I didn't suggest that it's wrong to get the message to parents that what they are doing is illegal. I accept that the children may be held separately. But they are children, they aren't responsible for parental choice, so treating them humanely is within the power of the authorities.
I've found what I hope will explain my take on virtue signalling.
On Sky News this morning the newspaper reviewers were Martin Daubney who writes articles for the Telegraph & Amy somebody who's a Scottish environmentalist.
Anyway, the subject of the USA immigration policy was discussed & Martin Daubney said it was necessary because 5,000,000 illegal Mexican immigrants try to enter the USA every year, which is the same as 5 Manchesters & that many American citizens, including his sister, support the measure.
Children have to be separated from their parents because the parents are arrested & the chlidren are not.
Amy somebody said that she disagreed with separating the children from their parents which was ok as it was her view.
She then continued by saying something along the lines of "you're a father, I don't know how you can morally justify it" to Martin Daubney.
It was at that point she became a virtue signaller by inferring that her view was morally virtuous & his wasn't & that her moral virtue made her viewpoint the correct one.