Talk:Trump administration family separation policy

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)

Separating children isn't the policy. Despite the rhetoric that media "sources" are spouting. The change is policy is to immediately detain and prosecute those who cross the border illegally rather than releasing them with future court dates. Thus all minors that are with them become unaccompanied alien minors as per HR 5005/Public Law 107-296 and as per HR 5005/Public Law 107-296 they are to be detained until a proper care giver or guardian can be found. Since that is difficult due to language barriers, lack of documentation, and inability to verify information (as well as the volume of people) we have the current issue. Alternatively we could detain the minors with their parents but that would mean actually imprisoning kids and it would no longer satisfy the definitions set for in sec 462 of HR 5005. Then you run into issues with the Flores Agreement (more so than now). The only other solutions are to simply immediately deport all crossers (put catch them and put them on a bus heading back a few hours later) or return to catch and release which is essentially open borders style (illegal) immigration. Again without documentation it is near impossible to follow up with release people to ensure they show up to court hearings - even if there was a good chance they could claim amnesty and not face deportation.OttoVfrank (talk) 17:21, 21 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)

 Done I am done with adding reliable sources to my list above. wumbolo ^^^ 14:34, 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)

I believe this is also relevant here. HR 5005 Nov 25, 2002 Sec 462 gives power to the Director of The Office of Refugee Settlement of The Department of Health and Human Services to place unaccompanied alien minors in detention facilities until a proper caretaker or guardian can be found. With the end of catch and release, all adults are arrested and by definition the minors then become unaccompanied minors. The policy is an end to catch and release where now violators are arrested and by consequence of the law they are now separated. See https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf otherwise known as public law 107-296 (alt soruce https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/5005). So the title should be change to reflect the policy was not "we are going to separate families" the policy was "we are going to prosecute all who illegally cross the border". The policy simply has legal consequences.OttoVfrank (talk) 16:20, 21 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)

This report from NPR addresses some of the Flores rulinghttps://www.npr.org/2018/06/20/621489166/family-separation-is-trumps-immigration-policy-here-s-why-he-won-t-own-it ([[--GDevi17745 (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)]]) Excuse me if this is all done wrongly; I am learning how to edit on talk page for a wikipedia training module.

HR 5005 Nov 25, 2002 Sec 462 gives power to the Director of The Office of Refugee Settlement of The Department of Health and Human Services to place unaccompanied alien minors in detention facilities until a proper caretaker or guardian can be found. With the end of catch and release, all adults are arrested and by definition the minors then become unaccompanied minors. The policy is an end to catch and release where now violators are arrested and by consequence of the law they are now separated. See https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf otherwise known as public law 107-296 (alt soruce https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/5005). So the title should be change to reflect the policy was not "we are going to separate families" the policy was "we are going to prosecute all who illegally cross the border". The policy simply has legal consequences. OttoVfrank (talk) 15:53, 21 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)

I emailed them and asked if they will release it for Wikipedia’s use. Hopefully.Casprings (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

ProPublica uploaded the sound clip to YouTube under a CC attribution license making it fair game as far as I can tell. ~Awilley (talk) 20:46, 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)
    • 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)

• 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)

• 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.[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)

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)
• 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)

• 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)
• 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. Neutrality^talk 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. ^Falling_Gravity 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. ^Falling_Gravity 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)

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 [25] (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)

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)

I think that these are all good ideas and I did add a couple of criticisms re the children's health but the lead is already fairly long and I don't see how there is room for much more. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose- the current lead is fine. Leads are supposed to be a overview, not include details or statements. Furthermore, they are supposed to be neutral, not push a certain narrative.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• The first sentence - that whole paragraph - is terrible. It needs to be broken down. I think rational should certainly get a mention ans should a general timeline, including the sudden public outcry and the ostensible reversal via executive order. It would also be good to give some sense of the two sides of the debate. Perhaps fiscal costs doesn't need to be there, and maybe not the effects on children as well. Mozzie (talk) 08:34, 21 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)

Trump to jail kids with parents

It looks like the new plan is to jail the kids with the parents. Might need to change title to reflect this. https://nyti.ms/2I7wWAA?smid=nytcore-ios-share Casprings (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be a different, and in some ways opposite policy, see - Family detention and Family Detention Practices in the International Context, from the Women's Refugee Commission. It might well call for a new article.--Pharos (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be different, more closely related to this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

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: [26] (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)

Discussion at talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?

 You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the immigration section include material about Trump's family separation policy?. - MrX 🖋 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Meaning of family unit

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states mentions:

family units (defined as a parent, typically a mother, traveling with children)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/18/how-to-mislead-with-statistics-dhs-secretary-nielsen-edition/ mentions:

46 cases of fraud — “individuals using minors to pose as fake family units” — in fiscal 2017, the period from October 2016 through September 2017

Does the phrase fake family unit (the quote sounds like Bump is saying this originates from DHS, would be interested in seeing if we can find it in use in official DHS document) have an antonym? Something like "verified family unit"?

