What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[JoeB131]

But that's not why he was sentenced. You should read your own links.

He was busted for money laundering. That's the law he broke which gave him an extremely harsh sentence; a sentence harsher than many murder convictions in this country. Trump said he felt that this father of 10 children served eight years in prison, and that was enough considering the nature of the crime.

doesn't matter. Hey, Al Capone was busted for tax evasion... but they threw the book at him, too, you know, for the other stuff.

Not Trump, though. This creep who hired illegals got a commutation.. because, hey, we don't prosecute rich people. Silly darky, rights are for white people.

(You'd be screaming your head off if it was a black guy with 10 kids getting a commutation.)

It's estimated (and a very conservative estimate at that) we have over 12 million illegals in this country. Are you going to tell me most of them are working jobs illegally? And tell me, WTF have the Democrats done about that? Nothing, because they want those illegals here and the illegals know it.

It's closer to 11 million, and 8 million of them are in the workforce... the other 3 million are minor kids and spouses.

Again, Obama deported more people than Bush did, and you guys still wouldn't meet him halfway...

 

[JoeB131]

But people who feel they should be paid what they want aren't greedy. Gotcha.

Guy, there's a certain point where it goes beyond what is fair and you are just getting into pure greed....

There's no reason why someone should want mansions and yachts and dressage horses and bling.

 

[kaz]

Again you are a "resume writer" who knows nothing about business.

You don't get insurance in addition to full salary. Jobs pay a fixed total amount. Whether it comes as medical insurance, healthcare contributions, salary, whatever.

If I didn't pay market compensation, I wouldn't have had employees.

Let's say your compensation to make up a number is $80K. Now would you rather have:

$70K in salary and $10K in benefits ...

... or ...

$80K in salary.

Joe:

Joe: $70K + $10K, that's greater than $80K !!!

Dumb ass. I'm not paying more than market wages, and my employees aren't working for less than market wages. All you're droning on about is again just that you know zero about business.

Now, do you want me to explain price and cost to you again?

I would rather have 10K in benefits. Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate. It's one of the many failures of Commie Care. Now, you have to pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.

Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.

Note you hit the nail on the head. You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits. I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand. It's $80K to me either way. The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate. Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own. I'm indifferent. If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.

What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care. I am not passing on that deal. To your point, my employees are. They don't want their take home pay to go that low.

In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me. I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K. Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...

Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale. Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included. It's all included.

Yep. In corporate, we refer to that as the "fully loaded cost." Actually, in addition to the things you said, we typically mark it up another percent because there are more tertiary costs like HR, Payroll and IT systems that are directly related to employees. If we outsource or automate, those costs go down too. So whatever work you're doing for the company, those are part of the costs of you doing it that have to be covered by the work you're doing as well.

I had a meeting once at my graphic design business to explain this to the staff. How they think of their salary, and how I calculate it. I got a lot of good feedback that made a lot of sense when I explained it.

Joe's of course a business savant who doesn't know any of this. He thinks thinks it's all just a throw in by the company we don't count. We count EVERYTHING

He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money. Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.

Yes, I made very little for several years. I get paid last. The real money I made wasn't until I sold the businesses. Before that as we grow, the profits mostly went back into the company to keep it growing. Now I'm getting a nice monthly check and will for years to come. I'm also back to doing management consulting. Now the money is nice and the stress is low. It sure wasn't though when I was building the businesses.

If you asked me what I'm most proud of building and selling all those businesses, the first answer without having to think is that I made payroll every time. That is a very difficult thing to do building a business

 

[kaz]

That's classic, you still think $70K + $10K is more than $80K. Not a math major, were you? If I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees. The market is far more effective than government at forcing business owners to pay market wages.

Guy, you work on the assumption I give a rats fuck about the business owner's problems. I don't. Quite honestly, fuck those guys.

I look at it from the viewpoint of the only people that count- the working people who get things done.

The problem with capitalism is capitalists... they're too fucking greedy.

Yes, that's why you're a socialist. Government doesn't have to care about customers and making a profit because they charge their customers whatever they want and collect it at gunpoint

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money. Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.

Yeah, here's the thing. In the immortal words of Mrs. Clinton, I can't be concerned about under capitalized businesses.

