Um, no. I never said it was Obama's policy. I just said his administration took similar actions at some point in the past. 

Their actions in enforcing that law is what differed.

There have been some cases where families who arrive to seek asylum legally have been separated as well, but that's besides the point.
Even if they cross the border illegally, that doesn't mean children should be separated from their parents. (To make matters worse, some of the detention centers they're placed in have histories of serious abuse allegations. Physical, sexual, etc.)

The Holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal.
The brave woman who cared for and hid someone's 6 year-old aunt in an attic in Budapest was a criminal. She broke the law by sheltering her. 

Legality is not a guide for morality.
This is definitely a very bad look for the United States. Which is why Trump caved and signed that executive order yesterday, rather than doubling down on trading them for money for his border wall.

There is a fairly huge difference between a country protecting their own borders to subjugation and murder of their own people

First you said Obama "was doing the SAME THING". 

Now you say his actions "differed" (NOT the same).

You keep defeating your own arguments.

I'm talking about a war over Europe and the free world. There has been constant proxy war, but notice that no wars have taken place in Europe or between Western democracies. That's not all the EU's doing, as this also applies to non-European and non-EU European democracies. Just a few scattered civil wars is all we've seen in the West. And no one has invaded Europe or Western democracies either, which is also partly due to NATO, which is also being weakened by the current administration. Also, the UN has played a huge role in preventing nuclear proliferation, save for a few rogue countries like Iran or North Korea. More nukes in more countries would not make us safer. No one, not even Trump, thinks that. I mean, he's suggested it at times, but he contradicts himself often enough you have to just go by his actions, and he seems to think more countries with nukes is a bad thing. We've almost caused nuclear flareups multiple times simply by accident or miscommunication. Imagine a world where 100+ governments, most of them even more ineffective and sometimes even more corrupt than our bumbling monstrosity, all have nukes. It would be like a room flooded with gasoline and the walls are dynamite and everyone has guns pointed at each other. With two people pointing guns its risky enough, with 100+ people it's all the more terrifying. Aside from that though, imagine the UN collapses tomorrow. Russia would have little incentive not to invade. They already did invade Ukraine, and they'd engage in a full out assault without the UN putting pressure on them and NATO being questioned by the USA. China wouldn't have much reason not to take a crack at it to see what they can grab. They already did so with Tibet. Today's world is rampant with neoimperialism, but a world without the UN or NATO would be rampant with old school imperialism, which is much uglier.

And while I'd agree that there's no way to win a nuclear war, some Russian elites disagree, and believe a quick enough and powerful enough strike with advanced enough tech, which Russia is getting very far ahead of us on, would be enough to leave the enemy defenseless. Once Putin is gone, one of those elites could take over. But that's another can of worms altogether.

The specifics in how they were handling it is what differed. 

So they didn't "do the same thing" after all.  Good to know.