What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[Hutch Starskey]

Is race more important than being American?

Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.

Just admit that for you, it's all about keeping brown people out of America.
Don't be a pussy and stop dancing around that point you so desperately are trying to make.

/———/ Ahhh the good old race card has been dealt

^Another cowardly denier.

/—-/ When all else fails call your opponent a racist.

I never used that word but feel free to explain why you feel these people would make America a "shithole".

/——/ It’s better than the democRAT Policy of Turing America into a shythole.

 

[Pop23]

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'

He is just abusing children. No big deal to his base.

If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.

How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.

How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard. Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant. At least have the integrity to be honest about it.

------------------------- i don't care about the TRAFFICKING . I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law Coyote . --------------------- just a comment .

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.

Think about that

 

[kaz]

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

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.

So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.

You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid. Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.

Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass

 

[Flopper]

Haha...oh I get it now. You want to believe the cockroaches from Mexico, Central and South America can quality for asylum?
You realize that whether applying for asylum or not, an illegal alien standing on American soil is a federal criminal...right?

Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.

Nice conflation. How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?

There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.

And they aren't now if they present themselves at a border crossing.

Glad I could be here to inform you of something you should google before posting.

Thank me later

Trump admin discussed splitting moms, kids to prevent asylum in Feb. 2017
WASHINGTON — The idea of separating migrant children from their mothers was discussed during the earliest days of the Trump administration as a way to deter asylum-seekers, according to notes from a closed-door DHS meeting.

BC News has found that some women are separated from their children even if they are legally claiming asylum and not being referred for prosecution. In those cases, the children are kept in the same facility, but they are still separated for days without being told whether they will be reunited.

Former USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez, who served under the Obama administration, said families who presented themselves for asylum between ports of entry were not previously prosecuted.

"We understood that the border had to have integrity," Rodriguez said. "But we also had a pretty deep awareness of why people were coming. There were deep humanitarian issues that were driving them here."

During the Obama administration after successful making it thru the first interview, asylum seekers were housed in family detention centers if they did not have a visa. Families were separated in cases where there was no room available. Interviews and investigations typically took about 3 to 6 mos. About 40% of those that that made it thru the first interview were accepted. There is no law that requires that families be separated or kept together. It is policy which is always subject to change.

 

[forkup]

I see. This is only if you
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.

So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.

You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid. Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.

Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass

Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.

No.

Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.

The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.

Perhaps you weren't listening to Cecilie, go read her posts again.

 

[kaz]

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

So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.

You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid. Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.

Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass

Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.

"So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."

Dude, you were very clear. If you're not comparing them, this has no point.

I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling

Sometimes you take risks for your kids!

That sentence is entirely context driven. Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is this all you can say? Are you so wrapped up in emotion you're willing to claim someone supports child abuse purely because they disagree with you politically?

You certainly aren't in opposition in this case.

Ha. Of what? Child abuse? That's weaksauce man.

My father was a victim of child abuse, he routinely told me horror stories. He was molested by his brother and beaten with a crossiron. He was starved, and his father tried to kill him.

No. Don't you dare insinuate that I support child abuse. None of what our President does to these children comes remotely close to that level of child abuse. Nor does it rise to the level of child abuse at all.

Causing mental and emotional harm to children over prolonged periods of time is certainly child abuse. Especially when done when discrestion allows for altenatives.

Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.

And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"

Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.

And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"

The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.

Discretion as in prosecutorial discretion, dope.

All of the people will be dealt with. Those who don't qualify or apply for asylum are deported immediately. Those who qualify are processed. Those granted asylum can stay and those denied are immediately deported.

Where is there "no enforcement" in that?

Oh, the government is going to their countries, dragging them up here, and shoving them across the border illegally? Is that what's happening?

"Prosecutorial discretion" = "do we prosecute or not?" DOPE.

"No enforcement" would be in the "You CAN'T put kids in foster care while their parents are locked up!" which leads to "You MUST release the parents with the children so they can be together", which is the same as not bothering to enforce the borders at all.

It's not that I don't think you're plenty stupid enough to really believe the garbage you're shoveling; it's just that I don't happen to think that's what's at play here.

 

[Pop23]

Anyone can apply and 40% of applicants are granted asylum. Prosecuting them is not required. It is done as a matter of policy.

Nice conflation. How many of those applicants went about it the proper way, and how many swarmed across the border first chance they got, and only mentioned asylum when they got caught and arrested?

There's no conflation. Asylum seekers were not prosecuted prior to thle implementation of this new policy.
Zero tolerance, meaning 100% prosecutions, is a new policy, fool.

And they aren't now if they present themselves at a border crossing.

Glad I could be here to inform you of something you should google before posting.

Thank me later

Trump admin discussed splitting moms, kids to prevent asylum in Feb. 2017
WASHINGTON — The idea of separating migrant children from their mothers was discussed during the earliest days of the Trump administration as a way to deter asylum-seekers, according to notes from a closed-door DHS meeting.

BC News has found that some women are separated from their children even if they are legally claiming asylum and not being referred for prosecution. In those cases, the children are kept in the same facility, but they are still separated for days without being told whether they will be reunited.

Former USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez, who served under the Obama administration, said families who presented themselves for asylum between ports of entry were not previously prosecuted.

"We understood that the border had to have integrity," Rodriguez said. "But we also had a pretty deep awareness of why people were coming. There were deep humanitarian issues that were driving them here."

During the Obama administration after successful making it thru the first interview, asylum seekers were housed in family detention centers if they did not have a visa. Families were separated in cases where there was no room available. Interviews and investigations typically took about 3 to 6 mos. About 40% of those that that made it thru the first interview were accepted. There is no law that requires that families be separated or kept together. It is policy which is always subject to change.

Asylum seekers that cross at a Boarder Crossing are not separated from their parent or legal guardians

 

[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.

The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.

Only after the parents are prosecuted which is the new policy, fool.

No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days. Period. End of discussion. You can say, "Trump can just sign an order to ignore that" and force me to say it for 100 more times on top of the 100 you've done it so far, but the answer will remain the same.

The only fool here is the one who deliberately forgets what he's told five seconds after it's said, because he REALLY wants to believe he can wish the world different.

Let me save you some time.

The law requires that children whose parents have been arrested MUST not be detained longer than 20 days.

"Trump could just issue and executive order and change that."

The President does not have the legal authority to ignore or change the law unilaterally. Congress could change it, but I notice you're not spending ANY time excoriating the people who have that power, and ALL your time blaming someone who doesn't.

Until I hear you say something about "Why doesn't Congress do something?" you lack all moral credibility on this subject, and have summarily lost the debate.

There. Now copy and paste that somewhere, and stop chasing your tail.

No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.

"If"

The new policy changed that to "when".

The separation is the result of their zero tolerance, 100% prosecution policy, dope.

There's no getting around that.

Damned right it did, and if you're looking for us to be ashamed that people breaking the law are being arrested, you're barking up the wrong tree.

The separation is the result of people trying to break our laws and game our system, DOPE.

There's no getting around THAT.

 

[Pop23]

He is just abusing children. No big deal to his base.

If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.

How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.

How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard. Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant. At least have the integrity to be honest about it.

------------------------- i don't care about the TRAFFICKING . I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law Coyote . --------------------- just a comment .

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)

If it's that much hell, a few days separation should be a walk in the park. So what the hell is the problem?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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.

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

Which is of course much better than the situation they're fleeing.

There's an old saying regarding the actions of refugees. " Parents only put their children in a boat whe the land is no longer safe."

What a load of horseshit. I realize you want to pretend that every single one of these people is fleeing horrible persecution, but the fact is that most of them just want to take advantage of our standard of living. Which is understandable, but it's also not my fucking problem.

I don't have to pretend anything. We have a process that determines that. It's you pretending that is not the case.

That's right, we do. And that system says if you want asylum, you take your happy ass to a port of entry and tell them so. If you choose instead to cross the border between ports of entry, the system THEN says that your ass is a criminal and gets arrested.

It's YOU pretending that that's somehow "outrageous" or "eeeeevil" or "shocking". The only thing outrageous and evil and shocking here is how the last thing on your mind is the protection of your own fucking country.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway. But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested. You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey. I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.

But this really cuts to the heart of the matter. You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".

The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.

And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition. A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used. To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.

The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.

There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.

Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed. Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.

The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.

Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life? Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.

 

[forkup]

So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.

You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid. Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.

Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass

Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.

"So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."

Dude, you were very clear. If you're not comparing them, this has no point.

I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling

Sometimes you take risks for your kids!

That sentence is entirely context driven. Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't

Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway. But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested. You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey. I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.

But this really cuts to the heart of the matter. You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".

when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".

No. What we really mean is there are ways to deal with this without separation being a result. Trump knows this. Separation was always their intention.

From march of 17. Video in link.

"Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly says the Trump administration is considering separating children from their parents to deter families from trying to enter the United States illegally"

Kelly: Separating families under consideration - CNN Video

No, what you really mean is that unrestricted, unregulated immigration was always your intention. There is a way to deal with this, but it runs through Congress, not the President.

I don't give a tin shit what stupid stuff Kelly spewed out. People are always saying dumb things, and unlike you, I don't focus my whole life around people and personalities and who-said-what. Every single bit of my argument is based on the actual laws, and you have yet to dispute a one of them.

Dispute my points, or admit defeat. Trying to move the goalposts is the same as admitting defeat.

No, what you really mean is that unrestricted, unregulated immigration was always your intention.

That's not what I mean at all and I've told you that several times now, dope.

Obviously the process for determining eligibility for asylum is neither unresricted nor unregulated.

I've disputed and debunked your argument each time.

It is their policy to separate families as a deterrent. Period.
If you won't take the word of the then DHS secretary, then you're truly lost.

I don't give a rat's ass what you TELL me you want. You have obviously mistaken yourself for someone I respect or trust. I'm following the logic chain; you'd have to be able to think to comprehend that.

Saying, "No, no, no, that's not true!" is not "disputing" anything. You have yet to actually disprove a damned thing I've said. Again, the fact that you SAY something is true is worth less than a fart in a wind tunnel to me.

It is their policy to prosecute all criminals as criminals. Period.

If you won't take historical record as fact, then you're truly stupid . . . which we've already established.

Can you "dispute" that the President is charged by the Constitution with enforcing the laws? Can you dispute that the President has zero legal power to make or change laws? Can you dispute that laws are passed by Congress, and that Congress could pass a law today changing this whole situation, but hasn't? (Hint: if you're going to tackle the actual facts on this, you're gonna have to FINALLY read the Constitution.)

Can you "dispute" that the Flores Settlement made it legally binding on the federal government to release unaccompanied minors after no more than 20 days LONG before Trump became President? Can you dispute that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Flores Settlement had to be applied to accompanied minors as well, ALSO long before Trump became President? Can you dispute that it was the ACLU and other leftist groups who argued for both of those decisions because family detention was "inhumane"? And can you dispute that the Obama administration responded to those legal restrictions with "catch-and-release"?

'Cause I can document every damned thing I just said. All Trump has done is prosecute criminals for their crimes, instead of blowing them off. If all you've got is "Well, someone said something dumb, so that erases ALL the history!" then we're done here, and you can go find someone else to bother.

 

[forkup]

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.

You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway. But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested. You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey. I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.

But this really cuts to the heart of the matter. You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".

The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.

And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition. A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used. To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.

The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.

There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.

Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed. Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.

The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.

Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life? Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.

‘Hopefully, they’ll get you to her’: Texas judge can’t promise migrant families they’ll be reunited
This judge doesn't seem to agree with your stating of facts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He is just abusing children. No big deal to his base.

If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.

How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.

How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard. Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant. At least have the integrity to be honest about it.

------------------------- i don't care about the TRAFFICKING . I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law Coyote . --------------------- just a comment .

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)

"My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished." Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

 

[Flopper]

He is just abusing children. No big deal to his base.

If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.

How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.

How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard. Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant. At least have the integrity to be honest about it.

------------------------- i don't care about the TRAFFICKING . I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law Coyote . --------------------- just a comment .

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

And the same thugs would think nothing of abducting a child and crossing our border with them.

Think about that

Child traffickers and victims posing as families are easily identified by law enforcement when apprehended. Victims almost universally show relief when questioned by law enforcement. The most common methods of transporting victims is as cargo in trucks and boats, not walking across the desert.

 

[forkup]

If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.

How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.

How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard. Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant. At least have the integrity to be honest about it.

------------------------- i don't care about the TRAFFICKING . I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law Coyote . --------------------- just a comment .

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)

"My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished." Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

See link posted above.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.

No.

Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.

The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.

No, the government is prosecuting 100% of the people who COME HERE ILLEGALLY. If they request asylum, then that request is processed, but until it's granted - IF it's granted - they're still guilty of committing a crime, and THAT is what they're being prosecuted for.

And yes, being prosecuted for a crime results in being separated from your children. Works that way for everyone who gets prosecuted for a crime. Do I feel guilty about that? I'M not the one who broke the law, so no. And if it was not the case six weeks ago that we treated criminals like criminals, then that just means it took too fucking long to pull our heads out of our asses.

Once again, there is only one solution, and you have YET to say a word about it. Which tells me - far louder than any of the lies and propaganda and memes spewing from your mouth like sewage from a broken septic tank - that what you REALLY want is an outcome that has nothing to do with obeying the law.