The thing is, you guys INSIST on maintaining this awful system getting health coverage through employers, you know, instead of making it a government service that everyone gets by merely being a citizen. You know, the way the rest of the world does it and gets far better results.

So if you are going to ABSOLUTELY INSIST that we all have to bow down to employers to get our health insurance, then employers should be compelled to provide that service as a benefit without any fucking bitching about it.

If you can't provide health coverage for employees, you probably shouldn't be in business... period.

Now, all that said, what Mrs. Clinton came up with in 1993 wasn't a bad idea. If your company is too small to afford insurance, you put your employees on a public option and pay an extra tax.

Big insurance, though,realized that employers would happily dump their employees off into that, and panicked.

WTF is going to pay for all this "free" healthcare Joe? Okay, let's take this a step further.

There are good doctors and not so good doctors. There are good hospitals and not so good hospitals. I happen to be a patient at the Cleveland Clinic which is one of the best healthcare facilities in the world.

Now government provides ALL the healthcare. Well, then the next problem would be who gets the good doctors and facilities and who gets the bad ones. After all, everybody wants the good doctors, but only those with insurance or money can have those doctors.

So now it becomes political. If Democrats are in charge, they give the good doctors and facilities to likely Democrat voters. If Republicans are in charge, the same thing. Now if Republicans are in charge, they will give the good facilities to those who pay the most in taxes. If Democrats are in charge, they will give the good doctors and facilities to those who pay the least or nothing at all.

There is no way to make it fair because if we are all "equally" in the same system, we all want the good doctors, and that would be impossible. In other words, I would end up at a shithole like Metro and my HUD neighbors would get the care I used to get from the Cleveland Clinic.

 

[kaz]

He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money. Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.

Yeah, here's the thing. In the immortal words of Mrs. Clinton, I can't be concerned about under capitalized businesses.

The thing is, you guys INSIST on maintaining this awful system getting health coverage through employers, you know, instead of making it a government service that everyone gets by merely being a citizen. You know, the way the rest of the world does it and gets far better results.

So if you are going to ABSOLUTELY INSIST that we all have to bow down to employers to get our health insurance, then employers should be compelled to provide that service as a benefit without any fucking bitching about it.

If you can't provide health coverage for employees, you probably shouldn't be in business... period.

Now, all that said, what Mrs. Clinton came up with in 1993 wasn't a bad idea. If your company is too small to afford insurance, you put your employees on a public option and pay an extra tax.

Big insurance, though,realized that employers would happily dump their employees off into that, and panicked.

I see, so only undercapitalized businesses pay market wages. The rest of them pay more.

I've worked in management in the who's who of big firms, and I can tell you they don't give employees money. They pay market wages.

It's hilarious how you claim to write resumes and know zero about business. You think companies can hire people while not paying market wages. You really believe that. We have no choice, Joe. We have to pay market wages. That's why free markets are SO much more effective at "protecting" employees than government.

Government: Meet arbitrary, eclectic, counter productive standards word parsed by lawyers

Free markets: Don't pay market wages, don't get employees.

Now class, which is more effective?

Joe: I know teacher! I know! Government is!

 

[danielpalos]

What government gives, government can take away. And they want a government which is petty and spiteful. They can lose control of that just like they're losing control of the supreme court

In 1980 at the age of 20, I got my first apartment in the fall. As an animal lover, I was fascinated with birds, so one of the first things I did was hang a bird feeder on my upstairs back porch. I would sit in my bedroom watching them from my window for hours.

Spring came along and I got to meet my elderly neighbor. After some small talk, he said "You know Ray, what you're doing for the birds is a nice gesture. But you may be doing them more harm than good. You see, feeding them in the winter is a good thing because food is scarce. But if you leave that feeder out year long, the birds will forget how to obtain food on their own. If you move or get bored feeding the birds, they will likely parish."

I never forgot the lesson the old man gave me; not because of the birds, but because as I grew older, I realized this is what our government does for people; leave the feeder up year long.

If we ever had a financial collapse in this country (and yes, it could happen) what would happen to all these people who depend on government when these programs have to stop? How would they feed themselves, their family?

Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point. The key is moderation. You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.

However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds. Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce. Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.

You endlessly parrot that platitude. First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.

Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids. If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...

Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.

And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them

let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.

