INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: El on June 20, 2018, 06:43:56 PM
-
“I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law.”
— President Trump, in remarks to reporters at the White House, June 15
“We have the worst immigration laws in the entire world. Nobody has such sad, such bad and, actually, in many cases, such horrible and tough — you see about child separation, you see what’s going on there.”
— Trump, in remarks at the White House, June 18
“Because of the Flores consent decree and a 9th Circuit Court decision, ICE can only keep families detained together for a very short period of time.”
— Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a speech in Bozeman, Mont., June 7
“It’s the law, and that’s what the law states.”
— White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, at a news briefing, June 14
“We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.”
— Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, on Twitter, June 17
The president and top administration officials say U.S. laws or court rulings are forcing them to separate families that are caught trying to cross the southern border.
These claims are false. Immigrant families are being separated primarily because the Trump administration in April began to prosecute as many border-crossing offenses as possible. This “zero-tolerance policy” applies to all adults, regardless of whether they cross alone or with their children.
The Justice Department can’t prosecute children along with their parents, so the natural result of the zero-tolerance policy has been a sharp rise in family separations. Nearly 2,000 immigrant children were separated from parents during six weeks in April and May, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
The Trump administration implemented this policy by choice and could end it by choice. No law or court ruling mandates family separations. In fact, during its first 15 months, the Trump administration released nearly 100,000 immigrants who were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, a total that includes more than 37,500 unaccompanied minors and more than 61,000 family members.
Children continue to be released to their relatives or to shelters. But since the zero-tolerance policy took effect, parents as a rule are being prosecuted. Any conviction in those proceedings would be grounds for deportation.
We’ve published two fact-checks about family separations, but it turns out these Trumpian claims have a zombie quality and keep popping up in new ways.
In the latest iteration, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen tweeted and then said at a White House briefing that the administration does not have “a policy of separating families at the border.” This is Orwellian stuff. Granted, the administration has not written regulations or policy documents that advertise, “Hey, we’re going to separate families.” But that’s the inevitable consequence, as Nielsen and other Trump administration officials acknowledge.
“Operationally what that means is we will have to separate your family,” Nielsen told NPR in May. “That’s no different than what we do every day in every part of the United States when an adult of a family commits a crime. If you as a parent break into a house, you will be incarcerated by police and thereby separated from your family. We’re doing the same thing at the border.”
Although we’ve fact-checked these family-separation claims twice, we hadn’t had the opportunity to assign a Pinocchio rating yet. We’ll do so now.
The Facts
Since 2014, hundreds of thousands of children and families have fled to the United States because of rampant violence and gang activity in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. U.S. laws provide asylum or refugee status to qualified applicants, but the Trump administration says smugglers and bad actors are exploiting these same laws to gain entry. Nielsen says the government has detected hundreds of cases of fraud among migrants traveling with children who are not their own. Trump says he wants to close what he describes as “loopholes” in these humanitarian-relief laws.
The Central American refugee crisis developed during President Barack Obama’s administration and continues under Trump. The two administrations have taken different approaches. The Justice Department under Obama prioritized the deportation of dangerous people. Once he took office, Trump issued an executive order rolling back much of the Obama-era framework.
Obama’s guidelines prioritized the deportation of gang members, those who posed a national security risk and those who had committed felonies. Trump’s January 2017 executive order does not include a priority list for deportations and refers only to “criminal offenses,” which is broad enough to encompass serious felonies as well as misdemeanors.
Then, in April 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rolled out the zero-tolerance policy.
When families or individuals are apprehended by the Border Patrol, they’re taken into DHS custody. Under the zero-tolerance policy, DHS officials refer any adult “believed to have committed any crime, including illegal entry,” to the Justice Department for prosecution. If they’re convicted, they’re usually sentenced to time served. The next step would be deportation proceedings.
Illegal entry is a misdemeanor for first-time offenders and a conviction is grounds for deportation. Because of Trump’s executive order, DHS can deport people for misdemeanors more easily, because the government no longer prioritizes the removal of dangerous criminals, gang members or national-security threats. (A DHS fact sheet says, “Any individual processed for removal, including those who are criminally prosecuted for illegal entry, may seek asylum or other protection available under law.”)
Families essentially are put on two different tracks. One track ends with deportation. The other doesn’t.
After a holding period, DHS transfers children to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services. They spend an average 51 days at an ORR shelter before they’re placed with a sponsor in the United States, according to HHS. The government is required to place these children with family members whenever possible, even if those family members might be undocumented immigrants. “Approximately 85 percent of sponsors are parents” who were already in the country “or close family members,” according to HHS. Some children have no relatives available, and in those cases the government may keep them in shelters for longer periods of time while suitable sponsors are identified and vetted.
Adding it all up, this means the Trump administration is operating a system in which immigrant families that are apprehended at the border get split up, because children go into a process in which they eventually get placed with sponsors in the country while their parents are prosecuted and potentially deported.
The White House
✔
@WhiteHouse
ENOUGH of the misinformation. This Administration did not create a policy of separating families at the border.
6:17 PM - Jun 18, 2018
34.2K
34.2K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
This is a question of Trump and his Cabinet choosing to enforce some laws over others. The legal landscape did not change between the time the Trump administration released nearly 100,000 immigrants during its first 15 months and the time the zero-tolerance policy took effect in April 2018.
What changed was the administration’s handling of these cases. Undocumented immigrant families seeking asylum previously were released and went into the civil court system, but now the parents are being detained and sent to criminal courts while their kids are resettled in the United States as though they were unaccompanied minors.
The government has limited resources and cannot prosecute every crime, so setting up a system that prioritizes the prosecution of some offenses over others is a policy choice. The Supreme Court has said, “In our criminal justice system, the government retains ‘broad discretion’ as to whom to prosecute.” To charge or not to charge someone “generally rests entirely” on the prosecutor, the court has said.
Katie Waldman, a spokeswoman for Nielsen, said the administration does not have a family-separation policy. But Waldman agreed that Trump officials are exercising their prosecutorial discretion to charge more illegal-entry offenses, which in turn causes more family separations. The Obama administration also separated immigrant families, she said.
“We’re increasing the rate of what we were already doing,” Waldman said. “Instead of letting some slip through, we’re saying we’re doing it for all.”
Waldman sent figures from fiscal 2010 through 2016 showing that, out of 2,362,966 adults apprehended at the southern border, 492,970, or 21 percent, were referred for prosecution. These figures include all adults, not just those who crossed with minor children, so they’re not a measure of how many families were separated under Obama.
“During the Obama administration there was no policy in place that resulted in the systematic separation of families at the border, like we are now seeing under the Trump administration,” said Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. “Our understanding is that generally parents were not prosecuted for illegal entry under President Obama. There may have been some separation if there was suspicion that the children were being trafficked or a claimed parent-child relationship did not actually exist. But nothing like the levels we are seeing today.”
Trump administration officials say they’re trying to keep parents informed about their kids.
But some families instead have wound up in wrenching scenarios.
“Some of the most intense outrage at the measures has followed instances of parents deported to Central America without their children or spending weeks unable to locate their sons and daughters,” The Washington Post’s Nick Miroff reported. “In other instances, pediatricians and child advocates have reported seeing toddlers crying inconsolably for their mothers at shelters where staff are prohibited from physically comforting them.”
Administration officials have pointed to a set of laws and court rulings that they said forced their hand:
A 1997 federal consent decree that requires the government to release all children apprehended crossing the border. The “Flores” consent decree began as a class-action lawsuit. The Justice Department negotiated a settlement during President Bill Clinton’s administration. According to a 2016 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the Flores settlement requires the federal government to release rather than detain all undocumented immigrant children, whether they crossed with parents or alone. The agreement doesn’t cover any parents who might be accompanying those minors, but it doesn’t mandate that parents be prosecuted or that families be separated. Moreover, Congress could pass a law that overrides the terms of the Flores settlement. Waldman said the Flores settlement requires the government to keep immigrant families together for only 20 days, but no part of the consent decree requires that families be separated after 20 days. Courts have ruled that children must be released from detention facilities within 20 days under the Flores consent decree, but none of these legal developments prevents the government from releasing parents along with children.
A 2008 law meant to curb human trafficking called the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). This law covers children of all nationalities except Canadians and Mexicans. Central American children who are apprehended trying to enter the United States must be released rather than detained under the terms of the TVPRA, and they’re exempt from prompt return to their home countries. The law passed with wide bipartisan support and was signed by a Republican president, George W. Bush. No part of the TVPRA requires family separations.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This comprehensive law governs U.S. immigration and citizenship and makes a person’s first illegal entry into the United States a misdemeanor. Clinton, Bush and Obama — the presidents who were in office during the immigration boom of the past few decades — never enforced the INA’s illegal-entry provision with the Trump administration’s zeal. The INA says nothing about separating families. It was sponsored by Democrats and passed by a Democratic-held Congress. President Harry Truman, also a Democrat, tried to veto the bill, describing it as a reactionary and “un-American” measure meant to keep out immigrants from Eastern Europe. Congress overrode his veto.
“What has changed is that we no longer exempt entire classes of people who break the law,” Nielsen said at a White House briefing June 18. “Everyone is subject to prosecution.”
It’s unclear whether 100 percent of adults are being prosecuted. Experts on the ground say there are not enough resources on the border to process all these cases. Trump administration officials say immigrants should show up at a port of entry to request asylum if they want to avoid prosecution, but there’s usually a big crowd and people often get turned away at these entry points, according to reporting from Texas Monthly.
It’s strange to behold Trump distancing himself from the zero-tolerance policy (“the Democrats gave us that law”) while Nielsen claims it doesn’t exist (“it’s not a policy”) and Sessions defends it in speech after speech.
“We do have a policy of prosecuting adults who flout our laws to come here illegally instead of waiting their turn or claiming asylum at any port of entry,” Sessions said in a speech on June 18 in New Orleans. “We cannot and will not encourage people to bring children by giving them blanket immunity from our laws.”
In a June 7 speech, Sessions said: “I hope that we don’t have to separate any more children from any more adults. But there’s only one way to ensure that is the case: it’s for people to stop smuggling children illegally. Stop crossing the border illegally with your children. Apply to enter lawfully. Wait your turn.”
The attorney general also suggested on June 7 that legal developments are forcing his hand. “Because of the Flores consent decree and a 9th Circuit Court decision, ICE can only keep families detained together for a very short period of time,” Sessions said. But as we’ve explained, this is misleading. Neither the consent decree nor the court ruling forces the government to separate families. What they do provide is accommodations for children that the government could extend to parents if it wanted to.
For Trump, the family-separation policy is leverage as he seeks congressional funding for his promised border wall and other immigration priorities, according to reporting by The Washington Post. Top DHS officials have said that threatening adults with criminal charges and prison time would be the “most effective” way to reverse the rising number of illegal crossings.
The Pinocchio Test
The doublespeak coming from Trump and top administration officials on this issue is breathtaking, not only because of the sheer audacity of these claims but also because they keep being repeated without evidence. Immigrant families are being separated at the border not because of Democrats and not because some law forces this result, as Trump insists. They’re being separated because the Trump administration, under its zero-tolerance policy, is choosing to prosecute border-crossing adults for any offenses.
This includes illegal-entry misdemeanors, which are being prosecuted at a rate not seen in previous administrations. Because the act of crossing itself is now being treated as an offense worthy of prosecution, any family that enters the United States illegally is likely to end up separated. Nielsen may choose not to call this a “family separation policy,” but that’s precisely the effect it has.
Sessions, who otherwise owns up to what’s happening, has suggested that the Flores settlement and a court ruling are forcing his hand. They’re not. At heart, this is an issue of prosecutorial discretion: his discretion.
The Trump administration owns this family-separation policy, and its spin deserves Four Pinocchios.
Four Pinocchios
-
Fact-Checking Family Separation
By Amrit Cheng, Communications Strategist, ACLU
JUNE 19, 2018 | 5:30 PM
TAGSFamily Detention Immigrants' Rights and Detention Immigrants' Rights
FacebookTwitterRedditEmailPrint
web18-Nielsen-1160x768.jpg
Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security
With nearly 2,000 immigrant children separated from their parents in just six weeks alone, there is an unprecedented human rights disaster unfolding at our border. As public outrage mounts, members of Congress demand access to government-run facilities, and the United Nations condemns us, the Trump administration is attempting to shift the blame — fast.
In the past week, the administration has made several misleading statements, trying to justify the systematic separation of children from their parents. On Monday, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen held a press briefing where she doubled down on family separation, denying that the separation of children from their parents amounts to child abuse because, “We give them medical care. There’s videos; There’s TVs.”
All the while, horror stories are emerging: among them, Marco Antonio Muñoz, a Honduran father, who killed himself after being separated from his wife and child; three siblings taken from their parents who were told that they couldn’t hug each other in the shelter they were placed in; and parents who were deported four months ago and are still waiting for the U.S. to return their baby.
