>This was passed by a former republican government, and then a fix was obstructed by a republican congress under a democratic president.

It just seems petty to me to place blame on republicans here when you've already admitted the bill was bi-partisan. I didn't realize it was signed under Bush but presumably Obama would have let it pass as well. This is exactly the kind of thing I think is egregious. You also claimed Trump made comments along the lines of Sessions which is untrue, Sessions pretty much stands alone in his "deterrent" comments on the situation, and since then he's rolled them back and claimed its the prosecution that is a deterrent.

Under the Obama administration, this policy was being used as a deterrent openly.

In January 2015, a group of Central American migrants, who were not represented by Flores class counsel, filed a putative class action, claiming that the government had adopted a no-release policy as to Central American families, and challenging that alleged policy under the Due Process Clause. R.I.L-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 170 (D.D.C. 2015). On February 20, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Id. at 171. The court found that ICE had not adopted a blanket no-release policy, but found ample support for the plaintiffs’ alternative contention that “DHS policy directs ICE officers to consider deterrence of mass migration as a factor in their custody determinations, and that this policy has played a significant role in the recent increased detention of Central American mothers and children.”

I mean it's right there in black in white, not only did this happen under Obama, they were open about it being a deterrent. That's a far cry from Monday's comments by head of the DHS.

> And what claim is that? This administrations policy of separating the children is entirely on them. It's been proven time and again. One of the most reliable fact checkers out there is politifact, so here you go: