What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[karpenter]

I Almost Forgot To Mention:
Andrew Jackson Fended Off National Usery
By The Rothschilds Globalist Banking Cabal
For Another 75yrs Or So
Until We Were Handed Over To The Rothschilds As A Nation
By Another Democrat---Woodrow Wilson
Under The Federal Reserve Act

For That, Jackson Is An American GOD

 

[forkup]

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration..

Trump's Not Seizing Their Lands
Marching Them Off To Death
Or Rescinding Any Of Their Rightful Citizenship Claims

To Compare What Is Happening Along Our Border Now
To What Jackson Did Then And NAZIism
Is The Height Of Hyperbole

You Folks Cheapen Words Like
'Hitler' And 'Atrocity' Every Time You Use Them
Because You Use Them To Describe Everything
From Having Your Feelings Hurt To Stubbing Your Toes

So Save It
There Is NO Equivalence
Not In The Analogy That Was Used To Compare Trump To Jackson Or NAZIs

But The Equivalence Does Apply To Jackson (A Democrat)
To Your 'Hitlers' And Your 'Atrocities'

I Almost Forgot To Mention:
Andrew Jackson Fended Off National Usery
By The Rothchilds Globalist Banking Cabal
For Another 75yrs Or So
Until We Were Handed Over To Them
By Another Democrat---Woodrow Wilson
Under The Federal Reserve Act

For That, Jackson Is An American GOD

My post wasn't hyperbolic in nature. I did not compare this situation to Jackson's. I clearly defined how far both situation were similar. I defined it in terms of morality and made no further comparison. I even went as far as giving context to why morality is set aside in terms of national interest. To call it hyperbole is a deflection from both mine and the OP's premise, namely that one can't serve national interest if not prepared to impose moral limits on it, and be expected to be liable to be looked in favorable terms by history.

 

[Cellblock2429]

As I understand it, Obama did the same thing but it was on the basis of only doing it when it was impossible to keep the family unit together. The hard and fast policy of ripping kids away from their parents as just an enhanced form of deterrence is, frankly, sickening. It say much more about how far we have sunk as a society than what it says to those who break our immigration laws.

Any ICE agent could tell you the real reason for separating parents from their kids. Recently in Texas immigration court, 57 parents appeared before an immigration judge and all but one plead guilty after being told that if they plead guilty, they will be united with their kids and deported. If they ask for a trial, they will be detained till the trial. Detention can be as long as one year. It's just a legal form of extortion.

And the Orange Clown appears on TV and says, "I really care about these kids."

Sooner or later karma catches up to everyone.

It will certain catch up with Trump. The question is how much damage will be done to the nation before that happens.

I would be willing to bet that most Americans don't even know what's going on at the border, and the ones that do, many don't care either.

Trump won because of the border and immigration issues. People like me who are sick of pressing 1 to speak to an English speaking person, those who live where a lot of illegals live, those who are battling crime; some brought to us by illegals, those who watch as foreigners are taking our jobs for less money, we are all fed up with it, especially when our representatives tell us we need "immigration reform" instead of telling us what we really want to hear which is shut down the border, or at least get as close as we can to it.

So what damage to the nation do you speak of? I see no damage. If anything, I see taking a tougher stance on illegals which is what many of us want in the first place.

Would you feel better pressing #2..seems like you already are a piece of #2

/——/ Is that your best comeback to a well reasoned post, third grade bathroom humor?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Coyote

If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.

Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.

So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.

How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, separates, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?

Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?

Why all the emotion and no solution?

If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act. However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have some documentation.

It's one of the reasons we take away their kids. Look, if you are a mother or father, you should know the birthdate of your kid, where he lived last, how parents obtained money for food, what was the last thing they ate before they left...........

If there is a conflict in answers between the child and the so-called parent, the kids are taken away until they can figure out why there is such confusion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Coyote

If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.

Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.

So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.

How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, separates, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?

Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?

Why all the emotion and no solution?

If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act. However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have some documentation.

First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.

Second, these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Coyote

If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.

Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.

So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.

How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, separates, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?

Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?

Why all the emotion and no solution?

If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act. However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have some documentation.

It's one of the reasons we take away their kids. Look, if you are a mother or father, you should know the birthdate of your kid, where he lived last, how parents obtained money for food, what was the last thing they ate before they left...........

If there is a conflict in answers between the child and the so-called parent, the kids are taken away until they can figure out why there is such confusion.

/----/ I'm reminded of the scene from Titanic when Caledon Hockley grabs a child and says "I have a child am I'm all she has." just so he can get on a lifeboat.

 

[candycorn]

Coyote

If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.

Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.

So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.

How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, separates, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?

Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?

Why all the emotion and no solution?

If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act. However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have some documentation.

First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.

Second, these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.

So there are no basic human rights?

 

[pismoe]

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.​

Trump and Sessions, are pieces of shit humans. They are the absolute worst of what this country has to offer. And you can throw those kiss-ass republicans right along with them. Trump and his dumbass minions are extremists. They make up only 10% of the population. We need 3rd party candidates to deal with these pricks, because the democrats are not the answer.

--------------------------------------------------- i like yer last line , now get your azz out there and divide the 'dems' up into multiple parties Billo !!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Obviously, we need to cut through the rhetorical bullshit one more time.

1) The rules about detaining children HAVE NOT changed. Trump IS NOT doing anything new in regards to detaining children. The government has been required to release children from detention within 20 days ever since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the Flores Consent Decree (aka the Flores Settlement) to include accompanied minors in 2016. What Trump has changed is how we deal with adults. Where Obama used the Flores Settlement and the accompanying Ninth Circuit ruling as an excuse to give adults a free pass if they could claim to be part of a family unit, Trump is insisting on treating those adults like the criminals they are.

