CDZ What should we do?

[Pogo]

Hiya TK. So I wanted to ask about this premise -- where do you get this idea that parents are sending their children thousands of miles alone?

I just want to figure out where these stories get started.

Well, that comes from the statements made by others here and facts I've read elsewhere on the internet that a lot of these children come from Central America... which is 1,505 miles from our border if you go from there to Guatemala. Not to mention the DHS-SEC said that 10,000 children came here unaccompanied.

But like I said, I was/still am conflicted about this issue. I took one side and I didn't like what came out of my head, and I took the other and I didn't like it either.

I wasn't asking about the geography. I know that part. In fact you should see my ridiculous collection of maps.

I'm asking where you get the idea that "parents are sending their children". And "alone".

If the kids were being "sent" --- how would they get separated here?

That's it! And in one fell swoop you have defeated the liberal narrative about family separation.

Nah, if you were paying attention to the briefing the DHS gave, she pointed out that 10,000 of these children were unaccompanied when they arrived at the border. Who sent them there?

The other 2000 were in fact separated as she mentioned.

I don't know about any "narratives" or briefing. I've been travelling.

But the question is the verb "sent". Just because somebody shows up somewhere -- doesn't mean somebody "sent" them. So I question whether your whole basis of contempt is based on an ass-sumption, or somebody's suggestion.

Do you really think these children are mature enough to make these decisions on their own, Pogo?

What I think is that the human survival instinct is strong enough to drive people, of any age, to anything and any place they need to in order to survive. When your alternative is a hellhole it doesn't take much to 'make a decision'.

In any case you don't seem to have evidence, which indicates you're working on an assumption. That's OK as a theory --- but you can't then blame parents for something you don't know exists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well... the least popular option won. Trump is going to sign an executive order to put a stop to the separations.

Figures congress wouldn't act.

See that can? See how far they kicked it? Must be a world record.

Trump needed to do that. I dont think immigration reform should be handled in a crisis manner. It needs to be well thought out and Trump.

Whst a mess. And completely unnecessary. There was no plan in place to handle all those children, to keep track of them, anything. Parents were deported without their children. I dread the thought of children lost.

It’s an unnecessary mess, a disaster easily avoided had Trump simply followed the law.

But Trump and his supporters, blinded by fear, hate, and bigotry, couldn’t do that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

keep the mother and child together, but the dad must be separated and charged.

Most of them (mothers) don't know who the fathers are...so that won't work either.

Most? Is it easier to cast aspersions on the character of the people if all you really want is to hate and fear them? Or is this just good old fashioned xenophobia?

it’s xenophobia, nativism, an unwarranted fear of change and diversity.

The vilification of immigrants is the consequence of that fear.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hiya TK. So I wanted to ask about this premise -- where do you get this idea that parents are sending their children thousands of miles alone?

I just want to figure out where these stories get started.

Well, that comes from the statements made by others here and facts I've read elsewhere on the internet that a lot of these children come from Central America... which is 1,505 miles from our border if you go from there to Guatemala. Not to mention the DHS-SEC said that 10,000 children came here unaccompanied.

But like I said, I was/still am conflicted about this issue. I took one side and I didn't like what came out of my head, and I took the other and I didn't like it either.

I wasn't asking about the geography. I know that part. In fact you should see my ridiculous collection of maps.

I'm asking where you get the idea that "parents are sending their children". And "alone".

If the kids were being "sent" --- how would they get separated here?

That's it! And in one fell swoop you have defeated the liberal narrative about family separation.

Nah, if you were paying attention to the briefing the DHS gave, she pointed out that 10,000 of these children were unaccompanied when they arrived at the border. Who sent them there?

The other 2000 were in fact separated as she mentioned.

I don't know about any "narratives" or briefing. I've been travelling.

But the question is the verb "sent". Just because somebody shows up somewhere -- doesn't mean somebody "sent" them. So I question whether your whole basis of contempt is based on an ass-sumption, or somebody's suggestion.

Do you really think these children are mature enough to make these decisions on their own, Pogo?

So that would be a ‘no’ – you have no evidence that children are being ‘sent’ to the US; you’re recklessly propagating lies you got from the internet.

You are indeed a true conservative.

 

[Marion Morrison]

EO's are too wishy-washy. Have it written into law.

 

[Olde Europe]

Many are being sent to (supposed) safety from the raging gang and drug violence in the Northern Triangle. (Source) It would be positively stunning if none among the many tens of thousands of unaccompanied youth reaching the U.S. border since 2014 were "sent".

While Johnson suggested that unaccompanied minors are rushing to the border to take advantage of a deferred-deportation U.S. policy, the 15-year-old girl stated a dramatically different motivation for her perilous journey: violence in her home country. She and her brother left El Salvador on March 5.

"The reason I came is because we were in danger over there," the girl said. "My mom and dad said we were better off coming here, that's all I can say."​

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, that comes from the statements made by others here and facts I've read elsewhere on the internet that a lot of these children come from Central America... which is 1,505 miles from our border if you go from there to Guatemala. Not to mention the DHS-SEC said that 10,000 children came here unaccompanied.

But like I said, I was/still am conflicted about this issue. I took one side and I didn't like what came out of my head, and I took the other and I didn't like it either.

I wasn't asking about the geography. I know that part. In fact you should see my ridiculous collection of maps.

I'm asking where you get the idea that "parents are sending their children". And "alone".

If the kids were being "sent" --- how would they get separated here?

That's it! And in one fell swoop you have defeated the liberal narrative about family separation.

Nah, if you were paying attention to the briefing the DHS gave, she pointed out that 10,000 of these children were unaccompanied when they arrived at the border. Who sent them there?

The other 2000 were in fact separated as she mentioned.

I don't know about any "narratives" or briefing. I've been travelling.

But the question is the verb "sent". Just because somebody shows up somewhere -- doesn't mean somebody "sent" them. So I question whether your whole basis of contempt is based on an ass-sumption, or somebody's suggestion.

Do you really think these children are mature enough to make these decisions on their own, Pogo?

What I think is that the human survival instinct is strong enough to drive people, of any age, to anything and any place they need to in order to survive. When your alternative is a hellhole it doesn't take much to 'make a decision'.

In any case you don't seem to have evidence, which indicates you're working on an assumption. That's OK as a theory --- but you can't then blame parents for something you don't know exists.

Hmm. Just what are you getting at? Sounds like to me we are starting to split hairs here. The very fact they are here means their parents failed in their responsibility to raise them. The fact remains that the parents are not there supporting the child. Whether they came here out of their own recognizance or were in fact sent here by their parents does not absolve the parents of their failure. Period.

 

[Pogo]

I wasn't asking about the geography. I know that part. In fact you should see my ridiculous collection of maps.

I'm asking where you get the idea that "parents are sending their children". And "alone".

If the kids were being "sent" --- how would they get separated here?

That's it! And in one fell swoop you have defeated the liberal narrative about family separation.

Nah, if you were paying attention to the briefing the DHS gave, she pointed out that 10,000 of these children were unaccompanied when they arrived at the border. Who sent them there?

The other 2000 were in fact separated as she mentioned.

I don't know about any "narratives" or briefing. I've been travelling.

But the question is the verb "sent". Just because somebody shows up somewhere -- doesn't mean somebody "sent" them. So I question whether your whole basis of contempt is based on an ass-sumption, or somebody's suggestion.

Do you really think these children are mature enough to make these decisions on their own, Pogo?

What I think is that the human survival instinct is strong enough to drive people, of any age, to anything and any place they need to in order to survive. When your alternative is a hellhole it doesn't take much to 'make a decision'.

In any case you don't seem to have evidence, which indicates you're working on an assumption. That's OK as a theory --- but you can't then blame parents for something you don't know exists.

Hmm. Just what are you getting at? Sounds like to me we are starting to split hairs here. The very fact they are here means their parents failed in their responsibility to raise them. The fact remains that the parents are not there supporting the child. Whether they came here out of their own recognizance or were in fact sent here by their parents does not absolve the parents of their failure. Period.

What we're getting at is you started with a statement of extreme disapproval of parents who, and I quote, "SEND" their children to wherever. The verb there is "send". Hence you're taking an opposing position to a dynamic you don't have any evidence exists.

We're on USMB. Is that because somebody "sent" you here? Nobody "sent" me.

Beyond that stage your assumption in the post above seems to be that "all parents everywhere have equal provision opportunities for their children" --- and if some child somewhere is not provided for it's the failure of the parents who have abundant and unlimited resources. That just isn't the way the world works.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

That's it! And in one fell swoop you have defeated the liberal narrative about family separation.

Nah, if you were paying attention to the briefing the DHS gave, she pointed out that 10,000 of these children were unaccompanied when they arrived at the border. Who sent them there?

The other 2000 were in fact separated as she mentioned.

I don't know about any "narratives" or briefing. I've been travelling.

But the question is the verb "sent". Just because somebody shows up somewhere -- doesn't mean somebody "sent" them. So I question whether your whole basis of contempt is based on an ass-sumption, or somebody's suggestion.

Do you really think these children are mature enough to make these decisions on their own, Pogo?

What I think is that the human survival instinct is strong enough to drive people, of any age, to anything and any place they need to in order to survive. When your alternative is a hellhole it doesn't take much to 'make a decision'.

In any case you don't seem to have evidence, which indicates you're working on an assumption. That's OK as a theory --- but you can't then blame parents for something you don't know exists.

Hmm. Just what are you getting at? Sounds like to me we are starting to split hairs here. The very fact they are here means their parents failed in their responsibility to raise them. The fact remains that the parents are not there supporting the child. Whether they came here out of their own recognizance or were in fact sent here by their parents does not absolve the parents of their failure. Period.

What we're getting at is you started with a statement of extreme disapproval of parents who, and I quote, "SEND" their children to wherever. The verb there is "send". Hence you're taking an opposing position to a dynamic you don't have any evidence exists.

We're on USMB. Is that because somebody "sent" you here? Nobody "sent" me.

Beyond that stage your assumption in the post above seems to be that "all parents everywhere have equal provision opportunities for their children" --- and if some child somewhere is not provided for it's the failure of the parents who have abundant and unlimited resources. That just isn't the way the world works.

You should not talk about things of which you have lilttle or no knowledge. Here is the evidence you claim does not exist regarding children being sent alone by their parents to attempt cross the border illegally....................CHILD SEPARATION: How Many Children Are Being Sent To The Border Alone By Their Parents?

 

[TemplarKormac]

What we're getting at is you started with a statement of extreme disapproval of parents who, and I quote, "SEND" their children to wherever. The verb there is "send". Hence you're taking an opposing position to a dynamic you don't have any evidence exists.

Hmm, so 10,000 children decided to come here by themselves en masse? You overestimate the intellectual and reasoning capacity of the juvenile mind.

Beyond that stage your assumption in the post above seems to be that "all parents everywhere have equal provision opportunities for their children" --- and if some child somewhere is not provided for it's the failure of the parents who have abundant and unlimited resources. That just isn't the way the world works.

The parent doesn't need "unlimited resources", they need to be there for the child. If they are going to allow the child to go on such a treacherous journey alone whether they send them or not, that by itself proves the parents have failed their child.

I can't help but notice how semantic this discussion is becoming. I fail to see how a child has the wisdom to make the correct choices on their way to the border without being guided by someone.

 

[Coyote]

I can't help but feel great anger towards the parents who chose to send their children thousands of miles north from Central America to the southern border, alone.

Hiya TK. So I wanted to ask about this premise -- where do you get this idea that parents are sending their children thousands of miles alone?

I just want to figure out where these stories get started.

Well, that comes from the statements made by others here and facts I've read elsewhere on the internet that a lot of these children come from Central America... which is 1,505 miles from our border if you go from there to Guatemala. Not to mention the DHS-SEC said that 10,000 children came here unaccompanied.

But like I said, I was/still am conflicted about this issue. I took one side and I didn't like what came out of my head, and I took the other and I didn't like it either.

I wasn't asking about the geography. I know that part. In fact you should see my ridiculous collection of maps.

I'm asking where you get the idea that "parents are sending their children". And "alone".

If the kids were being "sent" --- how would they get separated here?

That's it! And in one fell swoop you have defeated the liberal narrative about family separation.

