Search the Lounge


« "Two days before a hearing that could have set him free, the courthouse shut down. Now inmates like LaRon Warren wait, as they try to dodge coronavirus." | Main | I'll Be Your Baby Tonight »

June 19, 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


From CNN:

" Under Obama, children were separated from parents only when authorities had concerns for their well-being or could not confirm that the adult was in fact their legal guardian, but not as a blanket policy."

Translation: It happened.

"On Tuesday, the President also claimed "cages" were built by Obama to house migrant children. ...

Facts First: This appears to be true but requires context."

Translation: It's true.

It is the case, is it not, that when a mother who is a US citizen is arrested, minor children are sometimes thereby deprived of her care? Or, in cases of abuse? Or, sex trafficking, which is sometimes, cruelly perpetrated by parents: should we "separate" the children?

It is legitimate to question a blanket "no tolerance" approach to the questions arising out of family separation when children are legitimately accompanied by a parent.

And, of course, mothers with minor children should be afforded consideration of harm to children caused by authorities charged with enforcing the law. "Family detention" doesn't work either. (Lubet argues that enforcement of border laws equals enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, so, there's that.)

When confronted with a big influx in 2014, the Obama folks did enforce the law. The Obama folks did some stuff that we didn't like as well (do some research, please).

Did Lubet at that time say that they were doing the same thing as those who enforced the Fugitive Slave Act? There was a difference of scope in 2018, but not a difference in the treatment itself in many cases.


So, where does Lubet mention that?

Instead, this: "the sale of human beings in the 1840s, [is] eerily similar scenario is playing out today in the Southwest [because of Trump."

What is the word we would use to characterize this sort of claim?


When a "scholar" writes something, and leaves out controlling authority and precedent on purely political grounds, we no longer can call this "scholarship." And, this is not "truth."

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad