What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[Natural Citizen]

....enforced ID card to end more coming.

It kind of reminds me of the thing about wanting everyone to register their guns. Do criminals register their guns? Come on, man. Get real.

Naturally, we'll be left with the same phenomenon when the federal government starts registering people in a database with unlimited amount of information and no clear definition of what surmises a terrorist. Is a terrorist going to go register himself? Of course not.

It's war on us.

 

[francoHFW]

Link?

Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online

.

That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.

Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.

And yes amnesty of sort for Worthy illegals the GOP basically invited in.

"Worthy illegals", talk about an oxymoron. LMAO


.

In 2007, 94% of illegal adult men worked, 65 percent paid taxes, and 35% owned homes. The GOP refused Solutions and basically invited them in. The GOP only gives a damn in elections and corrupt GOP depressions, super duper dupes.

 

[OKTexas]

Link?

Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online

.

That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.

Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.

Why not enforce e-verify?


.

That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....

You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.


.

 

[francoHFW]

....enforced ID card to end more coming.

It kind of reminds me of the thing about wanting everyone to register their guns. Do criminals register their guns? Come on, man. Get real.

Naturally, we'll be left with the same phenomenon when the federal government starts registering people in a database with unlimited amount of information and no clear definition of what surmises a terrorist. Is a terrorist going to go register himself? Of course not.

It's war on us.

If they do any crime armed with illegal guns, give them 5 years. 1 year for possession of same.

 

[OKTexas]

Anyway. Franco, practice your people skills. You lack discipline. Respectfully.

Good luck with your new Reich. As I said, the GOP is your friend along that journey. And, again, their base, too, will love them for it.

There is one solution for the illegal problem. Amnesty for the Worthy, enforced ID card to end more coming.

Enforced ID does nothing for off the books employment. Only way to fix that is jailing people that do it.


.

 

[francoHFW]

Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents | Daily Mail Online

.

That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.

Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.

Why not enforce e-verify?


.

That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....

You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.


.

Yes I know you are brainwashed about democratic Party evil and Corruption. With no evidence of course. GOP corruption and crime are well documented. Their giveaway to the greedy idiot corrupt rich and outrageous propaganda has ruined the rest and the country the last 35 years.

 

[francoHFW]

Anyway. Franco, practice your people skills. You lack discipline. Respectfully.

Good luck with your new Reich. As I said, the GOP is your friend along that journey. And, again, their base, too, will love them for it.

There is one solution for the illegal problem. Amnesty for the Worthy, enforced ID card to end more coming.

Enforced ID does nothing for off the books employment. Only way to fix that is jailing people that do it.


.

Of course stopping illegal work is the point of enforcement. Then illegals stop coming.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

Yes, this is terrible. I think I know of a solution though: If you have children, STF away from our borders.

Then it clearly is not so terrible to you. It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.

Then, separating children from their parents if they parents happen to be murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers, et cetera, is evil and thus the children must accompany them into state and federal penitentiaries?
To cross a border without going through customs IS ACTUALLY a crime and as a crime has been committed, the individuals who did this, must be processed accordingly and any separation they experience is both temporary and done in a safe manner, plus, all minors are treated well and are put back with the family as soon as possible...….AND....DEPORTED, as they should be. There is a process for entering foreign nations and that process must be followed by those seeking to enter the nation.
Further, two other related issues:
1. All who seek to enter, must be thoroughly vetted to ensure that we are not getting known murderers, rapists, thieves, drug-cartel members, deadbeat dads, or terrorists. We have enough of them as it is.
2. Many of those coming over illegally, come from Central America, claiming to be leaving their own nation in fear for their lives.....it would be logical if they left a city they were in danger in and just went to another city in their own country or, if they didn't feel safe in their own nation, they can enter the very next nation to them and would thus not only be safe, but also be entering a nation which has the same language.
Last, this open borders concept is dangerous, one only has to look at what is happening in Europe, as they let in millions of Muslims and are now paying the deadly price for doing so. Terrorist attacks and especially rapes are commonplace.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally? It's a thought.

 

[Coyote]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally? It's a thought.

I have no problem with that. I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.

Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?

 

[OKTexas]

On the topic of welfare, while I'm thinking of it. I want to be clear about that. I see nothing wrong with a welfare program at the State level. Nor did the Framers for that matter. The States do have the power to do that and really, it's the moral thing to do to help their citizens if they need it.

But the federal welfare, no. They lack just power to do that.

State governments should be ended. When Democrats get control...

That's when you'll see a second amendment solution, is that really what you want?


.

 

[Natural Citizen]

State governments should be ended. When Democrats get control...

Well, you can't do that. Franco. What the heck? Jiminy crickets, man. America is a compound Republic. A federation of Republics and a central Republic. The State Republics have all of the power to keep the Federal Republic limited for liberty. Not that they're doing a very good job of it. They're not.

Hold on a second, let me go to my files. You're killing me here. I have a bunch of pdf files from my books and I think you might benefit from learning about our system of government and why it is just that way. I think you're reading the wrong books. Really, I do, and the route you're taking, you're laying your head on your own sword, brother.

K, I found a the one I wanted. Principle 6 of the America Ideal of 1776 - The 12 Basic American Principles by Harold Abert Long 1976.

It's not that much to read, it won't kill you.



A principle of the traditional american philosophy of governance. Principle 6 of 12....


6. Decentralized Government

". . . true barriers [bulwarks] of our liberty in this country are our State governments . . ." (Thomas Jefferson, 1811 letter to Destutt de Tracy)


The Principle

1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that
decentralization of governmental power, to the maximum
practicable extent, is essential to the security of Man's
God-given, unalienable rights.


Man's Unalienable Rights and "States Rights" Doubly
Protected

2. It asserts that these rights are most securely protected by a
federated system of government--consisting of a central
government (a Republic) and State governments (each a
Republic). Under this system, the whole quantity of
governmental power is not only limited by written
Constitution, Federal and State, but also decentralized so that
the vast majority of powers are kept on the State and local
levels. The correct definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally
limited government of the representative type, created by a
written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable
(from its original meaning) by them only by amendment--with
its powers divided between three separate branches:
Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The American system is "a
compound Republic"--a federation, or combination, of central
and State Republics--under which: "The different governments
will control each other . . . ," while within each Republic there
are two safeguarding features: (a) a division of powers, as well
as (b) a system of checks and balances between separate
departments: "Hence a double security arises to the rights of
the people." (The Federalist, number 51, by Madison.)


Greater Quantity of Power Retained by Each State

3. By far the greater quantity and variety of power was
retained by the government of each State when the United
States Constitution was framed and adopted in 1787-1788.
Only a comparatively small part of each State's power was
delegated by its people to the new central, or Federal,
government--chiefly the powers concerning "war, peace,
negotiation and foreign commerce" (per The Federalist,
number 45 by Madison). This delegated-power
government--the central Republic--was granted few and
limited powers; while each State's government is a full-power
Republic under the State Constitution, subject to its
restrictions, also to that grant, and to the few restrictions
specified expressly in the United States Constitution as
applying to the governments of the States.


"Home Rule" the Basic, Controlling Principle

4. This federated system of decentralized power is a chief
characteristic of the American governmental arrangements.
This is in keeping with the controlling intent of those who
framed and adopted each of its Amendments. The main aim
was to preserve maximum "Home Rule" by the States, to keep
the greatest feasible quantity of power as close as possible to
the source--the people--where they can best watch it alertly
so as to check and prevent its abuse or misuse, as well as to
prevent its unsound, or unnecessary, expansion, to the peril or
perhaps doom of their liberties.


Economic Liberty and Decentralized Government

5. Such decentralized government is favorable, indeed
essential, to America's traditional philosophy and system of
economic liberty--the inseparable and indispensable economic
aspect of the indivisible whole of Individual Liberty-
Responsibility. This includes the system of individual, private,
competitive enterprise (called Individual Enterprise--the term
used by President Jefferson in his 1801 Annual Message to
Congress). This system features a free-market economy--free
from Government-over-Man controls, although subject to just
regulation as authorized by the Constitution's pertinent
provisions) under just laws expressive of "just powers" (to use
the term of the Declaration of Independence) designed to
protect the equal rights of all Individuals and thus to
safeguard sound competition--which gives full play to
individual initiative inspired by the incentive of economic
liberty of The Individual and is a main characteristic of the
traditional American philosophy. This right is not a goal or
end, in and of itself, but a necessary means, and it is an
essential and main support of Man's unalienable rights. It
involves freedom of choice by both producer-seller and
consumer-buyer, subject always to the potently persuasive
influence of community opinion and standards in the sound
environment of an ethical society which emphasizes the duty
factor of Individual Liberty-Responsibility, including due
respect for the equal rights of others. This means that the
central government is limited strictly to the consistent role of
mere regulation (not control) to those ends--regulation as
limited by the Constitution. This excludes any control by the
central government directly or indirectly of the whole or any
part of the national economy, which includes all of the
people's economic activities.

The free-market economy is controlled by the people as a
whole through their acting as buyers and sellers--a multitude
of Individuals generally acting individually as both buyer and
seller of things or services a number of times each day in the
ordinary course of life's daily activities, involving transactions
great or small--through their exercise of freedom of choice
daily, even hourly; for example, the free-market economy is
both a result and instrument of the exercise of this freedom of
Individuals--not a mechanistic, independently operating
"Thing" which oppressively controls human beings.


Sample Warnings by The Founders

6. The American people and their leaders in 1776-1787 were
determined that the central government should never be
allowed to possess power to act, or be permitted to act, as a
"consolidated" government with sovereign, unlimited power
over all of the people and things in the country. Vigilant friends
of Individual Liberty, including for example leaders such as
Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton and
James Madison, warned repeatedly and emphatically against
the danger of ever permitting such a government to exist in
America.


Samuel Adams' Opinion

7. Samuel Adams, firebrand patriot-leader always in the lead
for both American Independence and Man's Liberty against
Government-over-Man, expressed fear in this regard in 1789
(letter to Richard Henry Lee) in keeping with his never varying
sentiments. He said that he feared misinterpretation of the
Constitution would bring about fully centralized (consolidated)
power in the Federal government at the expense of the States
and "sink both in despotism."


Hamilton's Opinion

8. In the New York Ratifying Convention in 1788, Hamilton
warned sharply that the States' powers reserved under the
Constitution must be safeguarded for the sake of Individual
Liberty and that Congress would never fail to safeguard them:
". . . unless they become madmen."


Hamilton and Madison in "The Federalist"

9. This sound line of thought was stressed by Hamilton and
Madison, in their joint report in The Federalist (for example,
numbers 17 and 28 by Hamilton, and 45 and 46 by Madison),
recording the intent of the 1787 Framing Convention as
expressed in the Constitution. The foregoing sentiments of
these leaders were shared by their fellow leaders and the
American people in general of that day--as reflecting truly
American principles--and by Jefferson second to none.


Jefferson's Opinion

10. In his First Inaugural Address as President, Jefferson
stated that the State governments are "the surest bulwarks
against anti-republican tendencies"--that is, tendencies which
conflict with the American form of government: a Republic. He
stated in a letter to Destutt de Tracy (1811): "But the true
barriers [bulwarks] of our liberty in this country are our State
governments . . ." With regard to the people's freedom from
Government-over-Man controls by the Federal government, in
keeping with the Constitution's limits on that government's
power, Jefferson stated in his Annual Message to Congress, in
1801: "Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation,
the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when
left most free to individual enterprise." In the above-
mentioned 1811 letter, Jefferson also discussed the
prospective use of the Militia of the States--all acting
together--to resist the forces of any Federal usurpers acting in
violation of the Constitution to oppress or dominate the people
or government of any State.


Some Peaceable Remedies of the People Against an Offending Federal Government

11. Some of the peaceable remedies of the people of any State
against what they consider to be anti-Constitution, or
otherwise offensive, conduct by the Federal government--by
any of its Branches, or by all of them combined--as
contemplated by the Convention which framed the
Constitution, were specified in The Federalist number 46 by
Madison, with silent acquiescence of his co-author Hamilton,
as follows:

"On the other hand, should an unwarrantable
measure of the federal government be unpopular in
particular states, which would seldom fail to be the
case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which
may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition
to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the
people, their repugnance and perhaps refusal to
co-operate with the officers of the union, the frowns
of the executive magistracy [officials] of the state,
the embarrassments created by legislative devices,
which would often be added on such occasions,
would oppose in any state difficulties not to be
despised; would form in a large state very serious
impediments, and where the sentiments of several
adjoining states happened to be in union, would
present obstructions which the federal government
would hardly be willing to encounter."

The most extremely "unwarrantable measure" is an
unconstitutional measure. Madison here expressed the
understanding also of those who framed the Constitution and
of their fellow leaders in the State Ratifying Conventions as
well as of the people in general--all extremely jealous of their
hard-won liberties and determined to act vigorously against
any danger to them from the greatly feared, central
government if it should ever threaten to over-step the limits
imposed on its powers under the constitution, as amended.
Protests by State legislatures against what they would
consider to be abuses of power or usurpations, potential or
actual, by the central government were of course included as a
main element in what Madison referred to her as "legislative
devices . . . impediments . . . obstructions." Actual examples
occurring afterward are the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
of 1798 and the Hartford Convention Resolutions of 1815
(discussed in Principle 3, Pars. 5-6). Some additional remedies
of the people, of a peaceable nature, are political action--use
of the ballot in elections--and amendment of the Constitution
by the people (Art. V); while impeachment by Congress of any
officials guilty of acting as defaulting public trustees is
provided for (Art. I, Sec. 2,3).


State's Self-defense by Force, in Last Resort, per "The Federalist"

12. With regard to use by the States of force--use of their
Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing
arms)--in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to
oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation
of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, Hamilton and
Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist
(numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption
and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall
their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces. This
understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of
the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in
general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of
Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans
must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against
tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only
the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the
Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any
non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be
countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces:
Sheriff's posses (posses comitatus) and any civilian police
forces. (See also Par. 12 of Principle 5.)


The Civil over The Military

13. The traditional American philosophy requires, as a
fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The
Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The
Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of
the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in
peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In
1776, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, for example, made
this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of
peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in
all cases the military should be under strict subordination to,
and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in
the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the
Constitution (Article VI) that all Federal officials--both civil and
military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with
the result that all military officers, thus controlled
fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be
obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but
only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution.
The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not
only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--
automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void
from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all
times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's
fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise
so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the
United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by
all necessary means: by force in last resort.


The Conclusion

14. The truly American formula, in accordance with the
traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring
self-government by means of constitutionally limited
government with adequate protection assured for Individual

Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty.



As an aside, Franco, I think you'd benefit by understanding what it is that you;re actually asking for when you say that the States authority over the fed should by ended. So, let us learn the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

Fro mthe same book, by the way....

An Important Distinction: A Democracy versus A Republic...

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The
Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.


A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man. This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy
or a Representative Democracy.


A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

 

[OKTexas]

That is our wonderful justice system and Constitution, NOT LEFTISTS, CONSPIRACY NUT JOBS.

Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.

Why not enforce e-verify?


.

That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....

You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.


.

Yes I know you are brainwashed about democratic Party evil and Corruption. With no evidence of course. GOP corruption and crime are well documented. Their giveaway to the greedy idiot corrupt rich and outrageous propaganda has ruined the rest and the country the last 35 years.

Success envy, that's sooooooooooooooooooo you. ROFLMFAO


.

 

[francoHFW]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

Yes, this is terrible. I think I know of a solution though: If you have children, STF away from our borders.

Then it clearly is not so terrible to you. It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.

Then, separating children from their parents if they parents happen to be murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers, et cetera, is evil and thus the children must accompany them into state and federal penitentiaries?
To cross a border without going through customs IS ACTUALLY a crime and as a crime has been committed, the individuals who did this, must be processed accordingly and any separation they experience is both temporary and done in a safe manner, plus, all minors are treated well and are put back with the family as soon as possible...….AND....DEPORTED, as they should be. There is a process for entering foreign nations and that process must be followed by those seeking to enter the nation.
Further, two other related issues:
1. All who seek to enter, must be thoroughly vetted to ensure that we are not getting known murderers, rapists, thieves, drug-cartel members, deadbeat dads, or terrorists. We have enough of them as it is.
2. Many of those coming over illegally, come from Central America, claiming to be leaving their own nation in fear for their lives.....it would be logical if they left a city they were in danger in and just went to another city in their own country or, if they didn't feel safe in their own nation, they can enter the very next nation to them and would thus not only be safe, but also be entering a nation which has the same language.
Last, this open borders concept is dangerous, one only has to look at what is happening in Europe, as they let in millions of Muslims and are now paying the deadly price for doing so. Terrorist attacks and especially rapes are commonplace.

The millions you are talking about are refugees from war and are as dangerous as kittens. Basically every terrorist is a citizen and born in country, just like ours. They get pissed off dealing with racist right-wingers. Brainwashed functional moron.

 

[francoHFW]

Pass a good work ID card and enforce it. And end this crap.

Why not enforce e-verify?


.

That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....

You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.


.

Yes I know you are brainwashed about democratic Party evil and Corruption. With no evidence of course. GOP corruption and crime are well documented. Their giveaway to the greedy idiot corrupt rich and outrageous propaganda has ruined the rest and the country the last 35 years.

Success envy, that's sooooooooooooooooooo you. ROFLMFAO


.

I have no problem with Rich Democrats,, just low life greedy idiot lying thieving or just plain greedy GOP rich, super duper. Change the channel.

 

[OKTexas]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally? It's a thought.

I have no problem with that. I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.

Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?

It's been proven it is in accordance with a federal court order, yet you refuse to acknowledge that FACT. You're starting to sound like the broken record Matthew.


.

 

[Coyote]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

Yes, this is terrible. I think I know of a solution though: If you have children, STF away from our borders.

Then it clearly is not so terrible to you. It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.

Then, separating children from their parents if they parents happen to be murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers, et cetera, is evil and thus the children must accompany them into state and federal penitentiaries?
To cross a border without going through customs IS ACTUALLY a crime and as a crime has been committed, the individuals who did this, must be processed accordingly and any separation they experience is both temporary and done in a safe manner, plus, all minors are treated well and are put back with the family as soon as possible...….AND....DEPORTED, as they should be. There is a process for entering foreign nations and that process must be followed by those seeking to enter the nation.
Further, two other related issues:
1. All who seek to enter, must be thoroughly vetted to ensure that we are not getting known murderers, rapists, thieves, drug-cartel members, deadbeat dads, or terrorists. We have enough of them as it is.
2. Many of those coming over illegally, come from Central America, claiming to be leaving their own nation in fear for their lives.....it would be logical if they left a city they were in danger in and just went to another city in their own country or, if they didn't feel safe in their own nation, they can enter the very next nation to them and would thus not only be safe, but also be entering a nation which has the same language.
Last, this open borders concept is dangerous, one only has to look at what is happening in Europe, as they let in millions of Muslims and are now paying the deadly price for doing so. Terrorist attacks and especially rapes are commonplace.

Murderers, robbers, thieves, drug dealers are dangerous and those are felonies.

Illegally entering the country is a misdeamenor in most cases.

This isn't about open borders, it's about what to do between arrest and a hearing.


They are not necessarily treated well. They range in age from a few months of age to teens, and the younger they are the less they understand what is happening, only that they are forceably removed from the only people they know in a country they don't know and put with strangers. Because this wasn't the policy before, the are put into over crowded former military barracks, not with families. The foster system can't handle the overload. As to reunited as "soon as possible" - parents aren't even told where their children are and the numbers are so great those kids may very well get lost.

‘They just took them?’ Frantic parents separated from their kids fill courts on the border

 

[Coyote]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally? It's a thought.

I have no problem with that. I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.

Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?

It's been proven it is in accordance with a federal court order, yet you refuse to acknowledge that FACT. You're starting to sound like the broken record Matthew.


.

I really don't care who I sound like to *you*. Agencies have ALWAYS had discretion in these matters. You refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[Flopper]

Now that would be pretty dumb, applying for asylum out of fear for the lives of the family members and then leave the kids there.

So then it somehow becomes our problem, right? Why didn't they just stay in Mexico if that's what they feared?

Yes, it does become our problem when they cross our boarders. Mexico does send them back and they grant asylum to only 1 in 20 that apply. With the deteriorating relations between the US and Mexico, they're probably busing them to the US boarder so they'll be our problem.

They are not our problem, Mexico is our problem. It's no different than if we sent these people to the Canadian border. We did it to them. We should not be allowing them to trample across our land into Canada.

Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US. Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.

Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder. However, why should they do that? Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily. US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.

Is that what you think? Then how did our media pickup on the fact this current crop of people were on their way here two weeks before they arrived?

Of course Mexico allows them to come here; they always have. They know why they are coming here and give them their blessing.

Mexico allows them to come here, and then they are our problem. They bring kids with them, and then they are our problem. They disappear and never show up for court, and then they are our problem. Gangs form and sell drugs, and then that is our problem.

Solution to our problem? Close the southern border down completely. I'm sick of problems invading our country and then we have to spend the money and find a solution to those problems.

It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder.

You don't seem to get it. It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders. Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?

You're being incredible xenophobia. You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making. You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs.

If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress. Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants during his term in office. The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.

 

[OKTexas]

Why not enforce e-verify?


.

That would be a start LOL. But according to GOP employers, also communism LOL... We need Democrats in total control for about 12 years at least. They should disband your bought off brainwashed party....

You would shrivel up and blow away if you didn't have your hate for the GOP, be careful what you wish for.


.

Yes I know you are brainwashed about democratic Party evil and Corruption. With no evidence of course. GOP corruption and crime are well documented. Their giveaway to the greedy idiot corrupt rich and outrageous propaganda has ruined the rest and the country the last 35 years.

Success envy, that's sooooooooooooooooooo you. ROFLMFAO


.

I have no problem with Rich Democrats,, just low life greedy idiot lying thieving or just playing greedy GOP rich, super duper. Change the channel.

OH OKAY, so you're just a plain old hypocrite.


.