Feinstein, Democrats Offer Child Separation Fix That Has Unintended(?) Consequences

Obviously, the Democrats are using the separation of illegal alien kids as a wedge issue going into the 2018 mid-terms. They sure didn’t care when the same was being done quietly under Obama, such as when the media took a tour of a facility back in 2014

The media doesn’t want you to see things like that. But, now, Dems and their pet media are Concerned. Because it also helps deflect from the potential denuclearizing of North Korea and the Inspector General report on FBI misconduct. And now we get

Report: Diane Feinstein’s Immigration Bill Would Prevent Almost Every Federal Arrest

Every single Senate Democrat has backed a bill by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would effectively prevent authorities from arresting illegal aliens within 100 miles of the U.S. border.

In the words of moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Feinstein’s “Keep Families Together Act” would “essentially prevent arrest within 100 miles of the border, even if the person has committed a serious crime or is suspected of terrorist activities.”

For that reason, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has called Feinstein’s bill the “Child Trafficking Encouragement Act,” since it would create incentives for illegal aliens to cross the border with children to evade arrest by authorities.

If you’ve lost super-squish Collins, you’ve lost all Republicans.

A new analysis by Gabriel Malor of The Federalist points out an additional problem: thanks, he says, to sloppy drafting, the bill would effectively prevent federal law enforcement from arresting anyone in most of the U.S.

Every Senate Democrat has now signed on to cosponsor a bill written so carelessly that it does not distinguish between migrant children at the border and U.S. citizen children already within the United States. The bill further does not distinguish between federal officers handling the border crisis and federal law enforcement pursuing the ordinary course of their duties.

With the GOP in control of the Senate, there’s no way this passes, and will most likely never make it out of committee (Mitch McConnell would actually be wise in bringing it to the floor quickly, putting Democrats on record as supporting this abomination).

But, really, Democrats do not want it passed. Sure, there’s a possibility that this was just a poorly crafted piece of legislation put together in a hurry. Most likely, they know exactly what’s in it, and will grandstand on it. They know the finer nuances of the legislation will not be explained in the media, and that most people will only see that it stops the separation.

Schumer doesn’t want the duly elected legislative branch to debate and pass law. Weird, eh?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

25 Responses to “Feinstein, Democrats Offer Child Separation Fix That Has Unintended(?) Consequences”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    Not again.

    The current law in place that is promoting the liberal tantrum was passed in 2008 by the 110th Congress. The title of the bill is “H.R.7311 – William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.”

    The bill passed in the Senate on 12/10/2008 by “unanimous consent” and passed in the House on the same day “without objection.” https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/7311/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs …

    Aaannnd here are a few notable members from the cast of relevant characters who voted for the bill and passed it into law:

    Representatives that allowed its passage: AZ: Jeff Flake. CA: Adam Schiff, Xavier Becerra, Brad Sherman, and Maxine Waters. CT: Chris Murphy. FL: Corine Brown, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. GA: John Lewis. IL: Jesse L Jackson, Jr. MA: John Conyers. MN: Keith Ellison. NY: Jerrold Nadler, Anthony Weiner, Charles Rangel, Kirsten Gillibrand, Louise Slaughter. OH: Dennis Kucinich. TX: Al Green, Sheila Jackson Lee.

    That’s the important Representatives to remember.

    Senators on the list: CA: Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer. DE: Joe Biden. FL: Bill Nelson. IL: Dick Durbin. MO: Claire McCaskill. NV: Harry Reid. NY: Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton. VT: Patrick Leahy, Bernie Sanders.

    Well, Well, Well.
    #6 Aggie on 2018-06-20 00:20

    Ahem… https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  2. Professor Hale says:

    We already know that illegal immigrants are kidnapping children to use as shields in their crossing attempts. If they knew we had a rule like this, there would be a child rental service with convenient branches all along the border.

    We already know that really bad people import minors to be sex slaves in immigrant communities, where such third world practices are still considered an OK way to make a living.

    The only way to protect children is to separate them from the adults they are with until their paternity and identity can be established.

    The really amazing thing is how so many democrats and their followers are blindly supporting child exploitation and human trafficking, then just a few years ago, they claimed they were universally against it. What has changed to get so many democrats to completely forget they had this core value such a short time ago?

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    . “We have to send a clear message: just because your child gets across the border, doesn’t mean your child gets to stay. We don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or that will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”

    — Hillary (The Heifer) 2014 https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_scratch.gif


  4. drowningpuppies says:

    “Do not send your children to the border,” Obama said. “The problem is that under current law, once those kids come across the border, there is a system in which we’re supposed to process them, take care of them until we can send them back.

    — Loose Shoes


  5. Jeffery says:

    The previous administration did not separate children from parents. They DID detain them as families. And even if the previous administration DID (they did not) would that make it acceptable for the current administration?

    If you support the US government taking children from border crossers as a deterrent, just say so.


    The current president has taken 2000 children from their parents in just over 1 month. Although he is a master manipulator of both the media and the people, this may be a political miscalculation on his part. Folks are blaming him for abusing these children – they are not blaming Congress.

    The administration’s new policy was to separate the children from their parents to 1) deter future border crossings (admitted) and 2) force Congress to accede to his wishes wrt immigration (obvious).

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The previous administration did not separate children from parents.

      Incorrect. Again.


      Learn something.

    • david7134 says:

      No, Jeff, you are lying again. Obama did separate families and the pictures that you see are most from 2014. The child behind a cage is from a protest. The children that are not with their parents for the most part were picked up at illegal border crossings, like in the desert. These are children that are being trafficked. You have been coming here for several years, it would seem that you would know that the people who read this blog are informed, make yourself informed as well and quit lying.

  6. Nighthawk says:

    Families are not separated unless the adults are being adjudicated of a crime, status as the child’s parent/guardian cannot be determined, the ‘adult’ poses a danger to the child or the ‘adult’ is suspected of engaging in human trafficking.

    So either Obama policies did, in fact, separate families until they were sure it was safe for the children to be reunited with their parents or his admin was just releasing these people into the country with the children they arrived with and very likely putting those children at serious risk. You may be OK with this, but I would much rather make sure these children are really with their parents and that being with them will not put them in danger.

    In you little screed, you left out one very important word: ILLEGAL. These policies are designed to discourage ILLEGAL border crossings. It was Obama’s Catch and Release policy that exacerbated this problem. When people found out that they could cross the border illegally with a child, if they were caught, they would likely be released. This just opened to door for more human trafficking, drug dealers, gang members and incentive for parents to sell their children to border crossers.

    Want to talk about what is more inhumane? Compare simply catching and releasing illegal crossers not knowing if the children they are with will be safe or hold these people in a safe facility where they have food, water and health care until it can be determined that they will be safe with the adult they came with.


    This guy had heard that if he and his son illegally crossed the border. If caught, they would be released and he would be living in the US. Instead, he was detained. They processed him while his son was housed in a facility with others his own age. This guy spent $6000 to a smuggler to come to the US. The good thing is, that he and his son were reunited within 36 hours and the were sent to Florida while waiting for his asylum request to be processed. He wasn’t charged with illegal entry and was released with his son because he has no criminal record and this was his first time entering the US illegally.

    He could have saved himself and his son a lot of trouble and money by simply going to a port of entry and asking for asylum. He would have been processed, vetted and allowed entry and have his son with him the whole time.

    • Professor Hale says:

      If he had any brains at all, and a clean criminal background, he could have got a tourist visa, a first class ticket on Delta and traveled in style for a lot less money, then just overstayed his visa.

      • Nighthawk says:

        Or, after doing that, just request asylum when he got to that legal port of entry.

  7. Jeffery says:

    It’s all moot… for now.

    Trump just signed an Executive Order ending his separation policy.



    Did Sessions and DHS Sec Nielson enact the policy without Trump’s knowledge, or did he bow to political pressure? Did the GOP persuade him that this was poison for November?

  8. Jeffery says:

    Yikes. Trump, the far-right, Pravda FOX, and the administration spend a week defending snatching immigrant kids from their parents, and then Trump kneecaps his supporters with an Executive Order.

    If it was good policy, why stop it?

    • Nighthawk says:

      It was a good policy. But now, by keeping ‘families’, if they really are families, together the very real possibility that we will be leaving children in the clutches of abusers, traffickers and predators is now much greater. Sad that you and your ilk wished for this and will now celebrate this as a win. Then, 6 months to a year from now, when children are being abused, raped or sold into sexual slavery, you will be blaming Trump again.

  9. Jeffery says:

    I’m not a lawyer, so can someone point out the language in the text of the proposed bill where the authorities are prevented from taking children from parents anywhere in the US or where it prevents authorities from arresting presumed criminals within 100 miles of the border or anywhere in the US?



    (a) In general.—An agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian, at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States, unless one of the following has occurred:
    (1) A State court, authorized under State law, terminates the rights of a parent or legal guardian, determines that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian, in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89), or makes any similar determination that is legally authorized under State law.
    (2) An official from the State or county child welfare agency with expertise in child trauma and development makes a best interests determination that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian because the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to herself or others.
    (3) The Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director in their official and undelegated capacity, authorizes separation upon the recommendation by an agent or officer, based on a finding that—
    (A) the child is a victim of trafficking or is at significant risk of becoming a victim of trafficking;
    (B) there is a strong likelihood that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian of the child; or
    (C) the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to themselves or others.

  10. Jl says:

    Can somebody point to me why the Dems didn’t “fix” the the immigration problem as they saw to it by law, not executive order, when the had super-majorities in Congress? Whoops, they didn’t, so the rest is all hypocrisy. Nothing new

Pirate's Cove