Families arriving to seek asylum used to be processed and released.

In 2014, the Obama administration changed that policy, and began holding those families for processing. In part, this was done as a deterrent to further arrivals.

From the ACLU (2015):

https://www.aclu.org/cases/rilr-v-johnson

The case was brought on behalf of mothers and children who have fled extreme violence, death threats, rape, and persecution in Central America and come to the United States for safety. Each has been found by an immigration officer or judge to have a "credible fear" of persecution, meaning there is a "significant possibility" they will be granted asylum.

Yet, instead of releasing these families as they await their asylum hearings, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has typically done, the agency now categorically detains and denies their release on bond or other conditions. The Obama administration adopted this policy — "an aggressive deterrence strategy" — following this summer's increase in mothers and children coming to the United States.

The Obama administration's blanket no-release policy is a violation of federal immigration law and regulations, as well as the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the blanket detention of asylum seekers for purposes of general deterrence, the complaint charges.

The lawsuit aims to invalidate that policy and ensure that the families’ cases receive individualized reviews. Asylum-seeking mothers and children are being detained at facilities across the country, in places such as Karnes, Texas, and Berks County, Penn. The nation's largest family detention facility recently opened in Dilley, Texas.

The policy of locking up families started with Obama.

The Obama administration was, in fact, sued over it:

https://www.aclu.org/cases/rilr-v-johnson

The case was brought on behalf of mothers and children who have fled extreme violence, death threats, rape, and persecution in Central America and come to the United States for safety. Each has been found by an immigration officer or judge to have a "credible fear" of persecution, meaning there is a "significant possibility" they will be granted asylum.

Yet, instead of releasing these families as they await their asylum hearings, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has typically done, the agency now categorically detains and denies their release on bond or other conditions. The Obama administration adopted this policy — "an aggressive deterrence strategy" — following this summer's increase in mothers and children coming to the United States.

From the court opinion:

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/rilr-v-johnson-memorandum-opinion

The United States saw a surge in immigration in the summer of 2014as people fled increased lawlessness in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Plaintiffs (and other members of the class they seek to represent) are mothers and their minor children who escaped violence and persecution in these countries to seek asylum in the United States. After entering this country unlawfully and being apprehended, each was found to have a “credible fear” of persecution, meaning there is a significant possibility that she will ultimately be granted asylum here. Although,in the past, individuals in this position were generally released while their asylum claims were processed, Plaintiffs were not so lucky. Instead, for each family, Immigration and Customs Enforcement determined that interim detention was the appropriate course.

Chasing liberty, Plaintiffs turned to the courts. They filed suit on January 6, 2015, naming the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and two ICE officials as Defendants. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs’ detention resulted from an unlawful policy that DHS adopted in June 2014 in response to the immigration spike. Pursuant to that policy,Plaintiffs claim,DHS is detaining Central American mothers and children with the aim of deterring potential future immigrants. According to Plaintiffs, such detention violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act,the Administrative Procedure Act, and applicable DHS regulations.They now seek a preliminary injunction to prevent DHS from applying this policy until a final determination has been reached on the merits of this action. Finding that the circumstances here merit that extraordinary form of relief, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion.

------

This Twitter thread from an immigration attorney explains it pretty well..

Link to tweet

This is all you needed to say:

""So, yes, families would be locked up, but not separated" during the Obama administration."

Trump's policy is bad but what about Obama's?

Republican obstructionism prevented any serious immigration reform under the Obama administration. The policy at that time was awful, and indeed was found to be so in the referenced case.

However, the changes that Trump has implemented are downright cruel, and unjustifiably so.

As an example of whataboutism, if that's what the OP was digging for, it is a fail by any measure.

The current policy is distinctly different, and distinctly far worse.

A lot of politics comes down to seeking something that is "less bad" than the alternatives, with the general idea of moving toward a direction of improvement. One doesn't have to believe that the Obama administration was a model of perfection in order to immediately comprehend that Trump has moved in a cruel direction.

voyers of both sides, causing paralysis and apathy about voting. thats exactly what this OP seeks to do.
It's pretty damned trnasparent.

But, yes, it's even worse now.

I found nothing that stated such "families" were separated....unless I missed it.

"So, yes, families would be locked up, but not separated."

The Obama administration unlawfully locked up families. The Trump administration goes a step further and separates them, so the adults can be held longer.

The question posed by the OP is "what was the policy before Trump?'

There was no separation of families.

Officials have been stunned by a “surge” of unaccompanied children crossing into the United States.

US authorities have struggled with how to handle the tens of thousands of kids who end up caught by the Border Patrol. Those coming from Mexico are taken straight back across. The rest are referred to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (rather than being put in immigration detention with adults) and placed in temporary shelters



https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/child-migrants-surge-unaccompanied-central-america/

"How Trump Came to Enforce a Practice of Separating Migrant Families"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/family-separation-trump.html

"No, Donald Trump’s separation of immigrant families was not Barack Obama’s policy"

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/19/matt-schlapp/no-donald-trumps-separation-immigrant-families-was/

"The facts about Trump’s policy of separating families at the border"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border/?utm_term=.be02a6001749

It gets tiring in the same way that a lot of past trolls were "respected members" here that were sometimes controversial that took forever to finally get rid of.

Glad others see through it.

all do it. I did not like Pres. Obama's immigration policy personally...but it can't be compared to what Trump is doing. Ted Cruz is writing emergency legislation to stop this policy so it seems the GOP pain for this monstrous inhumane and morally despicable Trump decree is increasing.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-06-18/the-latest-nielsen-says-no-apology-for-separating-families

I'm talking the most simple of google searches.

People, I have an angle but want to see how educated you are before deceiving you.

They were only separated if the government decided to prosecute the parents, which was rare and almost always for those with serious criminal records. Otherwise they were referred to civil immigration courts and there was no need for separation because the parents weren't being shipped to jail. Trump's policy is to prosecute everyone, thus the huge increase in numbers of kids separated from their parents.

information super highway thing.

I just came up with a great name. I would call these resources "search engines"!

and they were detained together.

If minors were on their own, they were unaccompanied.

Trump lies about everything, his administration is purposely and heartlessly terrorizing young kids.