→Requested move 20 June 2018: Your comment is so gross it should be removed as a BLP violation. |
|||
Line 213: | Line 213: | ||
::Huh? The [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/trump-blames-own-border-policy-on-democrats/ 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]]. [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] ([[User talk:Samboy|talk]]) 07:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
::Huh? The [https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/trump-blames-own-border-policy-on-democrats/ 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]]. [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 12:44, 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? [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 12:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::{{re|Samboy}} read the excerpt I posted in the previous discussion. I will not [[WP:HORSE|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. <span style="background-color:#cee">[[User:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#066;font-family:Symbol">w</span><span style="color:#066;font-family:Segoe Script">umbolo</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#37C;font-family:webdings">^^^</span>]] 15:10, 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. [[User:Mozzie|Mozzie]] ([[User talk:Mozzie|talk]]) 12:32, 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. [[User:Mozzie|Mozzie]] ([[User talk:Mozzie|talk]]) 12:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
* Keep at '''Trump administration family separation policy''': name is both short and descriptive. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 09:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
* Keep at '''Trump administration family separation policy''': name is both short and descriptive. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] ([[User talk:The Anome|talk]]) 09:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:11, 20 June 2018
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Needs to note Stephen Miller's influence
Per recent NY Times story.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- The whole history and evolution from Bush and Obama era policies, reported in that NYT article, should be covered here too in the 'History' section.--Pharos (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- We have something on Obama now, I think it would be good to add something on Bush. Trump's policy is a break from both of the them, and according to the NYT article the Bush administration considered but ultimately rejected this approach.--Pharos (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Article 31 of Refugee Convention
This is not "media criticism", the criticism has been raised by the Children’s Border Project. It also seems that Human Rights First has raised concern about violation of this article in relation to other Trump administration policies. This should be attributed differently, and we should probably look for something more like a UN condemnation.--Pharos (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I guess I've mostly dealt with it, though would prefer other sources too.--Pharos (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well done. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
"Trump's decision to enforce the current immigration law is . . ."
Has the statute or other law in question been identified? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's the normal law against unauthorized border crossings. In past administrations, parents were not usually detained for extended periods, and families were able to stay together until the case was resolved. "Zero tolerance" throws discretion in enforcement out the window.--Pharos (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- How unfortunate, that the family separation law is "current" or "normal" but nobody knows when or why it was made, or even whether it has a name. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Aha. "Technically, there is no Trump administration policy stating that illegal border crossers must be separated from their children. But the “zero tolerance policy” results in unlawful immigrants being taken into federal criminal custody, at which point their children are considered unaccompanied alien minors and taken away." -From the the Saturday June 16 NYTimes article cited elsewhere. So, the action apparently fits various old (still unidentified) acts and policies; it merely takes them to a logical conclusion, which previous US Administrations declined to reach lest it get them into trouble. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly, there is no change in the family separation policy, it actually is based on current law and a court ruling. What has changed is the enforcement of the law. To say that the Trump Administration has a family separation policy is disingenuous. I changed the article to a more neutral title.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to change the title, you should read WP:TITLE first and review sources, then request a move so that consensus can be determined. Sources extensively use "Trump administration family separation policy" and none that I can find use "Family separation of border crossers". - MrX 🖋 03:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Exactly, there is no change in the family separation policy, it actually is based on current law and a court ruling. What has changed is the enforcement of the law. To say that the Trump Administration has a family separation policy is disingenuous. I changed the article to a more neutral title.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Expand on move rationale
For anyone wondering, in the summary of my recent move, I was referring to this FactCheck.org article and to quote:
- Under the 1997 settlement, DHS could detain unaccompanied children captured at the border for only 20 days before releasing them to foster families, shelters or sponsors, pending resolution of their immigration cases. The settlement was later expanded through other court rulings to include both unaccompanied and accompanied children.
- The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 requires unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada to be placed in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, or relatives in the U.S., while they go through removal proceedings. The bipartisan bill was approved by unanimous consent and signed by Bush.
- [...] But neither the court settlement nor the 2008 law require the Trump administration to “break up families.” They require the government to release children from custody after a certain period of detainment, said Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. But they don’t require that parents continue to be held in immigration detention. “The government absolutely has the option to release the parents,” as well, Pierce said. That’s as long as they aren’t a flight or safety risk, she added.
Emphasis is mine. wumbolo ^^^ 13:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- The move from a descriptive term ("family separation policy") to the Trump administration's own branding ("zero tolerance") is absurd. I do not for the life of me understand what you think the FactCheck.org piece shows or has to do with the new title, despite the cherry-picked and misleading quotes. The FactCheck.Org piece makes abundantly clear that this is a policy that the administration is not required to do ("neither the court settlement nor the 2008 law require the Trump administration to “break up families.”") and that other administrations did not separate families ("Since at least the administration of George W. Bush, a Republican president, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has held many parents and children who crossed the border seeking asylum in family detention centers. Those families have been kept together until they go before an immigration judge or are formally removed from the U.S."). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
We're going to describe it by reliable sources, so let me list reliable sources:
- RS saying "zero tolerance policy" (only saying that in the article, or overwhelmingly saying that in the article): The Times ([2]), The New York Times ([3]), The Wall Street Journal ([4]), The Washington Post ([5] [6]), BBC ([7]), The New Yorker ([8]), Vogue ([9])
- RS saying "family separation policy" or "child separation policy" (only saying that in the article, or overwhelmingly saying that in the article): The Wall Street Journal ([10]), The Washington Post ([11])
- RS saying both in the same article, or merely saying "immigration policy" to stay neutral: The New York Times ([12], [13]), BBC ([14]), The New Yorker ([15]), Playboy ([16]), Time ([17])
- Note. I found a significant number of reliable sources that only say "separation policy" and not "child separation policy" or "family separation policy". All of these sources also say "zero tolerance policy" at some point in the article.
Please don't edit above, as I will be editing it so it doesn't end up in an edit conflict. wumbolo ^^^ 13:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I look forward to reading your arguments. - MrX 🖋 13:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- The way I see this, "family separation policy" (or practice) is part of the greater "zero tolerance policy", which in turn is part of the "greater immigration policy". I don't see the current title as non-neutral, and it is recognizable, natural, and reasonably precise, concise and consistent.- MrX 🖋 14:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree "Zero tolerance" fails at WP:PRECISE, as this term applies to the bulk of the administration's immigration policy, including rescission of DACA, etc.--Pharos (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Pharos: Do you have a reliable source that "zero tolerance" applies to DACA? wumbolo ^^^ 16:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Zero tolerance", like law and order, is an extremely generic term that Trump has been using in immigration rhetoric since 2016. I don't think it's particularly tied to DACA, but it is to his overall program, which is largely a reversal of aspects of selective enforcement.--Pharos (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Pharos: Do you have a reliable source that "zero tolerance" applies to DACA? wumbolo ^^^ 16:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Neutrality
Family separation policy? More like MEDIA CIRCUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoandri Dominguez Garcia: If you want to make any specific changes, please identify specific examples of bias with proposed text to change it to. Otherwise, this post is not constructive. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Its almost half the article so itll take time to point out Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 22:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)
The article has a lot of hearsay & punditry. This invalidates objectivity, especially as this is a CURRENT EVENT. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs)
This article is biased, literally from start to finish. Every other sentence is an NPOV or accuracy violation. NPOV-tag it immediately, so we can have time to improve it. 2601:248:8005:34C0:CA3:D6B6:AAF9:13F (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please point to at least one specific thing or I'm taking off that POV tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
NOTAGODDAMNFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yoandri Dominguez Garcia and 2601:248:8005:34C0:CA3:D6B6:AAF9:13F Please don't post vague complaints and sweeping generalizations. The talk page is for discussing specific edits to improve the article. - MrX 🖋 14:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Page view stats
don't seem to be working. Could this be fixed? Gandydancer (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- There are stats for yesterday. I'm not sure why the previous days are not showing up. You can report the issue here, but I suggest reading the instructions and being more descriptive than the previous poster.- MrX 🖋 14:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- The issue is that the page views tool does not take account of redirects. You can see a fuller picture here.-Pharos (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The Trump administration initially considered doing this in Feb 2017