2) Separation of children from adults happens only in three cases: if the adult is not the child's parent, if the adult is a threat to the child, or if the adult is put into criminal proceedings. In other words, the exact same circumstances under which a child would be taken from an adult even among our own citizenry.

3) When an illegal is prosecuted, he is taken into custody by the US Marshals. The US Marshals do not, EVER, take care of the children of people they take into custody, no matter who that person is or what they're being arrested for. Just as with anyone in this situation, the children are taken custody of by HHS, which cares for them in temporary shelters until they know whether the adult will be deported or will apply for asylum.

4) Assuming the illegal has not committed another crime, the criminal proceedings are short. Usually, the illegal pleads guilty, they are sentenced to time served, and they are returned to ICE. This typically happens in one day. At that point, the adult is reunited with the child, and the whole kit and kaboodle are deported back to where they came from. If the adult is truly concerned about being separated from the child, they can easily put an end to it.

5) The separation only becomes extended if the illegal immigrant himself chooses to make it so by applying for asylum. THAT procedure pretty much always takes longer than the government is allowed, by law, to hold the child. When that time limit is reached, the child is placed with a responsible party. Quite often, that is a relative or friend of the illegal immigrant, because illegal immigrants often have connections to people who are already in the country.

6) If the adult is held while their asylum claim is processed, it is likely to go through the system much more quickly, a couple of months as opposed to dragging on for years. If the adult is released into the population, he is highly unlikely to return for his court dates. We know this from experience.

7) There is no reason whatsoever for someone who is legitimately looking for asylum to cross the border illegally. They have only to approach a port of entry and state their desire for asylum. They are NOT arrested when they do this, and not separated from their children. The fact that border crossings dried up at the beginning of the Trump administration and only started again when rumors went around that the policy on the border had not changed indicates that the vast majority of these people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution, but simply prefer the economic benefits of being in the US.

8) In April, the New York Times reported:

Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.

Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.

"It is common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.” - azcentral.com

But since our policies have favored family units over single adults, we have created an incentive to put children in peril. How can anyone who claims to care about the well-being of these children advocate policies which encourage their endangerment?

9) Congress has the power to change all of this by one simple vote. They can pass a law overruling the Flores Settlement; they can pass a law mandating family detention, and providing funding to make it possible. So why is it that the only bill that has been introduced in Congress to address this situation has come from the Republicans, who are being vilified, and the Democrats are too busy grandstanding for the media to propose anything at all?

Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border. This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president. Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit. He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it. I'm sure most of his supporters would agree.

The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it. I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.

It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act. It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law. And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.

It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.

 

[pismoe]

Coyote

If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.

Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.

So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.

How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, separates, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?

Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?

Why all the emotion and no solution?

If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act. However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have some documentation.

First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.

Second, these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.

So there are no basic human rights?

----------------------------------------------------------------------- i only concern myself with Americas 'Bill of Rights' Candy .

 

[forkup]

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

I see. This is only if you

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.

 

[pismoe]

Coyote

If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.

Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.

So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.

How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, separates, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?

Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?

Why all the emotion and no solution?

If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act. However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have some documentation.

It's one of the reasons we take away their kids. Look, if you are a mother or father, you should know the birthdate of your kid, where he lived last, how parents obtained money for food, what was the last thing they ate before they left...........

If there is a conflict in answers between the child and the so-called parent, the kids are taken away until they can figure out why there is such confusion.

/----/ I'm reminded of the scene from Titanic when Caledon Hockley grabs a child and says "I have a child am I'm all she has." just so he can get on a lifeboat.

---------------------------------------------------------------- thanks , if i understand correctly thats a good illustration of whats going on Cellblock .

 

[pismoe]

Coyote

If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.

Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.

So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.

How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, separates, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?

Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?

Why all the emotion and no solution?

If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act. However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have some documentation.

First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.

Second, these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.

So there are no basic human rights?

---------------------------------------------- [chuckle] mornin Candy .

 

[Cellblock2429]

Coyote

If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.

Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.

So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.

How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, separates, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?

Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?

Why all the emotion and no solution?

If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act. However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have some documentation.

First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.

Second, these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.

So there are no basic human rights?

/----/ Are you saying you can't argue a point without lies. twists and distortions?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

I see. This is only if you

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.

A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.

 

[Unkotare]

A lot of these ‘parents’ are not really.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

I see. This is only if you

Trump will go down in history beside Andrew Jackson (whose picture is on the wall of the oval office). Jackson dislocated all the Native Americans across the Mississippi River, including the Cherokee, who had adopted Christianity, created a written language, ran a newspaper, and lived in peace with an agricultural economy.

I Just Don't See The Equivalent Nature Here
BTW, Jackson WAS A Democrat...

The equivalent is that Trump doesn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of ending immigration. Just like Jackson didn't let morality stand in the way of his goal of getting gold. They both thought they had the right to do this because they considered themselves as representing America's best interests. I'm giving Trump the benefit of the doubt since I believe he's doing it because he wants to placate his base. I believe, if your willing to disregard morality when going after goals, you are nothing more then a thug and history will judge you accordingly.

That's IF you think what he's doing is immoral; enforcing the law and trying to provide a deterrent.

I don't think taking kids away from "people" who dragged them across a place like Mexico, dirty, hungry and confused, putting them someplace where they get showers, food, medical care, new clothing, a bed to sleep in; something they probably haven't seen in over two weeks, as being immoral.

By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.

A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.

/-----/ Plain and simple: "If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border." -- Jeff Sessions.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.

 

[deanrd]

Even though we are a nation of immigrants, Republicans don't see immigrants as people. They see immigrants as animals.