Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again. If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out.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.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.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.
Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass
"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
I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs. I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
I take it he's related to that other cretin..what was his name...who kept saying "I already posted the verification" and "Multiple threads have links in them that I posted that support what I'm saying in this thread now"...See link posted above.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.
I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
that was just the other day...who the hell was that...
anyway I think he's this guy's sock.I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"See link posted above."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.
I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
I'll take that as you admitting you can't actually iterate how the link supports your comments.Literately the post above hers.‘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.
They do have some Constitutional rights.You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime. The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.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.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.
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?
You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what you fail to understand.
I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
I SAID NOTHING ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
No they risked Their children's life legally, I guess that made the fatalities less death.How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.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.Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass
"Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.
FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron. The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
They aren't being *sent on their way without their children* . Your link proves that in fact they are criminals who are convicted and JAILED.I take it he's related to that other cretin..what was his name...who kept saying "I already posted the verification" and "Multiple threads have links in them that I posted that support what I'm saying in this thread now"...See link posted above.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.
I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
that was just the other day...who the hell was that...
anyway I think he's this guy's sock.I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"See link posted above."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.
I'll take that as an "I have nothing".
I'll take that as you admitting you can't actually iterate how the link supports your comments.Literately the post above hers.‘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.
‘Hopefully, they’ll get you to her’: Texas judge can’t promise migrant families they’ll be reunitedThere 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.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.
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.
This judge doesn't seem to agree with your stating of facts.
Okay, first things first. Citing Politico as a fact source? You already lost the argument, and I am now pissing on your pitiful excuse for intelligence.
Second thing: you should really try reading the article for context, rather than just pouncing on the headline.
"Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker, presiding over the hearing in Texas federal court, could tell her only that reunification with her child was out of his hands." That's quite true, since that's not his job. Does the fact that it's not the judge's job mean it's never going to happen? Uh duhhhh.
"“Hopefully, they’ll get you to her,” Hacker told the woman, who was communicating through a translator, before sentencing her to time served in detention and paving the way for her likely deportation." Again, all this tells us is that the judge is a gormless doof who shouldn't be allowed to speak extemporaneously. Says not one damned factual thing about anything else.
“I can’t promise you anything,” Hacker told a father asking about his son before receiving a sentence of time served. “That’s all up to another part of the government.”" Second part of the statement explains the first part. He CAN'T promise anything, 'cause that's not his job. Again, does that say anything at all about the people whose job it IS? Only if you're a drooling fool.
"All but 16 of the migrants whose cases the court heard on Monday were sentenced to time served in custody, and all but five had been apprehended since Thursday. " I guess that'd be that "prolonged, traumatic period of time" you leftist twats keep yabbling on about.
If you can find one thing in that article that is an actual, hard fact contradicting anything I've said, that'll be a pretty neat trick, 'cause it's not there.
‘I Can’t Go Without My Son,’ a Mother Pleaded as She Was Deported to Guatemala
The Government Has No Plan for Reuniting the Immigrant Families It Is Tearing Apart
Seriously?Mlll.
Who's rights were violated?You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime. The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.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?
You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what you fail to understand.
I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
I SAID NOTHING ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
They took their kids to invade another land. I doubt it was legal.How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.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.Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass
"Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.
FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron. The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
Only if you are a bad parent apparently.In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again. If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out.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.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
"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
I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs. I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
They took their kids to invade another land. I doubt it was legal.How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.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.
"Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.
FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron. The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
So the Mayflower were criminals. Got it. I have to believe there's a line of looking stupid you wouldn't go below. But damned if I can find that line ...
you need to ask the native tribes.They took their kids to invade another land. I doubt it was legal.How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.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.
"Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.
FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron. The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
Really? Perhaps you could cite for me the laws they were violating.
They do have some Constitutional rights.You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime. The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.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?
You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what you fail to understand.
I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
I SAID NOTHING ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.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.Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass
"Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.
FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims? Seriously?
I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.
It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.
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."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
So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified." That's what you think
Not even remotely in the same universe. Are we so privileged that we compare getting into private school to actual survival? Not to mention comparing armed robbery to a misdemeanor.
OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point. He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.
It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...
Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
What rights are they violating?Seriously?Mlll.
Who's rights were violated?You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime. The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.So there are no basic human rights?
You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what you fail to understand.
I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.
I SAID NOTHING ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.
The people who are going through this process legally. People who come here legally and are born here legally to legal parents. The people who lost their lives because we chose to have compassion on the lawbreaker instead of the victim (think Kate Steinle).
I could go on if you want. This is why I don't have any compassion right now. Nobody seems to want the consequences to be applied. Nobody.
Instead of offering a solution, Democrats choose to wear their feelings on their sleeve.
How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.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.
"Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.
FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims? Seriously?
I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.
It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.
And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.
In Guatemala, you do not sent your kids to a playground because there's a good chance you will never see them again. If your oldest son was run down in front of you by cartel members because he wouldn't work for them and a 7 year old across the street was raped and murdered by a local gang and the police refused to even investigate, I think you would do what is needed to get the fuck out.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.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
"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
I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs. I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).
you need to ask the native tribes.They took their kids to invade another land. I doubt it was legal.How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to."Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".
Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.
FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.
We're talking about illegal immigration, not immigration, moron. The people on the Mayflower didn't endanger their kids during the commission of a crime
Really? Perhaps you could cite for me the laws they were violating.
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.
So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified." That's what you think
Not even remotely in the same universe. Are we so privileged that we compare getting into private school to actual survival? Not to mention comparing armed robbery to a misdemeanor.
OK, so you're admitting that it's only a valid comparison if they are compatible, which was my point. He was equating crossing the street with illegal immigration.
It's hilarious you thought you were contradicting my point when you agreed with it ...
Jay walking is a minor crime, so is crossing the border, especially with the intent of turning themselves in. I'm sorry, you're argument still sucks and at least you stopped making it (hopefully).
Of course you consider it a minor crime. You want it to happen.
The more Democrat voters the better. You want to award prizes for coming here illegally. I mean literal prizes. Welfare, free education, free medical care. We'll house Mexico's prison population for them. It's not a minor crime for you at all, it's a major victory!