Trump admin discussed separating moms, kids to deter asylum-seekers in Feb. 2017[18]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Even earlier. The NYT published a story on Dec. 21, 2017 [19] SlowJog (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Trump's reference to "that law"
@Muboshgu: re special:diff/846559594 is this possibly a matter of perspective and specifics? More specifics needed regarding what "that law" refers to. In 2014 it appears children were being handed over to DHHS, then at some unknown point it got changed, and by 2018 it got changed back? It's hard to follow, do you know any source explaining the specific dates when the DHHS > family detention > DHHS change happened? While it's true that the current administration widened the scope of crimes so that criminal prosecution applies to 1st-time offenders in addition to re-entries (instead of administrative/civil removal as an initial warning) which increases the number of jailed adults (and thus by extension, separation of jailed adults from minors found with them) we should also be looking at when/if policy changed regarding whether accompanying minors were put in jail with the adults they were with, or cared for by DHHS. ScratchMarshall (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Multiple sources say that Trump has falsely blamed the Democrats for the law. You would have to ask Trump what law he was referring to, but the rest of the planet is obviously referring to the enforcement policy enacted by Trump in April.- MrX 🖋 14:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @ScratchMarshall: Snopes to the rescue. The law is complicated, says and does various things. The Trump administration has changed the way the government enforces the law to enact these family separations. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also note was Politifact has to say about this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The article on Politifact by John Kruzel mentions "By law, when adults are detained and criminally prosecuted, their children cannot be housed with them in jail." Does anyone know when this law was passed and who passed it? It goes on to mention:
- "Obama generally refrained from prosecution in cases involving adults who crossed the border with their kids," said Peter Margulies, an immigration law and national security law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law.
So is there necessarily a "new law" here, or simply an enforcement of existing law? A comparison is also made to Bush's Operation Streamline:
- while the 2005 program referred all illegal immigrants for prosecution, it made exceptions for adults traveling with children.
Another thing from this Politifact article which may lead to an answer:
- In 2014, amid an influx of asylum seekers from Central America, the administration established large family detention centers to hold parents and children — potentially indefinitely — as a means of deterring other asylees. The practice eventually lost a legal challenge, resulting in a 2016 decision that stopped families from being detained together.
Does anyone know what this "2016 decision" refers to? Perhaps something we have in an article? ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on this 2014/2016 situation. I am learning quite a bit about the separation requirement. Per CNN: "A 1997 court settlement agreed to by the US government in a case called Flores v. Reno, which remains in effect today, requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to, in order of preference, parents, other adult relatives or licensed programs willing to accept custody. If children cannot be released, Flores requires the government to hold them in the "least restrictive" setting available. The 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, signed by President George W. Bush, codified parts of the settlement into federal law." I'm adding wikilinks here because I think these need pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Unless "Flores v. Reno" refers to Reno v. Flores? Which was in 1993. But the settlement was reached in 1997? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, this article talks a bit about what the Obama administration did in 2014. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I found some older articles about it...
- Carcamo, Cindy (6 July 2016). "U.S. must release child migrants held in family detention, court says". latimes.com.
President Obama's immigration policy was dealt another blow Wednesday when the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's opinion that child migrants who are accompanied by a parent and currently in family detention should be quickly released. It left the fate of the parents up in the air, however. The case centers on a 1997 legal settlement — known as the Flores agreement — that set legal requirements for the housing of children seeking asylum or in the country illegally. ee In July 2015, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles found the government had violated key provisions of the court settlement that put restrictions on the detention of migrant children.
- Morales, Claudia (2 November 2016). "Families crossing the border: 'We are not criminals'". cnn.com.
So far in 2016 there have been a total of 44,558 recorded bookings in family detention.
But I'm not sure which Wikipedia article (if any) describes the autumn 2016 controversy. Immigration_detention_in_the_United_States#Immigration_detention_under_Obama only covers up to 2015. It does sound like this was more a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Perhaps Trump is referring to the fact that Dolly M. Gee was appointed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 2009 by Obama?
I can't find a Flores agreement article for the 1997 legal agreement yet. 2014_American_immigration_crisis#From_the_public mentions Flores v. Meese but the source it cites https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/aclu_irp_legal_backgrounder_on_children_july_2014_final.pdf says "the 1996 settlement agreement in Flores v. Meese" so there may be some inconsistency here between LA Times and ACLU on whether this case was 1997 or 1996. Perhaps 1996 was when the case began and 1997 was when the settlement finalized? https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/immigrants/flores_v_meese_agreement.pdf ends with a pair of Jan'97 and Nov'96 sigs, which could explain the confusion. Given recent events it seems that both this 96/97 case and the subsequent 2016 case it influenced (still reaching for a name) could benefit from articles. Anyone have experience starting trial stubs?
I think you might be right about this being related to Reno. ACLU's "flores_v_meese_agreement.pdf" says Janet Reno is the defendent. I'm not really sure who Meese refers to yet, searching document for that word being used... this is a bit of a reach but I noticed on page 22:
- For Defendants: Signed ???? Meissner Title: Commissioner, INS Dated 9/16/96
It was hard to read the signature, but searching for INS Commissioners called Meissner I got Doris_Meissner#Tenure_as_INS_Commissioner_(1993_to_2000) so I think it's clear that's who signed for the defendants, despite page 1 listing only "Reno .. et al".
I think perhaps because there was already a 1993 "Flores v Reno" they chose to call this "Flores v. Meissner" instead, and the ACLU's pdf perhaps erroneously wrote "Meese" instead of "Meissner"? I won't jump to assuming this was ACLU though. https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=9493 for example mentions:
- Case Name Flores v. Reno [later Meese, Johnson, Kelly, Sessions]
If this is a single case and Flores v. Reno only describes the 1993 incarnation, if Meese was 96/97 it makes me wonder what years the Johnson/Kelly/Sessions versions happened and if we also have coordinate articles like Flores v. Johnson, Flores v. Kelly, or Flores v. Sessions to explain those. If not separate articles, if such names are used they could possibly redirect to new sections on the "v. Reno" article which seems to mostly focus on just the 1993 version and not mention these other names...
Hm actually I'm beginning to think these are entirely different cases, 93's Reno v. Flores has Reno as plaintiff and Flores as defendant, the 96/97 appears to swap that with Reno (then others) as Defendant and Flores as plaintiff. I guess this is like a countersuit?
I'm now considering the Meissner > Meese assumption based on this:
- Kamen, Al (16 June 1993). "WATCHING THE WALLS AT JUSTICE". Washington Post.
Meanwhile, five months after Inauguration Day, INS legal matters are being handled by general counsel Grover Joseph Rees III, who dates from the department of Edwin Meese III.
My bolding for emphasis. There's clearly an Edwin Meese but he left office in 1988 so I'm not sure how he'd be involved in a 1993 suit 5 years later, much less 1996. Grover_Rees_III#Chief_Justice_of_the_High_Court describes activities from 1986-1991 then 1995-2001 so there is a 1992-1994 gap where involvement in a 1993 suit (and subsequent countersuit) could fit. "Rees" seems just as close to "Meese" as "Meissner" is. I'm wondering if we can find an earlier source than 28 June 2011 of ACLU or anybody else calling this case "vs. Meese", perhaps that could provide context. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- We currently have the article Reno v. Flores (not Flores v. Reno). --Chris Howard (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- About the 1993 and 1997 dates, it seems that the 1997 settlement was in fact a follow-up of the 1993 decision: "The Supreme Court ruled the children had no constitutional right to be released to unrelated adults in a 6-3 opinion, but because detention standards remained substandard, a fight continued until the government agreed to a national settlement in 1997" [20]. --Chris Howard (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Building on that...
- "When Migrant Children Were Detained Among Adults, Strip Searched". nbcnews.com. 24 July 2014.
The center sued with Jenny as one of four named plaintiffs in what late became the Flores v. Reno case.
Here "Flores v. Reno" is a link to https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_10-117_Sep10.pdf published 9 September 2010. Page 1 says:
- The Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement governs the policy forthe treatment of unaccompanied alien children in federal custody.
The table of contents mentions "CBP’s Compliance With Terms of the Flores Agreement" and we can see on page 2:
- These individuals must be treated according to provisions of the Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement (Flores Agreement), which set forth policy for the
detention, treatment, and release of minors in CBP custody.
This establishes Flores Agreement as a supported government abbreviation, the only difference from LA Times being the uppercasing of the A. If we were to have an article about this agreement/Agreement what are people's thoughts on what the primary name should be? Should it be the full "v. Reno Settlement" or just use the first/last word as parenthesized? I'm thinking if the "v." did change from Reno to others as time went on that omitting the defendant surname might be a good idea. ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why not just make a new section at the bottom of Reno v. Flores, and split it off as it grows?--Pharos (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Firstly because I'm not sure it really counts as part of the original case, since plaintiff/defendant seem swapped. Plus the growing confusion on what to title such a section/article. @The Anome: just redlinked Flores v. Lynch in addition to the above titles, based on the following:
- Mallonee, Mary (March 3, 2017). "DHS considering proposal to separate children from adults at border". CNN. Retrieved June 18, 2018.
Fresco also said the impetus for the change is the Flores v. Lynch court case, which held that the government is required to release minors from detention expeditiously even if they are accompanied by their parents, not just if they're unaccompanied
This has me further confused since Lynch doesn't appear in the title of https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-CA-0002-0005.pdf despite it using a more informative title than the ACLU ("Flores v. Reno [later Meese, Johnson, Kelly, Sessions] - Stipulated Settlement Agreement"). Where does L fit in the RMJKS (Reno>Meese>Johnson>Kelly>Sessions) ordering? Further reason to just call the section "Flores agreement" or "Flores agreement" I guess? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have started a section at Reno v. Flores#1997 settlement agreement, and also have some subsequent developments there, feel free to expand.--Pharos (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Congressional Republicans
There are no mentions beyond Susan Collins. We should have both support and opposition. I think maybe Cruz, Sasse, Graham, Ryan, would be people to consider for inclusion as well.--Pharos (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Template:Strong support Just including Susan Collins gives undue weight to her, especially if the perspective of the Speaker of the House is left out. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Sound clip of children crying
Anyone know what the copyright status of that sound clip (originally posted here [21]) of children crying while Border Patrol makes jokes is? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- According to that article, it was provided to Jennifer Harbury by an anonymous client, who passed it to ProPublica. ProPublica posts its stories under a (restrictive) CC license, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility to ask permission from them, but I think it might be too much with a secret recording and a secret recorder. Probably we can get more multimedia (photos, etc) out of the federal government, which we already have some of on this article.--Pharos (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- There might be a case for justifying an excerpt from the sound clip as fair use, as minimal usage, historically important, and for the purposes of comment and identification, under Wikipedia's fair use policy. -- The Anome (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- That wouldn't fly under fair use. You'd have to both: 1) Demonstrate that the topic of "Trump administration family separation policy" cannot be satisfactorily demonstrated without the media, and 2) That no other, perhaps worse quality or less significant, media couldn't suitable demonstrate the topic either. That'd be nearly impossible.--v/r - TP 00:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- There might be a case for justifying an excerpt from the sound clip as fair use, as minimal usage, historically important, and for the purposes of comment and identification, under Wikipedia's fair use policy. -- The Anome (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I emailed them and asked if they will release it for Wikipedia’s use. Hopefully.Casprings (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 20 June 2018
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.[22][23][24] 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)
- @Fdansv: how about Trump administration enforcement of Bush and Obama administrations family separation policy? wumbolo ^^^ 06:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Current title is fine for now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. - MrX 🖋 12:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Things that the lede should preferably cover
Things that the lede should preferably cover:
- The various and shifting rationales and statements by administration officials about the policy. From Kelly and Miller's assertions that the policy is wise because it deters to Sessions' and Sanders' arguments that its biblical to Nielsen's claim that there is no policy.
- Fact-checkers clarifying that the policy is new and that the administration is not required to do it.
- The fiscal costs associated with the policy.
- The health impact on the children per experts. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Tender Age Shelters TAS
I I am of the thinking that a separate article for tender age shelters would be appropriate. Wikipietime (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure yet, but coincidentally, moments ago I just redirected Tender age shelter to this article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)