- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Same Policy, Different Presidents

Shocked, shocked: [1]

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace interviewed former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, who said that under President Barack Obama, they did detain some children alone and some families together, two policies for which Donald Trump has been under considerable fire.

After President Trump signed an executive order last week to stop the separation of families at the border, the administration took new fire  [2]for the idea that families would be detained together. Rep. Louis “The secretary of Homeland Security has lost all morals when it comes to protecting children and enforcing our immigration laws.”

It is also something for which the ACLU blasted President Obama  [3]years ago.

On Sunday, former Secretary Johnson told Chris Wallace that they thought it was necessary at the time, and that it is still is.

Wallace showed now infamous photos from 2014 of children in detention and asked if the Obama administration had handled things “so well.”

“Without a doubt the images, and the reality, from 2014, just like 2018, are not pretty,” said Johnson. “We expanded it, I freely admit it was controversial, we believed it was necessary at the time, I still believe it is necessary to remain a certain capability for families.”

Johnson also addressed another phrase that has come up many times in the last week, saying directly that “we can’t have catch and release” and stating that under his DHS in the Obama administration they “deported or repatriated” over a million people.

The “zero tolerance” policy of the Trump administration prosecutes all persons referred by DHS for attempting to cross the border outside of a port of entry. It was announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and currently remains in place.

And yet, Johnson — and every other member of the Obama cabinet — were able to eat in restaurants and appear in public without fear of attack by leftists. Wow.

Carlo Lancellotti understands the meaning of this:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [5]

Advertisement
116 Comments (Open | Close)

116 Comments To "Same Policy, Different Presidents"

#1 Comment By grumpy realist On June 26, 2018 @ 8:47 pm

Rod, have you seen the article over at TheHill about the immigrant mother who was threatened with having her child taken away from her and put up for adoption?

I don’t care how “illegal immigrant” you are–this is evil.

#2 Comment By Brendan from Oz On June 26, 2018 @ 9:20 pm

The US did not have open borders pre-1924. The first numerical limits were set in 1921 – before that people were evaluated on an individual basis, but there was a legal process.

The anti-Immigrant violence led to the laws of 1924.

Weren’t there some wars fought with Mexico and Canada establishing USA borders?

#3 Comment By Al Bundy On June 26, 2018 @ 9:26 pm

Anthony M’s stance on immigration: “Our principle belief is that people are a resource, whether they are born in our country or not.”

Wow, that’s profound. Let me guess, you also believe “science is real” and “no human is illegal.”

But thank you for proving my point! No progressive on this site has yet offered a single principle concerning how much immigration is optimal or who we let in. Until I see evidence otherwise, I will continue to assume that Progressives are really in favor of open borders and just stalling with technicalities so more immigrants can pour into the country.

#4 Comment By Richard Parker On June 26, 2018 @ 11:08 pm

Poor stupid fools waiting in line in US Embassies for legal entry. Suckers!

#5 Comment By A DC Wonk On June 26, 2018 @ 11:59 pm

Now again, liberals, there ARE people on your side calling for the abolition of the agencies that enforce the border controls…. That is defacto open borders.

Gimme a break. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, among others, wanted to eliminate the IRS, does that mean that they were in favor of zero taxes?

There are major problems with ICE, enough such that some on the right want to get rid of it, too. Reason.com supports its elimination, writing “If it were eliminated, Congress should dismantle ICE and thoughtfully reassign its legitimate functions.”

Get it? Reassign its legitimate functions. That’s not open borders.

The Reason article is here: [6]

#6 Comment By Fran Macadam On June 27, 2018 @ 12:50 am

The importance of Who, but not whom.

#7 Comment By Fran Macadam On June 27, 2018 @ 1:04 am

Break bad for the border by risking a baby’s life and a liberal will call it “heroic” instead of child abuse, (worse than leaving an infant in a hot car while shopping), instead of the cynical selfishness it is: risking the child’s life to get an adult free pass into what they think is Hollywood’s consumerland, unlike all the patient law abiding folks who’ve filed the forms and paid the fees and keep getting pushed to the back of the line.

Kind of like, instead of “minors accompanied by parents admitted free” to the show, “adults accompanied by minors admitted free,” after being discovered sneaking into the show.

The entire Merkel western world – free admission for any and all comers from the Third World, and damn the consequences to the millions already here who need more resources.

