(June 21, 2018 at 9:32 am)mh.brewer Wrote:1. Whether it's all cases were punishment or not some is still unacceptable and bad application does not excuse that(June 21, 2018 at 8:13 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: You should know me well enough by now to know that I’m happy to be corrected on any factual errors that my positions are based upon. Were they not implementing a “zero tolerance” policy on everyone crossing the border, including migrants with children in tow? Were they not using cruelty as s deterrent?
I'm not convinced that "ALL cases" were a form of punishment and are more likely the result of bad application of a law/directive. I don't agree with the zero tolerance policy or it's apparent blanket application. Zero tolerance is stupid in almost any setting/condition/circumstance.
From what I've read not everyone(ALL) was/were separated(one example): https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/c...ed-parents
As for cruelty as a deterrent, I'm not convinced that was the motive but a resulting outcome. And couldn't the "cruelty deterrent" point of view be applied to any illegal immigrant turned away, adult and child alike, claiming conditions of poverty, death threats, starvation, persecution............? I think there will always be some level of cruelty with regard to immigration. Most I will have sympathy for, some not.
2. Whether all were or some were some still were
3.Out come or intention the distinction does not mean much .And yes turning away immigrants is cruel but not to the same degree .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Inuit Proverb