The law doesn’t require that families be separated. People who told you that are being dishonest, as evidenced by Trump signing a piece of paper saying that the separations that he ordered should no longer happen.
The law is the law…said the Nazi to the Jew, the slaver to the African, the inquisitor to the old herbwife.
Legality is not morality.
And unlike your examples we have a democracy and the ability to change law via a peaceful process. Is your proposal to just ignore whatever law we find to be politically inconvenient?
If you were in 1940’s germany, would you find it politically inconvenient to tell the SS where you saw the jews hiding?
The law does not require what you keep saying it does. The President’s signature on an order to stop separations proves that.
Not ignore. But we do have choices about how to enforce it.
Hell, even Texas, deep-red anti-drug state that it is, allows peace officers to, at their discretion, either arrest people for possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana, or to just issue a ticket and summons to appear without arrest. There are options.
Entering the country without the proper papers is against the law. But we don’t have to enforce that law by splitting up the families and sending each member to a different facility in a different state. There are options.
It’s not about the law, it’s about how it’s enforced.
So, you think the people sitting at the lunch counter in the south in the early 1960s were wrong? Sure they could change the law - but lots weren’t allowed to vote.
If a person was in the situation where they would be at risk of being homeless or starving if they didn’t do evil, I could see it. Sanders is not at risk of any of those things. If she got a smidgin of morality and decided to quit, she’d make out just fine. You can kind of see people staying to try to inject some sanity in a White House where it is sorely lacking. But she doesn’t do that. She stays because she believes in Trump, which makes her a piece of slime.
The standard for a press secretary is not telling the truth once in a while, but telling the truth unless there is a good reason not to. She lies more than any press secretary in history. But probably less than Trump who contradicts himself inside a single sentence.
I’m expecting a recession, because one is overdue and because I have full faith that Trump will screw things up enough to drive us into one. Perhaps the coming trade war. And I hope the pain falls primarily on those who still support Agent Orange, because they deserve it. It looks like the retaliatory tariffs are targeting red states. Our trade partners are smarter than Trump gives them credit for. And their reaction is exactly what anyone with any brains would have predicted.
France, Germany, China, Canada and Mexico are not contractors whom Trump can stiff with no pushback.
I’ve structured my investments to weather a recession, and when one comes I will donate to charities targeting those not culpable for the mess. The Koch brothers can bail out the Trumpists.
Again, are you trying to say that Trump had no choice but to enforce the existing law?
If that’s true, how could the policy change with an executive order?
The US is so like Nazi Germany that millions of people flee their miserable and failed states to move here? That makes perfect sense.
We seem to be working in that direction. I would not call a law or policy that asks for us to treat others in cruel and inhumane ways “politically inconvenient.” To do so is to allow ourselves to become more like Nazi Germany than some of us would like.
I didn’t claim that she was immigrating or seeking asylum, the whole point was that she was just an innocent casual visitor, but apparently turned away for no good reason. And it’s part of a pattern, the commonality being “brown-skinned, funny names, are or might be Muslim” – some other examples:
And the US Embassy disagrees with you about the visa. Yes, it’s unheard of in this situation. Border Patrol told her she’d need to go to the embassy for a visa, but since Canadian citizens don’t ever need a visa to enter the US for a non-business visit, the embassy couldn’t help her and told her that her problem was with Border Patrol and DHS – so she’s caught in the middle in a bureaucratic Catch-22.
Of course, what always remains unknown in these situations are potential legitimate factors that the media may not know about and are not reported, but there seems to be a growing list of people of the kind that Trump doesn’t like all being turned away with no good explanation.
The Case for Incivility
Confronting officials isn’t new. But it’s necessary.
Of course the owner was right to kick her out. It’s in his best interest not to spoil the appetites of his other customers.
It would be understandable if she has been doing something overt, like getting into a fight or being drunk and disorderly. We’re heading up a dangerously slippery slope if owners can eject people just because they don’t like someone. How is that any different from racism or other forms of bigotry?
This is sarcasm, right?
Once more for those in the back - being an asshole is not a protected class.
Yeah, they just “didn’t like her.” Six pages in and you still don’t get it.
You may not consider being the mouthpiece for an administration that is ripping children out of their parents arms overt, but many others, including myself, consider that pretty fucking overt. Also, businesses have had the right to refuse service for decades (except for protected classes) and there was no slippery slope then, so please explain to me why you think there suddenly is one now.
The answer to the second question is that it’s obviously different from racism or other forms of bigotry because she is being held responsible for her actions, not her innate characteristics.
“Nice people make the best Nazis.”