I can only think that these advocates of such an insane policy aren’t actually suicidal, as they must be those “limousine liberals” who never suffer the consequences. Cheap lawn service, I guess.

#8 Comment By sara On June 27, 2018 @ 9:16 am

Polichinello says: June 26, 2018 at 12:00 pm
“Sara, probably honestly believes she holds some middle ground. When pressed on what concrete means of enforcement they’d accept, “middle grounders” like Sare are awful reticent. They just say they wouldn’t be “cruel”–which is an entirely subjective standard on which you cannot formulate a policy. Thus it effectively argues for open borders–de facto, if not de jure.”

Why not respond to what I actually say instead of deciding for yourself to attribute other things to me?

I have no problem with sending back most people apprehended at the border and with tracking those who seek asylum via bracelets or embedded microchips or some other method. I want asylum seekers processed as required by US and international law and I do NOT want kids to be taken from their parents “for a bath” and then shipped off with neither parent nor child knowing where the other is or if/when they will be reunited. I don’t want parents being deported without their kids.

I’ll repost here what I posted on another thread:

Just a few numbers to help put things into perspective:

“In fiscal 2016, U.S. officials reported 408,870 southwest border apprehensions, 544,676 visa overstays and 65,218 asylum claims.”

Apparently 85% of people apprehended at the border get sent right back without a hearing because they have been caught before or for another allowed reason.

I know many of you think the WaPo is “fake news” but this article has links to the sources of the information so you can check it all you want.

[7]

Consider 65,218 asylum claims in 2016. That is CLAIMS, not approvals. Do you realize that we give out over a million green cards every year? We had over half a million visa overstays in 2016 compared to 65,218 asylum claims. Border apprehensions are at near-50 year lows. Illegal immigrant population peaked in 2007. WHY the focus on the southern border when it is clearly a small fraction of our immigration?

I don’t TELL you what you think – I respond to what you actually say. You should do the same.

#9 Comment By Rick On June 27, 2018 @ 9:30 am

“I will continue to assume that Progressives are really in favor of open borders and just stalling with technicalities so more immigrants can pour into the country.“

I’m a progressive, but I’m not for open borders or for catch and release as the general policy — that’s lunacy.

The Obama administration didn’t demonize immigrants. They just quietly went about their business — which included the evil child separation — and deported folks.

Oh and Obama didn’t tweet about it either.

And that’s the main difference. The volitile langage and anti immigrant rhetoric.

As for SHS the decision not to serve her was reflective of the short sided knee jerk responses liberals often make without thinking it through.

If we progressives want to require a business to serve minorities, gay people, trans people, Muslims — and we should require them to — then political folks have to be included in that list.

[NFR: You may not be for open borders, but Rep. Keith Ellison, the No. 2 Democrat in the party apparatus, appeared earlier this year on the street wearing a t-shirt calling for exactly that. — RD]

#10 Comment By Polichinello On June 27, 2018 @ 9:40 am

I have no problem with sending back most people apprehended at the border and with tracking those who seek asylum via bracelets or embedded microchips or some other method.

Those methods prove ineffective. The bracelets (or anklets, really) get cut off. I don’t know how you would surgically embed a microchip without running into issue with the ACLU. Oh, how about some “other method”? Right.

I want asylum seekers processed as required by US and international law…

International law, written in large part by the same people who want to dump their undesirables on us. No thanks.

As for U.S. law, Trump was following U.S. law. We can certainly change the law to detain them all together (preferably on a bus to the airplane that will fly them back south, south, south.

…and I do NOT want kids to be taken from their parents “for a bath”…

Great, another story. Pretty much all of these turn out to be bunk, so I’m not buying this one either.

WHY the focus on the southern border when it is clearly a small fraction of our immigration?

Because this is the first and most easily addressed. It also acts as an incentive for illegal entry. Note all the numbers you cite are the entries we know about. There are probably two to three other aliens getting in for each one we catch. Your approach is essentially open borders as it provides all sorts of loopholes and tricks that let just about any alien play the system until he can delay long enough to get an amnesty.

We can get to the other issues as time goes along, and it is addressed in bills like the Goodlatte. Believe me, I want to cut all those numbers down significantly.

I don’t want parents being deported without their kids.

Me, too. They and their kids should be sent packing.

For the record, I didn’t specifically attribute views to you, but but “middle grounders” like you.

#11 Comment By sara On June 27, 2018 @ 10:14 am

@ Polichinello says: June 27, 2018 at 9:40 am

“There are probably two to three other aliens getting in for each one we catch. ”

This is typical of your arguments – pulled from the air with nothing to back it up. You say “that is wrong” with nothing to back it up. I will not longer respond to you because you don’t discuss or argue, you just spout and insult.

#12 Comment By Jake Jaramillo On June 27, 2018 @ 10:50 am

Do “Progressives” want open borders? Well then you’ll have to leave the Democratic Party off your “Progressive” list, because it has consistently supported legislation that toughens border security:

“[All] but three Democrats voted for the bipartisan proposal to provide a pathway to citizenship to Dreamers, authorize $25 billion to build barriers and hire personnel at the border over the next decade. It would also prohibit green-card holders from sponsoring adult children…

“In 2013, every single Democrat in the Senate voted for the so-called Gang of Eight immigration overhaul bill that would have provided about $40 billion for border enforcement, including deploying thousands more agents and building 700 miles of fencing…

“And in 2006, 26 Senate Democrats voted to build 700 miles of walls and fences on the southwestern border.”

[8]

#13 Comment By mrscracker On June 27, 2018 @ 10:53 am

Brendan from Oz says:

“Weren’t there some wars fought with Mexico and Canada establishing USA borders?”
****************
The ones I recall involved the US invading those countries. And if I remember correctly, the current US / Canadian border exists only because Canada successfully resisted US invasion. Otherwise the US border might have extended further north.

#14 Comment By sara On June 27, 2018 @ 11:40 am

This is from court documents saying that those kids were taken from their parents without the care typically given to the property of detainees.

“A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the federal government to reunite migrant parents with children taken from them under the Trump administration’s family separation policy.”

“The government readily keeps track of personal property of detainees in criminal and immigration proceedings,” Sabraw wrote in his 24-page order. “Money, important documents, and automobiles, to name a few, are routinely catalogued, stored, tracked and produced upon a detainee’s release, at all levels — state and federal, citizen and alien. Yet, the government has no system in place to keep track of, provide effective communication with, and promptly produce alien children. The unfortunate reality is that under the present system migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property. Certainly, that cannot satisfy the requirements of due process.”

#15 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On June 27, 2018 @ 12:57 pm

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, among others, wanted to eliminate the IRS, does that mean that they were in favor of zero taxes?

Very likely. Or at least they favor the Leona Helmsley theme “Only little people pay taxes.”

#16 Comment By Hector_St_Clare On June 27, 2018 @ 3:24 pm

Don’t worry though, all those little children you don’t care about in Africa can go to Europe quite easily. I just hope you weren’t planning on visiting any of those nice places in Europe in the future. But you probably weren’t anyways.

At least half the European countries, I would guess, are busily engaged in closing up the borders right now, either under the influence of ethnic nationalists or else out of the goal to keep them out of power. (Quite correctly, in my book). So no, Africans don’t migrate to Europe ‘very easily’ and it’s going to get more difficult in future. Parts of Sweden and the UK, and maybe France, may become demographically transformed within the next half-century, but most of the rest of Europe won’t.

That said, we aren’t Europe, “American” isn’t an ethnic group or an ethnic identity, Salvadorans aren’t Senegalese (with due respect to both El Salvador and Senegal) and the policy that appropriately balances costs and benefits for one or another European country may not be the right policy for us.

I find the idea of open borders, as a general principle, horrible and revolting, so I’m with you there. I think there are serious costs, as well as benefits, to human migration (that includes emigration and within-country migration too). The world benefits from the existence of distinct nations, tribes and peoples, and countries and governments can’t exist unless they have a means to clearly separate insiders from outsiders. That doesn’t really tell us, though, whether *in any particular case*, such as (for example) in the case of Central American migrants on the Mexican Border in the year 2018, the right thing to do might be to make the borders more open or more closed. The cost to the world of mass migration needs to be balanced against the well being of people in Central America and their desire to be safe from violence and crime. Where the line between those costs and benefits needs to be drawn in this particular case is a prudential judgment. But the fact that these migrants should, maybe, be able to enter the United States here and now doesn’t mean that I support “open borders’ as a general principlie, I certainly don’t.