The level of cruelty is difficult to comprehend, and that’s how the administration wants it. Here’s what you need to know to understand family separation.
Is there a law that requires family separation?
Donald Trump has repeatedly blamed family separation on a law enacted by Democrats. On June 15, he told reporters, “I hate the children being taken away,” and added, “The Democrats have to change their law — that’s their law.” Secretary Nielsen repeated this falsehood at a briefing on Monday saying, “Surely it is the beginning of the unraveling of democracy when the body who makes the laws, instead of changing them, tells the enforcement body not to enforce the law.”
There is no law that requires the Trump administration to separate families.
This crisis stems from a series of policy choices the Trump administration made. In fact, reports arose as early as December 2017 that the administration was considering a plan to separate border-crossing parents from their children. In March, then-DHS Secretary John Kelly confirmed this, saying it would help deter Central Americans from coming to the United States.
Do the courts require family separation?
Absolutely not — despite the claims of GOP leadership to the contrary. Both House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Chuck Grassley have blamed family separation on the courts, specifically a decades-old court agreement (known as the Flores settlement) which established protections for children to prevent their indefinite detention in unlicensed facilities.
Getting rid of the protections in the Flores settlement would only further the administration’s goal of being able to indefinitely imprison families. But ending family separation doesn’t require family prisons. The Trump administration knows full well that alternatives exist — because it went out of its way to sabotage them.
In June 2017, the administration ended the Family Case Management Program, which allowed families to be placed into a program, together, that connected them with a case manager and legal orientation that ensured they understood how to apply for asylum and attend immigration court proceedings.
The program had a 99.6 percent appearance rate at immigration court hearings for those enrolled in the program. It’s not only a more humane alternative to family prisons; it’s far less costly for taxpayers.
Despite that success, the administration chose to end this program only a few months after it was first reported that Kelly — then-Secretary of Homeland Security — was considering family separation as a deterrent strategy.
Does Paul Ryan’s bill end family separation?
This week House Republicans will vote on a bill that purports to protect Dreamers and end family separation but does neither. Known as the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2018, the bill would put DACA-eligible individuals on a long and convoluted path to citizenship — which is all subject to whether Trump gets his border wall. The changes in the bill would make it harder to apply for asylum and includes dangerous provisions making it easier to jail children and families.
SEPARATING FAMILIES IS INHUMANE
ACT NOWThe bill would not do anything to stop Sessions’ zero-tolerance prosecutions — which is the main driver of family separation.
Is the administration separating asylum-seeking families who enter at ports of entry?
Yes, despite claims to the contrary. On June 17, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen took to Twitter to defend family separation, saying, “For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law.”
In case Secretary Nielsen forgot, she’s currently a defendant in our class action lawsuit, where we represent families who entered at ports of entry to seek asylum and had their children taken away.
Ms. L, a Congolese mother who sought asylum at a port of entry, had her seven-year-old daughter taken away from her for four months. Immigration authorities made no meaningful attempt to verify their relationship during that time, only doing so after we filed our lawsuit.
Mirian G, a mother from Honduras, came to the U.S. with her young son on Feb. 20, 2018. She presented herself to immigration authorities and sought asylum, committing no crime. During her interview, Mirian provided immigration officers with several identification documents for her child which listed her as his mother. The next morning, Border Patrol agents took away her 18-month-old son with no explanation. She did not see him again for two months.
What is happening to people who cross the border between ports of entry?
On April 6, Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed all U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the southwest border to adopt a new policy of “zero-tolerance” for illegal entry into the United States. On May 7, Sessions announced that the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security would partner together to prosecute anyone who crosses the border between U.S. ports of entry.
As Sessions put it, “If you don’t want your child to be separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally.” Crossing the border without proper documentation is a misdemeanor that typically carries the penalty of a few days in jail if you’re prosecuted.
Here’s what the attorney general failed to mention: The government is not giving the kids back. Our client, Ms. C, experienced this firsthand. Ms. C, an asylum seeker, was separated from her 14-year-old son after the government chose to prosecute for entering the country illegally. She served her time, but then had to wait eight months before her son was given back to her.
In addition, both Sessions and Nielsen are avoiding another crucial point — in several cities along the border, Customs and Border Protection officers have been turning asylum seekers away, telling them that the port of entry is at capacity. Members of Congress who traveled to the border met asylum seekers who experienced just that. Secretary Nielsen spun this as well, saying that asylum seekers are not being turned away per se, they are being told come back later.
Who can end family separation?
The Trump administration is choosing to separate families. It’s a policy decision that could be stopped at any time by the president without legislation.
The president’s own party has been vocal about his authority to stop this — from former First Lady Laura Bush to senior Republican Senators McCain, Murkowski, Collins, and Corker. In the words of Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, Trump can end this “with a phone call.”
Mr. President, make the call.
-
Critics of the Trump administration’s separating of families illegally crossing the U.S. border with Mexico have characterized the practice as a distinctly cruel feature of Donald Trump’s presidency.
But some Republican commentators argue the policy is essentially a continuation of previous administrations.
"You know what's ironic? It's the same way Barack Obama did it," conservative commentator Matt Schlapp said during the June 15 broadcast of Fox News' America's Newsroom. "This is the problem with all of these things, the outrage you see coming from the left. There wasn't outrage over Barack Obama separating kids from adults."
While the Obama administration's immigration approach was not without controversy, it’s simply untrue to say he had a policy of separating families.
Trump policy
Let’s recap what the Trump administration is doing, before turning to Obama’s handling of immigration.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions in April announced a "zero-tolerance" policy, meaning every person caught crossing the border illegally would be referred for federal prosecution.
A good number of these people are adult migrants traveling with children. By law, when adults are detained and criminally prosecuted, their children cannot be housed with them in jail. Instead, kids are placed in a Department of Health and Human Services shelter until they can be released to a legal guardian.
Some 2,000 children have been separated from the adults they were traveling with across the U.S. border, according to the latest figures from the Department of Homeland Security. The children were separated from 1,940 adults from April 19 through May 31 as a result of border-crossing prosecutions.
Obama policy
Immigration experts we spoke to said Obama-era policies did lead to some family separations, but only relatively rarely, and nowhere near the rate of the Trump administration. (A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman said the Obama administration did not count the number of families separated at the border.)
"Obama generally refrained from prosecution in cases involving adults who crossed the border with their kids," said Peter Margulies, an immigration law and national security law professor at Roger Williams University School of Law. "In contrast, the current administration has chosen to prosecute adult border-crossers, even when they have kids. That's a choice — one fundamentally different from the choice made by both Obama and previous presidents of both parties."
Denise Gilman, a law professor who directs the immigration clinic at the University of Texas School of Law, said immigration attorneys "occasionally" saw separated families under the Obama administration.
"However, these families were usually reunited quite quickly once identified," she said, "even if that meant release of a parent from adult detention."
In Trump’s case, family separations are a feature, not a bug, of the administration’s border policies, said David Fitzgerald, who co-directs the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies.
"The family separations are not the small-scale collateral consequences of a border policy, but rather, a deliberate initiative," he added.
Former Obama officials in recent interviews drew sharp distinctions between Trump’s policy and that of his predecessors.
The Trump administration's current approach is modeled after Operation Streamline, a 2005 program under the administration of George W. Bush, according to Obama spokesman Eric Schultz. The key difference, he said, is that while the 2005 program referred all illegal immigrants for prosecution, it made exceptions for adults traveling with children.
Jeh Johnson, Obama’s Homeland Security secretary from 2013 to the end of his presidency, said such separations occurred in rare cases, but never as a matter of policy.
"I can't say that it never happened. There may have been some exigent situation, some emergency," Johnson told NPR June 9. "There may have been some doubt about whether the adult accompanying the child was in fact the parent of the child. I can't say it never happened — but not as a matter of policy or practice. It's not something that I could ask our Border Patrol or our immigration enforcement personnel to do."
Obama’s top domestic policy adviser, Cecilia Muñoz, said the Obama administration briefly weighed the separation of parents from children, before deciding against it.
"I do remember looking at each other like, ‘We’re not going to do this, are we?’ We spent five minutes thinking it through and concluded that it was a bad idea," she told the New York Times. "The morality of it was clear — that’s not who we are."
Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute, said that, as a deterrent, the Obama administration began prosecuting border-crossers who had already been deported at least once.
"But very few of those people crossed with children, so it didn’t become as visible an issue," he said. "There was some child separation and some pushback by immigrant advocacy groups around that, but the numbers were quite limited.
"The idea of prosecuting people who cross the border illegally the first time they are caught is entirely new," he added. "So we haven’t seen children separated from their parents on anything near this scale before."
The Obama administration’s immigration policy was not without controversy, to be sure.
In 2014, amid an influx of asylum seekers from Central America, the administration established large family detention centers to hold parents and children — potentially indefinitely — as a means of deterring other asylees. The practice eventually lost a legal challenge, resulting in a 2016 decision that stopped families from being detained together.
Schlapp told us that his claim referred to the fact that both Obama and Trump are bound by the same procedures prohibiting family detention.
However, Schlapp’s full comment gives the misleading impression that Trump is essentially continuing Obama’s policy, when in fact Trump’s zero tolerance policy is quite different.
Our ruling
Schlapp said the Trump administration’s policy of separating families is "the same way Barack Obama did it."
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.
-
A less left-leaning source:
Fact check: Trump officials dodge blame for their policy separating families at the border
Salvador Rizzo
The Washington Post
"I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law. That's their law."
—President Donald Trump, in remarks to reporters at the White House, June 15
ADVERTISING
---
"We have the worst immigration laws in the entire world. Nobody has such sad, such bad and actually, in many cases, such horrible and tough — you see about child separation, you see what's going on there."
Paid Post WHAT'S THIS?
See why more people are bringing their workouts into their home.
Sponsored by Peloton
With the Peloton bike, you'll get an unbeatable workout at home, anytime, anywhere.
See More
—Trump, in remarks at the White House, June 18
---
"Because of the Flores consent decree and a 9th Circuit Court decision, ICE can only keep families detained together for a very short period of time."
—Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a speech in Bozeman, Montana, June 7
Trump gives no preference on rival GOP immigration bills amid uproar over his family separation policy
---
"It's the law, and that's what the law states."
—White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, at a news briefing, June 14
---
"We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."
—Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, on Twitter, June 17
The Claims
The president and top administration officials say U.S. laws or court rulings are forcing them to separate families that are caught trying to cross the southern border.
These claims are false. Immigrant families are being separated primarily because the Trump administration in April began to prosecute as many border-crossing offenses as possible. This "zero-tolerance policy" applies to all adults, regardless of whether they cross alone or with their children.
Trump, defiant as border crisis escalates, prepares to lobby House GOP on immigration bills
The Justice Department can't prosecute children along with their parents, so the natural result of the zero-tolerance policy has been a sharp rise in family separations. Nearly 2,000 immigrant children were separated from parents during six weeks in April and May, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
The Trump administration implemented this policy by choice and could end it by choice. No law or court ruling mandates family separations. In fact, during its first 15 months, the Trump administration released nearly 100,000 immigrants who were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, a total that includes more than 37,500 unaccompanied minors and more than 61,000 family members.
Children continue to be released to their relatives or to shelters. But since the zero-tolerance policy took effect, parents as a rule are being prosecuted. Any conviction in those proceedings would be grounds for deportation.
We've published two fact-checks about family separations, but it turns out these Trumpian claims have a zombie quality and keep popping up in new ways.
In the latest iteration, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen tweeted and then said at a White House briefing that the administration does not have "a policy of separating families at the border." This is Orwellian stuff. Granted, the administration has not written regulations or policy documents that advertise, "Hey, we're going to separate families." But that's the inevitable consequence, as Nielsen and other Trump administration officials acknowledge.
"Operationally what that means is we will have to separate your family," Nielsen told NPR in May. "That's no different than what we do every day in every part of the United States when an adult of a family commits a crime. If you as a parent break into a house, you will be incarcerated by police and thereby separated from your family. We're doing the same thing at the border."
Although we've fact-checked these family-separation claims twice, we hadn't had the opportunity to assign a Pinocchio rating yet. We'll do so now.
The Facts
Since 2014, hundreds of thousands of children and families have fled to the United States because of rampant violence and gang activity in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. U.S. laws provide asylum or refugee status to qualified applicants, but the Trump administration says smugglers and bad actors are exploiting these same laws to gain entry. Nielsen says the government has detected hundreds of cases of fraud among migrants traveling with children who are not their own. President Trump says he wants to close what he describes as "loopholes" in these humanitarian-relief laws.
The Central American refugee crisis developed during President Barack Obama's administration and continues under Trump. The two administrations have taken different approaches. The Justice Department under Obama prioritized the deportation of dangerous people. Once he took office, Trump issued an executive order rolling back much of the Obama-era framework.
