Talk:Trump administration family separation policy/Archive 2

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Abduction category

re special:diff/846950130 addition of Category:Child abduction in the United States the term "abduct" is not presently used in the article so the context is not apparent. Is it referring to the government as abductors or sex traffickers as abductors? I believe the policy is to remove potentially objectionable categories if realiable and neutral sources cannot be found to support their conclusion. This seems like the case.

We do not, for example, refer to it as "child abduction" when children are separated from jailed parents in other circumstances, to my knowledge. Keep in mind this is a subcategory of "kidnapping" (a term also not presently used in the article) which in turn is a subcategory of Category:Crime in the United States by type, so if we are using this to refer to the US government as kidnappers, then we would be accusing the US government of committing a crime, when they are in fact merely enforcing the law.

If it is someone else (like sex traffickers) who are being accused by this category of being abductors/kidnappers then this should be explained somewhere within the article to provide context to the category. For now I am going to boldly remove that category and I suggest we evaluate sources which could potentially support restoring it here before doing so. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I would also add that Internments in the United States is probably not appropriate either. PackMecEng (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Internments is a valid category, since that's exactly what the subject is about. Child abductions is absolutely not an appropriate category.- MrX 🖋 18:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
All our other internment articles are races of people during war that were not charged with crimes or POW camps. This is not that. PackMecEng (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Trump_administration_family_separation_policy#See_also presently includes "Internment, the imprisonment or confinement of people without a trial" and the main article lede is a similar "the imprisonment or confinement[1] of people, commonly in large groups, without trial." It seems like the key issue is whether or not there is a trial. The "Process" section presently mentions "Parents are held in Federal jails prior to trial. The government conducts expedited, mass trials of alleged border crossers under Operation Streamline." So internment sounds potentially inappropriate since these adults are getting trials. Where it might get fuzzy is, since nobody gets an instant-trial the second the are apprehended (there's always SOME delay) are ALL criminals who are imprisoned considered "interned" prior to their trials, even if they do get a speedy trial? Or is there a minimum required period of delay between capture and trial that we should require before using that label? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Categories are not limited by their contents at any particular point in time. Do you dispute that holding children in cages or Walmarts with blacked out windows qualifies as internment?- MrX 🖋 19:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I do dispute that is qualifies as internment even if it is in a old Walmart. Since they are in process for either trial or release into custody elsewhere. It is not indefinite holding with no trial or due process. PackMecEng (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
"Abduction" does not belong, but "internment" does; please see below. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Internment category

Seeing as internment is "Internment is the imprisonment or confinement of people, commonly in large groups, without trial." from our own article. This clearly does not fit the definition, the key part being without trial, which is not the case here. PackMecEng (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The word "trial" appears in the article once, in the very first sentence, and there's no citation:
  • Internment is the imprisonment or confinement[1] of people, commonly in large groups, without trial. The term is especially used for the confinement "of enemy citizens in wartime or of terrorism suspects".[2]

References

  1. ^ "Almirante Valdés (VS o AV)". marinarepublicana.blogspot.com.
  2. ^ "the definition of internment". www.dictionary.com.
K.e.coffman (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Obviously wikipedia is not a reliable source, it is built on reliable sources. When someone points to another wikipedia article for an example it is also pointing to the sources used. While trials is used in the lead, the support for it in the body is "A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions" which is supported by this. Which again, this is not that. PackMecEng (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Note "usually" and "typically". In any case, I provided an expert opinion by a Holocaust scholar. I'd take that vs an opinion by an anonymous person on the internet. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail I suppose. It is a fringe viewpoint. PackMecEng (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I provided an expert opinion by a Holocaust scholar, and you've provided...nails (?). Also see:

Today’s US detention centers, [Pitzer] says, fit the original concept of a concentration camp: Children are being detained not because they are guilty of a crime, but as a strategy to terrify immigrant parents considering crossing the US-Mexico border illegally. (“It could be a tough deterrent—would be a tough deterrent. A much faster turnaround on asylum seekers,” White House chief of staff John Kelly told NPR in May.)

