The same republican party that decries welfare and that minorities should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and then they collectively lose their fucking minds when a black man who did exactly that becomes president.
You’d think they’d point to Obama and say, “See? This is what pulling yourself up by the bootstraps looks like!” But nope…they didn’t. Go figure.
You guys are both being flippant. We all see homeless people on the street, feel sorry for them, but we don’t invite them home for dinner, a shower, and the spare bedroom, even though we can afford it. Why? Because, even though 95% of these homeless guys might be good people, we don’t risk our family’s safety on the off chance that he is one of the bad guys. Why can’t the United States have the same policy?
…your posts on this topic (both in this thread and the other thread) practically define “flippant.”
iiandyiiii is being sincere. He actually has opened up his spare room for a homeless person and will be housing and feeding him tonight. Why can’t you accept that?
I’m absolutely not being flippant. I love children. This is a humanitarian travesty that is occuring with these kids on the border. But it is not our fault. We have no obligation to be the world’s sanctuary for refugees. How about Canada take 6 million of the illegal immigrants here? Fair? Hell, they won’t let anyone move there who does not have a college degree.
If iiandyiiii did indeed take a homeless person into his house, then that is a wonderful gesture. It does not require you or I to do it, nor the United States.
You cannot take children away from their parents and lock them up and say, “It is not our fault.”
Hundreds of babies and toddlers held in “tender age shelters” in Texas.
Babies belong with their mothers. Politicians ignore this at their peril.
Their parents should not commit crimes in the presence of their children. That is their fault.
Why do we have to separate the kids from their parents?
We have not done it before this (at least not in most cases). What has changed that makes it necessary now?
You can still deny them residence in the US and send them back to wherever but, again, why do we have to take little kids from their parents? What purpose is that serving?
…of course you are being flippant.
A humanitarian travesty that is the direct result of the actions of the Trump administration.
This response is flippant. And is characteristic of all of your posts, which are similarly flippant. ICE took the kids away from their parents. You can’t turn around and then say “it wasn’t us!”
Strawman.
Nobody is arguing for this.
Last year my country New Zealand (population of just over 4.5 million) took in 750 Syrian refugees. We could have taken more. Do you know how many Syrian refugees America took in this year? 11. There are 5 million Syrian refugees from the war. And America took 11. So please stop being flippant with the facts. Nobody expects the US to be the world’s sanctuary for refugees.
Canada are doing more than their fair share. I think its time you stopped deflecting.
The world does not require “wonderful gestures.” But wonderful gestures make the world a happier place. Wonderful gestures make the world a better place. I don’t know why you are opposed to making the world a happier and a better place.
So you punish the babies for the crimes of the parents. Despicable. Monstrous. UnAmerican.
…another flippant response.
When you want to start addressing the issues please let the rest of us know.
Nope, it is the fault of the Trump administration for changing the policy and disregarding laws. Making even the ones with the right to seek asylum to cross the border and ask authorities for asylum as international law, that the US signed too, allows.
So, what if the mother were speeding down the highway at, say, one m/ph over the limit?
Why do you hate America?
#3 is a bit sketchy, otherwise all true.
They provide some legal details and you have to read pretty closely across a number of articles to pick up that they seem to be purposefully obfuscating their descriptions and that it doesn’t mean what they’re implying in their titles and introductory paragraphs. And quite a number of articles don’t go into it, and none that I have seen have mentioned the law in the OP. I had to find it by trusting that Kristjen Nielsen was being honest and trying to determine what she was referencing in her quotes.
Is it your assertion that all, or even a majority, of adults in families affected by this are guilty of at least a felony?
“Why did you shoot that unarmed man?”
“He was reaching for something and I got scared.”
“Ah, okay, it’s clearly not your fault. He pretty much shot himself.”
:rolleyes:
This is not the result of immigrants crossing the border. This is the result of a Trump administration policy. You can talk about extenuating circumstances, you can make it clear that the alternatives were all bad, but at the end of the day, nobody is forcing the Trump administration to separate thousands of families and put children in cages. They have decided that, out of all the possible policies and enforcement options at their disposal, this is the one they want to go with. It is absolutely and without a doubt their fault. And if you want to defend this policy, that absolutely has to be your starting point. “We decided to separate families and put children in cages in response to illegal immigration, here’s why that’s a good thing.”
Perhaps a better analogy:
“Why is that guy on death row for smoking a joint?”
“Hey, we may have implemented laws making marijuana possession punishable by death, but he broke the law, so clearly it’s his fault and our hands are absolutely clean.”
“Ah, I see. Totally not your fault. He basically killed himself.”
Trump should not institute a new policy of purposefully separating parents from their children for deterrent purposes. There’s nothing stopping him from requiring that families be housed together. That is his fault.
You should not be supporting this morally hideous and entirely unnecessary policy. That is your fault.
Again, the law isn’t really the issue. The issue is the application of a law with the intent of traumatizing children, to bully compliance from Democrats on a heartless immigration bill.
Arguing about the law, it’s initiation, who started it, etc are all just side discussions. The government has made no secret of the motivation here. To extort cooperation from reluctant lawmakers, USING MIGRANT CHILDREN.
Detention of innocent children as a bargaining chip. That’s a level of evil that is indefensible, in my opinion.
I heard an interesting piece on NPR this morning, and followed up on it.
In January 2016, ICE started a program known as the “Family Case Management Program” which was an alternative to detention, dealing with people who are supposed to go to immigration court and lived in a handful of cities that were part of a pilot program. One of the top criteria for entering the program was whether the person had young children, and they were seeking asylum. Basically, the same population that is embroiled in the controversy today.
Now get this, you people who look kindly on locking up children in cages because “we just have to” – the program, before the Trump Administration shut it down, resulted in 99 percent of its enrollees showing up for immigration court, including families who were ultimately deported. This program also cost about nine times less than the daily cost of a detention center bed.
And furthermore, I just learned there was another alternative to detention that according to an IG review appears to have been about 95% successful in keeping asylum seekers from absconding.
So when people like Trump, Sessions, Neilsen, and other depraved individuals claim that they have no choice under the law, they are lying. They STOPPED a legal program that appears to have been extremely successful, in order to abuse children.