Obama's guidelines prioritized the deportation of gang members, those who posed a national security risk and those who had committed felonies. Trump's January 2017 executive order does not include a priority list for deportations and refers only to "criminal offenses," which is broad enough to encompass serious felonies as well as misdemeanors.
Then, in April 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rolled out the zero-tolerance policy.
When families or individuals are apprehended by the Border Patrol, they're taken into DHS custody. Under the zero-tolerance policy, DHS officials refer any adult "believed to have committed any crime, including illegal entry," to the Justice Department for prosecution. If they're convicted, that triggers deportation proceedings.
Illegal entry is a misdemeanor for first-time offenders, and a conviction is grounds for deportation. Because of Trump's executive order, DHS can deport people for misdemeanors more easily, because the government no longer prioritizes the removal of dangerous criminals, gang members or national-security threats. (A DHS fact sheet says, "Any individual processed for removal, including those who are criminally prosecuted for illegal entry, may seek asylum or other protection available under law.")
Families essentially are put on two different tracks. One track ends with deportation. The other doesn't.
After a holding period, DHS transfers children to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services. They spend an average 51 days at an ORR shelter before they're placed with a sponsor in the United States, according to HHS. The government is required to place these children with family members whenever possible, even if those family members might be undocumented immigrants. "Approximately 85 percent of sponsors are parents" who were already in the country "or close family members," according to HHS. Some children have no relatives available and in those cases the government may keep them in shelters for longer periods of time while suitable sponsors are identified and vetted.
Adding it all up, this means the Trump administration is operating a system in which immigrant families that are apprehended at the border get split up, because children go into a process in which they eventually get placed with sponsors in the country while their parents are prosecuted and potentially deported.
The White House tweeted "ENOUGH of the misinformation. This Administration did not create a policy of separating families at the border."
This is a question of Trump and his Cabinet choosing to enforce some laws over others. The legal landscape did not change between the time the Trump administration released nearly 100,000 immigrants during its first 15 months and the time the zero-tolerance policy took effect in April 2018.
What changed was the administration's handling of these cases. Undocumented immigrant families seeking asylum previously were released and went into the civil court system, but now the parents are being detained and sent to criminal courts while their kids are resettled in the United States as though they were unaccompanied minors.
The government has limited resources and cannot prosecute every crime, so setting up a system that prioritizes the prosecution of some offenses over others is a policy choice. The Supreme Court has said, "In our criminal justice system, the government retains 'broad discretion' as to whom to prosecute." To charge or not to charge someone "generally rests entirely" on the prosecutor, the court has said.
Katie Waldman, a spokeswoman for Nielsen, said the administration does not have a family-separation policy. But Waldman agreed that Trump officials are exercising their prosecutorial discretion to charge more illegal-entry offenses, which in turn causes more family separations. The Obama administration also separated immigrant families, she said.
"We're increasing the rate of what we were already doing," Waldman said. "Instead of letting some slip through, we're saying we're doing it for all."
Waldman sent figures from fiscal 2010 through 2016 showing that, out of 2,362,966 adults apprehended at the southern border, 492,970, or 21 percent, were referred for prosecution. These figures include all adults, not just those who crossed with minor children, so they're not a measure of how many families were separated under Obama.
"During the Obama administration there was no policy in place that resulted in the systematic separation of families at the border, like we are now seeing under the Trump administration," said Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. "Our understanding is that generally parents were not prosecuted for illegal entry under President Obama. There may have been some separation if there was suspicion that the children were being trafficked or a claimed parent-child relationship did not actually exist. But nothing like the levels we are seeing today."
Trump administration officials say they're trying to keep parents informed about their kids.
But some families instead have wound up in wrenching scenarios.
"Some of the most intense outrage at the measures has followed instances of parents deported to Central America without their children or spending weeks unable to locate their sons and daughters," The Washington Post's Nick Miroff reported. "In other instances, pediatricians and child advocates have reported seeing toddlers crying inconsolably for their mothers at shelters where staff are prohibited from physically comforting them."
Administration officials have pointed to a set of laws and court rulings that they said forced their hand:
A 1997 federal consent decree that requires the government to release all children apprehended crossing the border. The "Flores" consent decree began as a class-action lawsuit. The Justice Department negotiated a settlement during President Bill Clinton's administration. According to a 2016 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the Flores settlement requires the federal government to release rather than detain all undocumented immigrant children, whether they crossed with parents or alone. The agreement doesn't cover any parents who might be accompanying those minors, but it doesn't mandate that parents be prosecuted or that families be separated. Moreover, Congress could pass a law that overrides the terms of the Flores settlement. Waldman said the Flores settlement requires the government to keep immigrant families together for only 20 days, but no part of the consent decree requires that families be separated after 20 days. Courts have ruled that children must be released from detention facilities within 20 days under the Flores consent decree, but none of these legal developments prevents the government from releasing parents along with children.
A 2008 law meant to curb human trafficking called the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). This law covers children of all nationalities except Canadians and Mexicans. Central American children who are apprehended trying to enter the United States must be released rather than detained under the terms of the TVPRA, and they're exempt from prompt return to their home countries. The law passed with wide bipartisan support and was signed by a Republican president, George W. Bush. No part of the TVPRA requires family separations.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This comprehensive law governs U.S. immigration and citizenship and makes a person's first illegal entry into the United States a misdemeanor. Clinton, Bush and Obama - the presidents who were in office during the immigration boom of the past few decades - never enforced the INA's illegal-entry provision with the Trump administration's zeal. The INA says nothing about separating families. It was sponsored by Democrats and passed by a Democratic-held Congress. President Harry Truman, also a Democrat, tried to veto the bill, describing it as a reactionary and "un-American" measure meant to keep out immigrants from Eastern Europe. Congress overrode his veto.
"What has changed is that we no longer exempt entire classes of people who break the law," Nielsen said at a White House briefing June 18. "Everyone is subject to prosecution."
It's unclear whether 100 percent of adults are being prosecuted. Experts on the ground say there are not enough resources on the border to process all these cases. Trump administration officials say immigrants should show up at a port of entry to request asylum if they want to avoid prosecution, but there's usually a big crowd and people often get turned away at these entry points, according to reporting from Texas Monthly.
It's strange to behold Trump distancing himself from the zero-tolerance policy ("the Democrats gave us that law") while Nielsen claims it doesn't exist ("it's not a policy") and Sessions defends it in speech after speech.
"We do have a policy of prosecuting adults who flout our laws to come here illegally instead of waiting their turn or claiming asylum at any port of entry," Sessions said in a speech on June 18 in New Orleans. "We cannot and will not encourage people to bring children by giving them blanket immunity from our laws."
In a June 7 speech, he said: "I hope that we don't have to separate any more children from any more adults. But there's only one way to ensure that is the case: it's for people to stop smuggling children illegally. Stop crossing the border illegally with your children. Apply to enter lawfully. Wait your turn."
The attorney general also suggested on June 7 that legal developments are forcing his hand. "Because of the Flores consent decree and a 9th Circuit Court decision, ICE can only keep families detained together for a very short period of time," he said. But as we've explained, this is misleading. Neither the consent decree nor the court ruling forces the government to separate families. What they do provide is accommodations for children that the government could extend to parents if it wanted to.
For Trump, the family-separation policy is leverage as he seeks congressional funding for his promised border wall and other immigration priorities, according to reporting by The Washington Post. Top DHS officials have said that threatening adults with criminal charges and prison time would be the "most effective" way to reverse the rising number of illegal crossings.
The Verdict
The doublespeak coming from Trump and top administration officials on this issue is breathtaking, not only because of the sheer audacity of these claims but because they keep being repeated without evidence. Immigrant families are being separated at the border not because of Democrats and not because some law forces this result, as Trump insists. They're being separated because the Trump administration, under its zero-tolerance policy, is choosing to prosecute border-crossing adults for any offenses.
This includes illegal-entry misdemeanors, which are being prosecuted at a rate not seen in previous administrations. Because the act of crossing itself is now being treated as an offense worthy of prosecution, any family that enters the United States illegally is likely to end up separated. Nielsen may choose not to call this a "family separation policy," but that's precisely the effect it has.
Sessions, who otherwise owns up to what's happening, has suggested that the Flores settlement and a court ruling are forcing his hand. They're not. At heart, this is an issue of prosecutorial discretion: his discretion.
The Trump administration owns this family-separation policy and its spin deserves Four Pinocchios.
-
Another more middle-of-the-road source:
Q&A on Border Detention of Children
By Angelo Fichera
Posted on June 19, 2018 | Updated on June 20, 2018
10.1K
The controversy surrounding family separations at the U.S. Southern border has prompted outrage, opinions and finger-pointing. It has also raised a number of questions, including from our readers.
“Are there really children being separated from their parents at the border and being kept in cages?” one reader asked.
We answer that and other questions here.
Background
In April, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero-tolerance policy” regarding illegal immigration at the Southwest border. That was followed by a reported May directive by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen instructing her department to refer all unauthorized immigrants who cross the U.S. border to federal prosecutors for criminal prosecution. Such prosecution has resulted in the separation of parents and children who were apprehended illegally entering the country.
As we’ve explained before, parents are sent to federal court under the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service and then placed in a detention center, according to Homeland Security. In turn, their children — minors who cannot be housed in detention centers for adults — are transferred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for placement in a juvenile facility or foster care if they can’t be placed with another adult relative in the U.S. Those children, as well as those who cross without adults, are considered “unaccompanied” and become the responsibility of HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement.
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly told NPR last month that family separation “could be a tough deterrent” for others considering immigrating illegally.
The criminal prosecution and subsequent separations do not apply to those who seek asylum at a legal port of entry, administration officials have said. But Nielsen has acknowledged “limited resources” at the border that have resulted in the U.S. telling some who arrive at the ports that they have to “come back.” Some immigrant advocates told the Arizona Republic that the backlog could exacerbate illegal crossings.
How many children are currently being detained?
Between April 19 and the end of May, 1,995 minors were separated from adults at the border, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to FactCheck.org on June 18. When we asked for updated numbers a few days later, DHS told us the “zero-tolerance” policy went into effect on May 5, and between May 5 and June 9, there had been 2,342 children separated from their parents.
And, as of June 15, there were 11,517 minors in the “Unaccompanied Children’s Program,” according to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families. (That figure doesn’t distinguish between those who crossed the border with their parents and those who did so alone.)
Health and Human Services uses about 100 shelters in 14 states. In congressional testimony in May, Steven Wagner, acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, told a Senate subcommittee that children have spent an average of 57 days in custody during fiscal year 2018. After that, minors are placed with a sponsor, who could be a parent, another relative or a non-family member.
Does the U.S. use “cages” to detain children?
The government has rejected the idea that it uses “cages” in its facilities. But that’s the term used by activists and others who oppose the administration’s immigration policy. Also, news organizations have used that term, including the Associated Press, which used the word to refer to the fencing enclosures at one Texas facility.
We have included pictures of that facility with this story, so readers can make their own determinations on what to call the enclosures.
The issue was highlighted earlier this month when Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon visited the central processing facility in McAllen, Texas, where those trying to enter the United States are separated. “Unaccompanied” minors, except in select cases, are to be transferred from the processing facility to a juvenile facility or other care under Health and Human Services within 72 hours.
“Yesterday morning at the McAllen Border Station, at the processing center, they have big cages made out of fencing and wire and nets stretched across the top of them so people can’t climb out of them,” he told CNN on June 4. “Every time I probed yesterday on the circumstances (of why they were held this way) the response was just basically a generic, ‘That is what’s required for security, this is what is required for control.'” (Merkley also likened the enclosures to a “dog kennel.”)
The Department of Justice disputed Merkley’s characterization of the structures.
The central processing center in McAllen, Texas, as photographed during a media tour June 17. | Courtesy U.S. Customs and Border Protection
“Before being transferred to HHS custody, DHS houses unaccompanied minors in short-term facilities,” it said in a June 4 statement. “These short-term facilities do not employ the use of ‘cages’ to house UACs, but portions of the facility makes use of barriers in order to separate minors of different genders and age groups. This is for the safety and security of all minors in the custody of the United States government.”
Much of the media coverage of Merkley focused on his attempt to visit a shelter in Brownsville, Texas, that houses immigrant children after they’re processed. He was rebuffed (though in recent days he did visit the facility).
The central processing center in McAllen, Texas, as photographed during a media tour June 17. | Courtesy U.S. Customs and Border Protection
News outlets got a glimpse of life inside that shelter, called Casa Padre, during a tour last week. There were no reports of cages being used.
NBC News described the conditions at the nonprofit shelter as “more like incarceration than temporary shelter.” The report detailed “dorm-style rooms” that were designed to sleep four but accommodate five because of overcrowding.
