That's an excellent question... Nice to see some intelligence on this discussion for a change. I read your question last night, but then it was time to watch/celebrate the Golden State Warriors taking the NBA title again (who can have an intelligent conversation at a time like that?) ;)

If I got this idea from a single source it would be easy to just link it, but I didn't. I arrived at this conclusion through my own lay understanding of the law. So, now (with a slight hang over) I will attempt to explain... It's a complicated bit of law so bear with me...

First, let me say that I spent a good deal of time trying to find the law that says it IS a crime to cross the border and it's weirdly difficult to track that down, so I can see how some in Congress are questioning that assumption. But whether or not "improper entry" is a crime or a civil infraction has no bearing on my earlier statement which is based on a legal concept called "Defense of Infancy".

This concept originally appeared in English Common Law in a document called doli incapax. Basically, it's the argument that children who are not old enough to understand the crime the are being charged with can't be found guilty of committing it. So now you know where I'm going with this.

This concept has been adapted by the laws of 80 countries including the U.S. where it finds a basis in the 8th Amendment, which itself is an almost exact copy of a provision in the English Bill of Rights.

"Excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
- English Bill of Rights 1689


"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
- U.S. Bill of Rights 1791

So this is vague... But the Constitution, following the tradition of English Common Law, is vague by design so as to allow more discretion on the part of the courts where legal precedents are set, so let's get to that.

Supreme Court of the United States of America : 2004
Roper v. Simmons (No. 03-633)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/03-633#summary

Generally, this was a case where a 17 year old in Missouri murdered someone and was therefore sentenced to death. The defense appealed to the Supreme Court with the argument that the previous rulings were a violation of the 8th Amendment, calling the execution of a person who was 17 years old when the crime was committed "cruel and unusual punishment"... The Supreme Court upheld the argument in 2005.

Now, when I read this I was more inclined to disagree, thinking that by 17 you ought to know that murdering someone is wrong, but the case nevertheless makes my point, that a vague concept like the Defense of Infancy is made relevant by the 8th Amendment and affirmed by the Supreme Court, thereby creating a precedent.

If the Defense of Infancy can let a 17-year old literally get away with murder, I don't see any reason why it couldn't save someone from being punished for staying with his mom when he was four. Now, there's another concept that really needs to be introduced here called a "national consensus" where the Supreme Court will draw on a multitude of precedents set by lower court decisions. The purpose of the national consensus is keep the laws relevant to contemporary views. The Supreme Court used the national consensus to confirm whether or not the punishment is indeed "cruel and unusual".

There is another legal concept called "Minimum Age of Criminal Liability" which codifies the Defense of Infancy with a straight forward law and an specified age... in most countries in the world. The UN passed a resolution that all member nations follow this rule and every nation agreed except two... Somalia and the U.S. However, 13 states HAVE established minimum ages, while the remaining 37 default to the national law, which I have seen expressed as age 11, but I have yet to find the law that actually confirms that. So, it seems to me that any defense of infancy will have to rely on national consensus.

Of course the national consensus would be a stronger argument if there were more court decisions specifically on whether or not punishing someone for crossing the border as a child is cruel and unusual, but where we have plenty of 17-year old murders over the years, the act of prosecuting people for crossing a border with their parents when they were too young to even have a choice is really new... as in post 9/11 when the Bush administration turned up the juice on prosecuting immigrants. It's no wonder Obama, who has the humanity to recognize that punishing people for things they really had no control over, pushed Congress to legislate. Neither is it a surprise that the less humane Republicans controlling Congress at the time refused. And that's why Obama wrote the executive order we know as DACA, to delay the inhumane prosecution of childhood arrivals until Congress can pull their thumbs out of their assholes.

So as you can see, this is not a simple yes/no thing. Given the microscopic attention span of most posters here (the one's that have already stopped reading this) I found there was really no way of injecting all this into the discussion without the stupid-simple (and questionable) statement I made earlier... I was hoping someone would challenge me so I had a better excuse to explain the complexity. So thank you for that.

I didn't say it's wrong to separate a mother and child. I said the value of a mother-child bond is universal. When are you going to learn how to read?

As for all those U.S. citizen criminals, my opinion depends on their crime and to a larger extend the welfare of the child. If the mother is murderess she should probably be separated from her child, but a lot of U.S. citizens get arrested for stupid shit like possession of marijuana and that's no reason to separate a mother from her child... nor is crossing a border. Also, children that get taken away from their incarcerated parents by the courts tend to be cared for, not abused and raped by disgusting ICE officers, handed over to traffickers or just lost.

Try all you want Loki, but this one turd you can't polish. Morgan is right, the whole world is watching this and trump is turning America into a shithole.

I like it where I am. But I will do everything I can to make sure as many people from Benaayzooayla come here and take your job. Because to be honest, I don't like my burgers flipped by racist assholes that are too hateful to learn basic laws, like the fact that childhood arrivals crossing the border are not actually breaking the law.

When you grow up maybe we can talk about that.

Hi Morgan... I'm glad you posted this. It's a huge issue.

Actually, if you look at our history, you will find a LOT of atrocities. America herself has always been a struggle between good and evil. You and I have had the good fortune to live in America during the hegemony because that's when a nation has so many advantages that even the evil can be well-behaved and still get what they want. But we are entering a new era where we are loosing that hegemonic advantage and good behavior isn't working so well for the evil anymore.

Trump represents that evil. He wants to ditch a lot of the global institutions set up by the American hegemony and revert to more defiant policies. To secure his position in our democracy he is taking the fascist route by tapping into the undercurrents of bigotry and extreme hatred. Immigration policies have always been a favorite campaign for fascist upstarts.

As I'm sure you've noticed, OPP has it's own fair share of posters who love to hate immigrants. That's why responses like no-pro when he said immigrants who commit crimes should be punished THEN deported tend to focus more on punishing them than solving any problems.

But I gotta say... this policy of ripping families apart goes beyond what I would think even the most deplorable Americans would accept. I mean it happened under Obama, but it was never a policy! In fact, that's why he set up the DACA policy to try and keep immigrant families together. But Trump is making the separation of children from their parents a policy! Even after it was discovered that his administration lost 1500 children!

Another stat that bothers me, is that since Trump came in, deportations have actually decreased while arrests have increased. That means they are filling prisons with people. And they are privatized prisons, with a profit motive and NO constitutional obligations. I don't know if you are following the prison-industrial complex but if you are then you know... those immigrants are being used as slaves.

LOL - were you one of those zit-faced kids in school that spend class drawing pictures of stickmen killing the teachers and hanging the principal?

It's worth isolating this comment from the rest of your post because it shows how the value of a mother-child bond is universal. I think EVERYONE will agree with this part of your post... well, except for Trump and Sessions, obviously.


Are you suggesting we send them back illegally? Because grammatically, that *IS* what you are saying.


Why? According to federal law, they didn't do anything wrong.


Punishment and THEN deportation? Why? American justice is supposed be a pragmatic system based on the idea of removing a potential threat from free society. That's what we have prisons for. If you're going to deport someone anyway that purpose is already being served... so, why spend the tax dollars to keep them in our prison system? Your suggestion sounds vindictive.


LOL - where are the Martians in all this no pro? Don't you have Martians in your fantasy?

How Trump came to be president will be a topic of books and documentaries for decades to come and I won't even begin to guess who was really behind it, but what seems clear now, is that he is doing things a respectable president would never do and this is a boon for plutocrats that want to push the limits beyond what is typically allowed by a democracy, or common decency for that matter.

So if Trump is a rogue, as is often stated, it's only that he is breaking from the mainstream of American politics... specifically, the de facto behavior of the republic which has been reconciling the interests of the plutocracy and the people for over a century. But he's a patsy for the plutocracy and this is why an impeachment might not be enough. With wealth concentrated as much as it is now and the people as disillusioned as they are now, the plutocracy is in a commanding position to start pushing our democracy out of the picture and Trump could very well be a test dummy for that strategy.

I think the best way to defend our republic is to take seats away from the "pro-business" advocates in Congress this year. What I wish more people would understand is that you don't have to fight for business when business is already doing fine. We have people right here on this site, that will paint a rosy picture of the economy and point to indicators that say business is doing better than ever and then in the same breath express a need to liberate business from the chains of regulation that is killing them. This out-of-place desperation is a Trojan Horse... what we see and hear are the virtues of laissez-faire with all the traditional dressing, but what we are inviting without realizing is plutocratic control and ultimately a repeal of the American Revolution.

I say this because prior to the American Revolution, the colonies were already under the plutocratic control of corporations. Colonies like Pennsylvania were proprietary colonies, owned and controlled by corporations and their shareholders in London. The American Revolution displaced those corporations with a republic and now, two and a half centuries later corporations are displacing our republic.

This didn't start with Trump... this Trojan Horse has been wheeling it's way into our republic for several decades now. Trump is just a shift into a higher gear, where the concern for the people is actually being dismissed entirely. I knew this was coming when Bush signed the PATRIOT Act which basically facilitates the requirements of a police state under license of a "war on terrorism". But if you look closely, it becomes pretty obvious the PATRIOT Act is exactly the kind of thing a police state needs to control it's own people. So, all you gun-clutching patriots out there... you are going to be the first wave of terrorists, when the time comes, so when you're finished cleaning your guns, you might want to page through the PATRIOT Act to get an idea what to expect.

In the meantime, things like forced arbitration are actually blocking citizens from the justice system provided by the republic and it's constitution. So for all those people that think we need to defend the constitution... you should know that things don't have to be destroyed to loose them. Just last week 60 million workers lost their right to take their employers to court for violation of labor laws and yet the 6th Amendment STILL says we have a right to a fair and speedy trial.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that Trump is a small fish (with a big mouth) compared to the forces that find him useful. American citizens need to resuscitate their appreciation for democracy, toss their ideological hangups in the trash (because that's just propaganda anyway) and vote for representatives that actually have some kind of track record for helping people. Under no circumstance should we EVER vote for a candidate who's only qualification is being a businessman because that's not a qualification by itself... baby sitters and cocaine dealers are "businessmen" and so is most of the plutocracy.

I agree... 'though I'm less inclined to call them a necessary "evil". I tend to think of them as corruptible systems, just like every other system we have from Congress to city councils, from the Federal Reserve to pawn shops. Everything is corruptible and when a system has powerful enemies, corruption can become a permanent reputation. I think that's what happened with unions in general.

I've seen that happen in health care. But the way I look at this Voice, is that ANY system is susceptible to corruption. The key is to always be vigilant.


More often than not? "Most" employers? "Fairly" generous..? ;)

According to the 2015 U.S. Census, there are about 6 million employers in the U.S.A. Less than half could be as many as 3 million. There are about 3.5 million companies with 5 or fewer employees. So, in theory, "most employers" could have less than six employees each. There are only 19,200 employers with 500 employees or more. So, in theory, THEY could all be bad apples.


"would be even more so" is a reference to an alternate reality. "It would be even more so if only he had... (insert description of alternate reality here)". Alternate realities can't be proven, Voice.


I used to say the same thing, but I've changed my tune a few years back. Let me ask you something... Do you think our nuclear arsenal is a waste because we never use it? I've heard the argument that you don't have to launch the weapons to use them because they act as deterrents. Unions launched campaigns a few decades ago and moved workers from sub-human conditions to middle-class conditions. For years I thought they had outlived their purpose, but then I started noticing that the forces of oppression never actually die... I think this arbitration war is really delivering that message loud and clear. Given this context, I would say the unions are serving as effective deterrents if nothing else.

Fair question... First let me say that by "Trump" I am not referring to the personality as much as I am the political organization, so his administration, his allies in Congress, his appointees on the bench etc... Also, there is a general attitude about arbitration that clearly distinguishes the Trump administration from the previous administration. Under Obama there was a bias toward protecting the little people against arbitration and under Trump that bias has reversed and now clearly favors the corporation.