Nah, if you were paying attention to the briefing the DHS gave, she pointed out that 10,000 of these children were unaccompanied when they arrived at the border. Who sent them there?

The other 2000 were in fact separated as she mentioned.

I dont think any one was saying all those children were seperated from their parents. The numbers I hrsrd were around the 2000 mark, of children seperated since the policy was initiated.

 

[beagle9]

Many are being sent to (supposed) safety from the raging gang and drug violence in the Northern Triangle. (Source) It would be positively stunning if none among the many tens of thousands of unaccompanied youth reaching the U.S. border since 2014 were "sent".

While Johnson suggested that unaccompanied minors are rushing to the border to take advantage of a deferred-deportation U.S. policy, the 15-year-old girl stated a dramatically different motivation for her perilous journey: violence in her home country. She and her brother left El Salvador on March 5.

"The reason I came is because we were in danger over there," the girl said. "My mom and dad said we were better off coming here, that's all I can say."​

The real crime is the U.S. ignoring the situation going on in these countries for which are causing these problems to begin with.

In this both parties are guilty.

The Demon-crats need to get down off of their soap boxes, and get down on their knees to ask God for his guidence to help these children, their families, and their nation's.

If an invasion is nessesary then so be it, because either these people are telling the truth or they are lying, so which is it ??

Are they fleeing danger, and if so, is it from the government of the country they are fleeing from ??

If they are fleeing a corrupt out of control government that is forcing these families by the thousands to our border, then are we not to go and liberate them back to their homes and lands that have been stolen from them by a rogue government in a rogue Nation ??

Why is our government and military not addressing the problem ??? I'll be waiting for a good answer.

 

[beagle9]

I can't help but feel great anger towards the parents who chose to send their children thousands of miles north from Central America to the southern border, alone.

Hiya TK. So I wanted to ask about this premise -- where do you get this idea that parents are sending their children thousands of miles alone?

I just want to figure out where these stories get started.

Well, that comes from the statements made by others here and facts I've read elsewhere on the internet that a lot of these children come from Central America... which is 1,505 miles from our border if you go from there to Guatemala. Not to mention the DHS-SEC said that 10,000 children came here unaccompanied.

But like I said, I was/still am conflicted about this issue. I took one side and I didn't like what came out of my head, and I took the other and I didn't like it either.

I wasn't asking about the geography. I know that part. In fact you should see my ridiculous collection of maps.

I'm asking where you get the idea that "parents are sending their children". And "alone".

If the kids were being "sent" --- how would they get separated here?

That's it! And in one fell swoop you have defeated the liberal narrative about family separation.

Nah, if you were paying attention to the briefing the DHS gave, she pointed out that 10,000 of these children were unaccompanied when they arrived at the border. Who sent them there?

The other 2000 were in fact separated as she mentioned.

I dont think any one was saying all those children were seperated from their parents. The numbers I hrsrd were around the 2000 mark, of children seperated since the policy was initiated.

Who initiated the policy ?? Who created the policy ? Who is carrying out the policy ?

 

[Olde Europe]

The real crime is the U.S. ignoring the situation going on in these countries for which are causing these problems to begin with.

In this both parties are guilty.

The Demon-crats need to get down off of their soap boxes, and get down on their knees to ask God for his guidence to help these children, their families, and their nation's.

If an invasion is nessesary then so be it, because either these people are telling the truth or they are lying, so which is it ??

Are they fleeing danger, and if so, is it from the government of the country they are fleeing from ??

If they are fleeing a corrupt out of control government that is forcing these families by the thousands to our border, then are we not to go and liberate them back to their homes and lands that have been stolen from them by a rogue government in a rogue Nation ??

Why is our government and military not addressing the problem ??? I'll be waiting for a good answer.

The real crime was a hundred years of meddling by the U.S. in Central America, supporting right-wing caudillos and death squads and pretty much destroying the fabric of their societies. Read up on Guatemala, for instance, and Reagan was the worst, most murderous asshole among a long list of presidents with blood on their hands.

The next cause is the war on drugs, which drives the whole drug trade into illegality, and shovels hundreds of billions of dollars into the coffers of cartels, which, in conjunction with a variety of gangs, fight against each other and the respective governments in the "Northern Triange". That's American drug money and guns involved in murder sprees, human trafficking, or buying up governments and law enforcement. That, in very raw strokes, describes the situation in the three countries accounting for most of the unaccompanied minors arriving at the U.S. border, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

The problem is, they did try to solve that (para-) militarily. Spoiler alert, it didn't work, the billions are still flowing, as are the guns, and the bodies pile up all the while. Oh, and BTW, given the history of U.S. meddling in the reason, I wouldn't bet the house on Americans being greeted as liberators in the region.

 

[beagle9]

The real crime is the U.S. ignoring the situation going on in these countries for which are causing these problems to begin with.

In this both parties are guilty.

The Demon-crats need to get down off of their soap boxes, and get down on their knees to ask God for his guidence to help these children, their families, and their nation's.

If an invasion is nessesary then so be it, because either these people are telling the truth or they are lying, so which is it ??

Are they fleeing danger, and if so, is it from the government of the country they are fleeing from ??

If they are fleeing a corrupt out of control government that is forcing these families by the thousands to our border, then are we not to go and liberate them back to their homes and lands that have been stolen from them by a rogue government in a rogue Nation ??

Why is our government and military not addressing the problem ??? I'll be waiting for a good answer.

The real crime was a hundred years of meddling by the U.S. in Central America, supporting right-wing caudillos and death squads and pretty much destroying the fabric of their societies. Read up on Guatemala, for instance, and Reagan was the worst, most murderous asshole among a long list of presidents with blood on their hands.

The next cause is the war on drugs, which drives the whole drug trade into illegality, and shovels hundreds of billions of dollars into the coffers of cartels, which, in conjunction with a variety of gangs, fight against each other and the respective governments in the "Northern Triange". That's American drug money and guns involved in murder sprees, human trafficking, or buying up governments and law enforcement. That, in very raw strokes, describes the situation in the three countries accounting for most of the unaccompanied minors arriving at the U.S. border, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

The problem is, they did try to solve that (para-) militarily. Spoiler alert, it didn't work, the billions are still flowing, as are the guns, and the bodies pile up all the while. Oh, and BTW, given the history of U.S. meddling in the reason, I wouldn't bet the house on Americans being greeted as liberators in the region.

Instead of all this inflammatory rehtoric, why don't we demand a hearing on the situation, and why doesn't congress come clean about it all if what you say is true ?? The situation is far greater than this one President, and it needs a hearing to address honestly why these people are fleeing their Homelands and homes, and we need resolutions passed, and if a declaration of war is needed, then so be it. To hell with meddling, let's go all out to solve the problem.. Enough of using these people as a political football.

 

[Olde Europe]

Instead of all this inflammatory rehtoric, why don't we demand a hearing on the situation, and why doesn't congress come clean about it all if what you say is true ?? The situation is far greater than this one President, and it needs a hearing to address honestly why these people are fleeing their Homelands and homes, and we need resolutions passed, and if a declaration of war is needed, then so be it. To hell with meddling, let's go all out to solve the problem.. Enough of using these people as a political football.

First, there is no military solution to this problem. There patently isn't. It could be solved if the money stream to the cartels is cut off. That would probably take a decade, but it would be doable.

Moreover this Congress is not about solving problems, it is about preserving problems to use them against the other side. Where have you been during the last decade?

In addition, in recent years we had marijuana legalization in some blue states. That already had to be rammed through against the GOP screeching the sky would fall on everybody's head, and Sessions is at work to undermine it as much as he can. What do you think would happen in case Democrats were to demand an end to the war on drugs? That is one of the main tools of the GOP to incarcerate blacks, and to deprive them of their voting rights. They'll never let that one go if they can help it.

I agree, wholeheartedly, with that below, and it couldn't be better timed:

Enough of using these people as a political football.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Instead of all this inflammatory rehtoric, why don't we demand a hearing on the situation, and why doesn't congress come clean about it all if what you say is true ?? The situation is far greater than this one President, and it needs a hearing to address honestly why these people are fleeing their Homelands and homes, and we need resolutions passed, and if a declaration of war is needed, then so be it. To hell with meddling, let's go all out to solve the problem.. Enough of using these people as a political football.

