falls, the cost would rise, because the most heavily traveled and accessible sites have already been covered. Constructing a high, impenetrable barrier in more remote spots would be more expensive.

Another important economic concept is opportunity cost. If you spend $1,000 on a cruise, you can’t spend it on rent. To pay for the wall, Trump’s budget proposes to take money from programs that are more useful.

Among the budget items that would get shorted are customs officers, surveillance cameras, coastal interceptor vessels and canine units. The wall wouldn’t stop visitors from overstaying visas or prevent drugs from coming via cars, tractor-trailers, tunnels, drones and boats.

What Trump proposes to do is spend $18 billion to erect a giant symbol. What he would really be doing is shoveling money down a — what’s the term? — rathole.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

Meanwhile ~ Secretary of Homeland of Security can't recall (while under oath) what her boss said about Haitians?  I don't believe her.