Emphasis mine. This one comes from Andrea Pitzer, the author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, "Is it fair to call the US’s migrant child detention centers “concentration camps”?" When all you have are unsubstantiated personal opinions, that's what you have to use, I guess. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if the analogy was hard to understand. But if you honestly think these detention centers are on the same level of the other things in that category there is a major problem and truly disrespectful to history. I only hope you can reconsider your opinions. PackMecEng (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
These are not "my" opinions. These are opinions by two scholars, one is a Holocaust historian and the other one literally wrote a book about the history of concentration camps.
Also, see a podcast with the same author: Detained Without Trial: a History of Concentration Camps. Why the rhetoric being used about the detention centers along the border should alarm us. It's a good listen. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes you found some some people saying rather out there opinions, I think WP:COMMON comes into play here at this point. Saying that rounding up American citizens based solely on race with no accompanying crime or charge and held indefinably is the same as holding unaccompanied minors whose parents are charged with a crime and according to the court ruling held up to 20 days is the same thing there is a serious lack of judgment. PackMecEng (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
"holding unaccompanied minors whose parents are charged with a crime" is something which has probably been happening for a long time. Illegal immigrants would not be the only situation where authorities are unable to locate a child's family or legal caregiver and give them to DHHS to deal with until that happens. This probably happens to American children with American parents who are jailed for crimes too. This is something which is bound to have made news in various ways over past decades and there's probably some way to build an article from such cases. Probably something that the Administration for Children and Families deals with. Children of Prisoners Europe could also be helpful in putting together something about this broader issue. Doing so would help provide perspective as to it as an already-present dilemma. ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we can look back to historical contrasts between internment and similar term "imprisonment"? Is "without trial" or "without hearing" more prevalent an implication? The word "without" (unqualified) seems eerily meaningless because if you get a speedy trial within a week of being detained that would still mean you are "without trial" for 1 week. We might also examine Template:Incarceration (there's another word!) where under Prisons - Types internment is listed. If we are going to have a broad usage of internment then we should be searching for an expanded (pre-adjectived) phrase which more specifically refers to the kind of thing we saw with the Japanese, where there were no plans to give the a trial. There's a clear distinction between that and simply confining people until the trial date arrives for example. Although if you scheduled a trial date for 50 years later that's certainly walking a line between the two. I noticed over at TLOCAIC that User:Flamous7 provided the following:
  • Kenney, Padraic (2017). Dance in Chains: Political Imprisonment in the Modern World. Oxford University Press. p. 47. A formal arrest usually comes with a charge, but many regimes employed internment (that is, detention without intent to file charges)
I think this would mean that we should not consider a lack of charges pressed to not be reason enough, so long as the intention to press the charges exists. Since the US government does intend to press charges against the adults, per Kenney this would not qualify their detention as a for of internment. Now, in regard to the minors, is anybody saying that DHHS taking care of an unaccompanied minor qualifies as Detention (imprisonment) if they restrict the minor's movements? In that case, am I overlooking some criteria which would exclude playpen or a locked-door daycare facility as being a form of detention too? Is it detention when parents confine a child to their room or prevent them from leaving a house? In these cases, since parents and daycare workers have no intention of pressing criminal charges against a child, does that make it internment? I'm bringing up these examples to show the need for a specific enough definition that would exclude these common circumstances which we obviously do not regularly use terms like internent/detention to refer to. We might look at how YDCs refer to confining children convicted of crimes, rather than any place which confines children. Or how being obligated to stay after the bell at school detention (a punishment) differs from being obligated to attend normal classes before the bell. Or List of child abuse cases featuring long-term detention refers specifically to false imprisonment. Where is a casual use of terms like detention/internment of children when it is not punishing a crime or a crime itself? ScratchMarshall (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The definition of internment does not include the lawful pre-trial detention of a person held on criminal charges. . Minor children would nromally be released to family members, but in these stiuatins that may be difficult or impossible. Markbassett (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Politically motivated hit piece

This is not a neutral encyclopedia article. It's a politically motivated hit piece.

First, these people ARE COMMITTING A CRIME by entering the US (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#a). People who commit crimes are usually detained. Children are specifically exempt from being detained under this law by laws, court rulings, and settlements.

Ergo, if you're going to detain the parents for COMMITTING A CRIME, then you're necessarily going to split them from their children. This is the case for ANY crime committed by a parent, not just illegal entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.215.175 (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a minor civil offence, punishable by a fine. No-one has to go to jail, or be separated from their children for that. -- The Anome (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
On that note, I looked in Category:Civil law (common law) and didn't notice anything related to immigration there. My observation's a bit lax today so possibly I'm just overlooking it? Or do we actually lack an article about the law itself? It seems like it would be a notable enough law to deserve an article to itself if we didn't. But maybe this is a case of it not being categorized? Not really sure what the technical/legalese name for the offense being charged against these people. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
User:The Anome For illegal border crossing the defendants are imprisoned in an adult facility and if convicted for federal misdemeanor face up to 2 years imprisonment. First time offenders get up to 6 months. The minimum punishment of just prison pending trial then a monetary fine -- would only go to a few. Even if a plea for sanctuary is accepted, breaking the law by an illegal border crossing could still be added to their record and they would still do time. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Markbassett: No, in the great majority of cases, it's time served and a $10 fee. USA Today.--Pharos (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Pharos Excellent cite -- but it's better said: deportation, record of federal crime, time served, and $10. In other words most plead guilty and get reduced sentence but note the article says: Even when they didn’t end in much of a sentence, prosecutors used them as a way to identify repeat offenders. “It’s graduated punishment,” said Kenneth Magidson, who was the U.S. attorney in Houston during the Obama administration. “You have to start at square one." Repeat offenders I think are detained longer -- perhaps to save resources from catching the same person over & over. Markbassett (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


I agree with your main point. Starting with the title and continuing all the way through this article has an overwhelming anti-Trump tilt. To be clear, everything that I read appears to be factually correct, but those facts are not presented in a fair manor. It is a tricky topic because the rhetoric is all talking past the other side. Trump says he cannot keep families together, which assumes releasing adults is not an option and opponents say he can keep families together, which suggests releasing the adults. I do not think I can keep my bias out, so I will not be making any edits.Benjamin Cuningham (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus below. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


