Talk:Trump administration family separation policy/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think it's useful to look to some pre-2016 discussion to get a more historical view of when certain policies were in effect, to find out when they were implemented...

Does anyone know the name of any such circa 1940 law if it exists?

Does anyone know what year "illegal entry" was defined as a misdemeanor, in comparison to the above which is not about entry but rather a separat crime related to lacking documentation? There would probably be overlap between these 2 (those who enter illegally and lack documents) but also mutually exclusive populations (those who enter illegally who have documents, those who enter legally but lose documents).

I'd like to know what specific articles we have for these 2 notably important laws, and if we could feature them more prominently here, and discuss whether or not any changes were made to them or to their ramifications when enforced.

If these were already crimes then what aspects did 'zero tolerance' change? Was the policy actually criminalizing any new behaviors? Or does policy describe a decision to enforce existing crimes rather than choose not to prosecute them?

If it is the latter case, when was the decision not to prosecute existing crimes made, and do we have an article about that? Is it perhaps harder to pinpoint as it slowly accrued as a general policy of avoiding prosecution rather than a rapid reversal? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

User:ScratchMarshall - This article does not have a link to the Zero-Tolerance Policy try this. Illegal entry and Reno v. Flores articles exist and may help. The specific law on illegal entry seems to be 8 USC 1325 here and more broadly if it is a felon entering it is an aggravated felony (8 USC 1101). The administration did not criminalize any new behaviour or change stated penalties as that is the province of enactment of law by Congress. The first offense being 'federal misdemeanor' was always just reflecting Misdemeanor of it being up to 6 months in jail, although typically the judicial decision seems time served, deportation, and a criminal record., and further offenses being Felony reflects the next step is up to 2 years jailed. (Except if the person was a felon then 8 USC 1101 makes crossing an aggravated felony, and immigration can be barred per 8 USC 1227. I think the administration recent policy was to increase the prosecutorial rigor, to refer more cases and separate more families. Prior administrations did some of that but under Bush it was initially done strongly but then generally avoided and under Obama it was generally done for repeat offenses. It seems to also vary day-to-day and region-by-region, and as assignments or projects happen -- so it may just be that on a given day the holding facility is full and they try to not refer anyone for prosecution.

This article does not provide the background of improper entry dip in 2017 then surge in 2018, and particularly that it has over time gone from about 3% families to 24.9% families. Elsewhere I've seen recent immigrants attributed to violence in the area of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatamala, though many are simply going to seek an income. e.g. this (The Venezuelan disaster refugees are still being handled in neighboring nations, and the spike of refugees entering Canada illegally seem African and Haitian.) Hope all of this helps. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Decent finds!

Presently this article title sounds very sensationalist. If we have a long view of history then a neutral article would cover the spike/dip/spike of enforcing the law as observed under EarlyBush/LateBush+Obama/Trump as you describe. If Bush was enforcing the law early in his term then I'm wondering why there isn't a coordinate Bush administration family separation policy to cover that era. Or an Obama administration crime-ignoring policy for when federal crimes were not punished as written. Oddly enough while digging for information about Bush's policies, complaints from 2001-2009 were actually about events that happened under Clinton's watch. I've put together a draft for a Clinton administration family separation policy stub that could potentially be expanded as more information is discovered. ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

One of the sources lays it out clearly: Although past administrations cracked down on immigration, they used administrative detention (detaining families together, a practice which was heavily criticized) or made exceptions for families. The Trump administration began the practice of criminal detention, which resulted in parents and children being detained separately. The executive branch has a certain amount of leeway in how they choose to implement the law and they are responsible for those choices even if they are "just enforcing the law." –dlthewave ☎ 19:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Dlthewave - Obama separated families for repeat offenders. Generally Washington Post had those at about 20% of the general catches -- not sure if the percent with families was more or less than that. Between the percentage of families increasing and the percentage of catches prosecuted going way above 20%, the numbers increased from about 1,000 per year to about 1,000 per month. Not holding on to detained was criticized as "Catch and release" and it was a campaign pledge to stop it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2018