Seriously? Ok. So it's our fault then, eh? In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it. The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers. If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious. And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves. Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA. And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed. I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country. Would that do it?

why not end Our drug war?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would rather have 10K in benefits. Benefits are not taxed and by not having that in your paycheck, it brings down your tax rate. It's one of the many failures of Commie Care. Now, you have to pay for insurance with after tax money that you won't likely be able to write-off.

Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.

Note you hit the nail on the head. You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits. I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand. It's $80K to me either way. The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate. Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own. I'm indifferent. If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.

What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care. I am not passing on that deal. To your point, my employees are. They don't want their take home pay to go that low.

In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me. I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K. Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...

Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale. Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included. It's all included.

Yep. In corporate, we refer to that as the "fully loaded cost." Actually, in addition to the things you said, we typically mark it up another percent because there are more tertiary costs like HR, Payroll and IT systems that are directly related to employees. If we outsource or automate, those costs go down too. So whatever work you're doing for the company, those are part of the costs of you doing it that have to be covered by the work you're doing as well.

I had a meeting once at my graphic design business to explain this to the staff. How they think of their salary, and how I calculate it. I got a lot of good feedback that made a lot of sense when I explained it.

Joe's of course a business savant who doesn't know any of this. He thinks thinks it's all just a throw in by the company we don't count. We count EVERYTHING

He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money. Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.

Yes, I made very little for several years. I get paid last. The real money I made wasn't until I sold the businesses. Before that as we grow, the profits mostly went back into the company to keep it growing. Now I'm getting a nice monthly check and will for years to come. I'm also back to doing management consulting. Now the money is nice and the stress is low. It sure wasn't though when I was building the businesses.

If you asked me what I'm most proud of building and selling all those businesses, the first answer without having to think is that I made payroll every time. That is a very difficult thing to do building a business

I know about people like Joe because we have his kind in our city Council. One idiot proposed charging us an annual fee for each tenant we rent to. Tenants don't cost the city a dime. In fact, I bring in new taxpayers to this city, but they don't care about that.

So the proposal is $185.00 per tenant per year. This is on top of the inspection fee of $250.00 with every new tenant I get.

So it it's a benefit to bring in new people to this city, and they are not costing the city a dime, why this proposal of raping landlords? Because the council pig thinks that we landlords are sitting on a boatload of money thanks to the city. They just count the rental income and don't ask to see expenditures. They don't ask to see our tax returns. If they did, they would be in shock how much their assumptions were off.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But people who feel they should be paid what they want aren't greedy. Gotcha.

Guy, there's a certain point where it goes beyond what is fair and you are just getting into pure greed....

There's no reason why someone should want mansions and yachts and dressage horses and bling.

A desire to live great is not a good enough goal for you? Then tell me, why do tens of millions of people play the lottery every week? You know, where even though the odds of winning are 150 million to one, they still waste their money anyway?

As always, you are on the wrong side of the issue. Just because you may not have the dream of living like that doesn't mean others don't. In fact most people have that dream.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

doesn't matter. Hey, Al Capone was busted for tax evasion... but they threw the book at him, too, you know, for the other stuff.

Not Trump, though. This creep who hired illegals got a commutation.. because, hey, we don't prosecute rich people. Silly darky, rights are for white people.

(You'd be screaming your head off if it was a black guy with 10 kids getting a commutation.)

Don't you understand anything? I just got done explaining to you that this guy served 8 years in prison before Trump let him off the hook. Aren't you guys on the left constantly telling us that our prisons are too loaded with non-violent offenders so we don't have room for the violent ones?

Speaking of which, Trump let this guy out of prison because he got greedy and broke the law. Your guy was letting people out of prison for selling dangerous narcotics that likely killed people. In fact I remember one of those early releases went out and murdered an innocent person right after he got out.

It's closer to 11 million, and 8 million of them are in the workforce... the other 3 million are minor kids and spouses.

Again, Obama deported more people than Bush did, and you guys still wouldn't meet him halfway...

That's because the definition of deportation changed. During Bush's presidency, he changed the definition of deportation from court cases to simply catching people and telling them to turn around and go home. Afterwards, if a ICE agent or Border Patrol caught somebody and kicked them back out, it was considered a deportation.

 

[kaz]

Hey Joe, I meant to address this before.

Note you hit the nail on the head. You would rather have $70K in pay and $10K in benefits. I am indifferent, which is what the moron Joe doesn't understand. It's $80K to me either way. The reason you'd prefer the $10K in benefits is because of the reason you said, the tax rate. Also I can get group rates you can't get on your own. I'm indifferent. If the market value of the jobs is $80K, I pay $80K or you won't work for me.

What happens with Obamacare is that suddenly It's $50K in pay and $30K in benefits, and the $30K includes crappy medical care. I am not passing on that deal. To your point, my employees are. They don't want their take home pay to go that low.

In Joe's terms, he thinks that $80K, $70K+$10 and $50K+$30K are different amounts to me. I can afford the $80K, maybe the $70K+$10K but I can't afford the $50K+$30K. Oh, and he writes business resumes for a living ...

Of course, all benefits are included when you decide on a pay scale. Vacation is included, overtime pay is included, holiday pay is included, unemployment and workman's compensation are included. It's all included.

Yep. In corporate, we refer to that as the "fully loaded cost." Actually, in addition to the things you said, we typically mark it up another percent because there are more tertiary costs like HR, Payroll and IT systems that are directly related to employees. If we outsource or automate, those costs go down too. So whatever work you're doing for the company, those are part of the costs of you doing it that have to be covered by the work you're doing as well.

I had a meeting once at my graphic design business to explain this to the staff. How they think of their salary, and how I calculate it. I got a lot of good feedback that made a lot of sense when I explained it.

Joe's of course a business savant who doesn't know any of this. He thinks thinks it's all just a throw in by the company we don't count. We count EVERYTHING

He's also the type of person that thinks if you own a business, you are loaded with money. Many businesses survive week by week, especially during the first couple of years; business owners who actually make less than their employees because payroll has to be met and the owners pay comes last with whatever is left over.

Yes, I made very little for several years. I get paid last. The real money I made wasn't until I sold the businesses. Before that as we grow, the profits mostly went back into the company to keep it growing. Now I'm getting a nice monthly check and will for years to come. I'm also back to doing management consulting. Now the money is nice and the stress is low. It sure wasn't though when I was building the businesses.

If you asked me what I'm most proud of building and selling all those businesses, the first answer without having to think is that I made payroll every time. That is a very difficult thing to do building a business

I know about people like Joe because we have his kind in our city Council. One idiot proposed charging us an annual fee for each tenant we rent to. Tenants don't cost the city a dime. In fact, I bring in new taxpayers to this city, but they don't care about that.

So the proposal is $185.00 per tenant per year. This is on top of the inspection fee of $250.00 with every new tenant I get.

So it it's a benefit to bring in new people to this city, and they are not costing the city a dime, why this proposal of raping landlords? Because the council pig thinks that we landlords are sitting on a boatload of money thanks to the city. They just count the rental income and don't ask to see expenditures. They don't ask to see our tax returns. If they did, they would be in shock how much their assumptions were off.

Yep. My brother's wife was a leftist like her parents all her life until she became a veterinarian and joined a practice, which made her a business owner. Then she stopped voting for Democrats and agrees with me when I say that government is hostile to businesses. Being a landlord of course the same dynamic as you're pointing out.

We are their source of money, their customers are the people who vote for them. That's a hostile dynamic. And it works. The feds, state and local governments all treat us as the enemy

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, that's why you're a socialist. Government doesn't have to care about customers and making a profit because they charge their customers whatever they want and collect it at gunpoint

Well, actually, government does care about customers, but they are called "voters".

The thing is, with Employer run Health care, the "customer" isn't the worker, it's the business.

Don't you understand anything? I just got done explaining to you that this guy served 8 years in prison before Trump let him off the hook. Aren't you guys on the left constantly telling us that our prisons are too loaded with non-violent offenders so we don't have room for the violent ones?

So rich white guys who break the law get commuted sentences and little kids crossing the border get throw into cages... yup, Welcome to Trump's America.

Speaking of which, Trump let this guy out of prison because he got greedy and broke the law. Your guy was letting people out of prison for selling dangerous narcotics that likely killed people. In fact I remember one of those early releases went out and murdered an innocent person right after he got out.

Everyone who died of a drug overdose took those drugs by their own choice. Can't get that worked up about it...

 

[JoeB131]

We are their source of money, their customers are the people who vote for them. That's a hostile dynamic. And it works. The feds, state and local governments all treat us as the enemy

Only because by and large, you all treat your employees like the "enemy".

If employers weren't shitballs, we wouldn't need government agencies or unions or lawyers....

 

[Maxdeath]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.

Now let's talk about parenting.
I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.

There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.

Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?

In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.

 

[kaz]

Yes, that's why you're a socialist. Government doesn't have to care about customers and making a profit because they charge their customers whatever they want and collect it at gunpoint

Well, actually, government does care about customers, but they are called "voters"

I vote, government doesn't give a shit about me. It's not about "voters," it's about tyranny of the majority. Their customer is the majority they promise to redistribute money to and the rest of us are their victims. But we're all "voters"

The thing is, with Employer run Health care, the "customer" isn't the worker, it's the business

Swish. No, we're the middle man. You want your salary in pay or benefits? I don't give a shit. I'm not the customer. I just pay market wages. If the workers want medical insurance rather than that amount of pay, that's fine. But it comes out of your wages. All of it, not just what you think you're paying for it. I pay market wages.

You keep calling me greedy because you're stupid and know nothing about business. Wages are set by the market, not me. You don't grasp that if I don't pay market wages, I don't have employees. I don't even have a choice. That makes me neither greedy nor generous. I pay them market wages, my customers pay market prices. If I don't match those up, I fail.

So you say I'm greedy despite that I had employees saying I should pay them more because you want more, yet I HAD employees

Then you say my employees who could make more money working for someone else hate me, but stay and earn less than someone else would pay them.

Yeah, Joe. Your smack sucks

 

[kaz]

We are their source of money, their customers are the people who vote for them. That's a hostile dynamic. And it works. The feds, state and local governments all treat us as the enemy

Only because by and large, you all treat your employees like the "enemy".

If employers weren't shitballs, we wouldn't need government agencies or unions or lawyers....

Just your bitter hatred and bad attitude.

Again, your smack is that I underpaid my employees, other people would pay them more. But they hate me and stay for less money.

You're an imbecile

 

[Coyote]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.

Now let's talk about parenting.
I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.

There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.

Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?

In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.

Many parents in this group of migrants are fleeing horrendous violence in Central America. But you seem to consider it child abuse for them to try and protect their children by fleeing with them. What good parent would leave their children at the mercy of those gangs? We are far too comfortable, seated in our overstuffed recliners, flipping the remote and passing judgement on people experiencing things that will never touch most of us.

But but but Clinton....but but Obama....”this fiasco” is the responsibility of one person, Trump, who CHOSE to innact a NEW zero tolerance policy, with zero prep, zero coordination, zero plans to track kids, zero plans to reunite them and vastly insufficient places to warehouse kids.

Agents have always separated kids when there is suspicion of trafficking, they aren’t stupid, they are trained to figure this out. No one has a problem with that. But you and I both know that this is not being done for that reason (direct from the mouths of Trump, Kelly and Sessions).

So forceably separating a child from his or her mother for months is now just an “inconvenience”....interesting take on the trauma it causes these children.

No...what is reprehensible is your cavelier attitude towards something you would never tolerate should it happen to your family.

 

[WEATHER53]

The function of a business is to provide income and potentially prosperity to the person who took the risk and poured in the time money and effort to open it. It’s a huge roll of the dice.
The function of the employees is to assist in the operation of the business and be paid a wage. That wage does not and should not guarantee success and prosperity. The employee took no risk of any forms, the owner did, and any windfall is rightly the owners.

 

[Flopper]

Who says it's going to stop, feeding the birds or feeding the people but I get your point. The key is moderation. You don't want to feed the birds so much that they stop hunting or people for that matter.

However, let me remind you of the differences between people and birds. Birds have only 3 goals in life, eat, keep from being eaten, and reproduce. Humans are far more complex and have goals more complex goals than birds such as building wealth, gaining the respect of others, and providing a better life for their children for starters.

You endlessly parrot that platitude. First of all, I know of no study that has demonstrated that's a major factor for the criminals breaking our laws and coming here illegally.

Even if it is, that they chose to break the law and come here as criminals is a terrible example to set for their kids. If they really cared about their kids, they would work to show they can support themselves and go to a US consulate in Mexico and find out what it takes to come here legally and ... wait their turn ...

Having children is not any justification to commit a crime even if your platitude is accepted as fact.

And remind me again how you're against illegal immigration while you fight tooth and nail to ensure we do nothing to stop them

let's end our alleged wars on drugs and terror to stop creating refugees.

Seriously? Ok. So it's our fault then, eh? In that case we need to take responsibility and fix it. The first step is to approach all these countries diplomatically and put the pressure on their governments to stop the drug trade which is supposedly generating the asylum seekers. If that doesn't work with start applying economic pressure to let them know we're serious. And if that doesn't work we execute a regime change and in the process wipe out their drug trading infrastructure since they're too incompetent or corrupt to do it themselves. Then on our end we start applying stiff prison terms in the jails of the countries we conquered to any drug users or traffickers we catch in the USA. And we force them into community service and reconstruction in the countries we've probably destroyed. I'd say something along the lines of 25-30 years before we let them back into the country. Would that do it?

The US is the biggest market for illegal drugs in the world. Expecting countries with a small fraction of the wealth of the US to control the cartels is down right stupid. We must stop the demand and that begins with curtailing American's insatiable demand for illegal drugs.

"We must stop demand." That's leftist for do nothing. You're not going to stop demand, that's another moronic platitude. We need to legalize drugs. And we need to build a wall so drug dealers can't walk across the line we erroneously refer to as a "border" because it isn't.

Tough choice, huh, Flopper? We stop drugs from crossing the border so easily with a wall, and it keeps out Democrat voters too. You pass on that deal, keeping the flow of Democrat voters is more important

I find myself ambivalent about legalizing drugs. I live in a state where marijuana is legal and see both positive and negative results.

Legalizing drugs would put a serious dent in the cartels income however I think it would also increased the number of users in the US.

I see daily, the huge waste due to drug usage. Kids with real talent and intelligence dropping out of school and eventually just dropping out of society as they head toward the social trash bin. If America is going to compete in the world, we have to reduce drug usage and I'm not sure making it legal would do that.

 

[kaz]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First let's make it crystal clear that if you are refused entry at the border or are deported, if you are found within U.S. Borders again it is a felony.

Now let's talk about parenting.
I have always considered teaching right and wrong to a child is one of the main responsibilities of being a parent. If you are showing disdain for laws. Right or wrong only applies to others by your actions you are not much of a parent.
Some of these parents are traveling many miles with small children in dangerous conditions. Then they get to the desert southwest and attempt a crossing that kills on average 400 people a year. Does not say much for compassion of the parent. There are better ways then putting a child in such dangers.

There are people who kidnap a child to be sold, I would rather hundreds be inconvenienced then allow one child to spend their life in abuse.

Where was your voice when the last administration was doing the same thing? Where was your voice when Clinton signed the law that made this fiasco?

In short your faux outrage and pretend caring is reprehensible.

Many parents in this group of migrants are fleeing horrendous violence in Central America. But you seem to consider it child abuse for them to try and protect their children by fleeing with them. What good parent would leave their children at the mercy of those gangs? We are far too comfortable, seated in our overstuffed recliners, flipping the remote and passing judgement on people experiencing things that will never touch most of us.

But but but Clinton....but but Obama....”this fiasco” is the responsibility of one person, Trump, who CHOSE to innact a NEW zero tolerance policy, with zero prep, zero coordination, zero plans to track kids, zero plans to reunite them and vastly insufficient places to warehouse kids.

Agents have always separated kids when there is suspicion of trafficking, they aren’t stupid, they are trained to figure this out. No one has a problem with that. But you and I both know that this is not being done for that reason (direct from the mouths of Trump, Kelly and Sessions).

So forceably separating a child from his or her mother for months is now just an “inconvenience”....interesting take on the trauma it causes these children.

No...what is reprehensible is your cavelier attitude towards something you would never tolerate should it happen to your family.

You made all of that up. You don't know that they came to the US for their "family" or for their "children." They're poor because they live in the now. There's no evidence they did it for anyone but themselves.

You do admit though you're a monster. You believe they live in hell and you want to do nothing unless they benefit you by coming here and voting for Democrats. Other than that, your view is fuck em