Trump administration family separation policy → ? – The current name is inaccurate. The Trump administration does not have a "family separation policy", as the article explains accurately, the family separation is a result of current law and a court ruling. The policy that changed was the "zero tolerance" enforcement. There were less family separations during the Obama administration because of selective enforcement of the law so that most people with children weren't prosecuted. I think we can all agree one of the following would be more accurate: Family separation of border crossers or Trump administration zero tolerance policy I support either option. Rusf10 (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Trump administration family separations instead. starship.paint ~ KO 03:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Support as a step in the right direction. The actual policy that you can't jail children for illegal immigration is the Flores Agreement from 1997, as interpreted in 2015 by Clinton/Obama-nominated Dolly Gee. The separations of arrested adults and accompanying minors is simply a result of the current administration choosing to prosecute the offense instead of waving prosecution as the previous had done. I think we should continue to contemplate a better more neutral name though, because I think having "family" in the title is biased and sensationalist. It's unclear whether actual familial relationships have been proven in the majority of cases. The separation of adults and minors arrested together inevitably will separate some actual families, but it also separates child sex traffickers from their victims. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/who-we-serve-unaccompained-alien-children uses the initialism UAC to refer to Unaccompanied Alien Children, so AAC (for Accompanied Alien Children) would be a logical opposite. So how about Trump administration AAC separations? "Accompanied" is more neutral because it does not assume the narrative than an adult accompanying an alien child is by necessity a family member. The media pushing this viewpoint doesn't mean we should. ScratchMarshall (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
      • According to the Department of Homeland Security, 0.61% are not true families. In other words, 99.39% are families. Assuming that DHS is wrong and they are mostly sex traffickers (without any RS or other evidence) is bizarre and unwarranted.--Pharos (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
An equivalent ratio to 61/10,000 ? Only just encountered this number. Searching article, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/18/how-to-mislead-with-statistics-dhs-secretary-nielsen-edition/ is cited, a June 18th article by Philip Bump. Relevant quote is:
"Even given the increased number of alleged smugglers this fiscal year and the decreased number of family units, those smugglers, those traffickers, those MS-13 members make up only 0.61 percent of the total number of family units apprehended at the border. In other words, for every 1,000 families that approached the border in the first five months of this fiscal year, only six allegedly involved individuals pretending to be a child’s parents. The percentage of alleged smugglers in fiscal 2017 was smaller, at 0.1 percent."
Bump is not clearest in showing his work but appears to be based on 46 cases of fraud in Oct 2016 - Sept 2017 then 191 cases Jan-May 2018. Not really sure why Oct-Dec 2017 was left out. He goes on to mention 75,622 units in 1st span, 31,102 in 2nd span. Bump uses the phrase "alleged smugglers". What I'd like to know is when Bump writes "A DHS representative provided The Washington Post with the hard numbers" did "cases of fraud" refer to open cases (allegations, no convictions secured yet) or did it possibly refer to convictions? There will be 2 numbers we need to know in both spans, a larger "charges pressed" pool and a "convictions secured" subgroup of that pool. We need further clarification as to which concept the 46/191 "cases" refers to. This would be very significant, think of the gap between people charged with rape vs. people convicted of rape, for example. Also: not being subjected to a fraud case is not the same as asserting that the non-prosecuted "family unit" is proven to be a family, any more than someone not being charged with a crime means the government is asserting that an individual has not committed that crime. Lack of prosecution is not assertion of "nothing to prosecute" it could simply mean they had not received any evidence to the contrary and lack the resources to thoroughly investigate everyone. Is "family unit" even the term used by the "DHS representative" who Bump neglects to name, or is that Bump's paraphrasing of a similar yet distinctive term? If the 46/191 numbers are considered a sub-group of the 75622/31102 totals, then this is proof that the larger numbers (since they include "fake family units") refer to totals of alleged (perhaps self-claimed) families, rather than verified families (ie proper identifying documents or DNA test). Total minus Disproven != Proven. The sum is Proven + Disproven + Unknown = Total. So we need to know whether these numbers refer to 'Proven' or 'Proven+Unknown'. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Starship selection is better, though I think I will propose another. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separation policy, the current name, as per this reliable source: "Was the 'Law to Separate Families' Passed in 1997 or 'by Democrats'?". Snopes. No federal law required or suggested the family separation policy announced by Attorney General Sessions in several sets of remarks during April and May 2018. Samboy (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Before Trump policy, immigrant families arrested at the border were detained together -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: to clarify, do you believe the current naming fulfills WP:CRITERIA other than accuracy/precision? wumbolo ^^^ 06:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separation policy. Keep the current name. It's accurate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • information Administrator note I have move protected the page indefinitely. Please ping me or post a request on WP:AN when consensus is reached (if the title is to be changed) and we will do that for you. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi User:TheSandDoctor, please note that there are always a number of administrators active at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so it should not usually be necessary to ping a particular administrator for a close or ask for one at WP:AN (but psst, you can try closing out Talk:Plymouth if you want). And move protection can't hurt anything, but it usually isn't necessary to move protect a page preemptively during a move discussion. Dekimasuよ! 05:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • True and I just protected it as it was a request at RPP since there was a dispute on page title. Thanks for pointing that out Dekimasu. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel User:TheSandDoctor made the right call move-protecting this page. This is a very hot topic right now, even making the front page of The New York Times. There are a lot of very polarized opinions (see just this talk page!) on this topic, so we need to protect it from move attempts done in bad faith. Samboy (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify, I do not object to the move protection in this case. Dekimasuよ! 05:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separation policy. The current title best matches reliable sources, which indicate that it is nothing but a discretionary policy.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separation policy I can't think of a more accurate name based on the sources provided; it is a policy of the Trump administration which most notably includes the separation of families. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separation policy. The argument that this policy predates the administration is irrelevant since what matters is its enforcement. The current title is the one that does that job best. Fdansv (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fdansv: how about Trump administration enforcement of Bush and Obama administrations family separation policy? wumbolo ^^^ 06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Wumbolo, seriously...or are you just committing a gross BLP violation by getting in digs at Obama and Bush? They never did what's happening now. They kept families together, and separations were the exception used for real criminals like drug smugglers, etc. This is ALL on Trump, Sessions, and especially Stephen Miller, the architect of this particularly inhumane practice.[1][2][3] This administration was planning exactly this policy over a year ago. Your comment is so gross it should be removed as a BLP violation. Keep Trump's lies off this page and Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Blame for the practice still remains unclear. Regardless of what Obama or Bush did/didn't do, blame remains unclear. The title of this page is very inaccurate in that it implies that the Trump administration purposefully orchestrated the specific practice of family separation. Wikipedia is not for "Trump's lies" or even against Trump, it should be viewed as a third-opinion source, yet this article has clearly and very disgustingly ignored that, we could at least change the title. -- yogottigotti (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Current title is fine for now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (changed vote below) Trump administration zero tolerance policy per my arguments in the previous discussion, per being the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME (justifying potential WP:POVNAMING), and the Snopes's insinuations are debunked by the FactCheck.org reference I provided in the previous discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Huh? The Fact Check article plainly states that 1) There is no law which requires Trump to break up families 2) The family separation was started by the Trump Administration in early May 3) FactCheck gave Trump’s claims this is done because of “bad laws that the Democrats gave us” a “False” rating. To say that this one source means we should rename this article to something more vague like “zero tolerance” violates WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Samboy (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
This has all already been pointed out to Wumbolo. There are a number of editors on this talk page repeating the same misinformation and lies again and again (and these very same editors tend to do so on other pages as well). Is there seriously nothing that can be done about this disruption? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Samboy: read the excerpt I posted in the previous discussion. I will not argue further (because we won't agree on these grounds) that it's not Trump's fault that previous acts and settlements require children to be released after 20 days. The only different thing Trump does is that he has the 0-tolerance policy which obviously results in a massive number of separations. wumbolo ^^^ 15:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. The article is not only extremely partisan-leaning and completely ignores the third-opinion tradition of Wikipedia, the article's title is incredibly misleading in that it implies that the Trump administration purposefully orchestrated willingly the initial practice of separation of families at the border, which is horribly wrong. The separations are indeed linked toward the zero-tolerance policy accelerating the number, but separation policies existed prior to the administration in term. -- yogottigotti (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME calls for the most commonly recognised name. Trump administration zero tolerance policy could refer to zero tolerance of a wide range of things. It would be very ambiguous. Family separation is the term that will most orient readers to the meaning of the page in the most straightforward manner. Mozzie (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mozzie: could you list some examples of other Trump administration policies which have also been referred widespread as ZTP? Or by the administration itself? What about Trump administration zero tolerance policy for illegal immigrants then? ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep at Trump administration family separation policy: name is both short and descriptive. -- The Anome (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep at Trump administration family separation policy The name is fine for now. In response to the proposal - Congress sets laws that the president implements them at his discretion. That discretion is his policy. Trumps zero tolerance policy has seen a rapid increase in the separation of families that has garnered significant public attention and coverage in the media. This appears to be the main point of the article. Where, family separations occurred before they garnered far less public attention and reliable sources. It is appropriate to put this information in a background section, i.e. the current history section.Mozzie (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separation policy. Absurd request. The arguments presented in favor of moving the page are based on falsehoods and misrepresentations of sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep at Trump administration family separation policy - This, or very similar verbiage, is used extensively in the press coverage. The other options are more obscure, especially "Family separation of border crossers". The current title best meets WP:CRITERIA. I believe it's WP:SNOWING. xmas- MrX 🖋 12:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration’s family separation policy or Donald Trump’s family separation policy per grammar.Casprings (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration zero tolerance policy seems to be the only one grounded in the reality of the situation and not just talking points. Since the Trump policy is zero tolerance enforcement which can lead to seperation, not a policy of separation specifically. PackMecEng (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, it's a policy of separation specifically and intentionally - they've been pretty clear on this point, saying that they intend to use ripping families apart both as a "deterrent" against folks seeking asylum, and as "leverage" in their fights with the Democrats. Also, you know, sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that proposed title is the lack of WP:PRECISION. "Zero tolerance" to what? Shady trade practices? Leakers in the administration? Drugs? The title has to be specific that we're referring to immigration. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Muboshgu:I would be open to improvement on the zero tolerance part of it, but I do feel the current title is incorrect and misleading to what is happening. Perhaps instead of "Trump administration zero tolerance policy" change it to "Trump administration zero tolerance immigration policy"? PackMecEng (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: Funnily enough, I just posted my !vote below mentioning that as a possibility and why I don't support it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Ha, yeah I saw that right after I posted. I see where you are coming from, I just don't have a better answer. I am not married to the zero toleranec stuff, but the current title is not good either. PackMecEng (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
If the article were zero tolerance immigration policy, the majority of information would still be on child separation as that is what has attracted by far the most activity in reliable media sources, and I suspect the majority of editor attention. I note that there is already an Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump article. It has a Zero-tolerance_policy_and_family_separation_on_the_Mexico_border section that links to this page. That whole article is already shorter than this specific article, which in itself justifies a whole page. Mozzie (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separation policy. Keep the current name. I've seen nothing better. Gandydancer (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separation policy I've seen and heard it referred to primarily as a "family separation policy" and a "zero tolerance policy", but as I said above, WP:PRECISION eliminates the second choice because it doesn't make clear the article is about immigration. Something like "Zero tolerance immigration policy" becomes more complicated as a title, and still doesn't make clear in what way there is "zero tolerance". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration zero tolerance policy is better but not ideal.MONGO 17:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment moved from Talk:Trump administration "zero tolerance" policy:
I think the title should reflect its official name, not what it has been dubbed by critics. Obviously, the phrase "Trump administration family separation policy" should remain in the article as that is what many people know it by, even given a title change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egjames (talk • contribs) 14:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment moved from Talk:Trump administration "zero tolerance" policy:
I don't think that the title should be "Zero Tolerance." Zero Tolerance could be a separate article on the overall strategy. Zero Tolerance includes criminal prosecution not civil prosecution, posting of military at the borders, creation of detention centers, jailing of asylum seekers, raids on employers in the US, repeal of DACA. Family separation is a policy by itself. The purpose is to make it so cruel that asylum seekers are scared away. Therefore, Family Separation must stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.116.204 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment moved from Talk:Trump administration "zero tolerance" policy:
The current name is biased towards a narrative. The administration has no specific policy for separating children from their parents; that action is a consequence of enforcing a number of individual laws that did not intend, yet mandate, this end result. It should be rephrased to something like "illegal immigrant family separations during the Trump administration" and let the reader judge responsibility for himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.17.254 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separations. The current name "Trump administration family separation policy" is an incorrect name. As previously mentioned in this talk page article, there is no policy called the "family separation policy". The separation of families is due to the policy titled the "zero tolerance policy", as well as court rulings. Renaming the article to "Trump administration family separation(s)" (the s in separations could be kept or discarded), would be accurate, because there has been separation of families due to policies and court rulings through the Trump administration, but naming the article as it currently stands is misleading and incorrect; having the word "policy" at the end of the title states that this is the official or accepted name of the policy, rather than an action that has happened / is happening which this actually is. Since there is not policy with this name, it would be beneficial to remove the word "policy" from the end of the title. EditSafe (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separation policy seems fine; short, descriptive, and accurate. We can't have something overlong like "Trump administration decision to criminally prosecute all suspected illegal border-crossers for illegal entry, triggering separation of children from families" — while that would be arguably more detailed, it's not practical. Neutralitytalk 18:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separation policy per COMMONNAME, it could be argued that the article is about the implementation and 'fallout' rather than the policy itself, but no suggestions above improve on the present title. The proper place for topics such as "are they really family?", "whose policy really?" is within the article itself - sourced and weighted of course. Pincrete (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Trump administration family separation policy per COMMONNAME. Let's call a spade a spade. MaeseLeon (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is starting to look like a WP:SNOW consensus Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Trump administration family separation policy. This is definitely about Trump. He won an election with a policy of being nasty to illegal immigrants. His chickens came home to roost. It separates families. This is all very clear. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This article appears to a WP:POVFORK of Immigration policy of Donald Trump, with a dash of WP:RECENTISM. I support a move to something like Illegal immigration of families to the United States to flesh out the sections on the ways past administration have dealt with immigrant families (currently we have "background" sections on Bush and Obama), and to allow room for future U.S. administrations. FallingGravity 05:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
To summarise WP:RECENTISM: recentism is a part of Wikipedia, that it has merits, and that the solution is to be careful about not making Wikipedia into a newspaper by following other policies. I believe this article lives up to this ideal. Even if it is rough, wikipedia is not perfect and it will improve over time. WP:POVFORK states that POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article... This article is already much larger than the Trump Administration Immigration Policy Article, which also has a similar tone to this article, so it warrants existence as a stand alone article.Mozzie (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree the topic is notable, that's why I proposed moving to "Illegal immigration of families to the United States". After that we could decide where details should go. FallingGravity 19:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep at Trump administration family separation policy for now. That is what this article is actually about, and we can decide how to adjust (or create a separate article) when the new Trump administration policy takes shape.--Pharos (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep at Trump administration family separation policy, per WP:COMMONNAME; 2nd choice is Trump administration family separations, as a bit shorter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to Trump administration zero-tolerance immigration policy- As per suggestion by User:ScratchMarshall, its neutral and accurate. As for everyone above citing WP:COMMONNAME, do you realize that is just media-spin? It is not the official name of the policy. As per WP:COMMONNAME, "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered" In other words, just be cause the media is using a term doesn't necessarily mean we should.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration family separation policy (the current name.) This is both the WP:COMMONNAME and the most accurate description according to the vast majority of reliable sources, since they unambiguously state that the Trump administration set the current policy, in a break from previous administrations, with the deliberate intent of separating families; and this is the aspect that has attracted the most coverage (and is therefore the aspect that is most noteworthy in terms of what we should base this article around.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
COMMONNAME says exactly the opposite of what you think it does. As per WP:COMMONNAME, "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered"--Rusf10 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • BORDER SEPARATION OF CHILDREN. Better suits criteria of being more concise, precise, and recognizable. Frankly, all those claiming COMMONNAME for something that does not include “children” seem silly. Including “administration” seems unusual, and saying it is a policy is going to be unable to produce an actual Public policy of the United States. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES, with TITLECHANGES being read even more forcefully for currently changing topics. The current is fine, and should only be improved when true secondary sources (distant in time and space) give a better title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent executive order makes current title ambiguous

A week from now we might have readers wondering whether the title "Trump administration family separation policy" refers to the "zero tolerance" policy or the recently signed executive order to end family separations. It might sense to rename the article to something focusing on the family separations themselves instead of the underlying and changing policies. Perhaps some variation of Family separations at the U.S. border under the Trump administration would be better? ~Awilley (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, to address this situation, I have added the redirect to the lead: Trump administration zero tolerance policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
For those who claim invoking the current administration in any way is somehow biased, then just omit it. Perhaps Family separations at the U.S./Mexico border in 2018.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Or should we split this article into two? One about the Trump administrations zero tolerance policy and then one about the Executive Order to End the Family separations at the U.S./Mexico border? Bush has numerous immigration related articles and Trump is rapidly expanding the issue. Loyalocolypse Loyalocolypse (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
No need yet. According to RS, the separated families will not be immediately reunited and the legality of the executive order is disputed (indefinite detention of children). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Executive orders are usually titled in Wikipedia by their executive order number. The order in this case is also not unrelated to the initial family separation policy, so these are not topics that are ambiguous to one another. As noted, repercussions of the separations might continue for months or even years. Families that are already separated are continuing to be separated, and in some cases the administration appears to have lost the ability to reunite families that have been separated. bd2412 T 00:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There was never a family separation policy, there is a zero tolerance policy, and the separations of families will stop because of the new Executive Order. As for when the already separated families will be re-united is speculation at this point. It could be within a month, nobody knows, but it is being worked on. I point to Wikipedia:Recentism. Loyalocolypse (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it just me or is it weird that an account created one day ago and who has only edited on this topic is citing and correctly linking to Wikipedia policy? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It could be someone who IP edits a lot, and has finally made an account...Let's assume good faith. In any case as I have stated above, wp:recentism clearly states recentism is an inherent part of Wikipedia, it has its benefits, and the solution is to be careful to keep articles encyclopedic by following other policies. As a comment I see a lot of people citing policy in discussions where the name appears to support their argument, but the actual wording of the policy does not. I strongly recommend doing what I do and reading policies before you cite them and when other people cite them, even if you think you know it. Many a long WP:SNOWBALL discussion has happened wasting everyone's time because wikipedians judge policies by the cover. Mozzie (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The old policy was "family separation", the new policy is "family detention", which is the standard term for holding families as a group in immigration detention. Both present serious human rights issues. I guess the main question is whether we want one or two articles. Perhaps one article with something like "family separation and family detention" as part of the title.--Pharos (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the name might evolve to Trump administration family separation and detention policy or similar. No rush. Mozzie (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I linked to Recentism because I want to look at this historically. People keep pushing that there was a Trump family separation policy. That is false. They also definitively say these children will never be reunited, which is also unknown and most likely false. These people have a clear politically motivated agenda. Loyalocolypse (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Digression from the topic of the proposed article move hidden; please continue move discussion below