The former Walmart houses almost 1,500 boys, ages 10 to 17, for an average of 52 days. According to the New York Times, whose reporter visited the shelter, it offers classroom instruction, recreational activities and other services. The minors are allowed outside two hours per day.
So what about that image of a young boy in a cage?
The photo in question depicts a boy in distress as he looks out of a cage he is grasping with his hands. It has been turned into a meme that asks, “Are you Trump fans really OK with this?”
Journalist and activist Jose Antonio Vargas included the photo in a June 11 tweet that said: “This is what happens when a government believes people are ‘illegal.’ Kids in cages.” (Vargas openly discusses his own status as an immigrant living in the country illegally.)
In a subsequent tweet, Vargas acknowledged he wasn’t sure where the photo originated, but many others also shared the image, including the actor Ron Perlman.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Ron Perlman
✔
@perlmutations
Trump, Sessions, McConnell, Ryan, this is on YOU!
9:30 PM - Jun 12, 2018
13.9K
10.8K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
But the image was actually taken during a June 10 rally in Dallas, Texas.
Leroy Pena, the prime minister of the Dallas-Fort Worth chapter of the Brown Berets of Cemanahuac, said he took the photo during the demonstration. The pro-Mexican-American group’s rally was meant to call attention to the conditions where young immigrants are kept, he said. Pena added that the young boy in the photograph, the son of a friend, had wandered into the cage where older children were demonstrating and became upset when he saw his mother on the other side of the structure. The child was promptly taken out of the cage, he said.
“I posted it to my personal page — I wasn’t trying to deceive anybody,” Pena told FactCheck.org in an interview. “I think people just started sharing the picture without the narrative that I added. It wasn’t done intentionally but … it brought a lot of attention with what’s really going on.”
Debra Mendoza, national prime minister of the Brown Berets of Cemanahuac, confirmed Pena’s account to us. She decried photos of facilities using fencing similar to “cages,” and said the structures were reminiscent of a “jail.”
Mendoza also mentioned the recently resurfaced images from a 2014 Arizona Republicreport on an immigrant holding facility for juveniles in Nogales, Arizona. Those 2014 pictures, taken by the Associated Press, were shared by some online as if they were current — including by Jon Favreau, a former speechwriter for President Barack Obama.
The 2014 story was about the surge in children from Central America — largely from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala — trying to cross the border illegally on their own.
The mistake became fodder for Trump’s Twitter feed.
Is the government using military camps to hold the minors?
Health and Human Services is indeed eyeing several military bases “for potential use as temporary shelters for unaccompanied alien children at some point in the future,” the Administration for Children and Families confirmed for us. On June 13, McClatchy reported that Fort Bliss in Texas could be used as a “tent city to hold between 1,000 and 5,000 children.”
In addition to Fort Bliss, officials are evaluating Dyess Air Force Base and Goodfellow Air Force Base, which are also in Texas.
If that happens, it wouldn’t be the first time military bases were used to accommodate immigrants. Under the Obama administration, bases served as such facilities, including in 2014 during the influx of unaccompanied children illegally entering the country.
In his testimony last month, Wagner said the last “temporary” facility at a Department of Defense site closed in February 2017.
Update, June 20: We have updated this story with new numbers from DHS on children separated from their parents.
-
The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.
It's is the law in the US that when parents are taken into custody, that you can't arrest the kids too.
You can make a case about how they are handling the kids after the parents are taken into custody but the issue of separating the kids from parents is a losing argument.
-
The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.
I cited more sources than just the ACLU.
-
I agree. Should stick with the facts that they were born illegally in the first place. Landless people are scum that deserve to be incarcerated from life and buried with their own kind.
-
I wanted to look at a spectrum of fact-check sources, myself, as it looked to me like what I was generally seeing on either side was so biased and/or selective as to be questionable. I feel like I better understand now what's been going on, and what makes now different.
I will say, it's seemed bizarre to me that the immediate right-leaning response hasn't so much been to say this was OK, as to immediately jump to "OBAMA STARTED IT," without acknowledging that regardless of how accurate that is or isn't, it's a legitimate problem. (Is the assumption that invoking obama's name is like invoking god's name or something? I think it's pretty obvious that I'm pretty liberal, but I was really upset at plenty of stuff that happened under him, too. Invoking his name doesn't suddenly make me think something bad is good.)
And it does look like the press coverage was different because the situation up until a couple of months ago was different, but even if biased coverage were more blatant here, why would that be a reason to totally drop the human rights aspect??? Like, if the argument is that the press is just straight-up lying about the whole thing, that's one argument, but then you lose the "but obama" part of it, too. A friend of mine who I'd expect to be more compassionate posted a right-leaning article (from the dailywire, sadly) with the "obama did it too" argument and I was really confused about whether she'd missed the point or just felt like she needed to be a counter to all the liberal people in her feed or what.
I should really no longer be surprised by anything anyone says in the political arena.
-
The pictures and the audio being leaked from this are gut-wrenching.
Then you have his supporters yelling..."if they didn't want their children taken away they shouldn't have entered the country."
While they cozy up on the sofa watching Fox News while shoveling in their snacks.
I hate what this world is becoming.
-
Then maybe you should stop fucking each other and live within your means. If you can't afford kids without debt, then just maybe your lives are simply not worth saving. This world is not for you to consume but for us to save from you. Deal with it.
And for the record, my apathy for humanity is fully justified for I tread upon thee with disdain of what you have become. Existential terrorists causing misery for billions.
-
And for the record, my apathy for humanity is fully justified for I tread upon thee with disdain of what you have become.
You can't be both apathy and distain. :hahaha:
-
Emotional disdain and cognitive apathy can happen at the same time. And I can do what I like with it. So be quite, gary
-
The pictures and the audio being leaked from this are gut-wrenching.
Then you have his supporters yelling..."if they didn't want their children taken away they shouldn't have entered the country."
While they cozy up on the sofa watching Fox News while shoveling in their snacks.
I hate what this world is becoming.
Agreed! :plus:
-
The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.
I cited more sources than just the ACLU.
Which non-Left sources have you used to fact check? No honestly. Washington Post is clearly Leftist. Snopes and Politifact is Left and whilst claiming to be neutral, has been anything but. I believe Snopes is at least partially funded by George Soros. ACLU has been the bastion of impartiality and whilst similar organisations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have pretended impartiality, ACLU has been pretty consistent....until recently. Now they too have recently caved to the Progressive line about hate speech and no longer are they of the view that I hate what you say but I will defend your right to say things i disagree with. They were always Classically Liberal which I always applauded. Now they are moderate Progressives. Better than some and not frothing at the mouth Progressive ideologues like SPLC but hardly unbiased and neutral.
So....you cited a lot of source which of these were not Left leaning?
-
The pictures and the audio being leaked from this are gut-wrenching.
Then you have his supporters yelling..."if they didn't want their children taken away they shouldn't have entered the country."
While they cozy up on the sofa watching Fox News while shoveling in their snacks.
I hate what this world is becoming.
Yes it is TERRIBLE advice NOT to enter the country illegally and put your children through that. If you stole a car and were arrested you should try manufacturing outrage on social media about being separated from your children. It is such a reasonable argument that you should stay with your children after willingly and deliberately breaking the law.
While cozying up on your couch, what do YOU okay?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGuSdXiFtLk
Kids sent unaccompanied with their parents number written on their shirt?
12 year old girls sent with the pill because they know that they will get raped during the journey
(https://paulinehovey.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/young-victims.jpg)
Kids drowning and needing to be fished out of the river
Kids dying of dehydration
Yes very moral of you to fake outrage.
You want the poor children to be returned to the adults their their "care"? The Coyote rapists? The 12 year old to be returned to that middle aged man leering at her calling her "my daughter?
What about that adults that standing next to the kid with the number of his parents written on his shirt?
Which of these adults ARE their parents and which are dangerous human traffickers or children smugglers just need a kid to accompany them for this part of the trip? Which of the children will be allowed to stay with these people and what amount of these people are the parents as they claim? Do you have figures? numbers? Percentages?
No? So basically these adults broke the law and put their lives at risk and allowed children in their vicinity to be at perhaps greater risk and you want to keep them with the children if they say that they are the parents even though they broke the law AND may pose extreme risk to the children?
Pretty fucking immoral.
-
Many of them are fleeing because they were at risk of being killed, or having their kids end up dead where they were.
(https://i.imgur.com/vlDX8tY.jpg)
-
Didn't the US sign a treaty about this sort of thing, once upon a time? I forget.
-
Many of them are fleeing because they were at risk of being killed, or having their kids end up dead where they were.
(https://i.imgur.com/vlDX8tY.jpg)
Many, most, some? Do you know what percentage of the people that choose to cross into areas that are not the legal ports of entry are parents that care for their children as to opposed to human traffickers or people with no real claim to asylum?
No? To busy cozying up on your couch being offended and turning a blind eye to the very real harm real children are exposed to with a porous border?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Dx1vlMp.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Dx1vlMp.jpg)
Yes it is horrible when you stake your moral superiority on a position only to.find that position was not morally strong.
Best thing to do.in that instance is name call, not self-reflect
-
Whatever gave you the idea that her position wasn't morally strong? I think she's simply done trying to talk sense into you.
-
Whatever gave you the idea that her position wasn't morally strong? I think she's simply done trying to talk sense into you.
The hypocrisy mainly.
Then you have his supporters yelling..."if they didn't want their children taken away they shouldn't have entered the country."
While they cozy up on the sofa watching Fox News while shoveling in their snacks.
It is essentially her saying "Trump supporters are immoral for saying that the illegal immigrants choosing to cross outside of the allowed points of entry is a consequence of the illegal immigrants own bad choices and choice to break the law." all whilst doing so in the comfort of their own homes whilst the poor illegal immigrant children are separated from their "parents" (ie adults who may or may not be custodians who happen to be in their immediate vicinity).
However SHE is making these proclamations whilst from the comfort of her home and without conceding that this IS a consequence of poor choices and the illegal immigrants are acting outside the law and have chosen to put these children in this predicament. The poor moral position is on the illegal immigrants and on the people supporting the open borders or porous border policies that bring this trouble and suffering. IF you have a porous borders then you are greenlighting this kind of thing as a natural consequence.
https://tucson.com/news/local/border-patrol-agents-rescue-boy-abandoned-by-smuggler-southwest-of/article_03710cca-74dd-11e8-89f4-673513280ce2.html
You are also greenlighting the 80% of Central American illegal immigrants getting raped on the crossing and everything that comes with that.
All from the middle class comfort of your home.
there is the weakness of the moral position and the hypocrisy.
-
Bugger off Al.
I really don't know why you keep trying to engage me. I have my thoughts, I state them, you don't agree with them...we seldom agree on anything...and that's fine.
I'm not wasting my time with you. Nothing I really have to say at this point will change your view...nor will any of your arguments be likely to change my point of view, "if" I can be even arsed to read two sentences into them at this point.
But if you really want to continue this I literally have a 1/4 of a TB hard drive full of memes that take me maybe 5 seconds tops to upload in between doing the things I need to do elsewhere...so at least you won't have to look like your arguing with yourself. ;)
-
Bugger off Al.
I really don't know why you keep trying to engage me. I have my thoughts, I state them, you don't agree with them...we seldom agree on anything...and that's fine.
I'm not wasting my time with you. Nothing I really have to say at this point will change your view...nor will any of your arguments be likely to change my point of view, "if" I can be even arsed to read two sentences into them at this point.
But if you really want to continue this I literally have a 1/4 of a TB hard drive full of memes that take me maybe 5 seconds tops to upload in between doing the things I need to do elsewhere...so at least you won't have to look like your arguing with yourself. ;)
What ever blows your hair back. Immoral hypocritical regurgitation or memes is all a much of a muchness to me.
-
The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.
I cited more sources than just the ACLU.
Which non-Left sources have you used to fact check? No honestly. Washington Post is clearly Leftist. Snopes and Politifact is Left and whilst claiming to be neutral, has been anything but. I believe Snopes is at least partially funded by George Soros. ACLU has been the bastion of impartiality and whilst similar organisations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have pretended impartiality, ACLU has been pretty consistent....until recently. Now they too have recently caved to the Progressive line about hate speech and no longer are they of the view that I hate what you say but I will defend your right to say things i disagree with. They were always Classically Liberal which I always applauded. Now they are moderate Progressives. Better than some and not frothing at the mouth Progressive ideologues like SPLC but hardly unbiased and neutral.
So....you cited a lot of source which of these were not Left leaning?
The last two articles I posted. But, is there anything but breitart or fox that you wouldn't call leftist?
-
Al, you lost me....good bye!
-
The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.
I cited more sources than just the ACLU.
