They do. Open borders with no restrictions. That is why Democrats have never negotiated border security in a good faith manner. It is why they expect a clean DACA bill without doing anything but appropriating a couple bucks to a wall. They pass rules with no intention of following them. Then when someone does, they flip their wigs. They are not about laws or order. They are children looking to win the next school election.
Trump is holding children hostage
- Thread starter Rockfish1
- Start date
They do. Open borders with no restrictions. That is why Democrats have never negotiated border security in a good faith manner. It is why they expect a clean DACA bill without doing anything but appropriating a couple bucks to a wall. They pass rules with no intention of following them. Then when someone does, they flip their wigs. They are not about laws or order. They are children looking to win the next school election.
Or maybe they are knocking the growing evidence the NYC FBI was working for Trump off of the front page?
We need a solution to this problem. The link posted elsewhere, by Bruce I believe, spoke of progressive dissatisfaction with Obama's policies. It was from a liberal source. There is a problem to just handing the kids over to people in the US as we know some of these kids are victims of human trafficking. A paternity test, a decent one, can take 1-2 days. Maybe we could require DNA testing and if the test fails, the kids are placed in facilities. If successful, housed with parents?
I thought I just linked in a thread a mention that Democrats voted for Bush 43's wall and that spending on border security went WAY up under Obama. Was that all wrong? Do we have sources saying that was all wrong?
Nope. Sure enough, Obama's administration of existing la was a violation of that law but no Democrat raised a finger to object. That is, unless we should be counting all Democrats as Progressives and all Progressives as Democrats (include the media in both terms).
Well, here we go again presenting facts. Don’t you know they don’t want facts to get in the way of their hate?
I think the point that was being made is that Mexicans - and others who are having their children ripped away from them - are at least indirectly paying for the wall with their childrens' emotional well-being and psyche .
And from those slanders and imagined offenses (that are, indeed, imaginary) you justify supporting Trump as he systematically abuses thousands of children of those seeking asylum or to immigrate. As you explained to me in the thread about the dreamers before, the libs should pay up or the kids are going to get hurt. So it goes once again here. Here is what I want to know. How much do you think Trump should charge us libs to get him to stop abusing the kids of immigrants and asylum seekers? If we pay what is to stop him from taking those kids or others hostage in the future?
Notwithstanding the claims of shills, sociopaths, and useful idiots, no president has previously decided to criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the border without authorization. Nor is the inhumanity of separating children from their parents merely an unfortunate byproduct of this cruel policy. The inhumanity is essential to the policy. Team Trump intends for the inhumanity to deter migrants and leverage Democrats. Cruelty is the whole point of this policy.
I keep thinking somewhere there's a low that's too low for the Trump GOP, and I keep being wrong.
I keep thinking somewhere there's a low that's too low for the Trump GOP, and I keep being wrong.
Here’s to hoping the Stein and Johnson voters, and the Bernie Bros who sat out Nov ‘16, who all thought Hillary wasn’t pure enough, wake the f*** up this Nov and in ‘20. This is the shit you get when you waste your vote or stand by and watch someone like Trump get elected.
History teaches quite clearly that there is no low humanity can't sink to.
It reminds me of the period after the abu Ghraib abuses were revealed. Everyone agreed that the horrific photos showed reprehensible and barbarous behavior, but the administration's defenders insisted that the fault lay only with a few bad apples. It was something we did do, Steven Colbert joked, but not something we would do.
Then it became clear that we were systematically doing the same and worse at US detention facilities around the world.
Without missing a beat the administration's defenders took up the cause. Of course that's what we're doing, they said, and it's a damn good thing we are. You libs are cowards and objectively pro-terrorist, they told me.
George Orwell was all over this:
All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. The Liberal News Chronicle published, as an example of shocking barbarity, photographs of Russians hanged by the Germans, and then a year or two later published with warm approval almost exactly similar photographs of Germans hanged by the Russians. It is the same with historical events. History is thought of largely in nationalist terms, and such things as the Inquisition, the tortures of the Star Chamber, the exploits of the English buccaneers (Sir Francis Drake, for instance, who was given to sinking Spanish prisoners alive), the Reign of Terror, the heroes of the Mutiny blowing hundreds of Indians from the guns, or Cromwell's soldiers slashing Irishwomen's faces with razors, become morally neutral or even meritorious when it is felt that they were done in the ‘right’ cause. . . Whether such deeds were reprehensible, or even whether they happened, was always decided according to political predilection.
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. . . In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one's own mind.
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. . . In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one's own mind.
Possibly what we are seeing is just a test to see how much we protest this new policy by the Trump administration both in congress and by the masses? We are only in the early stages of year two of this administration. Year three could be a real doozy if the Republicans still control both houses of congress and the new representatives are Trump Republicans.
Politifact says your "facts" are false:
Obama’s immigration policy specifically sought to avoid breaking up families. While some children were separated from their parents under Obama, this was relatively rare, and occurred at a far lower rate than under Trump, where the practice flows from a zero tolerance approach to illegal border-crossings.
We rate this False.
The whole point of Trump's policy is to inflict cruelty. That's how he intends to deter migrants and leverage Democrats.We rate this False.
So what do we do then? It is easy to bitch and complain but you offer ZERO ideas. My preference would be to not separate them but to ask, "is your asylum claim based on anything other than my government is oppressing me?" If the answer to that is yes, I pack the whole family up and kick them out. You guys don't want that, you have allowed the silly assertion that crime and spousal abuse qualifies people for asylum, which is nonsense. Those things are horrible but they are not extraordinary circumstances and they have nothing to do with oppression. That shit happens in your neighborhood. People fleeing that will most likely end up in the worst U.S. neighborhoods which are full of the same.
So everyone gets an asylum claim and a trial. Well in past administrations, everyone with a kid got released into the U.S. and was told to head on down to the courthouse on "X" date. Then, will wonders never cease, they never show up for the court date. You also have a fit about asking people for their "papers" because that is racist. Then the Democrats set up "sanctuary cities" to thwart ICE from going after these people who came in on a lie, were allowed to stay on a lie, and can only continue to live here by lying. So there is zero enforcement because there is never intended to be enforcement. You want open borders. Your rhetoric may suggest otherwise but your idea of good immigration is to let everyone in, I judge that based on the actual actions of who you support. The reason all of these children are showing up at the border is because our policies have made them a get out of jail free card. Which invites more and more of them.
That is the Democrats on immigration. That is why we are here today.
And the new policy is to be as cruel as the law permits.
I think what sticks in the craw of most on the left is that we can't even get in agreeance that this practice is abominable. It's hard to have a discussion of ideas when we're arguing about facts.
So basically like every other issue we have in this country we will get nowhere.
Under the Obama Admin thousands of kids were separated from their parents. That is fact. Whether it was intentional or not is very likely irrelevant to the parents who were separated from the kids.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/parents-deportation_n_5531552.html
You do know that American citizens are separated from their kids during legal proceedings. Why is the immigration procedure any different.
You keep posting the same link, thinking it's making a point that it isn't. These are two different situations. From your article....98% of those deported had committed a crime (beyond just illegal entry) and were "priority" deportations. The children mentioned were also US citizens born here in the country.
Do you not understand that's significantly different issue than a family unit apprehended at the border, with the only crime being the illegal crossing itself?
Last edited:
My children went to visit their grandparents last week...separated from their parent just like Trump (and Obama) did. It's the same thing, I tell you, and you don't hear me bitching about it!
To inflict cruelty to use as a bargaining chip for his stupid wall. An act that is unquestionably evil in it's intent.
Does this cruelty get support from Rev. Van and other holier-than-thous?
I don't see how anyone can defend this, unless they're just as cruel and evil.. He is literally using and abusing children for blackmail leverage against those who have empathy and sympathy and only to build his racist dog whistle monument.
Sociopath.
And those claims about him raping a 13 year old..... well.....
Or he may just be manipulating the news cycle again, to keep the emphasis off the Russian conspiracy. His sycophantic dog and pony show with the Fat Boy probably didn't get the play he wanted.
Last edited:
There were at minimum 45,000 children in foster care in 2007 due to a parent being incarcerated. The only obvious solution is to stop convicting parents and just let them walk.
You made your position on this issue clear several weeks ago. You agreed with Sessions, Miller, etc....that a new policy of child separation for illegal crossings (and let's be crystal clear.....this is a NEW policy) was appropriate as a deterrent mechanism.
No need to conflate that position with unrelated bullshit about children with parents in prison for real crimes. Just own your original position you believe in. Stand behind it and argue for it. Don't hide what you really feel.
Illegal immigration is theft. It is the same thing as breaking into your neighbor's house and then when you get caught, claim you were just there to borrow sugar (asylum).
Well the proper way to ask for sugar (asylum) is to knock on the front door (port of entry) and ask. Reality is that you are not there for sugar, you were there to get a piece of what your neighbor had. And he may have given it to you if you had properly asked. But you don't get to break into your neighbor's house first and then get to ask nicely after the fact. That is not how the world works.
Jesus says that if your neighbor asks for your coat, you should give that to him along with your shirt. But the opening sequence in that transaction is to ask, not to take. Taking makes you a thief. And yes, all of those people have a hard luck story, so do most thieves. There are people all over the U.S. trying to make a better life for their family who commit crimes and end up in jail, separated from their families and children, because they committed a crime.
Illegal immigrants are thieves. They steal time and resources from the most needy among us. These resources are something we may have willingly offered them had they asked, but after you break in, game over.
How am I hiding anything? And I don't recall even having this conversation weeks ago, but could have I suppose. Anyway, although this "new" policy is unfortunate, it is not (yet another) DEFCON 2,000 like a certain side like to make everything.
This is yet another deflection from fixing the real issue. With the reported coaching that these people get to game the system, it only seem logical that the left has a concerted effort to create this problem so they will have another thing to scream about.
Lol. I don't know what's more laughable: that theft analogy, or your suggestion you'd be willing to let them in if they only asked politely.
Joe is a firm believer in the liberal illuminati deep state.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216
Theft.
Oh but wait, there's more theft.
So the powers that be will use emotional appeals and will accuse you of things like racism because they and their corporate backers are getting filthy rich off of this process. If you don't think so, have Rockfish post one of his income inequality graphs and compare the timeframe when income inequality explodes to when Reagan (mistakenly) enacted the first amnesty.
Theft.
Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.
And besides the guy who breaks in, who is the real beneficiary of the wealth? The fencer...the pawn shop owner.
Somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer. And the additional profits are so large that the economic pie accruing to all natives actually grows. I estimate the current “immigration surplus”—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about$50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year. Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated.
So illegal immigration tends to **** over blue collar American workers. It is great for the immigrants coming into the country, their position massively improved. It is also great for business owners who can now get the same level of production at a much lower rate. When you guys bitch about income inequality, does this ever enter the equation?
Oh but wait, there's more theft.
When we look at the overall value of immigration, there’s one more complicating factor: Immigrants receive government assistance at higher rates than natives. The higher cost of all the services provided to immigrants and the lower taxes they pay (because they have lower earnings) inevitably implies that on a year-to-year basis immigration creates a fiscal hole of at least $50 billion—a burden that falls on the native population.
What does it all add up to? The fiscal burden offsets the gain from the $50 billion immigration surplus, so it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers—the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans—sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.
What does it all add up to? The fiscal burden offsets the gain from the $50 billion immigration surplus, so it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers—the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans—sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.
So the powers that be will use emotional appeals and will accuse you of things like racism because they and their corporate backers are getting filthy rich off of this process. If you don't think so, have Rockfish post one of his income inequality graphs and compare the timeframe when income inequality explodes to when Reagan (mistakenly) enacted the first amnesty.
Meh....was a few weeks ago when you talked about inflicting maximum pain upon these people as a deterrent. And then I called you a fat ass I think. LOL.
I am trying to decide whether to take the time to respond to your claims. Let me ask a question first. Suppose that I proved to you that immigrants provided a net benefit to the economy, even to low-skilled Americans. Suppose that I showed that immigrants paid more in taxes than they consume in government services. That is, suppose you are simply flat-dead upside down on the facts. Would that actually cause you to reverse your position? My thought is that it doesn't actually matter to you.
That's a good article, but I think you should reread it, more slowly and carefully.
Harvard professor of economics or two lawyers, I will let you guys decide who has the gravitas on this subject. Do note however that neither of them really refute what was said.
In Goat's defense, he at least acknowledges it was a good article. And when he asks me to read it again, he is probably referencing that the professor thinks we should come up with a comprehensive immigration plan and offset the losses to the lower classes by forcing the winners to retrain the losers. I think that is an interesting topic and do not disagree. However, the Professor is speaking of legal immigration at the end of the article.
And none of that negates anything that I posted. All immigration is a net loser for those who can least afford to lose and it is a net gain for those who do not need it. For most of us in the middle, it is a bit of a wash. Cheaper goods and services offset by lower pay across the board.