This may fade away to "family detention", but what the world will remember is imagery of kids in cages, and kids crying, and Trump and his fans running for cover. (And I really mean "the world". Sadly for America, this imagery has gone worldwide.) Family separation as a result of Trump's policies is what this is about. No need for it to change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the kind of POV pushing that led to the current title to begin with. Rather than trying to present the subject neutrally there is a clear preference here to make sure the article title implies that Trump is wrong (and in your view evil). The problem with the article title is their is no such policy either in title or substance. The policy that was enacted is "zero-tolerance" for illegal border crossings. You may think that is a good policy or a bad policy, but it is not a family separation policy. The same thing actually happens when citizens commit crimes, the parent who commits the crime is separated from their children. The children do not go to jail with them. There's really only two ways to fix "the policy" 1. stop enforcing the law when illegal immigrants cross the border with children 2. Congress (not Donald Trump) passes a new law. Trump really can't change much through his executive order since the court ruling restricts detention of minors to 20 days, which means the adults will continue to be held without the children who must be released. Also, from you user page I see you live in Australia, I say this because it must be easy for you to judge America when you don't have to worry about illegal border crossings at home since you live on an island.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There is actually no POV pushing in my comment. FACT: Trump campaigned on being mean to foreigners. FACT: It's what the voters wanted. FACT: He got elected based on this (and other) policies. FACT: That policy led to the family separations. FACT: The word has seen it, and was horrified. FACT: Trump and his fans don't like the damage that has occured to his and the country's image. FACT: I am not the topic. FACT: Americans love to tell the world how to behave, often with military force to convince people they are right, but don't like it when foreigners point out flaws in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
FACT He's the leader of the free world. If you're American you salute him. If you're not, bow to the greatest country in the world. 199.127.56.84 (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The final sentence is an order, not a fact, and it's a typical but silly one. I shall choose to ignore it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You clearly do not know the difference between a fact and an opinion. Trump campaigned on being mean to foreigners. That's you opinion. It's what the voters wanted. again your opinion, how do you know what they want? He got elected based on this (and other) policies. Yes, he got elected based on his immigration policies such as "zero-tolerance", although I doubt that's what you meant.That policy led to the family separations. Technically that's correct, the stepped up enforcement has led to more family seperataion, but as I've explained its not a "family separation policy" The word has seen it, and was horrified. your opinion, the media sensationalism has made things appear much worse than they are. I am not the topic. True, but you clearly have an extreme bias. Americans love to tell the world how to behave, often with military force to convince people they are right, but don't like it when foreigners point out flaws in the USA. Clearly your own outrageous opinion. I'm not ripping on your country, I only pointed out that your country cannot possibly have the same issue with immigration that we have here.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
One thing I know is my own biases. You? I also know that mine are pretty much in line with most of the world outside the USA. I have no intention of fighting with you. I will simply point out that 1) that post says an awful lot about you, and 2) I am not the topic. (I think I already mentioned that.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
HiLo48 and Rusf10 this is getting a bit personal. Perhaps take some time out and have a breather. You don't need to make yourselves and each other feel bad/upset/angry over this and neither of you will win this argument. Remember to smile and that happiness is the most important thing. Mozzie (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Mozzie, I think you will see that I have actually said very little about Rusf10. The nastiest comments are pretty much one sided. And as I said, I am not looking for a fight. I don't need to do that to be confident in my position. I have no intention of taking this any further. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
user:HiLo48 has a clear “World vs America” bias. You are a provacatuer and will be be promptly ignored until you become reasonable. Loyalocolypse (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
" The same thing actually happens when citizens commit crimes, the parent who commits the crime is separated from their children." - this is false, completely false. Usually when citizens commit misdemeanors they are NOT separated from their children.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you can go to prison for a misdemeanor. Not everyone does, many are sentenced to probation, community service, etc., but some people do. And guess what, their children do not go to jail with them.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And there's plenty of way to fix this without having to separate children from their families or "stop enforcing the law". One way to enforce the law is to treat it as a civil transgression, which "the law" actually allows for (i.e Sessions and Trump CHOSE to treat these matters as criminal rather than civil matters). Another way is to release the families on bond pending their hearings. What's that you say? They won't show up? Oh, actually, 83% of those who had been released on bond showed up to their hearings [4] (more than 90% of those who had a lawyer), which is way higher than what your typical Americans show up for when they have a court date. And with a bit of effort (ankle bracelets if you have to, some minimal monitoring) you could get that even higher.
Basically this "enforce the law or separate children" is a completely bogus dichotomy created to justify the unjustifiable child abuse that has been inflicted here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so 83% who are released on bond show up, that makes sense. Now what about the fact that group is a small minority because most of these people do not have any money? You can't release someone on bond when they have no money. So what do you want to do? release them anyway? Also, 100% of these people can have a lawyer if they want because just like a citizen, we give them lawyers for free if they cannot afford it.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Would Trump administration zero tolerance policy be too vague? Has there been any other policy dubbed zero tolerance besides this in the past couple years? I think this is a far more neutral name. It is what the administration uses ("family separation" is applied by detractors focusing on a single aspect of the policy). The actual policy was the ending of CAR, while separation (of families or other adult/minor groupings) was more a consequence of the policy because of existing laws preventing the jailing of minors. ZTP more broadly encompasses both the pre-EO and post-EO actions of prosecuting illegal immigrants by jailing them instead of doing catch-and-release. "Separation" of adults/minors would be the pre-EO aspect while "Grouping" of them back together as Obaa did before the courts stopped it would be the post-EO aspect that began yesterday. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah it would be too vague. 203.219.156.68 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment: "family separation" is a compound modifier (of "policy"), so should be hyphenated: "Trump administration family-separation policy". Ditto "zero-tolerance policy", if that term is used instead. — Hugh (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Hugh on hyphens. See:
  • June 15 "why did Jeff Sessions announce a zero-tolerance policy at the border"
  • June 18 "the Attorney General announced the zero-tolerance policy. This never happened before he announced the zero-tolerance policy."
  • June 20 "our zero-tolerance policy"
The WH consistently uses hyphens. Although 203.219.156.68 insists it is too vague, users like Mozzie and Samboy still haven't provided examples of what else in Trump administration policy has been referred to as "zero tolerance" that could deserve a disambiguation. Trump administration zero tolerance policy still points to this article and nowhere else, nothing has competed for that term yet.
Trump administration zero-tolerance immigration policy could be an easy compromise. Trump administration's zero-tolerance immigration policy is used by http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/jun/06/what-you-need-know-about-trump-administrations-zer/ while https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-the-bible-really-says-about-trumps-zero-tolerance-immigration-policy uses "Trump's zero-tolerance immigration policy". Is dropping "administration" a possibility? Lawfare (blog) at https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-zero-tolerance-immigration-policy-leaves-no-room-discretion uses a similar Trump's Zero Tolerance Immigration Policy too, though hyphenless. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@ScratchMarshall: I don't think the apostrophe is necessary: the phrase already clearly indicates whose policy is under discussion. In fact, I think the 's would sound unecyclopaedic. — Hugh (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been no executive order by Donald Trump about this policy. What was signed was a presidential memo to the HHS, who have not actually done anything yet. DarkestCity (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump administration's zero-tolerance immigration policyis the only possible option that does not carries huge WP:BLP violations. Wikipedia cant be used for POV agenda, and claiming " a family separation policy" for   are WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations.Tritomex (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Trump administration zero tolerance immigration policy is the only title that passes all of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. I find it absolutely unbelievable that dozens of editors cite WP:COMMONNAME as "family separation policy" without any evidence whatsoever, while nobody is saying that "zero tolerance policy" is the common name. I have provided reliable sources above, which show that "zero tolerance policy" is by far the vast common name. wumbolo ^^^ 00:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
    • BORDER SEPARATION OF CHILDREN is more precise, concise, and recognizable. It seems a bit silly to say any title without the word “children” is common name here. Unless you intend to cut out any content about children from the article and just talk policy documents, the title should say “children”. Markbassett (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I would propose something like "Family separation under the Trump administration". To maintain a NPOV, strictly speaking, the zero-tolerance policy was to prosecute all adults crossing the border, and the effect of this was family separation. The article is about the effect (family separation) rather than the policy (zero tolerance approach to prosecution). jamacfarlane (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Process section question re stats