On my PC now, striking through sock edits. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

An IP has re-added material in this diff explicitly comparing this to the Holocaust in the lead. They claim a talk-page consensus, though there is no discussion on this page. I've rolled back their change, as I feel it violates several site policies; among them WP:BLP and WP:MOSLEAD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

My assumption based on the IP's edit history would be this for what they are refering to. Also note the IP's block log. PackMecEng (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If there's expert commentary that likens the policy to the Holocaust or other repressive government actions, then it needs to go into the body first. Then, we can discuss whether its lede-worthy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/facing-deadline-government-reunified-364-2-500-plus-migrant-children-n893006. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there an editing point you'd like to make that will improve the article? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Some editors appreciate it when other editors leave links for a site that will help to improve our understanding of an article. I certainly do. Rather than leave snotty notes perhaps you could just not bother to read the suggested articles. It is important that editors should make an effort to get along with others rather than promote ill will. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. PackMecEng (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The video is basically propaganda, which doesn't belong on wikipedia. So far I can't find any consensus to keep it in. I have looked at the discussion and it is mixed. But I think it not NPOV. Afootpluto (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This topic is strongly emotional to many people, but the Wikipedia article needs to be NPOV. That is, this article needs to cover neutrally the various laws and events leading to the policy. It is also reasonable to include some reactions or criticisms. I recognize we have a problem maintaining this NPOV (and let me disclose that my own personal feelings are very POV that this is a BAD THING), but I think the article will be more useful and influential if it is presented as an encyclopedia article rather than an editorial. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I've done a lot of work on the article and I can understand that it may seem to be NPOV even though IMO the editors that have worked on it tried to keep it fair and factual. For one thing, the information that gradually emerged really was strongly sensational - sobbing and screaming children and crying mothers plus distraught others reporting on the circumstances - which may give the article, in some places, an almost tabloid-like reading. I for one made no attempt to keep such emotional information from the article when it was reported by reliable sources, though it may not seem "encyclopedic" to some readers. If you have ideas about how to make article changes or additions I hope you will share them with the other editors here. Fresh eyes are always helpful for such difficult subject matter. Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

It will be a big and fairly simple improvement if the lead is shorter and more neutral. For that to happen, material currently in the lead should be made available elsewhere in the article. I am willing to help but my area of expertise is closer to 17th c European art than to US politics. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, in part were you perhaps thinking this: Also, Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the policy. Other administration officials argued that the policy was intended to deter immigration or be used as political leverage to force Democrats and moderate Republicans to accept hardline immigration legislation. ? Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, there is a lot of issues with this article not being NPOV. Afootpluto (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am just curious if there is a way, or any way, to split the article? My reasoning is that such an important "blunder" (trying to be nice) of an administration using children as a bargaining chip for anything should not be so long of a read. As a father and grandfather I even have trouble thinking about it how this could have happened.

I gave the article a fast read because of the length and I dislike doing that. I think the lead somewhat too in depth but did not find anything that shouldn't be included in the article except possibly at least one video. I clicked on the picture of the first one and it switched to a blank screen with mostly inaudible voice, crying, and explanatory caption writing including a lot of "[Background noise]". I stopped half-way because I could not see any significance or improvement it makes to the article.

The entire decision was a horrendous catastrophe and I hope becomes a haunting legacy for those involved. The first video may have been included by consensus, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that "shock-and-awe" is not needed. As the saying goes: "A picture is worth a thousand words", and the article has those, so I cannot see any benefit certainly not at the top of the article.