First, there is no military solution to this problem. There patently isn't. It could be solved if the money stream to the cartels is cut off. That would probably take a decade, but it would be doable.

Moreover this Congress is not about solving problems, it is about preserving problems to use them against the other side. Where have you been during the last decade?

In addition, in recent years we had marijuana legalization in some blue states. That already had to be rammed through against the GOP screeching the sky would fall on everybody's head, and Sessions is at work to undermine it as much as he can. What do you think would happen in case Democrats were to demand an end to the war on drugs? That is one of the main tools of the GOP to incarcerate blacks, and to deprive them of their voting rights. They'll never let that one go if they can help it.

I agree, wholeheartedly, with that below, and it couldn't be better timed:

Enough of using these people as a political football.

There is much we could do to help Mexico but it definitely would involve the military....not that it is not doable....but the democratic party opposition is the problem....they would rather abolish our borders and let any and all mexicans come into America believing they would vote democratic....the two main reasons motivating those who want open borders aka no borders......is to have more mexicans voting for the democrats and for cheap illegal mexican labor. Some bleeding heart types simply think it is our obligation to let anyone in from any and everywhere that may be suffering or who just want to better their lives.....according to one estimation I have seen there are approx. 2 billion people who want to come to America. .

Bottom line ...those who favor open borders aka no borders......simply care more about others than they do Americans. They do not care if American jobs are taken by foreigners....does not bother them at all. They do not care about the costs of all these illegal migrants nor the crimes they committ.

The Cost of Illegal Immigration to US Taxpayers | FAIR

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The real crime is the U.S. ignoring the situation going on in these countries for which are causing these problems to begin with.

In this both parties are guilty.

The Demon-crats need to get down off of their soap boxes, and get down on their knees to ask God for his guidence to help these children, their families, and their nation's.

If an invasion is nessesary then so be it, because either these people are telling the truth or they are lying, so which is it ??

Are they fleeing danger, and if so, is it from the government of the country they are fleeing from ??

If they are fleeing a corrupt out of control government that is forcing these families by the thousands to our border, then are we not to go and liberate them back to their homes and lands that have been stolen from them by a rogue government in a rogue Nation ??

Why is our government and military not addressing the problem ??? I'll be waiting for a good answer.

The real crime was a hundred years of meddling by the U.S. in Central America, supporting right-wing caudillos and death squads and pretty much destroying the fabric of their societies. Read up on Guatemala, for instance, and Reagan was the worst, most murderous asshole among a long list of presidents with blood on their hands.

The next cause is the war on drugs, which drives the whole drug trade into illegality, and shovels hundreds of billions of dollars into the coffers of cartels, which, in conjunction with a variety of gangs, fight against each other and the respective governments in the "Northern Triange". That's American drug money and guns involved in murder sprees, human trafficking, or buying up governments and law enforcement. That, in very raw strokes, describes the situation in the three countries accounting for most of the unaccompanied minors arriving at the U.S. border, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

The problem is, they did try to solve that (para-) militarily. Spoiler alert, it didn't work, the billions are still flowing, as are the guns, and the bodies pile up all the while. Oh, and BTW, given the history of U.S. meddling in the reason, I wouldn't bet the house on Americans being greeted as liberators in the region.

Instead of all this inflammatory rehtoric, why don't we demand a hearing on the situation, and why doesn't congress come clean about it all if what you say is true ?? The situation is far greater than this one President, and it needs a hearing to address honestly why these people are fleeing their Homelands and homes, and we need resolutions passed, and if a declaration of war is needed, then so be it. To hell with meddling, let's go all out to solve the problem.. Enough of using these people as a political football.

It is no mystery in regards to why people are fleeing their native countries to come here......and in the long run it would be to our benefit to improve their situation in Mexico, central america etc.

Yet congress is a huge stumbling block in regards to our solving the illegal immigration and also in regards to improving our legal immigration situation. You have the leftwingers and the moderate, elitist, and politically correct Republicans also who would resist any real efforts to improve the conditions in those countries from whence the largest number of our illegal immigrants come from.

