The Same Democrats Excoriating Trump’s Immigration Policy Had Nothing To Say About Obama’s Illegal Immigrant Family Detention Centres!!

New post on Now The End Begins

The Same Democrats Excoriating Trump’s Immigration Policy Had Nothing To Say About Obama’s Illegal Immigrant Family Detention Centers by Geoffrey Grider If the Obama administration took its principles to heart, it would be closing its family prisons and abandoning its emphasis on border crackdowns in favor of greater efforts to connect Central Americans with pro bono lawyers and to provide family- and community-based alternatives to detention. EDITOR'S NOTE: The Liberal Progressive fake news talking heads are absolutely apoplectic over the fact that President Trump has the nerve to enforce existing immigration law put in place by the Obama administration in regards to the housing and detention of parents and children of illegal immigrant families. But when Obama and his minions did exactly the same thing from 2012-2016, you heard nary a peep from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NPR and most of the other fake news media. A few weeks ago, images of illegal immigrant children being held in cages presumably at the hand of the Trump administration caused unquenchable outrage from the Democrats, right up to the moment was it was discovered that those images of children in cages dated back to the Obama era. At that moment, the entire fake news media dropped the story immediately and have never revisited it since. Yeah, putting kids in cages is a disgusting idea, but it was Barack Obama's idea and it is law that his administration put in place.  The following is a 2016 article from the New York Times exposing the Obama administration's decisions to put illegal immigrant children in cages. The NYT was one of the only of the liberal media to go against the Democrat Party line and criticize Obama. The family detention centers the Obama administration has been operating in Texas and Pennsylvania have been an expedient way to handle the soaring numbers of Central Americans, many of them young children, who have arrived at the Southern border since 2014. They give a sense that Homeland Security has the border situation under control, and they supposedly send a message to other would-be refugees not to come. These privately run, unlicensed lockups are no place for children. Or mothers. Their existence belies President Obama’s oft-professed concern for the humane treatment of people fleeing crime and violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. And the centers stand on dubious legal ground. Last year, a district judge ruled that the administration was violating a 1997 court-ordered settlement, called the Flores agreement, that governs the treatment of underage migrants who seek asylum or enter the country illegally. The judge said the children were being held for too long, and ordered the administration to release them as quickly as possible to the care of relatives or other guardians as their cases move through the immigration courts. The Obama administration appealed, saying that the agreement applied only to children who had crossed the border alone, not those who were accompanied by parents or other adult relatives. On July 6, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed, upholding the district ruling that Flores covers all children, accompanied or not. But it said the administration could still detain their parents. Which leaves things pretty much where they were — unsettled, unsatisfactory, unfit for a country that aspires (or once did, anyway) to be an example to the world in its welcome for desperate refugees. The administration hasn’t said whether it will appeal, but it’s hard to imagine that it will use the appeals court ruling to break up families — sending children to foster care, maybe, while continuing to hold their mothers behind bars. On a separate issue not addressed by the Ninth Circuit ruling, plaintiffs have accused the administration of subjecting children to miserable conditions at Border Patrol stations. If the Obama administration took its principles to heart, it would be closing its family prisons and abandoning its emphasis on border crackdowns in favor of greater efforts to connect Central Americans with pro bono lawyers and to provide family- and community-based alternatives to detention. Much money and effort have been spent to deter and detain them, to speed them through court, to hunt down those who are later found to be deportable. It would be far better to to score a humanitarian victory by reuniting children and families, especially since data show that Central Americans with asylum claims are far more likely to show up in court — and win their cases — when they have lawyers. Legislation introduced this month in Congress seeks to attack the problem at its root, with funds for combating human trafficking and resettling refugees within Central America and Mexico. But Congress is unlikely to pass it, which leaves the crisis in the president’s hands. Donald Trump and his Republican Party minions have taken the immigration debate to sickening lows, with disgraceful animus toward Mexicans and Muslims. Mr. Obama has forcefully denounced such nativism. But he can add strength to his words by ensuring greater protection for those who arrived, defenseless, at the Southern border. source