Which non-Left sources have you used to fact check? No honestly. Washington Post is clearly Leftist. Snopes and Politifact is Left and whilst claiming to be neutral, has been anything but. I believe Snopes is at least partially funded by George Soros. ACLU has been the bastion of impartiality and whilst similar organisations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have pretended impartiality, ACLU has been pretty consistent....until recently. Now they too have recently caved to the Progressive line about hate speech and no longer are they of the view that I hate what you say but I will defend your right to say things i disagree with. They were always Classically Liberal which I always applauded. Now they are moderate Progressives. Better than some and not frothing at the mouth Progressive ideologues like SPLC but hardly unbiased and neutral.
So....you cited a lot of source which of these were not Left leaning?
You got a problem with factcheck.org too? Is there anything but breitart or fox that you wouldn't call leftist?
I am happy to look into any organisation. Am I incorrect in anything I have said? By what measure do you you proclaim it so?
The problem with saying you have listened and citing many sources and then citing Left leaning sources is the quantity may be there but the balance isn't. Effectively all you have done is state "There are a lot of Left leaning sources with left leaning views and I can cite all of them".
You ABSOLUTELY should aim for balance. If you have looked up and cited a dozen Left leaning sources for example, you do not get one neutral source and say "Okay there is your balance". that would be dishonest.
An example of balance may be 3 left leaning sources and 3 right leaning sources. Or perhaps 4 neutral sources and 1 left leaning and 1 right leaning. What you do not do is call left leaning neutral or neutral right leaning.
So have you sought out and cited balanced sources or are you seeking politically agreeable left leaning sources to give you a confirmation bias? Be honest.
-
Personally, I come from Australia and we have some of the strongest border protection in the world. Refugees and illegal immigrants have a Hell of a time getting into Australia. We have detention centres located off shore. We have pathways into Australia and very strong enforcement.
I do not see it much as a Left and Right issue. It is about Border protection and protecting your home. allowing anyone to come in and attach themselves to any available minor is terrible policy.
If there is a set pathway in and people want to come in how THEY want and in disregard of your laws, then sorry they forfeit the right to complain about the consequences of the actions that they chose. The children are a terrible consequence of that.
This should be not encouraged. If they have escaped from say Guatemala and passed through many countries and reached America...I am sorry but the moment they were out of the threat in their country and are now Mexico and safely away from the horror they were facing then they should apply for asylum as they are now out of danger. They can then plan for legal immigration to America.
-
The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.
I cited more sources than just the ACLU.
Which non-Left sources have you used to fact check? No honestly. Washington Post is clearly Leftist. Snopes and Politifact is Left and whilst claiming to be neutral, has been anything but. I believe Snopes is at least partially funded by George Soros. ACLU has been the bastion of impartiality and whilst similar organisations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have pretended impartiality, ACLU has been pretty consistent....until recently. Now they too have recently caved to the Progressive line about hate speech and no longer are they of the view that I hate what you say but I will defend your right to say things i disagree with. They were always Classically Liberal which I always applauded. Now they are moderate Progressives. Better than some and not frothing at the mouth Progressive ideologues like SPLC but hardly unbiased and neutral.
So....you cited a lot of source which of these were not Left leaning?
You got a problem with factcheck.org too? Is there anything but breitart or fox that you wouldn't call leftist?
I am happy to look into any organisation. Am I incorrect in anything I have said? By what measure do you you proclaim it so?
The problem with saying you have listened and citing many sources and then citing Left leaning sources is the quantity may be there but the balance isn't. Effectively all you have done is state "There are a lot of Left leaning sources with left leaning views and I can cite all of them".
You ABSOLUTELY should aim for balance. If you have looked up and cited a dozen Left leaning sources for example, you do not get one neutral source and say "Okay there is your balance". that would be dishonest.
An example of balance may be 3 left leaning sources and 3 right leaning sources. Or perhaps 4 neutral sources and 1 left leaning and 1 right leaning. What you do not do is call left leaning neutral or neutral right leaning.
So have you sought out and cited balanced sources or are you seeking politically agreeable left leaning sources to give you a confirmation bias? Be honest.
I'm sorry you don't want to give me an A on my research paper, but I do feel it's unfair that you stopped about 3/4 of the way through the works cited.
-
Border protection is all about dog-whistling. It's about keeping the focus on what a great job the government is doing at protecting you from those scary foreigners.
-
Most people are decent people and will not seek to harm others even if given the chance. Most people wont steal, murder, or rape. Therefore why have a police force. It has no real function and its real purpose is purely a dog whistle to the scary citizens and a form of government oppression.
In other words your premise is ridiculous
-
The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.
I cited more sources than just the ACLU.
Which non-Left sources have you used to fact check? No honestly. Washington Post is clearly Leftist. Snopes and Politifact is Left and whilst claiming to be neutral, has been anything but. I believe Snopes is at least partially funded by George Soros. ACLU has been the bastion of impartiality and whilst similar organisations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have pretended impartiality, ACLU has been pretty consistent....until recently. Now they too have recently caved to the Progressive line about hate speech and no longer are they of the view that I hate what you say but I will defend your right to say things i disagree with. They were always Classically Liberal which I always applauded. Now they are moderate Progressives. Better than some and not frothing at the mouth Progressive ideologues like SPLC but hardly unbiased and neutral.
So....you cited a lot of source which of these were not Left leaning?
You got a problem with factcheck.org too? Is there anything but breitart or fox that you wouldn't call leftist?
I am happy to look into any organisation. Am I incorrect in anything I have said? By what measure do you you proclaim it so?
The problem with saying you have listened and citing many sources and then citing Left leaning sources is the quantity may be there but the balance isn't. Effectively all you have done is state "There are a lot of Left leaning sources with left leaning views and I can cite all of them".
You ABSOLUTELY should aim for balance. If you have looked up and cited a dozen Left leaning sources for example, you do not get one neutral source and say "Okay there is your balance". that would be dishonest.
An example of balance may be 3 left leaning sources and 3 right leaning sources. Or perhaps 4 neutral sources and 1 left leaning and 1 right leaning. What you do not do is call left leaning neutral or neutral right leaning.
So have you sought out and cited balanced sources or are you seeking politically agreeable left leaning sources to give you a confirmation bias? Be honest.
I'm sorry you don't want to give me an A on my research paper, but I do feel it's unfair that you stopped about 3/4 of the way through the works cited.
So I looked into FactCheck.org. Definitely left leaning and tied to Obama through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge of which he is a board member
Other organizations and programs of the Foundation
Annenberg Challenge: In 1993, the largest gift to public education was made by Ambassador Walter Annenberg, a $500 million grant named the Annenberg Challenge. The grant was designed to unite the resources throughout the United States and ideas of those committed to increasing the effectiveness of public schooling. Recognizing that no single gift could improve all schools, the Challenge served as a catalyst to energize and support educational reform efforts across the country.
Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University: AISR was established at Brown University in 1993 through an anonymous gift of $5 million. Several months later, a $50-million gift – part of Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg's $500-million Challenge to the Nation to improve public education in America – enabled the fledgling Institute to expand the scope of its work. In appreciation of the Ambassador's gift, AISR was renamed in his honor. AISR adopted its current mission in 1998: “To develop, share, and act on knowledge that improves the conditions and outcomes of schooling in America, especially in urban communities and in schools serving disadvantaged children.“
The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania developed FactCheck.org. Factcheck.org monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases.
So YUP that is NOT "Middle of the road" it is Left.
The Chicago Tribune? Well let's look at the viewership of Chicago Tribune and who their readership is
https://www.270towin.com/states/Illinois
https://www.270towin.com/live-2016-presidential-election-results/state-by-state/
But hang on that is for ALL of Illinois NOT JUST Chicago. Maybe Chicago was not very Democrat. Maybe only the rest of Illinois was and the numbers were mainly outside of Chicago?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/Illinois_US_Presidential_Election_Results_County_2012.svg/187px-Illinois_US_Presidential_Election_Results_County_2012.svg.png
Yikes! Where is Chicago?
https://www.ezilon.com/maps/united-states/illinois-geographical-maps.html
So....the Chicago Tribune is likely there to serve its readership who are solidly Liberal. You can pretty much guarantee they are left leaning.
I'm sorry you don't want to give me an A on my research paper, but I do feel it's unfair that you stopped about 3/4 of the way through the works cited.
Are you going to provide the balance or are you sticking to heavily left leaning for your unbiased information?
I am thinking you would be looking at maybe
* A Conservative not for profit like Judicial Watch
* A local newspaper in a heavily Conservative Demographic county
* A Large Far Right or very Conservative online News publication
* maybe another group like Turning point
and such
Then you will come a bit closer to non-bias if that is what you are looking for?
-
The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.
I cited more sources than just the ACLU.
Which non-Left sources have you used to fact check? No honestly. Washington Post is clearly Leftist. Snopes and Politifact is Left and whilst claiming to be neutral, has been anything but. I believe Snopes is at least partially funded by George Soros. ACLU has been the bastion of impartiality and whilst similar organisations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have pretended impartiality, ACLU has been pretty consistent....until recently. Now they too have recently caved to the Progressive line about hate speech and no longer are they of the view that I hate what you say but I will defend your right to say things i disagree with. They were always Classically Liberal which I always applauded. Now they are moderate Progressives. Better than some and not frothing at the mouth Progressive ideologues like SPLC but hardly unbiased and neutral.
So....you cited a lot of source which of these were not Left leaning?
You got a problem with factcheck.org too? Is there anything but breitart or fox that you wouldn't call leftist?
I am happy to look into any organisation. Am I incorrect in anything I have said? By what measure do you you proclaim it so?
The problem with saying you have listened and citing many sources and then citing Left leaning sources is the quantity may be there but the balance isn't. Effectively all you have done is state "There are a lot of Left leaning sources with left leaning views and I can cite all of them".
You ABSOLUTELY should aim for balance. If you have looked up and cited a dozen Left leaning sources for example, you do not get one neutral source and say "Okay there is your balance". that would be dishonest.
An example of balance may be 3 left leaning sources and 3 right leaning sources. Or perhaps 4 neutral sources and 1 left leaning and 1 right leaning. What you do not do is call left leaning neutral or neutral right leaning.
So have you sought out and cited balanced sources or are you seeking politically agreeable left leaning sources to give you a confirmation bias? Be honest.
I'm sorry you don't want to give me an A on my research paper, but I do feel it's unfair that you stopped about 3/4 of the way through the works cited.
So I looked into FactCheck.org. Definitely left leaning and tied to Obama through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge of which he is a board member
Other organizations and programs of the Foundation
Annenberg Challenge: In 1993, the largest gift to public education was made by Ambassador Walter Annenberg, a $500 million grant named the Annenberg Challenge. The grant was designed to unite the resources throughout the United States and ideas of those committed to increasing the effectiveness of public schooling. Recognizing that no single gift could improve all schools, the Challenge served as a catalyst to energize and support educational reform efforts across the country.
Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University: AISR was established at Brown University in 1993 through an anonymous gift of $5 million. Several months later, a $50-million gift – part of Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg's $500-million Challenge to the Nation to improve public education in America – enabled the fledgling Institute to expand the scope of its work. In appreciation of the Ambassador's gift, AISR was renamed in his honor. AISR adopted its current mission in 1998: “To develop, share, and act on knowledge that improves the conditions and outcomes of schooling in America, especially in urban communities and in schools serving disadvantaged children.“
The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania: The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania developed FactCheck.org. Factcheck.org monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases.
So YUP that is NOT "Middle of the road" it is Left.
The Chicago Tribune? Well let's look at the viewership of Chicago Tribune and who their readership is
https://www.270towin.com/states/Illinois
https://www.270towin.com/live-2016-presidential-election-results/state-by-state/
But hang on that is for ALL of Illinois NOT JUST Chicago. Maybe Chicago was not very Democrat. Maybe only the rest of Illinois was and the numbers were mainly outside of Chicago?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/Illinois_US_Presidential_Election_Results_County_2012.svg/187px-Illinois_US_Presidential_Election_Results_County_2012.svg.png
Yikes! Where is Chicago?
https://www.ezilon.com/maps/united-states/illinois-geographical-maps.html
So....the Chicago Tribune is likely there to serve its readership who are solidly Liberal. You can pretty much guarantee they are left leaning.
I'm sorry you don't want to give me an A on my research paper, but I do feel it's unfair that you stopped about 3/4 of the way through the works cited.
Are you going to provide the balance or are you sticking to heavily left leaning for your unbiased information?
I am thinking you would be looking at maybe
* A Conservative not for profit like Judicial Watch
* A local newspaper in a heavily Conservative Demographic county
* A Large Far Right or very Conservative online News publication
* maybe another group like Turning point
and such
Then you will come a bit closer to non-bias if that is what you are looking for?
I was using this: http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com/
Perhaps you should send them an email with your critique.
What do you think of the chart (http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/media-bias-chart-3-1-minor-updates-based-constructive-feedback/) as an alternative?