I haven't even looked at any policies concerning videos but assume it is acceptable. The second video is actually that and conveys the atrocity. Aside from the packing of families in a cage, which federal law does not even allow the US to do with hardened criminals, the conditions were below those expected of some unimaginal third-world country, so certainly significant, relevant, and not placed at the very top to be a distraction. These are just my opinions, most certainly with no political agenda, so I hope it will be considered. Otr500 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

We need better sources before including "numerous reports" of legally presented asylum seekers going to jail. One of the linked articles included no information on the topic, another off-handedly mentioned two examples but is not a good source for either.

This feels like political fluff rather than facts at this point, especially since officials have responded and that response was left out. Please find better sources and stop undoing without explanation. These sorts of things should be discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polisciatica (talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are more sources, some of which cite official court records: Texas Tribune NPR Vox Texas Monthly ACLU NBC LA Times –dlthewave ☎ 17:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The Texas Tribune link is definitely a good one to make the case. "Numerous" is still too strong of a word for a few cases and the links cite the same cases multiple times. I'd say simple removal of "numerous" and addition of administration response would make this neutral and accurate. Polisciatica (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ursula (detention center) 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been intimately involved with this article and for the last few days I have been making an attempt to update and clean it up. It is a nightmare to attempt this because the editors were working with an administration that on an almost daily basis gave alternate facts about its policy and the number of parents and children that its policy was effecting. As responsible editors we tried to fit the emerging facts, the new facts that did not agree with the old facts, and such, which is typical of the current administration's track record, into our article. It all resulted in an unnecessarily complimented and wandering article that pretty much matched what we had to work with (gov't spin). I'll keep trying to make it more presentable but it is not exactly a fun project and I don't expect that I'll do it very well at all as I am not willing to spend the time needed to turn this article into what I would like. Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It troubles me that the efforts I engaged in in late June/July to edit the 3rd paragraph of this article so that it is less biased were all for naught. That paragraph is presently the same as it was in mid-June, before I contributed to the development of it. It seems that the efforts that Chris Howard and I engaged in, on the Talk page, to tone things down a bit were simply reverted once we had achieved compromise language and were no longer paying attention. Gandydancer's stewardship throughout development of this article, combined with partisan bias obvious in the comment I am replying to here, reference to this article as "our article" and "turn[ing] this article into what I would like" are all disturbing evidence that Gandydancer feels ownership of this article. The article remains a partisan look at the issue, rather than an objective treatment of it. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Please, please, please give exact and specific examples (not, for example "late June/July") of where you object, with RS, to support your disagreements. I have every interest in a fair and reliably sourced article. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

All right, I have tracked it down.

Chris Howard produced the agreed upon revision to the third paragraph at 12:09 on 29 July 2018 in this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_administration_family_separation_policy&oldid=852500935

The latter revision was apparently undone by The Terrible Travis at 9:01 on 9 August 2018 with this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trump_administration_family_separation_policy&oldid=854151102

After looking around for awhile I finally came to understand your complaint. Though I can't understand your complaint about me. Looking back I see that I was in agreement with your suggestions, not disagreement. As far as the changes made, I didn't change the wording and if I'd have picked up on it I would have reversed it. It seems that on one hand you are all pissed off at me for taking over the article and on the other hand pissed off because I did not note the change that upsets you. I'd suggest that this time you watch the article and reverse any changes yourself rather than come to the talk page and blame me or others. Gandydancer (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It became clear to me back in June that I did not fully understand the pecking order of editors on this page. When my initial edit was summarily reversed and dissed by people, I took my efforts to the talk page and worked something out with an editor who seemed to take charge a bit. I was sorry both that the article struck me as biased and also that it would be an uphill battle to make it more neutral. I stand by my opinion that your comments in the "Improving this article" post struck me as biased about the current administration. Moreover they seemed to suggest that you were overseeing the page, as did your steady presence in the article's history.

I learned early on that it is futile for me to edit the page since what I try to do is reversed every single time. I suspect that a lot of the article was changed by editor The Terrible Travis and that a bunch of repair work needs to be done to redo the work that people did on the article prior to The Terrible Travis's reversion. Another thing is that the references in paragraph 3 were also changed as a result of discussions with Chris Howard, and I am still not sure I can just cut and paste the July 29 version of the third paragraph into the present version and not mess up all the references. I would almost suggest reverting the page to the July 29 version, but a lot of work has gone into it since then. I am at a loss of what to do. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This whole article is based on falsehoods, false news stories, and misunderstandings. The Trump zero tolerance policy did not contain one word about separating families. The quote from Jeff Session in this article relating to this, is used to falsely imply that the zero tolerance policy was responsible, but if you read the quote then the last part of it reveals the ACTUAL cause of the separations: "If you cross the border unlawfully ... then we will prosecute you. If you smuggle an illegal alien across the border, then we'll prosecute you. ... If you're smuggling a child, then we're going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as REQUIRED BY LAW." The only cause of those family separations was a 2016 court ruling on the Flores Settlement(which partly reversed a 2015 ruling). No policy of the Trump administration changed anything in this regard. The executive order that Trump issued that solved this crisis did NOT reverse, remove or change the zero tolerance policy in any way. It is still fully effective. The executive order only ordered the court to change the Flores settlement. Here is that relevant section from the executive order:

(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 (“Flores settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.^[1]

Simply put, this entire wikipedia article is based on false narratives from the extremely politically polarized U.S. news media, that in this case was more concerned with assigning blame than to report correctly and fairly. I recommend that this article should be deleted. BreakingZews (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I consider it highly unlikely that this article will be deleted but if you want to try, you can nominate it at WP:AFD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is obviously a very charged and emotional subject, but it's sort of jarring to have those three images in the page's lead. I don't think this appropriate for an encyclopedic entry on the subject, and I suggest we choose a single piece of media to represent the lead rather than having all three of those just sort of plastered up there. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Homestead Florida Unaccompanied Minors.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I was going to go through the article and update the wording but what with the new information that says that children are still being separated from their parents even though Trump said some months ago that zero tolerance would no longer be in effect I keep running into snags. Perhaps best to not try to update the wording just yet. Gandydancer (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Your comment perfectly describes the problem with this article, the Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with the separations of children from their families on the border. There is not a word about that issue in the Zero Tolerance Policy. And the Zero Tolerance Policy is still in full effect. The executive order that was supposed to end the separation of children from their families on the border(and to the best of my knowledge it has), only ordered/requested a change to the law(the precedence set by the flores settlement), not any change to any Trump policy. A court ruling in 2016 on the Flores Settlement is the only reason that children were separated from their parents under Trump. He has never had a policy that ordered those separations, and therefor the title of this article is absurd. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

None of your assertions are correct. Perhaps you should read the entire article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Everything I said is perfectly correct, this article is chock-full of political bias/errors and links to false media narratives. For example, if you had actually READ the executive order, then you would have seen that the only thing he actually changed with the executive order was that he ordered the Attorney General to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 ("Flores settlement"), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings". He did NOT change anything about his own policies, the "zero tolerance policy"(which many in the media falsely blamed for the family separations) was and is still 100% in effect. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Post-closure comments

