Given that the world has less conflict and less oppression and less poverty than ever before in history, how did we get a record number of refugees?
How are they supposed to enter by legal means?
The Prezident, yelling about the Mexican border: “We’re closed!”
Been over that. Many are being charged because Border Patrol agents have physically blocked the “legal” ones. Misdemeanors also don’t require or even permit kidnapping in our names. As you put it, “So many are coming that we are dealing with 2,000 children over a six week period.” - tell us in more detail why “we” are dealing with children, and how.
Perhaps you could clarify what *you *mean.
As with anything having to do with this administration, my attempts to defend a policy are always derailed by the fact that they are doing shady crap in addition to the policy. Blocking asylum seekers from entering legally is something that courts or Congress really should deal with.
On one level I do understand it, because most of these people have been coached to “say asylum like a password” as Trump says. They’ve been misled by activists more interested in a political cause than actually helping people. The majority will not qualify. So why waste time with the process? because the process is the law, and we are a nation of laws.
Maybe you should stop trying to defend the administration, then.
What happened to your justification that controlling the borders is something we voted for?
Already asked: Where the hell are you getting that from?
Look, some of the families arrived, with children in tow, and presented themselves at the border in the legal manner. They have been detained and separated from their children. Nobody’s claiming that they were treated any different from any of the others, despite not being suspected of committing any crimes.
There are still no plans to locate the children and reunite them with their families.
Hell, last time I checked, Sec. Neilsen couldn’t tell reporters where the girls and toddlers were being held.
I’m also trying not to get into a situation where I’m endorsing harebrained progressive ideas either.
Like Obama when he deported more than any president before?
He had a good policy. Even then, he prioritized felons, which is how it should be, although that doesn’t mean non-felons are shielded from deportation. Just means we’re not looking for them.
I’d note that while many Democrats expressed disagreement with his policies, they still thought he was awesome and wouldn’t have considered not supporting him for reelection. Which makes their criticism pretty weak. I’m not voting for Trump. What I dislike about him I back up with my vote. Obama voters, to put it mildly, mostly did not. Drone warfare, elective wars, deportation, mass incarceration, opposition to gay marriage, it was all just a mild disagreement between Obama and his supporters. But when Bush did it or Trump does it, it’s an apocalyptic situation.
Obama did a lot of good which outweighed his mistakes.
With your parties guy, it’s actually much simpler: he does a lot of evil which is only countered by his incompetence.
Of course, when reality makes mince meat of your opinions then reality should never be considered by your ponderings. So again it was silly to claim that progressives were pushing harebrained ideas about this.
I would like to talk in broad strokes here to see what your solution is.
What was going wrong? 12 million illegal immigrants. 100,000 caught and released in the last 15 months. 2,000 children separated in a six week period. Those numbers show the enormity of the problem. Do you agree that it is a problem?
Is it fixed? Hell, no. Is that the standard? If a policy doesn’t fully and completely solve a problem in six weeks we need to shitcan it and start over?
Oreally? Would that be the normal understanding of a rational English-speaking human to your declaration that “Isn’t it the case that (some/many of) the people who have been separated from their children are suspected of committing a crime and the government intends to prosecute them, and that’s why they’ve been detained?”
No, HD, what we can agree on is that you’re playing exactly the partisan word games that other posters thought you were and that I was hoping you weren’t, and was therefore giving you the benefit of the doubt. This is the kind of argument that Trumpists use to justify what Trump is doing, which is new, ruthless, despicable, immoral, and in fact, in many aspects actually illegal. If you think this is all cool because these people and their kids tried to sneak across the border, I see no value in continuing this conversation.
Disagree. When the policy does not address the problem and indeed contributes to it (see DACA; when you have a policy like that isn’t it foreseen that people will try to come here illegally in the hopes of gaining legal status someday?) it is not a good policy.
Again, I would like to have a broad strokes discussion about what to do about this. It seems that some on the other side don’t even think it is an issue, let 'em all in. All we do is praise or criticize individual policies which don’t put a dent in the overall problem. Is there common ground which we can reach?
First question: What should happen to a person suspected of being an illegal immigrant caught inside the United States?
Those “mistakes” resulted in the deaths of a lot of people and the ruining of a lot of lives. But health care! And great speeches!
Now as a Republican sympathizer who tries to be fair, Obama’s mistakes, at least the ones that liberals think he made, are the most redeeming quality of his Presidency. He killed a lot of terrorists. He reduced the number of illegal immigrants in this country. He helped liberate Libya. Those were hard choices that had to be made. But if you think they were the wrong choices then and the wrong choices now, if they are inhumane and cruel, there’s no way you can call Obama a good President. Some crimes are unforgivable by your own arguments. YOu seem to be saying that if Trump got single payer done that he’d be a good President.
Here are some statistics from the UN from 2017:
The vast majority of refugees are fleeing conflict.
So you don’t agree that attempting to cross outside of a port of entry is a misdemeanor crime? I really would like to talk about it, but everyone just wants to launch into invectives about Trump.
I have not said “this is all cool”. I thought it would be good to establish a basis of shared understanding before moving onto the more contentious issues. I imagined the conversation going something like this:
HD: Isn’t illegal entry a crime?
WP: Yes, it’s but it’s just a misdemeanor that doesn’t merit prosecution / detention / separation of families.
It seems instead, I got something more like this:
HD: Isn’t illegal entry a crime?
WP: No, you’re playing word games and I don’t want to talk about this anymore.
At least we can agree that both of us “see no value in continuing this conversation.”
Good day to you.
I meant his policy was good up until he went beyond DACA. DACA was illegal, IMO, but it at least made sense and the public supports it. I just wish he’d done it through proper procedure. But prior to that he was doing everything right, although apparently it was just politics. He wanted reform and stepped up enforcement as a good faith measure. Except if it’s conditional on getting what he wants later, it’s not really good faith, it’s just a crass political tactic.
THey should be charged with illegal entry and deported if they are not authorized to be here. If we can’t agree on this basic point, then I’m not sure the other side has any good faith arguments. We can disagree on who is allowed to come here and who is not, but once we’ve established who cannot come here, and they come here anyway, we have to enforce our laws.