Whatever you would call an FFU (VFU or otherwise) what is the appropriate hypernym for such terms?

This JPG has the phrase "Southwest border family-unit apprehensions" at the top of it, so the proper term might be family-unit with a hyphen rather than family unit in official DHS vernacular, so the proper FFU stylization might be fake family-unit instead. I would be interested in knowing if we could identify what docuent this image is from.

Regarding the meaning of this bar chart. Since it totals "apprehensions" do the totals used to construct the bars include the "fake family unit" population or not? In encountering arguments that these numbers reflect VERIFIED families I think it is important to know that. If the bars include FFU this means that the bars do not mean that.

FMUA short for Family Unit Aliens may be the official term to use based on this...

• Vitiello, Ronald (23 February 2016). "The Unaccompanied Children Crisis: Does the Administration Have a Plan to Stop the Border Surge and Adequately Monitor the Children?". Apprehensions of Family Unit Aliens (FMUA), consisting of children who are apprehended with one or more parent or legal guardian, were approximately 68,445 in FY 2014; in FY 2015, CBP apprehended over 39,838. FMUA generally kept together unless one member of the family group is deemed harmful to another member.

I'd be curious if we could figure out how far back the FMUA initialism has been used, what its criteria were when first established, and if they have changed over time. This seems valuable in understanding fluctuating policies on family detention. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Forcible drugging of children.

Reports are emerging that children being detained in these facilities are improperly being forcible injected or otherwise administered drugs to control their behavior. See, e.g., Camila Domonoske, Richard Gonzales, "What We Know: Family Separation And 'Zero Tolerance' At The Border", NPR (June 19, 2018); Matt Smith and Aura Bogado, "Immigrant children forcibly injected with drugs at Texas shelter, lawsuit claims", Texas Tribune (June 20, 2018). This should probably be addressed. bd2412 T 20:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. This goes from bad to worse. If this is real and can be corroborated, it most certainly needs to be addressed here. The NPR cite's only reference to this is the quote "some advocates say certain facilities improperly administer psychotropic medications."; the Texas Tribune article goes into much more detail. A court case is mentioned: are the court documents public? -- The Anome (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: This is the link given in the Texas Tribune article: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4525292-420-2-Exhibit-Vol-2-Exs-21-30-Pages-109-73.html -- The Anome (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"Jesus Christ" doesn't even begin to describe it. This is utterly shocking.- MrX 🖋 21:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional source: [27] [28]. A fly-by-night IP account is trying to remove this info from the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Where does the NPR source talk about forcible injections? The other sources listed are low quality. 205.251.151.42 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A pending lawsuit alleges immigrant children housed there were held down and forcibly injected with drugs, rendering them unable to walk, afraid of people and wanting to sleep constantly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't the quality or volume of sources; it's that all the sources are reporting on a single lawsuit. As long as the content added is clear about this, the material should be fine with only the Texas Tribune as source (it's not a high-circulation newspaper but is generally reliable); another source to demonstrate "mainstream coverage" for notability would also be appropriate. I support including this material, but don't see a need to revert this until the page is semi-protected. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove it if it was clear they're allegations in a single lawsuit not fact or investigative reporting. Does one lawsuit really deserve its own section though? 205.251.151.42 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

More sources: [29], [30].Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

While these are still unproven allegations at this point, I think there is now sufficient reporting on this from WP:RS to meet the notability criteria for mentioning the existence of the allegations. I foresee a lot of investigative journalists descending on Texas in the next few days. -- The Anome (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

More sources [31].Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there any other articles this might intersect with? Forcible drugging of minors in any other law enforcement situations? http://www.aapsonline.org/press/sellback.htm for example mentions "Is it an appropriate use of the state's power to allow CPS to forcibly medicate children against the parent's wishes? Several instances have been reported to AAPS, one from a woman who has fled the country rather than allow her child to be medicated with Ritalin." Not sure if there's enough for a broader or separate article yet. ScratchMarshall (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This was a rather draconian edit, IMO

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Trump_administration_family_separation_policy&diff=846805660&oldid=846799993

but rather than revert it, I thought I'd toss it here to discuss. IMO the lede should not be cut so much.