WP:OFFICIALNAME. actually supports the name change. The term "Zero Tolerance" is the most commonly used by reliable sources, and is the official name.Family Separation is used more as a criticism, and by opinion pieces. Doniboy71 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is completely and totally false. There is no Trump Policy for Family Separation. Period. Any mention of one should be followed by the official name, or number of the Policy. It doesn't exist. The Trump Zero Tolerance Policy for Immigration was a policy, and that policy did, briefly, result in the separation of children from families, just like American children are separated from families when the parents go to jail. The only citations are from left-wing opinion publications looking to blame Trump for laws that were enacted decades before he ran for President. IN any examination of Neutrality one would simply need to ask: "Why did the author of this Article invent a Policy name?" If the only answer is to paint Donald Trump in the worst possible light, then it fails the neutrality test. This Article should be completely deleted. Barring that, it should be renamed to Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy. Doniboy71 (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Doniboy71, Hi, the only way to argue for changing the title is by arguing about whether the title that you are proposing is the commonly used title in reliable sources or not see WP:COMMONNAME. It doesn't matter if the title is not a neutral point of view see WP:POVNAME. Now, I can't tell if "Trump's Zero Tolerance" is the most commonly used name on reliable sources or not. I found both titles are reported in reliable sources and I am using my phone so I can't see Google scholar or Google books hits amount to tell which one is mostly used. Usually Google scholar and Google books give reliable results.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for engaging rationally. A search of Google Scholar showed 7 results for the exact phrase "Trump's Family Separation Policy" and 8 results for "trump's Zero Tolerance Policy". Obviously not a lot of help there. The fact is that the Policy was called Zero Tolerance. Family Separation was a complaint about the Policy, some claim a result of the policy, while others claim a result of existing laws that were exposed due to the Zero Tolerance Policy. Either way, at no time did Trump call it the Family Separation Policy, and isn't a President or other Politician allowed to name his own policy? There is no need to tile the article after the pejorative, when the actual Policy name is known and the negative impact can be discussed within the text. Also, there is Congressional testimony from the Homeland Security director during the time this Policy supposedly existed who testified under oath that it was the Zero Tolerance Policy, not family separation. The New York Times, who have consistently painted the current administration in the worst possible light, admitted itself that the policy was a Zero Tolerance Policy, and called Family Separation a consequence of that policy. The Wikipedia text can discuss the partisan views on both sides about whether or not the consequences were intended or accidental....but I think we have to admit that the Policy was never called Family Separation, and that wasn't the main goal, thwarting illegal immigration was. To keep the name as it is obfuscates the truth. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/us/politics/dhs-kirstjen-nielsen-families-separated-border-transcript.html Doniboy71 (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, the official announcement of the Policy, contained on the Department of Justice page, did not mention the term "Family Separation" at all. It correctly titled the Policy "the Zero Tolerance Policy For Criminal Illegal Entry" https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry Since we know the official name of the policy, I do not see any reason to use the pejorative name given to it by partisan opponents. Thanks. Doniboy71 (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Doniboy71 You can request to rename this article by adding this code to the buttom of this talk page

{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Replace NewName with the name you want the article to be renamed to and put the reason after |reason= as explained in the code. See WP:RM#CM for more information.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Doniboy71 I completely agree with you that the name of the article is wrong and should be changed. But you are actually wrong about the Zero Tolerance Policy. It has nothing to do with family separations and is still 100% in effect. The only reason for the increase in family separations under Trump is due to a court ruling on the Flores Settlement in 2016, which ruled that accompanied children should be released while the same should NOT apply to their mother/parent(s). It had nothing to do with any policy of Trump. Trump was simply following the law. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

TheOriginalVegan Interesting point. In the interest of making this article as accurate as possible I have been focusing solely on the first glaring inaccuracy that I saw, the title. However, after rereading the article I am forced to wonder: Is this an article about a Trump policy with an incorrect title? Or is this an article about the phenomenon of family separation at the border, that somehow only mentions Trump in the title and adds the word "policy" even though it has sections covering other Presidents? The History Section on Bush begins by mentioning "Zero Tolerance" outright. This is a very long article with many different parts to it, so some jumping around is not surprising. But I am definitely confused about what is being covered, why its titled this way, and why the defense of the emphasis on Trump. It sounds like your debate could be with a large part of the article on the whole, as well as many individual sections. Thank you for your input. Doniboy71 (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the closing of the Change Name Request. The result is that the name change is rejected due to the conversation? What conversation? I thought it wasn't supposed to simply be a vote based on numbers. Many people opposed, but offered no reasoning. What was the reasoning behind the outright rejection? We know the real name of the policy, we know that reliable sources use it or use a variation of it, and we know that there is no policy that matches the name of this article... So we still like the incorrect name??? Why? I'm supposed to assume good faith, but how can I? I guess we should rename "The Affordable Care Act", the "Can't Keep your Doctor Policy"...that's about on par with this. Doniboy71 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Every person who opposed gave a reason based on established Wikipedia policy. - MrX 🖋 20:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

No, they didn't. You yourself simply opposed based on others arguments. Seriously, why do you oppose naming the article after the name of the actual Policy? What is your reasoning for ignoring the real name and using a fAke one? There is no such thing as the Trump Administration Family Separation Policy. It doesn't exist...never has. Why, Mr. X, do you insist on the name being incorrect>? Is it due to a political bias? Do you like the negative connotation? Because it certainly isn't about accuracy or making this the best article it could be. Doniboy71 (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a new piece from ProPublica about a new and unofficial challenge coin that Border Patrol agents have been distributing. - Mainly 14:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Related to the family separation policy and its consequences. - Mainly 14:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Separation policy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 19#Separation policy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely everyone in the US who commits a jail-worthy crime goes to jail without their children. Every president since George Washington has done that. It is not a "Trump administration" policy at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:B00:29B5:4855:54AA:D6C5:75D1 (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The above comment ('everyone in the US who commits a jail-worthy crime goes to jail without their children') is not a useful comparison as such a separation is temporary whereas the separation caused by the Trump administration policy has been shown to be permanent in many cases. --218.214.183.100 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

New report on child separations, read it here. Too busy to add it to the article myself. Media reports covering this: NBC, Fortune, CBS. starship.paint (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Such family separations have occurred under previous Presidents, and therefore the article should not be specifically named after Trump. ^[1]

2. Trump has never had any specific “Family Separation Policy”, another reason why this article title is highly misleading. Contrary to common misrepresentation in the media, the “Zero Tolerance Policy” had nothing to do with family separations, but was only about following the law, to prosecute those who break the law by entering the country illegally. ^[2]

3. The family separations discussed in the article were a direct consequence of a court ruling on the Flores Settlement on July 6th, 2016, while Obama was President. Trump had no role or involvement in that.^[3] TruthZero (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Trump has never had any policy of separating children from their families. The Zero Tolerance policy is about following the law, about prosecuting those who break the law. It has nothing to do with family separations, and is not the primary cause of those separations. The family separations were a direct consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Settlement, that demanded that children be released while the "same should not be afforded" to their mother/parents. A court order that came while Obama was President. The Executive order that President Trump announced to end these family separations did NOT stop or alter his Zero Tolerance Policy at all(the Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with the separations of families) but only requested that the Attorney General have the Flores Settlement altered(he ordered the AG to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 "Flores settlement", in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings").

This article is based on pure political propaganda from media reports hostile to the current U.S. President, and ignorance of the actual facts.

The title of the articles is therefor false. Also every single sentence in the beginning of the article is false:

The Trump administration family separation policy is an aspect of US President Donald Trump's immigration policy - Wrong. Trump has never had any policy of separating families.

The policy was presented to the public as a "zero tolerance" approach intended to deter illegal immigration and to encourage tougher legislation. - Wrong. The Zero Tolerance Policy is only about following the law, it is the LAW that demands those separations.

It was adopted across the entire US–Mexico border from April 2018 until June 2018, however later investigations found that the practice of family separations had begun a year previous to the public announcement - Because it had NOTHING to do with the Zero Tolerance Policy, but was a direct result of the ruling on the Flores Settlement in 2016.

Under the policy, federal authorities separated children from parents or guardians with whom they had entered the US illegally. The adults were prosecuted and held in federal jails, and the children placed under the supervision of the US Department of Health and Human Services. - Wrong. This was a consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Law, not due to any policy of the President. TruthZero (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

“ Wrong. The Zero Tolerance Policy is only about following the law, it is the LAW that demands those separations.”