Also, let me point out that the SCOTUS ruling is only one battle in this war over arbitration. I only used this ruling as the example because it's a recent event, but the war extends far beyond that ruling and covers more than just worker's rights. Here are some examples...

1. The SCOTUS ruling was a 5-4 decision with Trump's appointee, Gorsuch writing the opinion.

2. Trump uses arbitration agreements with his own employees so if he breaks any labor laws, which he has done numerous times in the past, his employees can't take him to court. He even forced volunteers on his campaign to sign arbitration agreements.

3. Since Trump was been elected, ALL the anti-arbitration bills in queue were sidelined. This includes the Arbitration Fairness Act, the Investor Choice Act, The Restoring Statutory Rights Act (“RSRA”), The Justice for Telecommunications Consumers Act and The Justice for Victims of Fraud Act that would have allowed investors to sue Wells Fargo for the fake account scam. These bill will all die at the end of the current session.

4. Speaking of banks, these "angelic" institutions have recently started to add arbitration clauses to their financial agreements that force customers to arbitrate disputes out of court. In other words, if the bank steals money from you, you can't take them to court, instead you have to bargain with the bank. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) added a rule to prohibit banks from forcing customers into arbitration and guess who repealed it? Not only was this a very unpopular move where the Republicans used an obscure and questionable review process to kill the legislation without any input from the Democrats but even then the Republicans were so divided that Trump had to send Pence in to break the tie.

I know that most people are busy in their own bubbles, filtering out the news according to what they want to hear, but arbitration is a huge deal right now. Our citizens are literally being blocked from the judicial branch of the republic. This is NOT an exaggeration. So far on this thread NO ONE has been able to justify the arbitration rules. I'm waiting for arguments but so far, the only thing I see other than agreement and questions like yours are denials, distractions and insults. I think people need to get off their partisan high horses and look at this from the perspective of an American worker because from this perspective, I see us all on the same side. I'm not attacking Trump's politics because he's a Republican, I'm attacking his politics because his politics are attacking the American working class family.

Yes, I did.


If you read the article I referenced, you will notice this point is made very clear. Later in the thread I said this in response to Lone Wolf... The 5-4 decision on this issue could have gone either way... Gorsuch himself said it was a weak decision where they decided to err on the side of NOT legislating from the bench, though given the weight of the issue I would call this a cop-out.

So obviously, I am very aware that the court took the position of respecting the current law as it was intended and obviously, that doesn't have any impact on the point I am making which you're obviously missing, probably because your too much in a rush to find a contradiction in my post so you can write me off as a troll. Ironically, it's your priority to write me off as a troll before bothering to understand my argument that exposes YOU as the real troll here.

I *did* warn people that this a somewhat complicated issue... You basically read chapter 1 and made your hasty conclusion from there. But there's more to the story.

1. The "current law" that the court was "respecting" is the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925. That law says that arbitration is legally binding and it created a situation where workers had to resolve their differences with their employers if they signed arbitration agreements. This created an unfair situation for workers because workers have no leverage at the table. It basically came down to whether they want a job or not.

2. Ten years later, another federal law was enacted called the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 that says workers can bargain collectively. This obviously gave the workers better leverage. This was the condition that lasted for 80 years and saw the development of the American middle class.

3. But recently, employers have been adding a NEW clause to their arbitration agreements saying that workers can only arbitrate as individuals. This clearly violates the National Labor Relations Act, but that doesn't mean anything if the law isn't enforced and the law can't be enforced without a court judgment, which can't happen if the Federal Arbitration Act says they CAN'T take it to court.

Think about that for a minute.

4. This is a NEW problem that isn't addressed by either of the aforementioned laws. This NEW problem is what the Supreme Court was ruling on. As I've said before, it could have gone either way, they could have upheld the 1935 law which was intended to modify the situation created by the 1925 law, but they didn't. Instead, the majority used a real lame excuse, that since 77 years went by before anyone tried to violate the 1935 law, the illegitimacy of the law itself is doubtful and so they decided to overrule the 1935 law with the 1925 law.

Think about THAT for a minute... Why would a law be illegitimate just because no one tried to break it for 77 years? That's like saying no one has been beheaded for a few years, so it's okay to do it now. BTW, the fact that you said the court was "respecting" a current law as it was intended 77 years ago shows how bad your reading comprehension is. The 77 years is a reference to the time it took for a case to appear that appeals to the 1935 law, NOT a reference to the 1925 law they were "respecting" because ya know... 2018-1925=93 years, not 77.

My assessment of this attack on the working family, doesn't stop here either. Though I am disappointed with the court decision, I do understand that new problems can't always be solved with old laws. So as Ginsburg had stated in her dissenting opinion, Congress needs to act because unlike the courts, Congress CAN make new laws to deal with new problems. But Congress is currently being controlled by Republicans who refuse to act and Trump is supporting that position.


If you think "new forced arbitration clauses" is garbage then what was going on in the space between your ears when you (supposedly) read the SCOTUS ruling on new forced arbitration clauses? We're you not paying attention or were you just not understanding?

I didn't "miscontrue" anything. The first part of your post was a sarcastic misrepresentation of my concern, so I responded to that separately. The second part was the question that I said makes no sense. You asked... "do you still support the right of all employees to pay confiscatory union dues, whether they want to or not?"


Just do the best you can to write a complete sentence.


Quotes around the word "right" would have been better. The problem is that sites like these are filled with poorly written posts so that line between clever sarcasm and stupidity gets pretty blurry, sometimes we just have to guess... "is he being sarcastic or stupid?"


Please tell me you're being sarcastic... I mean, you don't really think a mandatory regulation is a right do you?


That isn't what you asked... You originally asked about the "right of all employees to pay confiscatory union dues", NOW you're asking about the rights of unions to force workers to pay confiscatory union dues."

This isn't about nuance Sparky... You fundamentally changed the meaning of the sentence by swapping out the object. That being said, my simple answer to your simple question is that it depends on whether or not the workers in question are being served by the union. It's a simple matter of paying for what you get. If you need a union to protect your rights as a worker then you should pay for it. If you don't then don't join a union.

Personally, I'm doing fine without a union but that's only because I have skills that are in high demand and low supply so I can negotiate my own terms. Union workers typically have skills that are in abundant supply making them more disposable and in more need of protection.

So let me ask YOU something...

How does ANY of this excuse forced arbitration and the blocking of citizens from the justice system?

flabbergast - verb: to overwhelm with shock, surprise, or wonder - Merriam-Webster



The copy I bought new in 2008 is now tattered from use. ;)


I don't understand what you mean.

Cutting them up in this fashion is the clearest way to respond to a post with so much misinformation. It's pretty easy to copy+paste any of my responses onto your own response, you don't even have to answer ALL of them... or ANY of them for that matter... My responses are just as much there for other people to see and respond to as they are for you.

So whether you are unable to respond because you don't want to acknowledge that I had to correct you or because using a computer is too hard or because anything longer than a tweet is just too complicated for you... don't worry about it. ;)

I'm not missing anything. Whatever covenant the baker has going with God is between him and God and has no bearing on the legal aspects of the case. The question for the court is whether or not the baker had a legal right to refuse service not whether or not the baker had a Holy obligation to refuse service. It just so happens that the baker DID have the legal right to refuse service, so there was no need to push the religion argument.

However, I do understand that for some people, this was never as much about legal rights as it about the continuing war against the existence of the LGBT community and for them, this isn't a legal case study - it's a flash point in their ongoing war of bigotry... so of course they have to being God into it.

I've been a Christian all my life and I've never been told that I can't bake a cake for a gay couple. The idea is utterly ridiculous. As far as I am concerned the baker makes a mockery of God by suggesting that He is so uptight and petty about gay people that He forces bakers to refuse service to gay customers.

I guess some of us just have a much more respectful view of God.