Sarah Sanders (Press sec for Trump) asked to leave a restaurant

[Bingpot]

Just wanted to gather thoughts on this one as I'm not sure what I think.

Sarah Sanders is Trump's press secretary. She was politely asked to leave a restaurant over the weekend, following a staff vote (ostensibly in protest over the recent news over the Trump administration's treatment of immigrants).

Any thoughts?

The separation before was meant to target traffickers & abusers, not everyone including genuine families. The US govt can't even afford zero tolerance, they always had to prioritise. By prioritising the genuine criminals they even got help from some of the illegals who didn't want to take risks with smugglers and might therefore help identify them & grass them up.

No child separation as standard has not been going on since 2010 or before.

It was previously extreme/special cases as PP explained. Children were not separated as a matter of policy at the border.

Immigration law has been in place for a long time e.g. illegally entering without a valid asylum claim will result in deportation, however at no point were children separated from families, under previous democrat or republican presidents.

This is purely Trump policy (not US law) to separate all children on arrest of adults, which the admin recently introduced. They've also been closing the border crossing which accept asylum claims, to push people into crossing elsewhere, making it immediately illegal so they can be arrested and charged for illegal entry, rather than having an asylum case heard.

Thousands of children were separated wqithin the space of a few weeks. That's what's so shocking to everyone

So hundreds were ok? Whatever level it is or has been, this should always have been an issue. The best thing about Trump is that people hate him and this has finally become an actual issue.

Sarah Sanders is fine with people being refused service on the grounds of being LGBT. Therefore, she should be fine with being refused service on the grounds of her job (which is a choice, unlike being gay!). And yet, amazingly, she is apparently not ok with this and therefore decided to use her official government twitter account to whip up a mob against a small business.

Trump employee a total hypocrite - who'd-a thunk it?!

I would like to think she sees the irony but I doubt she's clever enough.

I run my own business and if she came into my shop I would refuse to serve her. I hope there are no negative repercussions for the restaurant and that it , positively, leads to more independent - and big chains - taking the same stance.

Or, maybe they could have agreed to serve her, in their own time, with food of their choosing, when she was sitting nicely in a cage.

@Marriedwith5children

The British social services also removes children from their parents in extreme cases, such as child abuse or if no one is available to care for that child. If social services decided to remove the kids of all immigrants even if they were in caring, loving families, there would be a huge stink about it and rightly so. People wouldnt just shrug and say, oh well social services have always removed kids from their families, so it’s no big deal.

There’s a huge difference. It’s odd you can’t see that.

Well, courts upheld the right of a bakery firm not to fulfil a gay wedding order, because it offended their religious views.

If this is in reference to the Asher's case then it is incorrect. The court ruled against the bakery, the appeal upheld that decision and it is now awaiting judgement in the supreme court.

I don't agree with this at all. A business is a business. Keep politics out of it. Where do we draw the line?

I don't agree with this at all. A business is a business. Keep politics out of it. Where do we draw the line?

SheepSheep maybe the line should have been drawn at locking children in cages. Except it wasn't. I own a business and I would go bankrupt before entertaining anyone from the Trump administration.

TwoBlueShoes
I'm confused? What is your point?

Did you read my posts? Im against it!. I'm against separation at the border. I'm against separation years after settlement. I'm annoyed that people are making out it's a new thing.

It has been going on for years and it is being painted as a new thing. The only thing I take from this is that it is finally being recognised!

So hundreds were ok? Whatever level it is or has been, this should always have been an issue. The best thing about Trump is that people hate him and this has finally become an actual issue.

Married you seem to have two issues mixed up here. In the past children were separated from families because there were criminal charges being brought. So if you were smuggling drugs or people trafficking and had children with you, they were put in foster care. Crossing the border illegally was treated as misdemeanour rather than felony crime, so children weren't routinely separated from parents.

The issue here is that the Trump administration has issued a zero tolerance policy on crossing the border, so all people crossing illegally are treated as criminals, so children are being taken away. This did not happen before, no matter what Trump says. The instruction was signed by Jeff Sessions.

They are also prosecuting people who are seeking asylum. This is not illegal under US law.

This is nothing to do with it finally getting attention because people hate Trump and everything to do with Trump introducing a policy that has been described by the IN as state sanctioned child abuse.

*UN

It’s nothing like refusing someone service for their race or sexual orientation. These are things that are not chosen by the individual and can’t be changed.
Choosing to lie to the public on a daily basis and defend a corrupt and bigotted president is very much a choice though and I hope those in the pay of this administration get no peace,no respite and no service anywhere.

SheepSheep maybe the line should have been drawn at locking children in cages. Except it wasn't. I own a business and I would go bankrupt before entertaining anyone from the Trump administration.

The two issues are totally separate though. Disagreeing with one does not equal agreeing with the other.

The immigration issue is abhorrent.

Businesses should not discriminate on any grounds. It is a slippery slope to suggest otherwise.

ItsMsAtomicBombToYou
So it was acceptable for assumed crimes? I'm guessing zero tolerance is based on the exact point you are making. Families have been split up for all these years and it wasn't an issue because you can trust that all these families were trafficked/drug related.

The parents who settled and were separated later? Is this not an issue?

My original comment was based on the fact that seperation of children from parents has been happening for years. It seems only now that people are seeing it and care.

Marriedwithchildren5
Did you read my posts? Im against it!. I'm against separation at the border. I'm against separation years after settlement. I'm annoyed that people are making out it's a new thing.

Yes, I did read your posts and to be fair it wasn't very clear what point you were making. It seemed you were opposed to criticism of the Trump administration due to this policy as it wasn't new.

I can't really understand why you aren't opposed to the removal of children who are in danger from traffickers or drug runners though. Surely you must understand that in some cases it is in a child's best interest to be placed in foster care? Just not in all cases.

TwoBlueShoes

Nope. He's a twat.

I think the rest of my points will always fall of deaf ears. It is being recognised. I also feel it will be forgotten.

Marriedwithchildren5

Nope. He's a twat.

I think the rest of my points will always fall of deaf ears. It is being recognised. I also feel it will be forgotten.

Ok, I understand your point. Thanks you for explaining.

@sheepsheep : in the American context, it's Masterpiece Bakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which was decided in favor of the baker earlier this month. Much celebrated on the right.

As for SHS, my favorite response on Twitter was that they should have taken her order and then spent the next hour telling her that they'd get back to her on it.

Ok, well, a video just popped up on my Facebook feed of the former Secretary of Homeland Security during Obama's time being interviewed and he stated that while there may have been individual cases of children being removed from families due to health or safety concerns, they absolutely did not have that policy or practice under his watch.

So, I think the idea that this has been going on for a long time is not correct. #Fakenews

Good on the restaurant. If I owned a business I'd refuse to serve anyone associated with Trump and his scumbag views too.

The big crisis under Obama was unaccompanied minors. The administration didn't handle it perfectly, but it was clear that they were trying to figure out the best way to deal with a very difficult situation. (They couldn't just let them go, as they were minors, nor could they necessarily send them back.)

They did not engage in mass family separation. The only times children were taken from adults were under very specific, exceptional circumstances where the children were somehow in particular danger of physical or sexual abuse (or signs of trafficking).

Crossing the border is a misdemeanor. For most of Obama's term, this was treated as suchlike public intoxication, or vandalism, or some traffic tickets. You don't get your kids taken away for thathell, you rarely go to jail for that--and as such separations weren't enforced (again, unless there was a compelling reason why).

The Trump/Sessions regime has decided to essentially imprison all these people pending trials. They scrapped a pilot program that had a 99.6% effective return rate for those awaiting trial, because it wasn't punitive enough. They said out loud that they wanted family separations to be a deterrent. They said this months ago. Any pretending otherwiseincluding by SHSis a lie. And it's fucking disgraceful.

There have been so many attempts to fix some of the broken parts of the American immigration system, including a bill under Obama that passed the Senate with 60 votes and would have passed the Housebut the obstructionist wing of the Republican party refused the vote. As others have said, they don't want to solve the problem, they want the issue because it gins up their base and helps keep them in power. And because people like Stephen Miller*, who is an avowed nationalist and an anti-immigrant piece of work, is in charge of immigration policy.

It's all fucking disgusting.

If you don't know about him, you should read this amazing* interview in the New York Times NYT. It includes the ridiculous anecdote of the time Miller "jumped, uninvited, into the final stretch of a girls’ track meet, apparently intent on proving his athletic supremacy over the opposite sex. The fact that this guy is in power is terrifying.

(Formatting fail at the end there. )

Married, if you're arrested and held, regardless of whether you are an American citizen or not, your children can't stay with you. That's why the Obama's administration treated crossing the border illegally as a misdemeanour for those with kids, and they didn't separate families.

This is a new Trump policy, and is not the same as being arrested for drug or sex trafficking. It is terrorising children to reduce immigration, both legal and illegal.

I think if people uphold the restaurants right to not serve her they must also uphold the Christians right to not serve gay couples

Nonsense. Refusing service to somebody because they are part of an inhumane regime you find morally reprehensible is NOT the same as refusing service to somebody because of an innate characteristic they have no control over. If she had been refused service because of her gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or disability your comparison would be valid but that isn't what happened here.