Poverty and ignorance breeds crime. Economic immigrants and refugees are poor and uneducated. 2+2=4

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

If the democrats' future depends on the 'Dreamers,' they are in big-ass trouble.

is that why the right wing is, "cozying up to the White Russians instead of the Red Russians?"

So the Red Russians or rather Bolsheviks are somehow better, how do you figure?

socialism on a national basis; it can be confused.

The only Communist success has been in border control, that's about it.

 

[danielpalos]

If the democrats' future depends on the 'Dreamers,' they are in big-ass trouble.

is that why the right wing is, "cozying up to the White Russians instead of the Red Russians?"

So the Red Russians or rather Bolsheviks are somehow better, how do you figure?

socialism on a national basis; it can be confused.

The only Communist success has been in border control, that's about it.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror (that the right wing refuses to acknowledge as necessary and proper with necessary and proper, wartime tax rates), are Capitalist?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

If the democrats' future depends on the 'Dreamers,' they are in big-ass trouble.

is that why the right wing is, "cozying up to the White Russians instead of the Red Russians?"

So the Red Russians or rather Bolsheviks are somehow better, how do you figure?

socialism on a national basis; it can be confused.

The only Communist success has been in border control, that's about it.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are Capitalist?

As if North Korea's not a Commie shit-hole, and South Korea's not a Capitalist success story????????????????

Does the truth about Communism hurt?

 

[danielpalos]

is that why the right wing is, "cozying up to the White Russians instead of the Red Russians?"

So the Red Russians or rather Bolsheviks are somehow better, how do you figure?

socialism on a national basis; it can be confused.

The only Communist success has been in border control, that's about it.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are Capitalist?

As if North Korea's not a Commie shit-hole, and South Korea's not a Capitalist success story????????????????

Does the truth about Communism hurt?

socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

And, mixed market economies are Not, a Capital success story.

Congress Commands fiscal policy and the Fed, Commands monetary policy. Like it or not, alleged Capitalists.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So the Red Russians or rather Bolsheviks are somehow better, how do you figure?

socialism on a national basis; it can be confused.

The only Communist success has been in border control, that's about it.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are Capitalist?

As if North Korea's not a Commie shit-hole, and South Korea's not a Capitalist success story????????????????

Does the truth about Communism hurt?

socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

And, mixed market economies are Not, a Capital success story.

Congress Commands fiscal policy and the Fed, Commands monetary policy. Like it or not, alleged Capitalists.

Fascism has all the answers, Communism has all the problems.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism on a national basis; it can be confused.

The only Communist success has been in border control, that's about it.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are Capitalist?

As if North Korea's not a Commie shit-hole, and South Korea's not a Capitalist success story????????????????

Does the truth about Communism hurt?

socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

And, mixed market economies are Not, a Capital success story.

Congress Commands fiscal policy and the Fed, Commands monetary policy. Like it or not, alleged Capitalists.

Fascism has all the answers, Communism has all the problems.

socialism starts with a social Contract; our Founding Fathers, Ordained and Established ours for us.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The only Communist success has been in border control, that's about it.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are Capitalist?

As if North Korea's not a Commie shit-hole, and South Korea's not a Capitalist success story????????????????

Does the truth about Communism hurt?

socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

And, mixed market economies are Not, a Capital success story.

Congress Commands fiscal policy and the Fed, Commands monetary policy. Like it or not, alleged Capitalists.

Fascism has all the answers, Communism has all the problems.

socialism starts with a social Contract; our Founding Fathers, Ordained and Established ours for us.

The Founding Fathers were for a White nation, but they weren't really for Capitalism, nor Communism,

The Founding Fathers Immigration Act, the Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly outlines that "Only Free Whites of Good Character were to become U.S.A citizens"

That in it's self would support that Mexicans shouldn't be here, eh?

 

[abu afak]

How much of our own comfort are we willing to sacrifice for this feel good bullshit? Do you have any idea how many poor and desperate people there are in the world? I'll give you a hint; there are a fuck load. The first world can't save everybody, and in attempting to do so we're just going to shoot ourselves in the foot. If the left got its way we would actually be fucked. The Republicans do a lot of stupid shit, but thank fuck for their stance on immigration. If we actually want to help these people we need to figure out how to help them where they live.

Do you disappointed lefties want to know why Trump won, and why he will win again? It's because you people would fuck up everything if you had full control of the immigration situation. That one issue is hurting the left badly. If you'd just pull your heads out of your asses and focus on Americans you would start dominating elections.

I am against Illegal immigration and any form of Amnesty. I am for a more selective brand of immigration which favors what will help current residents.

But do you have any stats for
"Poverty and ignorance breeds crime. Economic immigrants and refugees are poor and uneducated. 2+2=4."

Because that isn't really a valid deduction/conclusion without numbers.
Its' a non sequitur.
ie
"All Giraffes have spots.
So if you have spots, you're a giraffe."

You do alot of Link/OP Dumping. One would think you could back it up.
PS: I did NOT read all 35 pages.
`

 

[Coyote]

But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Poverty alone or even a foreign govt colluding with crime or unable to control crime CAN'T FAIRLY be a promotion for US immigration. There's no way to conduct unbiased foreign policy and take MORE than your fair share of poor or crime threatened people from your neighborhood. By doing that -- you are often HELPING the corrupt leadership in those countries steal more and "ship out" their worst cases. Those issues need to be fixed at the place of origin -- or you've accomplished nothing.

What I DO THINK should be a justification is "refugee status" from HOT wars. Which we've never really done. But that needs a SPECIAL arrangement for actual Refugee camps and support services to provide aid and comfort until the conflict is resolved or some country in their region can permanently relocate them. SOME of those folks might LIKE America so much -- they want to apply for citizenship. But taking in refugees by BULK during a hot war doesn't allow for them to DECIDE where they want to relocate. All they want to do at that point is STAY alive. We shouldn't assume they even KNOW enough to choose any particular Western country to permanently emigrate to.

Why do you think they are "shipping out" their "worst cases"? I think that assessment is more fiction than fact. It's their best people who are fleeing - it takes a particular strength of will, character and determination not to mention courage to immigrate. The ones that aren't are the gangs profiting off the people.

Illogical

How?

 

[flacaltenn]

Which position do you mean?

It's right there in you quoting and SEEMINGLY feasting on the "Broadly speaking" crap. Broadly speaking is just the polite way of disguising what we call "racial and ethnic" stereotypes and generalizations.

Need to be thinking LONG TERM on the consequences of ANY immigration policy and not letting sympathy and emotion rule the day.

.

You jumped in without reading through the thread and the context for WHY I put that quote there. It was because Kosh demanded to know what the LARGER bit I quoted has to do with poverty and you jumped right on it without taking in the larger context!

My position is in post 72.

I saw you focused on the poverty issue from early on. And I should have responded to the OP -- not you at that point trying to talk with Kosh. Which I did above on page around #272. BOTH SIDES need to get off the generalizations and stereotypes, like poor or stupid or criminal, and stop USING THESE FOLKS as political ammunition.

For all the reasons I just posted above. Immigration is a STRATEGIC long range issue. Not a reason for daily confrontation and protests on one of HUNDREDS of things that need fixing. We don't FIX stupid or poverty by opening our borders.

We might not be that far apart. I agree opening our borders to all is a non-starters. I don't think very many actually support that. But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Correct.

No one advocates for ‘open borders.’

And the notion that immigration should somehow be ‘means tested’ is as ridiculous as it is reprehensible and wrong.

Lemme relieve both you and Clayton that "no one advocates for open borders".. Of COURSE they do. Libertarians USED to. Before pragmatist like me showed them where in the Constitution "borders and naturalization" were a FUNDAMENTAL charter task of the Fed govt. And YOUR PARTY from the VERY TOP on down has many advocates for "open borders". I'm gonna show you a picture of one of the LEADERS of your party who campaigns for open borders. So don't come on here and say "NO ONE" advocates for open borders...

Do you KNOW who this guy is? Coyote C_Clayton_Jones ?? Does HE matter when he speaks for your entire party? Can you TRANSLATE the slogan on his tee? If you need help -- lemme know..

Hint -- he's 2nd in command of your party right now. Don't say "no one"...

 

[danielpalos]

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are Capitalist?

As if North Korea's not a Commie shit-hole, and South Korea's not a Capitalist success story????????????????

Does the truth about Communism hurt?

socialism requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

And, mixed market economies are Not, a Capital success story.

Congress Commands fiscal policy and the Fed, Commands monetary policy. Like it or not, alleged Capitalists.

Fascism has all the answers, Communism has all the problems.

socialism starts with a social Contract; our Founding Fathers, Ordained and Established ours for us.

The Founding Fathers were for a White nation, but they weren't really for Capitalism, nor Communism,

The Founding Fathers Immigration Act, the Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly outlines that "Only Free Whites of Good Character were to become U.S.A citizens"

That in it's self would support that Mexicans shouldn't be here, eh?

Yet, the right wing alleges our Founding Fathers were for natural rights.

 

[Confounding]

How much of our own comfort are we willing to sacrifice for this feel good bullshit? Do you have any idea how many poor and desperate people there are in the world? I'll give you a hint; there are a fuck load. The first world can't save everybody, and in attempting to do so we're just going to shoot ourselves in the foot. If the left got its way we would actually be fucked. The Republicans do a lot of stupid shit, but thank fuck for their stance on immigration. If we actually want to help these people we need to figure out how to help them where they live.

Do you disappointed lefties want to know why Trump won, and why he will win again? It's because you people would fuck up everything if you had full control of the immigration situation. That one issue is hurting the left badly. If you'd just pull your heads out of your asses and focus on Americans you would start dominating elections.

I am against Illegal immigration and any form of Amnesty. I am for a more selective brand of immigration which favors what will help current residents.

But do you have any stats for
"Poverty and ignorance breeds crime. Economic immigrants and refugees are poor and uneducated. 2+2=4."

Because that isn't really a valid deduction/conclusion without numbers.
Its' a non sequitur.
ie
All Giraffes have spots.
So if you have spots you're tall.

You do alot of Link/OP Dumping. One would think you could back it up.
PS: I did NOT read all 35 pages.
`

It's common knowledge and common sense dude. The more poor and uneducated a person is the more likely they are to commit crimes because their living conditions are more desperate. It's true all over the world. Middle and South Americans are no exception. It's nothing personal. I don't think it's because they're dirty Mexicans. I think it's because their life is difficult and so crime is more appealing.

Here is just one link. There are a shitload if you google it.

26 Poverty and Crime Statistics

These poverty and crime statistics prove that when the standard of living is depressed, the individuals living in poverty see the benefits of committing a crime to meet their basic needs is worth the risk of getting caught. And, when severe poverty is considered, there is a direct correlation to a rise in violent crime.

 

[Coyote]

It's right there in you quoting and SEEMINGLY feasting on the "Broadly speaking" crap. Broadly speaking is just the polite way of disguising what we call "racial and ethnic" stereotypes and generalizations.

Need to be thinking LONG TERM on the consequences of ANY immigration policy and not letting sympathy and emotion rule the day.

.

You jumped in without reading through the thread and the context for WHY I put that quote there. It was because Kosh demanded to know what the LARGER bit I quoted has to do with poverty and you jumped right on it without taking in the larger context!

My position is in post 72.

I saw you focused on the poverty issue from early on. And I should have responded to the OP -- not you at that point trying to talk with Kosh. Which I did above on page around #272. BOTH SIDES need to get off the generalizations and stereotypes, like poor or stupid or criminal, and stop USING THESE FOLKS as political ammunition.

For all the reasons I just posted above. Immigration is a STRATEGIC long range issue. Not a reason for daily confrontation and protests on one of HUNDREDS of things that need fixing. We don't FIX stupid or poverty by opening our borders.

We might not be that far apart. I agree opening our borders to all is a non-starters. I don't think very many actually support that. But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Correct.

No one advocates for ‘open borders.’

And the notion that immigration should somehow be ‘means tested’ is as ridiculous as it is reprehensible and wrong.

Lemme relieve both you and Clayton that "no one advocates for open borders".. Of COURSE they do. Libertarians USED to. Before pragmatist like me showed them where in the Constitution "borders and naturalization" were a FUNDAMENTAL charter task of the Fed govt. And YOUR PARTY from the VERY TOP on down has many advocates for "open borders". I'm gonna show you a picture of one of the LEADERS of your party who campaigns for open borders. So don't come on here and say "NO ONE" advocates for open borders...

Do you KNOW who this guy is? Coyote C_Clayton_Jones ?? Does HE matter when he speaks for your entire party? Can you TRANSLATE the slogan on his tee? If you need help -- lemme know..

Hint -- he's 2nd in command of your party right now. Don't say "no one"...

Wait, you are taking a T shirt and extrapolating all that from the fact he is wearing one tshirt?

Does that mean I can say YOUR party is for zero immigration based on the fact that it's president is trying to strip even legal immigrants of their citizenship?

Come on...

How many Democrats are for open borders? Show me something besides a T-shirt, which can have a lot of meanings to it's wearer. I wonder why Democrats have supported legislation for increased border security....or in 2013 every single democrat voted for the Gang of 8 bill which would have given 40 billion for border enforcement, added 700 miles of fencing, and increased the number of border agents.

 

[Unkotare]

Which position do you mean?

It's right there in you quoting and SEEMINGLY feasting on the "Broadly speaking" crap. Broadly speaking is just the polite way of disguising what we call "racial and ethnic" stereotypes and generalizations.

Need to be thinking LONG TERM on the consequences of ANY immigration policy and not letting sympathy and emotion rule the day.

.

You jumped in without reading through the thread and the context for WHY I put that quote there. It was because Kosh demanded to know what the LARGER bit I quoted has to do with poverty and you jumped right on it without taking in the larger context!

My position is in post 72.

I saw you focused on the poverty issue from early on. And I should have responded to the OP -- not you at that point trying to talk with Kosh. Which I did above on page around #272. BOTH SIDES need to get off the generalizations and stereotypes, like poor or stupid or criminal, and stop USING THESE FOLKS as political ammunition.

For all the reasons I just posted above. Immigration is a STRATEGIC long range issue. Not a reason for daily confrontation and protests on one of HUNDREDS of things that need fixing. We don't FIX stupid or poverty by opening our borders.

We might not be that far apart. I agree opening our borders to all is a non-starters. I don't think very many actually support that. But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Then the question is when will it stop? Will it ever stop? These people are having children in these so-called hellholes and shipping their offspring to the US. Out of empathy we are supposed to just keep bringing them in from these breeding grounds with no end in sight. When the next batch are ready, put them on the conveyer belt to the US like all the others.

If the US funds birth control to these countries, it likely won't help because having children has always been a choice for most people, and these CA and Mexicans have them all the time in spite of their environment. If their surroundings are so bad, so deplorable, so dangerous, WTF are they having kids in the first place?

This is ignorant. Birth rates are falling across Latin America and have been for some time.

 

[flacaltenn]

You jumped in without reading through the thread and the context for WHY I put that quote there. It was because Kosh demanded to know what the LARGER bit I quoted has to do with poverty and you jumped right on it without taking in the larger context!

My position is in post 72.

I saw you focused on the poverty issue from early on. And I should have responded to the OP -- not you at that point trying to talk with Kosh. Which I did above on page around #272. BOTH SIDES need to get off the generalizations and stereotypes, like poor or stupid or criminal, and stop USING THESE FOLKS as political ammunition.

For all the reasons I just posted above. Immigration is a STRATEGIC long range issue. Not a reason for daily confrontation and protests on one of HUNDREDS of things that need fixing. We don't FIX stupid or poverty by opening our borders.

We might not be that far apart. I agree opening our borders to all is a non-starters. I don't think very many actually support that. But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Correct.

No one advocates for ‘open borders.’

And the notion that immigration should somehow be ‘means tested’ is as ridiculous as it is reprehensible and wrong.

Lemme relieve both you and Clayton that "no one advocates for open borders".. Of COURSE they do. Libertarians USED to. Before pragmatist like me showed them where in the Constitution "borders and naturalization" were a FUNDAMENTAL charter task of the Fed govt. And YOUR PARTY from the VERY TOP on down has many advocates for "open borders". I'm gonna show you a picture of one of the LEADERS of your party who campaigns for open borders. So don't come on here and say "NO ONE" advocates for open borders...

Do you KNOW who this guy is? Coyote C_Clayton_Jones ?? Does HE matter when he speaks for your entire party? Can you TRANSLATE the slogan on his tee? If you need help -- lemme know..

Hint -- he's 2nd in command of your party right now. Don't say "no one"...

Wait, you are taking a T shirt and extrapolating all that from the fact he is wearing one tshirt?

Does that mean I can say YOUR party is for zero immigration based on the fact that it's president is trying to strip even legal immigrants of their citizenship?

Come on...


How many Democrats are for open borders? Show me something besides a T-shirt, which can have a lot of meanings to it's wearer. I wonder why Democrats have supported legislation for increased border security....or in 2013 every single democrat voted for the Gang of 8 bill which would have given 40 billion for border enforcement, added 700 miles of fencing, and increased the number of border agents.

You must have me confused with some Republican. Because I'm not. So cut the "YOUR party is for zero immigration" BullCrap. I've told you personally that if my government was COMPETENT and organized on border policy and immigration, that I could would be FAR more liberal on immigration. But the Feds SUCK at this and most everything else they touch.


And YES --- Choosing that shirt for MayDay while representing an ENTIRE PARTY is a political statement. And he's spoken repeatedly on the "injustice" of borders. These are facts.

And although only 30% of Dems support catch and release, which is essentially AN INVITATION to open borders, the Senate Dems recently proposed EXACTLY that in place of recent Repub legislation. Or "bring a kid -- get in free". ALL counterproductive to establishing organized and fair immigration policy.

 

[Moonglow]

How much of our own comfort are we willing to sacrifice for this feel good bullshit? Do you have any idea how many poor and desperate people there are in the world? I'll give you a hint; there are a fuck load. The first world can't save everybody, and in attempting to do so we're just going to shoot ourselves in the foot. If the left got its way we would actually be fucked. The Republicans do a lot of stupid shit, but thank fuck for their stance on immigration. If we actually want to help these people we need to figure out how to help them where they live.

Do you disappointed lefties want to know why Trump won, and why he will win again? It's because you people would fuck up everything if you had full control of the immigration situation. That one issue is hurting the left badly. If you'd just pull your heads out of your asses and focus on Americans you would start dominating elections.

I am against Illegal immigration and any form of Amnesty. I am for a more selective brand of immigration which favors what will help current residents.

But do you have any stats for
"Poverty and ignorance breeds crime. Economic immigrants and refugees are poor and uneducated. 2+2=4."

Because that isn't really a valid deduction/conclusion without numbers.
Its' a non sequitur.
ie
All Giraffes have spots.
So if you have spots you're tall.

You do alot of Link/OP Dumping. One would think you could back it up.
PS: I did NOT read all 35 pages.
`

It's common knowledge and common sense dude. The more poor and uneducated a person is the more likely they are to commit crimes because their living conditions are more desperate. It's true all over the world. Middle and South Americans are no exception. It's nothing personal. I don't think it's because they're dirty Mexicans. I think it's because their life is difficult and so crime is more appealing.

Here is just one link. There are a shitload if you google it.

26 Poverty and Crime Statistics

These poverty and crime statistics prove that when the standard of living is depressed, the individuals living in poverty see the benefits of committing a crime to meet their basic needs is worth the risk of getting caught. And, when severe poverty is considered, there is a direct correlation to a rise in violent crime.

That would be a logical conclusion if not for the fact that people that are not poor commit crimes also.

 

[Moonglow]

I saw you focused on the poverty issue from early on. And I should have responded to the OP -- not you at that point trying to talk with Kosh. Which I did above on page around #272. BOTH SIDES need to get off the generalizations and stereotypes, like poor or stupid or criminal, and stop USING THESE FOLKS as political ammunition.

For all the reasons I just posted above. Immigration is a STRATEGIC long range issue. Not a reason for daily confrontation and protests on one of HUNDREDS of things that need fixing. We don't FIX stupid or poverty by opening our borders.

We might not be that far apart. I agree opening our borders to all is a non-starters. I don't think very many actually support that. But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Correct.

No one advocates for ‘open borders.’

And the notion that immigration should somehow be ‘means tested’ is as ridiculous as it is reprehensible and wrong.

Lemme relieve both you and Clayton that "no one advocates for open borders".. Of COURSE they do. Libertarians USED to. Before pragmatist like me showed them where in the Constitution "borders and naturalization" were a FUNDAMENTAL charter task of the Fed govt. And YOUR PARTY from the VERY TOP on down has many advocates for "open borders". I'm gonna show you a picture of one of the LEADERS of your party who campaigns for open borders. So don't come on here and say "NO ONE" advocates for open borders...

Do you KNOW who this guy is? Coyote C_Clayton_Jones ?? Does HE matter when he speaks for your entire party? Can you TRANSLATE the slogan on his tee? If you need help -- lemme know..

Hint -- he's 2nd in command of your party right now. Don't say "no one"...

Wait, you are taking a T shirt and extrapolating all that from the fact he is wearing one tshirt?

Does that mean I can say YOUR party is for zero immigration based on the fact that it's president is trying to strip even legal immigrants of their citizenship?

Come on...


How many Democrats are for open borders? Show me something besides a T-shirt, which can have a lot of meanings to it's wearer. I wonder why Democrats have supported legislation for increased border security....or in 2013 every single democrat voted for the Gang of 8 bill which would have given 40 billion for border enforcement, added 700 miles of fencing, and increased the number of border agents.

You must have me confused with some Republican. Because I'm not. So cut the "YOUR party is for zero immigration" BullCrap.

And YES --- Choosing that shirt for MayDay while representing an ENTIRE PARTY is a political statement. And he's spoken repeatedly on the "injustice" of borders. These are facts.

And although only 30% of Dems support catch and release, which is essentially AN INVITATION to open borders, the Senate Dems recently proposed EXACTLY that in place of recent Repub legislation. Or "bring a kid -- get in free". ALL counterproductive to establishing organized and fair immigration policy.

Yet legal..

 

[BookShaka]

And border agents have always had the leeway to seperate them if they have reasonable cause to believe that is the case

Whoa, say what? These separations were happening BEFORE Trump came into power? Huh.

You had no idea huh? With a key difference that makes today's seperation a humanitarian disaster. Care to guess what that difference is? I'll give you a hint: a new policy.

Like I already said, there’s good reason to separate the children from those who bring them through. You can poo poo it all you want but some kids end up a hell of a lot safer as a direct result of being separated. If you’re so worried about humanitarian disasters I sure hope you didn’t vote for Hillary.

 

[flacaltenn]

We might not be that far apart. I agree opening our borders to all is a non-starters. I don't think very many actually support that. But we're making assumptions that poverty alone makes a person unsuitable for immigration, or the fact that they are from "shit hole" countries. I think it behooves us to maintain diversity in immigration, and because of that I see value in the small lottery program that allows people who badly want to come but might not otherwise be able to. I also see value in merit based immigration and family based (though, how extended is up to debate). We should not be shutting off any of those avenues.

Correct.

No one advocates for ‘open borders.’

And the notion that immigration should somehow be ‘means tested’ is as ridiculous as it is reprehensible and wrong.

Lemme relieve both you and Clayton that "no one advocates for open borders".. Of COURSE they do. Libertarians USED to. Before pragmatist like me showed them where in the Constitution "borders and naturalization" were a FUNDAMENTAL charter task of the Fed govt. And YOUR PARTY from the VERY TOP on down has many advocates for "open borders". I'm gonna show you a picture of one of the LEADERS of your party who campaigns for open borders. So don't come on here and say "NO ONE" advocates for open borders...

Do you KNOW who this guy is? Coyote C_Clayton_Jones ?? Does HE matter when he speaks for your entire party? Can you TRANSLATE the slogan on his tee? If you need help -- lemme know..

Hint -- he's 2nd in command of your party right now. Don't say "no one"...

Wait, you are taking a T shirt and extrapolating all that from the fact he is wearing one tshirt?

Does that mean I can say YOUR party is for zero immigration based on the fact that it's president is trying to strip even legal immigrants of their citizenship?

Come on...


How many Democrats are for open borders? Show me something besides a T-shirt, which can have a lot of meanings to it's wearer. I wonder why Democrats have supported legislation for increased border security....or in 2013 every single democrat voted for the Gang of 8 bill which would have given 40 billion for border enforcement, added 700 miles of fencing, and increased the number of border agents.

You must have me confused with some Republican. Because I'm not. So cut the "YOUR party is for zero immigration" BullCrap.

And YES --- Choosing that shirt for MayDay while representing an ENTIRE PARTY is a political statement. And he's spoken repeatedly on the "injustice" of borders. These are facts.

And although only 30% of Dems support catch and release, which is essentially AN INVITATION to open borders, the Senate Dems recently proposed EXACTLY that in place of recent Repub legislation. Or "bring a kid -- get in free". ALL counterproductive to establishing organized and fair immigration policy.

Yet legal..

WTF does that mean?

 

[Coyote]

And border agents have always had the leeway to seperate them if they have reasonable cause to believe that is the case

Whoa, say what? These separations were happening BEFORE Trump came into power? Huh.

You had no idea huh? With a key difference that makes today's seperation a humanitarian disaster. Care to guess what that difference is? I'll give you a hint: a new policy.

Like I already said, there’s good reason to separate the children from those who bring them through. You can poo poo it all you want but some kids end up a hell of a lot safer as a direct result of being separated. If you’re so worried about humanitarian disasters I sure hope you didn’t vote for Hillary.

And some kids end up a hell of a lot worse as a direct result of that policy of seperating ALL of them rather than using a REASONABLE CAUSE standard. I am sure given your support of this abuse, you voted for Trump.