So do not look for any improvement any time soon if ever. The more likely scenario is that we will continue to import legal immigrants that should not be allowed here....I speak of Africans and Muslims .....not even to mention all the illegals pouring in.

If Trump fails you will see a transformation like Obama wanted.....aka a fundamental change in America and it will not be a good thing....what America will become most likely is what is known as a client state....meaning -- a state that is economically, politically, and militarily subordinate to another more powerful state in international affairs.--and those who hate America and there are many of them....actually think that would be a good thing.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The real crime is the U.S. ignoring the situation going on in these countries for which are causing these problems to begin with.

In this both parties are guilty.

The Demon-crats need to get down off of their soap boxes, and get down on their knees to ask God for his guidence to help these children, their families, and their nation's.

If an invasion is nessesary then so be it, because either these people are telling the truth or they are lying, so which is it ??

Are they fleeing danger, and if so, is it from the government of the country they are fleeing from ??

If they are fleeing a corrupt out of control government that is forcing these families by the thousands to our border, then are we not to go and liberate them back to their homes and lands that have been stolen from them by a rogue government in a rogue Nation ??

Why is our government and military not addressing the problem ??? I'll be waiting for a good answer.

The real crime was a hundred years of meddling by the U.S. in Central America, supporting right-wing caudillos and death squads and pretty much destroying the fabric of their societies. Read up on Guatemala, for instance, and Reagan was the worst, most murderous asshole among a long list of presidents with blood on their hands.

The next cause is the war on drugs, which drives the whole drug trade into illegality, and shovels hundreds of billions of dollars into the coffers of cartels, which, in conjunction with a variety of gangs, fight against each other and the respective governments in the "Northern Triange". That's American drug money and guns involved in murder sprees, human trafficking, or buying up governments and law enforcement. That, in very raw strokes, describes the situation in the three countries accounting for most of the unaccompanied minors arriving at the U.S. border, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

The problem is, they did try to solve that (para-) militarily. Spoiler alert, it didn't work, the billions are still flowing, as are the guns, and the bodies pile up all the while. Oh, and BTW, given the history of U.S. meddling in the reason, I wouldn't bet the house on Americans being greeted as liberators in the region.

Instead of all this inflammatory rehtoric, why don't we demand a hearing on the situation, and why doesn't congress come clean about it all if what you say is true ?? The situation is far greater than this one President, and it needs a hearing to address honestly why these people are fleeing their Homelands and homes, and we need resolutions passed, and if a declaration of war is needed, then so be it. To hell with meddling, let's go all out to solve the problem.. Enough of using these people as a political football.

Alexander Hamilton, wrote that a republic depended for success "essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family."

Because of this, Hamilton warned against the influx of foreigners.

If Hamilton were proposed as Secretary of the Treasury today, he couldn`t be confirmed. And it would be certain " so called conservative " pundits aka pc republicans who would most be for blocking him!

The chief villains of American history, are power-hungry centralists and the Supreme Court justices who heed them. The creators of our Republic were not engaged in a quest for universal equality, distributive justice, or even an "ownership society". but rather for a limited, decentralized government meddling as little as possible with the lives of individual families. Having seen what tyrannical governments could do, the Founders tried to tie Leviathan down—like Gulliver —with thousands of constitutional strings that would prevent the growth of tyranny.

 

[Olde Europe]

Alexander Hamilton, wrote that a republic depended for success "essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family."

Because of this, Hamilton warned against the influx of foreigners.

If Hamilton were proposed as Secretary of the Treasury today, he couldn`t be confirmed. And it would be certain " so called conservative " pundits aka pc republicans who would most be for blocking him!

The chief villains of American history, are power-hungry centralists and the Supreme Court justices who heed them. The creators of our Republic were not engaged in a quest for universal equality, distributive justice, or even an "ownership society". but rather for a limited, decentralized government meddling as little as possible with the lives of individual families. Having seen what tyrannical governments could do, the Founders tried to tie Leviathan down—like Gulliver —with thousands of constitutional strings that would prevent the growth of tyranny.

Here, have a link to the text you've stolen and then slightly altered to conceal the theft.