The law demands those separations if the subjects are prosecuted criminally. It does not demand that *all* subjects found crossing the border illegally be criminally prosecuted. No law demands such a thing. This is entirely at the discretion of the executive branch. The zero-tolerance policy is the Trump administration making the discretionary choice to treat *all* cases in such a way that the law *requires* family separation. So it’s not “only about following the law”. Pervious policies were fully in accordance with the law. It’s a policy that makes family separation the default action, rather than discretionary. Thefoxyfox (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. It's even in your own words, "*all* subjects found crossing the border ILLEGALLY", if it is illegal, then the law demands it be prosecuted. The Obama administration chose to ignore the law in many cases, but, in contrast, the "Zero Tolerance Policy" simply made clear that the law should be followed. There is not a word about family separation in the Zero Tolerance Policy. Trump has never had any policy in that regard, before he signed an executive order, ordering the attorney general to file a request with U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in the Central District of California to modify the Flores Settlement and allow detained migrant families to be held together "throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings ... or other immigration proceedings". The executive order that ended the family separations did NOT change his zero tolerance policy or any other policy of his administration, simply because those policies were not the cause of those separations. TruthZero (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@TruthZero: Article talk pages are for specific edit proposals referenced to reliable sources. They are not for general discussion of the subject or your personal theories about the subject. Please learn our policies and guidelines before jumping into articles about controversial subjects. - MrX 🖋 11:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think your comment should be directed to Thefoxyfox user, and his opinion that I was responding to. I have not offered any theories or opinions, but just pointed out documented facts(read the text of the Zero Tolerance Policy, read the 2016 ruling on the Flores settlement, read Trump's executive order regarding family separations/Flores settlement, etc). This article is political propaganda. TruthZero (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is typical of most political and cultural areas of Wikipedia where a group of left wing editors push propaganda as fact, then defend it at every turn using as much Wiki red tape as possible. Every complaint is dismissed because of some violation of protocol, but when someone does manage to jump through the right hoops, the left-wing editors simply unite to reject the move. The complaint above is legitimate and it was dismissed with the ridiculous phrase, "Article talk pages are for specific edit proposals referenced to reliable sources.". So here is a specific edit proposal.. Delete the entire Article immediately... There is no room for Propaganda like this. The title is completely made up. It is not real. There is no way to edit the article and make it a viable, intelligent, fact-filled piece. Every sentence is based on a silly premise that is so stupid that the author should be embarrassed. Every second that it remains up hurts the credibility of Wikipedia itself. I request the removal of this false article. Doniboy71 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doniboy71 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't possibly agree more. This article is an embarrassment for Wikipedia, and demonstrates extreme political bias. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree as well. It promotes a false and far left ideology that Trump was responsible for something that he literally inherited, provable through court and news documents during the Obama administration, which is 100% verifiable unarguable fact. It's akin to making an article claiming Hitler was cryogenically frozen. It's absurd it's remained up for as long as it has.173.59.11.121 (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed should be deleted the policy began under the Obama administration very biased articl Scabrosus (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The policy of family separation continues to the present day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2BF0:7A80:6CD9:2637:7248:B6EA (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Family separations at the border do continue today, but that's NOT the zero tolerance policy. Those separations are for the same reasons they have always been done, for example when the parent is wanted for a felony, or when DHS suspects human trafficking or abuse. The zero tolerance policy ended by court order. If you have evidence otherwise, then please contact the courts.96.241.129.33 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Re my edit [25] that seems to have sparked a revert-war today:

I had found an appropriate and reliable source to replace the generally unreliable citation by Daily Wire, and I started to edit the content and discovered that this article had already covered the material. The article is quite rambling and the part about 'release whole families' and Flores case is already covered elsewhere in the article, which is why I deleted the part I did. The text just didn't add anything of value to the article and, frankly, just because Shapiro said something is not newsworthy/noteworthy in and of itself. Platonk (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)