It seems like a good faith edit by a new editor. Some material was trimmed from the lead and some was added. I'm not sure what the concern is.- MrX 🖋 01:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I do sympathize with the idea that the intro was getting over-long. We want something digestible to readers, though I'm not necessarily endorsing this cut.--Pharos (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It went from too long to too short, IMO soibangla (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

14 year olds say they were left nude in concrete cells

Immigrant children as young as 14 housed at a juvenile detention center in Virginia say they were beaten while handcuffed and locked up for long periods in solitary confinement, left nude and shivering in concrete cells. Needs adding: https://apnews.com/afc80e51b562462c89907b49ae624e79 Casprings (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It just keeps on going. Words fail me. -- The Anome (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The key word is "say" of course. The development specialist "never witnessed staff abuse teens first-hand". This also says "lawyers for the detention facility have denied all allegations of physical abuse." We should wait until the July 3rd hearing in Virginia to be reported on before following up. ScratchMarshall (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not related to this article. As noted in the article "They were not the children who have been separated from their families under the Trump administration’s recent policy and are now in the government’s care." PackMecEng (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This may very well not be related to the policy, and regardless, we have to be very careful with how we treat this information. Juvenile detention is for incarceration of criminals, and in some cases, incorrigible children. That is way different than separating innocent children from their parents. - MrX 🖋 13:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding that, does anyone know at what age minors can be held accountable for the crime of illegal immigration? I'm not sure what the earliest is that they've pressed charges for it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Are hypothetical figures relevant?

In the article it says: "If the policy had continued, an estimated 30,000 children could have been detained by August 2018." In my opinion that hypothetical figure is not a good representation of what has happened actually, therefore I propose removing that sentence and merging with the following paragraph that states the estimate of separated children. Any issue with that? --Micru (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that seems fine to me. Perhaps we could put in a figure for the growth rate at the point the policy was amended, to replace it. -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the use of including a projection like that, as it assumes without evidence that the policy would be logistically sustainable to that point. It would be better to show the rate of growth of separate detention up until the practice is ended. Note that the practice is continuing for already-separated families, despite the executive order, which represents a plateau for the time being. bd2412 T 11:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind dropping the projection from the lede. It's OK in the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the line (with references) from the lead, as there seems to be an agreement to do that.--Micru (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Why add estimates that could not happen? Seems like rather useless information. PackMecEng (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Because it explains what the policy would do if implemented. We frequently cover estimates and projections by credible sources on things that have not actually been implemented yet (e.g. AHCA, Brexit, legalization of undocumented immigrants). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The what if does not matter at this point, also looks like the sources supporting it are from before the change that made their guesses irrelevant. PackMecEng (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually it does. This isn't going away. Either Congress passes a law, which isn't going to happen, or 20 days are up at which point Trump's EO comes into conflict with existing law (probably purposefully), at which point it's either back to family separations or status quo-ante (unlikely, given Sessions and Miller's continued influence on the policy making process).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well if/when that happens we can address it. As the situation sits right now, it is not relevant. I doubt there is any real will pretty much anywhere to get a permanent fix it looks like. Sad PackMecEng (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure. But as far a the text itself, I don't see a problem with it being in the body of the article, though yeah it shouldn't be in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

What happens in 20 days? Does some existing law change on July 10th? ScratchMarshall (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump administration will stop prosecuting migrant parents who cross the border illegally with children, official says?

I think this is the white flag.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/06/21/trump-administration-will-stop-prosecuting-migrant-parents-who-cross-the-border-illegally-with-children-official-says/ Casprings (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The URL says "stop prosecuting" but the actual title on display phrases "stop referring ... for prosecution". Is there any subtle difference in meaning here? Of course that's all dependent on whether or not BP is able to confirm parenthood, and "parent" may not necessarily include "guardian". There's also no indication as to who the "senior U.S. Customs and Border Protection official" is, or when (by what date) the word "will" refers to. Within a week? Within a decade? WashPo is quick to jump on anything for clickbait but until we get more specifics it doesn't really seem that significant. I'd be more interested in the executive order they linked to from previous day https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-signs-order-ending-his-policy-of-separating-families-at-the-border-but-reprieve-may-be-temporary/2018/06/20/663025ae-74a0-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html?utm_term=.3da76a5bf0dd which also raises the question, if this happens, for how long? Stop prosecuting for a day, a week, a month, a year? Category:Executive_orders_of_Donald_Trump only goes up to Executive Order 13813 from October 2017, I'd like to find out the number of this one. It definitely sounds significant enough for an article, but most sources I find reporting on it just refer to "an executive number" without a number or title. Reading the order (whatever its number is) at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affording-congress-opportunity-address-family-separation/ this part stands out when defining the term alien child "has a legal parent-child relationship to an alien who entered the United States with the alien child at or between designated ports of entry and who was detained". This presumably means to apply that classification, for there to be a "legal parent-child relationship", would require some level (which I do not know) of legal argument/proof. I'd like to know if any sources have yet announced the criteria used by the US Border Patrol to assess a "legal relationship". ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:34, 21 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.