Where I worked, moms with THC in their tox screens had their newborns placed in CPS. But, CPS usually meant staying with a grandparent, frequent contact with parent along with plans to restore custody. (1990s)

Parents who were in jail for bad checks usually didn't have their kids in CPS.

since the children are purportedly being removed for their own protection (not as a consequence of being jailed).

But - equating it to immediatley being arrested, placed into custody until trial, and having our children immediately put into foster care (solely for being accused of shoplifting) would be.

(Generally - shoplifting is a misdemeanor punishable by around a year in jail)

As to the bad checks - the right wingers are making the analogy to separation from children while you are serving your time. The point that needs to be made is that we are immediate arresting people who do the equivalent of writing a bad check, or shoplifting, deraining them until trial, accompanied by separation them from their children.

Most cases of shoplifting do not involve jail.

the crime is not one serious enough that US citizens would be immediately jailed, held until trial, and stripped of their children while incarcerated for.

Good point

Start right out with the fact that it isn't illegal to show up at our borders pleading asylum to begin with. But aside from that fact, the argument that incarcerating for crimes is exactly the same because we don't exempt parents is ridiculous. For one thing, children can visit their parents when they are incarcerated in their own country. Incarcerated parents usually know where their children are.
The children of incarcerated parents aren't themselves incarcerated in another facility. They also don't disappear. They also have a sentence and know when they'll be reunited when it's over. That's for starters.

Right wingers insist that the policy is no different than what we already do to incarcerated parents.

Aside from the other differences, most right wingers believe that undocument immigrants are creating something horrendously illegal. Analogizing it to something they know does two things:

* It gives them an understanding of how minimal the crime they are ranting about is
* It makes it obvious that their assertions are nonsense. They know that the federal government does not arrest and immediatly confine everyone caught with pot until their trial, and immediately rip their children from their arms.

It shreds their argument by accepting their analogy, for the sake of arguent, but immediately demonstrating how ludicrous it is.

As to your seeking-asylum-is-illegal point - it is[/b] illegal (a misdemeanor) to cross the border at an unofficial entry point - even if you are seeking asylum. Whether it shoud be is an entirely different question.

I thought you were trying to argue with a Right Winger.

a crime?

Zero tolerance--Jared K. should be detained until trial, and any children should be.... no, I wouldn't be that cruel, not to any children, including Jared's.

But the man himself should definitely be detained--IF we're talking "zero tolerance."

Marijuana likely is.

My goal is to make them see how ludicrous their position is, by using something they can relate to.

And it says so right on the form....at the beginning...and the end, where you sign your name.

If you are arrested, your kids Re not arrested Too.

Here the children are being detained on their own case. Children have their own immigration cases. Remember Elian Gonzalez’s case. In fact their cases should be heard with their parents cases.

This is a counter to the right wing arguments, to demonstrate how ludicous they are.

Any right winger knows that people who possess pot are not arrested on sight, thrown in jail until trial, and do not have their children ripped from their arms.

What they don't know is that the crime they say they are justly punishing (the same way we do other serious crimes) is the equivalent of possessing marijuana.

don't get to have their kids in jail with them, as if we are supposed to see the "logic" in separating these families from that. But your children are not arrested because you are accused of a crime.

But the children here are being detained for being here without visas (and they can ask for asylum) of their own accord, too. As for being let out of detention, that is possible, on bail, for example. Orange Deplorable no doubt does not intend to have the immigration judges grant bail (in fact he recently said immigration judges shouldn't exist) but in theory, they could be let out and given permission to work while their requests for asylum are heard - the calendar is likely quite backed up and that could take awhile. That is the "horrible law" that already exists, not Donald's horrid separation policy.

That's the argument this analogy is supposed to counter.

Accepting, for the sake of argument, that they are correct that citizen parents are stripped of their children when they are incarcerated - find an equivalent crime they are familiar with to point out how ludiccrous their argument is.

They're never going to buy the argument you're making (and that I would make to people with half a brain, or a heart). But evey right winger I know has fairly direct experience with marijuana, and would be outraged at the thought of being arrested, incarcerated until trial, and stripped from their kids, simply for a joint.

I wouldn't be surprised if this border crossing misdemeanor law was established to ensure that Americans went through customs and didn't sneak stuff across the border. (Drugs etc)

So, if Suzy-Bee who has only her purse and normal stuff in her purse gets fed up with a line at the border and decides to wade across the border, will she get thrown in jail if she gets charged?

The whole policy is nonsense.

I'm just trying to find a way that right wingers will connect with that wil immediatly strike them as ludicrous, and knock their - but it is the same as when citizen parents are jailed analogy - flat on its arse.

As a US citizen, Suzy-Bee is allowed into the US - is there any law she can only enter at a crossing point? She has a US passport and the absolute right to enter. So usually she's going to take that. But if she just crossed out of impatience - good law school question.

I found out it is a punishable crime under federal law for a US citizen to leave the US without a passport. When you come back, you have to be allowed back in, but can be cited for that law. No one does it, because there is little point, but people who owe child support can have passports suspended for that, and could try to travel with another country's passport if they had one. My theory would be they have to be let back into the US, but could be prosecuted for leaving without the US passport.

If everyone did it...well.........you can imagine...

I don't know if this law is about immigration or customs?

and not go through customs.

What if I was a zillionaire and wanted to fly my private jet from a location out of the US to a private airport in the US? I bet that is illegal under some statute.

Possession of marijuana is still a federal felony. I have no doubt that when you are arrested for possession while with your children you go to jail and they go to some other facility until family can get them or, if no family, they go to some place as horrible as the immigrant detention centers.

The two acts are not really comparable either, in my opinion. Possession of pot is a personal, illegal act. Seeking asylum for you and your family is an attempt to get away from oppression and danger.

I think using this is a losing argument and just muddies the water. It also, has the possibility of distracting from the human rights issue by getting into the issue of how pot should not be a Schedule 1 drug.

Seeking asylum is not criminal. Crossing the border between points of entry is the criminal act - and a personal choice - that right wingers are saying justifies removing the children from their parents, because (according to them) we do that to citizens, too. (And yes - there are many, many reasons why peolple choose to do that. For the purposes of trying to reach into their thick skulls, I am trying to accept, for the sake of arguement, as many of their misconceptions as possible.)

The fact that pot should not be a Schedule 1 drug - and has been legalized in many states - is precisely why I chose it. Most people are unaware that - even in states where it is legal, it is still a federal crime. So the idea of locking someone in jail immediately for having a joint, holding them there until trial, and immediatly removing ther children for that alleged offense will seem ludicrous to most of them making that argument.

I do not think it would bother sessions at all to take children from their parents over low level mj charges but as of now that isn't what happens (in most states anyways)

but if we the people allow this kidnapping of children by the federal gov't to stand then who knows whose children are next?

after all private prisons don't pay for themselevs

The children are seeking asylum with/like the parents - they have a case too, and that is why the deplorable analogy does not apply. Nobody's kids are arrested for even the slightest misdemeanor just because their parent is.

They are also confusing the matter because immigration proceedings are civil, but some idiot Congress also made a criminal penalty for it, which was never enforced, because if you think about it, it is stupid to keep people here in prison for that violation when we could just deport them. Then again, maybe they think it will act as a deterrent if people think they can be jailed for it. Still, people will try their luck and mostly get through, wall or no wall.