-
Sure, but it is regardless of your methods to be balanced you weren't. Even were some of the sources were "middle of the road" which you cited the as -though they weren't) you would still not have balance. Youd have 3 or 4 left leaning and one or two neutral and none right leaning. That is not balance. But now worse is those neutral were left leaning and worse still you had no idea.
So...are you going to be balanced or is this simply your Progressively aligned opinion backed by Liberal taljing points. It is okay if this is the case.
Well to be honest I have only seen and read from maybe 50-60% of these publications. Mostly they are accurate portrayed.
There are only a couple which are seriously and ridiculously placed. Time. Slightly Conservative and Minimal Partisan Bias? That is a joke. I get too that they may have been long ago and resting on laurels and such but they seriously are neither. They are definitely left leaning and they are hardly propagandists for the left but they are likely around the position that CNN occupies on the chart. Does that mean they are as Liberal and biased as CNN? Hell no! CNN is nowhere close to Slightly Biased and reasonable Fact Checkers.
Same with New York Times and Washington Post. Though with these two they are harder to define because they lack consistency. Whilst they clearly are pandering to the Democrats and Liberals as much as Fox News does Trump and the Conservative base, sometimes at seemingly random occasions to write sometimes complete out of the political box so to speak. Almost redemptive to restore some credibility. (something I have seen Huffington Post do too) So some shift down and left but not overly. CNBC would likely align with them because CNBC doesn't do this redemptive checking and are more consistently less biased or propagandist.
Buzzfeed, Daily Kos and Vox are Hyper Partisan and Propagandists
Wall Street Journal should be skews Conservative. Drudge should move a little Left. Blaze should be a little right.
AP skews Liberal but is not non-factual.
Dailywire and Daily Caller and Breitbart should be lifted to where Federalist is and OAN should be where American Conservative is.
This is my interpretation.
PS I get my info from Youtube including pieces from CNN, MSNBC and Fox, Associated Press, News.com.au, MSN, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Reddit, Twitter and Quora
-
And how do you know what's *accurate*? What's *balanced*?
You worry about "leftist" sources when you should really be worrying about kids being separated from their parents because a sociopath is in charge of the white house.
You lot are a sad bunch.
-
Haven't read the articles posted, but the day this thread was created, Trump signed an executive order ending the policy of separating families at the border. While it's true the practice of separating families at the border isn't new to the Trump administration, it is also true his administration enacted a blanket policy for all families in April this year, so the policy had ended within two months of being initiated. This is an excellent example of the public reacting to government policy, and the government listening to what the public says.
-
And how do you know what's *accurate*? What's *balanced*?
You worry about "leftist" sources when you should really be worrying about kids being separated from their parents because a sociopath is in charge of the white house.
You lot are a sad bunch.
How many of those children were separated from their parents and how many from human traffickers or from a random adult illegal immigrant that wanted to claim familial relationships to an unaccompanied minor to allow them to get into US better?
Do you know, Odeon? Is that "sad" when this happens? Should I be worried when THAT happens? Is it ALL children or just when the "parents" have crossed at an illegal port of entry and are being processed for that crime (in which the child is forbidden to be with them) or if they are a potential risk to the child or have previous committed a crime in the US?
Do you know, Odeon? Are you just hearing children separated from parents and think that is bad? Which government enacted which policies? Who are you angry at and why?
You are pretty sad Odeon.
-
I think Melania's new coat about summed it up.
Spotted on her way to one of the children's detention centers...
(https://i.imgur.com/HeQDyQ0.jpg)
Yeah...tell everyone how they should "Be Best" Melania... ::)
-
Can't get more clear than that. :orly:
-
I think Melania's new coat about summed it up.
Spotted on her way to one of the children's detention centers...
(https://i.imgur.com/HeQDyQ0.jpg)
Yeah...tell everyone how they should "Be Best" Melania... ::)
Now what and whom was this directed at?
a) Children at the border?
b) Immigrants in general at the border?
c) people in general?
d) the media who have been arseholes to her and reporting all kinds of bullshit about her?
ONE choice and if it is anything but d) you are a lying immoral ideologue.
So tell me how well you summed that up and tell me the real context.
-
And how do you know what's *accurate*? What's *balanced*?
You worry about "leftist" sources when you should really be worrying about kids being separated from their parents because a sociopath is in charge of the white house.
You lot are a sad bunch.
How many of those children were separated from their parents and how many from human traffickers or from a random adult illegal immigrant that wanted to claim familial relationships to an unaccompanied minor to allow them to get into US better?
Do you know, Odeon? Is that "sad" when this happens? Should I be worried when THAT happens? Is it ALL children or just when the "parents" have crossed at an illegal port of entry and are being processed for that crime (in which the child is forbidden to be with them) or if they are a potential risk to the child or have previous committed a crime in the US?
Do you know, Odeon? Are you just hearing children separated from parents and think that is bad? Which government enacted which policies? Who are you angry at and why?
You are pretty sad Odeon.
You're not making much sense, Al. I guess it goes with the territory, trying to defend the indefensible. And that's just sad, too.
-
I think Melania's new coat about summed it up.
Spotted on her way to one of the children's detention centers...
(https://i.imgur.com/HeQDyQ0.jpg)
Yeah...tell everyone how they should "Be Best" Melania... ::)
Now what and whom was this directed at?
a) Children at the border?
b) Immigrants in general at the border?
c) people in general?
d) the media who have been arseholes to her and reporting all kinds of bullshit about her?
ONE choice and if it is anything but d) you are a lying immoral ideologue.
So tell me how well you summed that up and tell me the real context.
:facepalm:
-
And how do you know what's *accurate*? What's *balanced*?
You worry about "leftist" sources when you should really be worrying about kids being separated from their parents because a sociopath is in charge of the white house.
You lot are a sad bunch.
How many of those children were separated from their parents and how many from human traffickers or from a random adult illegal immigrant that wanted to claim familial relationships to an unaccompanied minor to allow them to get into US better?
Do you know, Odeon? Is that "sad" when this happens? Should I be worried when THAT happens? Is it ALL children or just when the "parents" have crossed at an illegal port of entry and are being processed for that crime (in which the child is forbidden to be with them) or if they are a potential risk to the child or have previous committed a crime in the US?
Do you know, Odeon? Are you just hearing children separated from parents and think that is bad? Which government enacted which policies? Who are you angry at and why?
You are pretty sad Odeon.
You're not making much sense, Al. I guess it goes with the territory, trying to defend the indefensible. And that's just sad, too.
What is not defensible.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1009916650622251009
But has the news given her or her family shit recently? Could she be giving a middle finger to them?
In the same way people go out of their way to give the middle finger to her family?
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/06/KathyStormy1.jpg)
It seems quite a defensible position. I have no idea if it is true or not but to say "No, no, no she definitely meant it some other way and I base this off nothing in particular but my own bias and hatred of everything Trump and irrespective to being told explicitly otherwise by probably the closest person in the world to her", is pretty fucking indefensible.
-
Now what and whom was this directed at?
a) Children at the border?
b) Immigrants in general at the border?
c) people in general?
d) the media who have been arseholes to her and reporting all kinds of bullshit about her?
ONE choice and if it is anything but d) you are a lying immoral ideologue.
So tell me how well you summed that up and tell me the real context.
Learn to ignore me Al, it's easier.
(https://i.imgur.com/xw4OXOF.jpg)
-
Now what and whom was this directed at?
It doesn't matter. It doesn't take much to predict how the coat would be interpreted on that particular day. If the children she was on the way to visit were not the message target, then she's clueless and may have advisors who don't truly serve her interests. This was not only a high visibility issue, but also the first time Trump has backed down on anything. Her situation with the coat is entirely of her own making, and any claim of being misunderstood only makes her look very dumb.
-
Jack, can you hand on heart claim that the media was EVER not going to spin her visit as badly intended and question her motives in a way they would have never have done with Michelle Obama?
You know they were always going to and big names with bazillion followers were always going to be nasty.
If that is a given, and it is. Why bother making a good impression. Why not tell them to go fuck themselves? Do they desrrve better. Has their past behaciour earned that?
Serious question
-
Now what and whom was this directed at?
a) Children at the border?
b) Immigrants in general at the border?
c) people in general?
d) the media who have been arseholes to her and reporting all kinds of bullshit about her?
ONE choice and if it is anything but d) you are a lying immoral ideologue.
So tell me how well you summed that up and tell me the real context.
Learn to ignore me Al, it's easier.
(https://i.imgur.com/xw4OXOF.jpg)
Better idea. I will respond to whatever and whomever I like as I have for the last 10 year, irrespective of any wish, command or suggestion from you.
Soes that sound reasonable?
-
Jack, can you hand on heart claim that the media was EVER not going to spin her visit as badly intended and question her motives in a way they would have never have done with Michelle Obama?
You know they were always going to and big names with bazillion followers were always going to be nasty.
If that is a given, and it is. Why bother making a good impression. Why not tell them to go fuck themselves? Do they desrrve better. Has their past behaciour earned that?
Serious question
Then maybe she should have wrote, screw the media, on the back of her shirt. If she really made such a stupid mistake, then it's hers to own.
-
Jack, can you hand on heart claim that the media was EVER not going to spin her visit as badly intended and question her motives in a way they would have never have done with Michelle Obama?
You know they were always going to and big names with bazillion followers were always going to be nasty.
If that is a given, and it is. Why bother making a good impression. Why not tell them to go fuck themselves? Do they desrrve better. Has their past behaciour earned that?
Serious question
Then maybe she should have wrote, screw the media, on the back of her shirt. If she really made such a stupid mistake, then it's hers to own.
Again, if it was not this it would be something else. You may think she deserves everything she gets or only in this instance but I would dare you to say that with the constant scrunity and hate sirectes at her, that in the same position you would not have done any "mistake".
Hell, I feel really sorry for her. Why do the press and social media tear her to shreds? It isn't because SHE decided to be President. It is not her being her, because she did not cop crap when she was married to Trump before he ran for President. So what then? The reason they do is because she loves her husband and her husband is President and they don't like it.
Fucking petty, isn't it?
She has nothing to have to own apart from being human and I reckon I can forgive her that much
-
Jack, can you hand on heart claim that the media was EVER not going to spin her visit as badly intended and question her motives in a way they would have never have done with Michelle Obama?
You know they were always going to and big names with bazillion followers were always going to be nasty.
If that is a given, and it is. Why bother making a good impression. Why not tell them to go fuck themselves? Do they desrrve better. Has their past behaciour earned that?
Serious question
I think the media's been pretty light on her.
Then again, I thought the jacket was hilarious. Of course, I also see the holocaust as one of the greatest jokes of all time....
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/1a6hgq.jpg)
-
Now what and whom was this directed at?
It doesn't matter. It doesn't take much to predict how the coat would be interpreted on that particular day. If the children she was on the way to visit were not the message target, then she's clueless and may have advisors who don't truly serve her interests. This was not only a high visibility issue, but also the first time Trump has backed down on anything. Her situation with the coat is entirely of her own making, and any claim of being misunderstood only makes her look very dumb.
Virtual +1 and then some.
Surely someone on her team should have spotted that and suggested a different jacket for the day?
-
Better idea. I will respond to whatever and whomever I like as I have for the last 10 year, irrespective of any wish, command or suggestion from you.
Soes that sound reasonable?
Perfectly. >:D
-
Fucking petty, isn't it?
Sure, but not any more petty than journalists calling Michelle Obama a tranny, saying she's too fat to care about child obesity, calling her the bitter half, and criticizing every piece of clothing she wore while dubbing her the worst dressed first lady in history. First ladies actually get quite a bit of sympathy from the general public when harshly criticized for nothing. This isn't a situation of nothing. The coat was clearly deliberate. The best thing Melania Trump can do is to continue to maintain a level of class, so that means not walking around with big stupid signs scrawled on her back. Unfortunately, some lessons are harshly learned.
-
Now what and whom was this directed at?
It doesn't matter. It doesn't take much to predict how the coat would be interpreted on that particular day. If the children she was on the way to visit were not the message target, then she's clueless and may have advisors who don't truly serve her interests. This was not only a high visibility issue, but also the first time Trump has backed down on anything. Her situation with the coat is entirely of her own making, and any claim of being misunderstood only makes her look very dumb.
Virtual +1 and then some.
Surely someone on her team should have spotted that and suggested a different jacket for the day?
Absolutely. It's like that speech writer who wrote her that horrible speech, rickrolling her and plagiarizing Michelle Obama in front of the whole world. Couldn't help but feel bad for her for that.
-
Considering the state of Russian orphanages, she probably thinks the immigrant kids have it good.
-
Considering the state of Russian orphanages, she probably thinks the immigrant kids have it good.
She isn't Russian?
-
Fucking petty, isn't it?