The Process section states "About 85% of children are eventually placed with a family member, while others are placed with unrelated foster parents. That info is not in the source offered and I don't believe that it is necessarily correct. The only info I can find is this, from here: [5] (which is not about the children that have been separated from their parents).

We reached out to HHS and were told by a spokesman that when children cross into the U.S. alone, their custody is transferred from the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration enforcement, to HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Children are then released to a sponsor in the U.S. who is selected and approved by ORR. These sponsors undergo background checks, and although the majority of such sponsors (85%) are parents or immediate family members, HHS told us, the remainder are typically more distant relatives or non-relatives whom the children had some previous relationship with:

I believe that it's important to get a correct figure because from what I've been reading, and from what we document here in our article, a fairly large number of children seem to be lost in the "black hole" mentioned by one person that has been involved in trying to help the parents and children to stay together or at least not loose all track of each other. Note, for example, that half of the women that the Washington Congresswoman interviewed did not know where their children were and three out of the four children in foster care in Michigan did not know where their parents were/had not been in touch with them per phone. And note that it has been noted and in fact was the case of the six-year-old that begged fro her aunt in the audio tape, that relatives may be too afraid for their own asylum plea to expose their status to authorities. Gandydancer (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Gandydancer - feel free to delete the line if it has no support. It seems incorrect for the children of this article anyway. The figures for these detainees are not yet sorted out -- I've heard about 500 were reunited and 1500-2000 are still being sorted out, so there could not be final figures as yet. Somebody either borrowed from something viewed as comparable like Obama-era separations of families, or else maybe was just making up a number. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Well...one does not like to suggest that well established editors may be using incorrect information when it happens, as it does happen from time to time. At any rate I am so happy that another editor finally took the time to read and comment on my input here. I've removed the info and I thank you for your help. Gandydancer (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Child Trafficking

Perhaps this NYT article should be included in some form? Also, since I see that Snopes.com is being sourced in some parts of this article, perhaps this should be included as well?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. This material belongs at Unaccompanied Alien Children. In general, the underlying news sources should preferred to Snopes.--Carwil (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump_administration_family_separation_policy/Archive_2&oldid=1137270174"