Sure, but not any more petty than journalists calling Michelle Obama a tranny, saying she's too fat to care about child obesity, calling her the bitter half, and criticizing every piece of clothing she wore while dubbing her the worst dressed first lady in history. First ladies actually get quite a bit of sympathy from the general public when harshly criticized for nothing. This isn't a situation of nothing. The coat was clearly deliberate. The best thing Melania Trump can do is to continue to maintain a level of class, so that means not walking around with big stupid signs scrawled on her back. Unfortunately, some lessons are harshly learned.
Which reporters or those talking heads associiated said that Michelle is a transperson?
-
Fucking petty, isn't it?
Sure, but not any more petty than journalists calling Michelle Obama a tranny, saying she's too fat to care about child obesity, calling her the bitter half, and criticizing every piece of clothing she wore while dubbing her the worst dressed first lady in history. First ladies actually get quite a bit of sympathy from the general public when harshly criticized for nothing. This isn't a situation of nothing. The coat was clearly deliberate. The best thing Melania Trump can do is to continue to maintain a level of class, so that means not walking around with big stupid signs scrawled on her back. Unfortunately, some lessons are harshly learned.
QFT
-
To suggest that her choice of clothing that day was unintentional, an accident, is naive in the extreme. The only question I had was whose idea it was.
-
Considering the state of Russian orphanages, she probably thinks the immigrant kids have it good.
She isn't Russian?
Slovenian.
Slovenia was the wealthiest of the Yugoslav republics.
They were the first to break away and Serbia could do nothing to stop them.
-
To suggest that her choice of clothing that day was unintentional, an accident, is naive in the extreme. The only question I had was whose idea it was.
Certainly not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting it was aimed at the News that treats every effort she makes and every activity she publicly engages in as ill-intentioned. Her husband says so and I have no reason to disbelieve it having seen how they have treated her up to now.
Here is the thing:
1) If she does not wear said hoody, the press will rip into her, misrepresent and lie about her efforts and smear her
OR
2) If she does wear said hoody, the press will rip into her, misrepresent and lie about her efforts and smear her
Why is this a lesson she needs to learn and what on Earth does she get out of not wearing the hoody and from whom.
PS - Don't say American public because half love her and half hate her regardless and that will not change and don't say press because she is clearly saying that she does not care there either.
-
Haven't read the articles posted, but the day this thread was created, Trump signed an executive order ending the policy of separating families at the border. While it's true the practice of separating families at the border isn't new to the Trump administration, it is also true his administration enacted a blanket policy for all families in April this year, so the policy had ended within two months of being initiated. This is an excellent example of the public reacting to government policy, and the government listening to what the public says.
He didn't reverse the zero-tolerance order from April that accelerated family separation; he revoked family separation, and now families will be detained together. So, still a return to some obama-era problems, but, again, accelerated.
-
My boyfriend posited the theory that Melania wore the jacket to garner bad press in order to fuck with her husband because she's so done with him. It's my favorite theory yet.
-
Haven't read the articles posted, but the day this thread was created, Trump signed an executive order ending the policy of separating families at the border. While it's true the practice of separating families at the border isn't new to the Trump administration, it is also true his administration enacted a blanket policy for all families in April this year, so the policy had ended within two months of being initiated. This is an excellent example of the public reacting to government policy, and the government listening to what the public says.
He didn't reverse the zero-tolerance order from April that accelerated family separation; he revoked family separation, and now families will be detained together. So, still a return to some obama-era problems, but, again, accelerated.
What happens when they are not parents but are dangerous human traffickers and/or pedophiles pretending to be parents? Are they now keep together with the kids?
-
My boyfriend posited the theory that Melania wore the jacket to garner bad press in order to fuck with her husband because she's so done with him. It's my favorite theory yet.
That was one of my thoughts also.
She's...
1. Either totally on-board with his agenda
2. Or she's fucking with him and wants out of this 3 ring circus
She's too intelligent for this to be a "clueless" mistake.
-
Haven't read the articles posted, but the day this thread was created, Trump signed an executive order ending the policy of separating families at the border. While it's true the practice of separating families at the border isn't new to the Trump administration, it is also true his administration enacted a blanket policy for all families in April this year, so the policy had ended within two months of being initiated. This is an excellent example of the public reacting to government policy, and the government listening to what the public says.
He didn't reverse the zero-tolerance order from April that accelerated family separation; he revoked family separation, and now families will be detained together. So, still a return to some obama-era problems, but, again, accelerated.
Correct. That's what some other countries do too. Though do believe there are more strict guidelines for how long a minor can be detained, so would guess families would rise in priority for processing. Might look that up later if there's time.
-
Fucking petty, isn't it?
Sure, but not any more petty than journalists calling Michelle Obama a tranny, saying she's too fat to care about child obesity, calling her the bitter half, and criticizing every piece of clothing she wore while dubbing her the worst dressed first lady in history. First ladies actually get quite a bit of sympathy from the general public when harshly criticized for nothing. This isn't a situation of nothing. The coat was clearly deliberate. The best thing Melania Trump can do is to continue to maintain a level of class, so that means not walking around with big stupid signs scrawled on her back. Unfortunately, some lessons are harshly learned.
Which reporters or those talking heads associiated said that Michelle is a transperson?
In looking it up, it appears Alex Jones was the source. Don't listen/watch Infowars, so not sure how it comes to my memory. It may have been perpetuated by the general media talking about what he had to say, and I just remember it being said.
-
My boyfriend posited the theory that Melania wore the jacket to garner bad press in order to fuck with her husband because she's so done with him. It's my favorite theory yet.
I was thinking this, as well.
Still, in terribly poor taste - there are better ways she could fuck with him without insulting the families which have been torn apart - but, a bit more excusable, given her past statements about the situation.
-
My boyfriend posited the theory that Melania wore the jacket to garner bad press in order to fuck with her husband because she's so done with him. It's my favorite theory yet.
Would imaging she could achieve that without screwing herself over in the process. She could have been a hero that day. The first lady jets away to meet the detained children at the border, reports back home to the white house and magically the president backs down on his own executive order. That's probably the way it should have played out, because the damage was already done for Trump so a repeal wouldn't un-do that. Once saw her in a interview and she expressed upset about people who try to harm her reputation, so can't see her spiting her own face just to spite him. Then again, who knows. If she continues to do stuff like this, then definitely a good theory.
-
Fucking petty, isn't it?
Sure, but not any more petty than journalists calling Michelle Obama a tranny, saying she's too fat to care about child obesity, calling her the bitter half, and criticizing every piece of clothing she wore while dubbing her the worst dressed first lady in history. First ladies actually get quite a bit of sympathy from the general public when harshly criticized for nothing. This isn't a situation of nothing. The coat was clearly deliberate. The best thing Melania Trump can do is to continue to maintain a level of class, so that means not walking around with big stupid signs scrawled on her back. Unfortunately, some lessons are harshly learned.
Which reporters or those talking heads associiated said that Michelle is a transperson?
In looking it up, it appears Alex Jones was the source. Don't listen/watch Infowars, so not sure how it comes to my memory. It may have been perpetuated by the general media talking about what he had to say, and I just remember it being said.
Alex Jones isn't a reporter. Weren't you trying to suggest that the way that mainstream reporters, social media notable and associates of both treat Melania is no worse than how "they" called Michelle Obama a tranny", only now to find "they" was Alex Jones a well lnown crackpot conspiracy theorist known for the meme worthy "Fluoride in the water makes frogs gay"?
You aren't for a miment suggesting this is on par are you?
Maybe here is another way to put it. Michelle Obama, despite perhaps Me Gay Frogs thinking she is a man and a couple of questions about fashion choice, has been promoted and celebrated as first lady. You know this. Has the press and media in general been as kind and welcoming of Melania? Why not? If they are unkind, disrepe tful, dishonest and cruel why ought she take the slightest heed of what THEY think she should wear or act or say?
-
My boyfriend posited the theory that Melania wore the jacket to garner bad press in order to fuck with her husband because she's so done with him. It's my favorite theory yet.
Would imaging she could achieve that without screwing herself over in the process. She could have been a hero that day. The first lady jets away to meet the detained children at the border, reports back home to the white house and magically the president backs down on his own executive order. That's probably the way it should have played out, because the damage was already done for Trump so a repeal wouldn't un-do that. Once saw her in a interview and she expressed upset about people who try to harm her reputation, so can't see her spiting her own face just to spite him. Then again, who knows. If she continues to do stuff like this, then definitely a good theory.
You must know this is simply untrue.
She was never going to be a hero. Tbe press would have pilloried her regardless and had she have worn everything just so and smiled and done everything perfectly, they would have said it was all an act and poured on hate by creating a strawman about what she really thinks.
Hero? Sure.
-
Fucking petty, isn't it?
Sure, but not any more petty than journalists calling Michelle Obama a tranny, saying she's too fat to care about child obesity, calling her the bitter half, and criticizing every piece of clothing she wore while dubbing her the worst dressed first lady in history. First ladies actually get quite a bit of sympathy from the general public when harshly criticized for nothing. This isn't a situation of nothing. The coat was clearly deliberate. The best thing Melania Trump can do is to continue to maintain a level of class, so that means not walking around with big stupid signs scrawled on her back. Unfortunately, some lessons are harshly learned.
Which reporters or those talking heads associiated said that Michelle is a transperson?
In looking it up, it appears Alex Jones was the source. Don't listen/watch Infowars, so not sure how it comes to my memory. It may have been perpetuated by the general media talking about what he had to say, and I just remember it being said.
Alex Jones isn't a reporter. Weren't you trying to suggest that the way that mainstream reporters, social media notable and associates of both treat Melania is no worse than how "they" called Michelle Obama a tranny", only now to find "they" was Alex Jones a well lnown crackpot conspiracy theorist known for the meme worthy "Fluoride in the water makes frogs gay"?
You aren't for a miment suggesting this is on par are you?
Maybe here is another way to put it. Michelle Obama, despite perhaps Me Gay Frogs thinking she is a man and a couple of questions about fashion choice, has been promoted and celebrated as first lady. You know this. Has the press and media in general been as kind and welcoming of Melania? Why not? If they are unkind, disrepe tful, dishonest and cruel why ought she take the slightest heed of what THEY think she should wear or act or say?
Correct, Alex Jones isn't a reporter, that's why I said I'm not sure how it ever made it from his mouth to my memory, unless it was someone else perpetuating it by talking about him and what he says. Maybe just haven't consumed enough negative press about her to view her as treated any worse. Tend to be more interested in what he's doing. The biggest critisizm known about her, is that she's too absent, oh and something about her shoes.
-
Haven't read the articles posted, but the day this thread was created, Trump signed an executive order ending the policy of separating families at the border. While it's true the practice of separating families at the border isn't new to the Trump administration, it is also true his administration enacted a blanket policy for all families in April this year, so the policy had ended within two months of being initiated. This is an excellent example of the public reacting to government policy, and the government listening to what the public says.
He didn't reverse the zero-tolerance order from April that accelerated family separation; he revoked family separation, and now families will be detained together. So, still a return to some obama-era problems, but, again, accelerated.
Correct. That's what some other countries do too. Though do believe there are more strict guidelines for how long a minor can be detained, so would guess families would rise in priority for processing. Might look that up later if there's time.
Looked it up and it may now be a decision for the Federal Court. The current law states minors can't be detained for longer than 20 days, but Trump is requesting for there to be no time limit to allow for court proceedings. The article read says many who disagree with separation also disagree with family detention, and rather support supervised release. Not sure what supervised release means, but it does make sense an attempt at fast tracking deportation for families would be better. Detaining families for the duration of prosecution only sounds like the kids will end up in DHS care eventually anyway, while the parents sit in our jails until they serve their time and then are deported. The zero tolerance policy still stands for prosecuting illegal immigrants, and appears to add very expensive and unneeded steps between detainment and deportation.
-
It rather seems to me a case of if you can seperate children from adults AND children only are able to be detained for 20 days.
Then essentially they are saying if the government can't put the claim through in 20 days, you and any child you claim as yours is able to cross into the US regardless of the merits of their claim or whether the kids they vouch as theirs are actually theirs
-
To suggest that her choice of clothing that day was unintentional, an accident, is naive in the extreme. The only question I had was whose idea it was.
Certainly not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting it was aimed at the News that treats every effort she makes and every activity she publicly engages in as ill-intentioned. Her husband says so and I have no reason to disbelieve it having seen how they have treated her up to now.
Here is the thing:
1) If she does not wear said hoody, the press will rip into her, misrepresent and lie about her efforts and smear her
OR
2) If she does wear said hoody, the press will rip into her, misrepresent and lie about her efforts and smear her
Why is this a lesson she needs to learn and what on Earth does she get out of not wearing the hoody and from whom.
PS - Don't say American public because half love her and half hate her regardless and that will not change and don't say press because she is clearly saying that she does not care there either.
Still naive. I love it how you choose to trust her husband, though.
-
My boyfriend posited the theory that Melania wore the jacket to garner bad press in order to fuck with her husband because she's so done with him. It's my favorite theory yet.
It's a fun one.
-
I am guessing that the team that Trump has gathered around him are not the sort of slick political unit that Obama obviously had.
I dare say that some have been chosen because they remind Trump of his own values and ideals. Which may not make them the most competent people to be guiding the world's most powerful politician and his wife on cultivating the sort of public image expected of them.
Of course Chomsky could be correct, and this could all be a convenient sideshow to divert attention away from what should be the real news. While the press is focusing on Trump's latest outrageous statement, Trump's latest gaffe, or Melania's plagiarised speeches and inappropriate jacket, nobody is paying attention to what is really going on.
-
I am guessing that the team that Trump has gathered around him are not the sort of slick political unit that Obama obviously had.
I dare say that some have been chosen because they remind Trump of his own values and ideals. Which may not make them the most competent people to be guiding the world's most powerful politician and his wife on cultivating the sort of public image expected of them.
Of course Chomsky could be correct, and this could all be a convenient sideshow to divert attention away from what should be the real news. While the press is focusing on Trump's latest outrageous statement, Trump's latest gaffe, or Melania's plagiarised speeches and inappropriate jacket, nobody is paying attention to what is really going on.
......Or de-escalation and nuclear disarmament of North Korea (vs I guess "Slick" Obama giving pallets of cash to Iran)
I mean sure. I agree that much of any import is being ignored in a mad attempt to make the President look as bad as possible.
But let's be real. Trump is a braggart. Trump is inarticulate, full of bluster and bullshit and lacks any grace, poise or finesse.
Surely concentrating on dumb shit and worse still deliberately misrepresenting and using selective outrage and the like is not entirely playing into anyone's hands but Trump.
The truth is that the people that are going to vote in the mid terms are likely to be around around 40-45% Trump Supporters and about 40-45% Democrat Supporters with the 10-20% left being independent. Trump does not have to be popular. He does not need to increase his base.
Democrats have to win back a shit load of seats. In order to impeach him they need 66% majority and they do not even have 50% at the moment. The blue wave they were counting on seems to be drying up.
But worse still Trump solidifies his position with his hard on immigration policies that match what he campaigned on. His base will see this as him doing what he said, independents are likely to be too swayed by him doing what he says (there may be a tiny amount of movement) HOWEVER on the other side, the Democrats and Liberals calling for harassment of his staff and making threats to his family and the like is NOT a winner. This will distance the independent vote and may even cause a few in the Democrat camp to distance themselves from the ballot.
I do think the big things like the tax cuts and the Nuclear treaty and the like will be a matter of "what have you done for me lately?". So he will need a few big things and he has a bit of time. But in all honesty if the Mueller thing is a bust, and I think it is, and the liberals and Democrats keep doing dumb shit, and he drops a few things to make people feel good and happy about him JUST before the Midterms, things are going to be very bad for the next two years for the Democrats.
They need to fight better, get a proper plan and platform and a couple of decent leaders and then they may be able to get some momentum before November. They have to stop being reactive and petty.
-
They need to fight better, get a proper plan and platform and a couple of decent leaders and then they may be able to get some momentum before November. They have to stop being reactive and petty.
I don't see this happening. Liberals, not just here in the US, but in most of western civilization, are still going through a moral panic and are just too whipped up to come to their senses and engage in any organized strategic plan beyond basic witch hunting tactics.
I'm pretty sure Trump is aware of this and just keeps throwing them bait to keep them diverted. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
-
It rather seems to me a case of if you can seperate children from adults AND children only are able to be detained for 20 days.
Then essentially they are saying if the government can't put the claim through in 20 days, you and any child you claim as yours is able to cross into the US regardless of the merits of their claim or whether the kids they vouch as theirs are actually theirs
Would have to look it up but thinking adults are 30 days. The government can't detain people for long periods of time with no due process. It's not unheard of for potential deportees to be released into the US because there's too many of them for the system to process them all in a timely manner. Improving the efficiency of the existing deportation process makes more sense than adding the complication of seeking trials and convictions for every single illegal entry.
-
It rather seems to me a case of if you can seperate children from adults AND children only are able to be detained for 20 days.
Then essentially they are saying if the government can't put the claim through in 20 days, you and any child you claim as yours is able to cross into the US regardless of the merits of their claim or whether the kids they vouch as theirs are actually theirs
Would have to look it up but thinking adults are 30 days. The government can't detain people for long periods of time with no due process. It's not unheard of for potential deportees to be released into the US because there's too many of them for the system to process them all in a timely manner. Improving the efficiency of the existing deportation process makes more sense than adding the complication of seeking trials and convictions for every single illegal entry.
Due process takes longer than a month and not only do the Liberals and Democrats not like adults seperated from children, they don't want them detained at all.
So no, quicker and more simple expedited process is not the answer because to be "due" process and quick process is mutually exclusive.
So that won't work. Releasing illegal immigrants who are an unknown quality, potentially cartel or gang members and potentially with a trafficked child or children (that they were helpfully not separated from) that they claim as their on child/ren, into the US is not a solution either.
Allowing illegal immigrants to claim and stay with children that may have no family connection is also dangerous and a very bad idea.
What are reasonable outcomes Trump should be doing faced with the above?
-
It rather seems to me a case of if you can seperate children from adults AND children only are able to be detained for 20 days.
Then essentially they are saying if the government can't put the claim through in 20 days, you and any child you claim as yours is able to cross into the US regardless of the merits of their claim or whether the kids they vouch as theirs are actually theirs
Would have to look it up but thinking adults are 30 days. The government can't detain people for long periods of time with no due process. It's not unheard of for potential deportees to be released into the US because there's too many of them for the system to process them all in a timely manner. Improving the efficiency of the existing deportation process makes more sense than adding the complication of seeking trials and convictions for every single illegal entry.
Due process takes longer than a month and not only do the Liberals and Democrats not like adults seperated from children, they don't want them detained at all.
So no, quicker and more simple expedited process is not the answer because to be "due" process and quick process is mutually exclusive.
So that won't work. Releasing illegal immigrants who are an unknown quality, potentially cartel or gang members and potentially with a trafficked child or children (that they were helpfully not separated from) that they claim as their on child/ren, into the US is not a solution either.
Allowing illegal immigrants to claim and stay with children that may have no family connection is also dangerous and a very bad idea.
What are reasonable outcomes Trump should be doing faced with the above?
Due process for deportation doesn't take longer than a month when there is no criminal trial. The US deports hundreds of thousands of illegals every year. Already said what should be done. The money it will take to prosecute and jail all of them could be spent on better funding the existing system for processing them and sending them back. The current system doesn't always have the manpower or finances to keep up with deportation in timely manner; bogging down our courts, jails, and tax dollars by convicting all of these people isn't going to fix that.
-
So given that kids cannot be detained for more than 20 days and the "parents" can't be separated from the children AND it takes AT LEAST 30 days to process the claims for asylum (BUT they cannot seem to do this):
* How do you prevent adults who claim to be the parents but aren't from claiming and being with the children they may be trafficking and or using?
* How do you prevent the kids from being realised into the US with non-vetted adults who may or may not be their parents and may in fact pose a huge risk to the US?
* If they go in AND as they quite often "disappear" and do not show up to court, once released, how do you prevent them from disappearing?
* If they are bad people (gang members, child traffickers, pimps, drug runners, pedophiles and the like) how do you prevent them from carrying out their crimes that come from a result of not being properly processed.
* what do you do about the people affected by such crime?
* what do you do if they become tax burdens and give no value to the society (except as a Democrat vote)?
-
Not sure what you want me to say. Prosecute them for crossing the border, throw them in jail, and then worry about deporting them later? It's not a good answer. Have already answered the question. Better fund the existing process of sending them back.
-
Not sure what you want me to say. Prosecute them for crossing the border, throw them in jail, and then worry about deporting them later? It's not a good answer. Have already answered the question. Better fund the existing process of sending them back.
The truth is that there are no good answers.
The Democrats will not give any solutions. The reason is because each is imperfect and they can in each instance point to its shortcomings, without offering solutions or alternatives.
Even your solution will not work, Jack.
-
Not sure what you want me to say. Prosecute them for crossing the border, throw them in jail, and then worry about deporting them later? It's not a good answer. Have already answered the question. Better fund the existing process of sending them back.
The truth is that there are no good answers.
The Democrats will not give any solutions. The reason is because each is imperfect and they can in each instance point to its shortcomings, without offering solutions or alternatives.
Even your solution will not work, Jack.
Of course my solution will work, maybe not perfectly, but really no solution or change will also work. The current process already works, and it works to the tune of a quarter million illegals deported every year. Am assuming Trump thought his new policy would make it work better. My suggestion to making it work better, is to look at what already works and simply do more of that. There may be no perfect solution but complicating the issue by further overtaxing the judicial and penal systems and social services isn't a smart solution, especially since those systems are already overloaded. Don't think this is the last reality check these new policies will encounter.
-
+1 in spirit to Jack.
Trump's policy is about appearing to be tough on immigration, it has nothing to do with building on what works already. It's about appealing to a segment of the population that is fearful of foreigners taking their jobs, when the real issues are much more difficult to solve and are not being addressed by either party.
-
+1 in spirit to Jack.
Trump's policy is about appearing to be tough on immigration, it has nothing to do with building on what works already. It's about appealing to a segment of the population that is fearful of foreigners taking their jobs, when the real issues are much more difficult to solve and are not being addressed by either party.
Of course what works already doesn't really work already.
That is to say of course every option and solution is flawed.
There are absolutely flaws with Trump's system and with Obamas. When you let illegal immigrants into US and send them court dates to turn up to that they ignore and you lose track of where they are, when you keep adults with children who may have no family ties because they claim it, and when you allow fear of being called racist/Nazi/xenophobe from protecting your border, you are failing.
Trump hasn't a problem as far as I can see with immigrants. Seems to me it is only illegal immigrants he has issue with. Rightly so.
-
Naivety as a lifestyle.
-
No, naivety is a state of of mind. Ignorance. So long as it is not willful ignorance, it's okay by me
-
No, I meant naivety.
-
No, I meant naivety.
Your lifestyle?
-
Was referring to your posts.
-
Was referring to your posts.
Odd, because they are not naive
-
Was referring to your posts.
You understand his posts?
-
Was referring to your posts.
You understand his posts?
This is a big admission that you are failing in your ability to comprehend the written word.
-
Was referring to your posts.
You understand his posts?
This is a big admission that you are failing in your ability to comprehend the written word.
I can comprehend written words.
But some people have a talent for stringing words together in sequences that baffle me.
Maybe I'm just easy to baffle?
-
It is a billion more times naive to think that Trump just wants to separate children from their parents because he is evil. It is the law that when parents are arrested for trying to enter the country illegally, the children cannot be detained with them. Obama did the same. The only difference is that Trump tried zero tolerance with illegal immigration. You would literally have to be mentally retarded or Odeon not to know this. Trump was using it as a deterrent.
-
Was referring to your posts.
You understand his posts?
This is a big admission that you are failing in your ability to comprehend the written word.
I can comprehend written words.
But some people have a talent for stringing words together in sequences that baffle me.
Maybe I'm just easy to baffle?
Maybe you're not the only one. :laugh:
-
Was referring to your posts.
You understand his posts?
Not really, no. I just hope for the best.
-
It is a billion more times naive to think that Trump just wants to separate children from their parents because he is evil. It is the law that when parents are arrested for trying to enter the country illegally, the children cannot be detained with them. Obama did the same. The only difference is that Trump tried zero tolerance with illegal immigration. You would literally have to be mentally retarded or Odeon not to know this. Trump was using it as a deterrent.
You could also be, well, you and post this shit.
-
It is a billion more times naive to think that Trump just wants to separate children from their parents because he is evil. It is the law that when parents are arrested for trying to enter the country illegally, the children cannot be detained with them. Obama did the same. The only difference is that Trump tried zero tolerance with illegal immigration. You would literally have to be mentally retarded or Odeon not to know this. Trump was using it as a deterrent.
You could also be, well, you and post this shit.
No, this is actually correct.
Next question. "Who can change a bad law?" Next question "If the President was coping flak from following a bad law, why would the party or parties with the power to change laws not change it"
These answered honestly will get you closer to truth and take the "shit" filters from your eyes
-
Weird concepts like truth are not important to some people. Hanging on to being right means so much more.
-
Weird concepts like truth are not important to some people. Hanging on to being right means so much more.
Yes, I think there certainly be shades of grey and difference if opinion but there also is blind ideological conditioning and deliberate ignorance.
-
(https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/36002643_1739812452766576_2504646458251149312_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=abb96c3d436585f791e4f0e2534fb85f&oe=5BE8210E)
I declare Godwin.
-
Weird concepts like truth are not important to some people. Hanging on to being right means so much more.
The irony. :rofl: