What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[Cecilie1200]

Both are important, especially if you are the race the Democrats want to wipe out.

Just admit that for you, it's all about keeping brown people out of America.
Don't be a ***** and stop dancing around that point you so desperately are trying to make.

/———/ Ahhh the good old race card has been dealt

^Another cowardly denier.

/—-/ When all else fails call your opponent a racist.

I never used that word but feel free to explain why you feel these people would make America a "shithole".

/——/ It’s better than the democRAT Policy of Turing America into a shythole.

Well, apparently the LAST country they lived in was a shithole, so they have a bit of a track record.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A "simple misdemeanor" that puts your kids into a risky, dangerous situation.

So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.

You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid. Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.

Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass

Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.

"Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".

Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.

FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

Yeah, they are.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigration-deported-parents.html

 

[Cecilie1200]

So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.

You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid. Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.

Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass

Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.

"So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."

Dude, you were very clear. If you're not comparing them, this has no point.

I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling

Sometimes you take risks for your kids!

That sentence is entirely context driven. Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't

I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs. I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

Yeah, they are.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigration-deported-parents.html

Why did she try to drag her son on an illegal activity?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid. Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.

Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass

Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.

"So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."

Dude, you were very clear. If you're not comparing them, this has no point.

I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling

Sometimes you take risks for your kids!

That sentence is entirely context driven. Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't

Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.

Hence me clearly stating that your "point" and its overblown melodrama was deserving of exactly the response it got.

"I don't think they're similar, but I thought it made my point to draw false analogies." Uh huh. Remember me saying you should never have been allowed to enter the gene pool?

 

[Cellblock2429]

The parents aren't doing it. The govt is.

No.

Do you think these children suddenly developed a sudden societal and environmental awareness and decided to come here on their own? No. The parents chose to send them here, alone. Adults claiming to be parents smuggled them here, only to leave them alone when they were detained for crossing illegally. You are so damned ignorant that you can't see these people are taking advantage of our system. That system must be changed. With or without your help.

The govt, through policy, is deciding to prosecute 100% them. Including those seeking asylum.The result of said prosecution is separation. This was not the case six weeks ago.

/——/ Good. It’s about time. Trump is sending a message. Respect our borders.

 

[Flopper]

If one child slipped through, and ended up dead or trafficed as a sex slave, because we did not find out DEFINITIVELY that the adult was the child's parent, you would cry foul on the administration.

How proud that must make you, getting your cake and eating it too.

How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard. Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant. At least have the integrity to be honest about it.

------------------------- i don't care about the TRAFFICKING . I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law Coyote . --------------------- just a comment .

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)

"My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished." Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

Yes, that would be insane if that were the situation. However, it's a bit far fetched to believe parents would leave their kids to become victims of gangs and cartels while they embarked on a journey of over a thousand miles, crossing 2 or 3 boarders illegally, and often treacherous terrain to do what? Pick strawberries and visit uncle Jose. Now that would be really truly insane, not to mention that they couldn't apply for asylum for family members left at home.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Trump is separating parents from kids because they committed a misdemeanor. That being the case, you had better not exceed the speed limit in your state.

You shouldn't exceed the speed limit, anyway. But yeah, you definitely shouldn't do anything in a car, with your kids present, that gets you arrested. You shouldn't do anything AT ALL that carries with it the chance of being arrested when you have your kids with you, because they will ALWAYS be taken away from you while you're in the pokey. I have no idea why it's a shock to you that kids aren't jailed along with their parents.

But this really cuts to the heart of the matter. You leftists keep yabbling mindlessly about "just a misdemeanor", when what you REALLY mean is "crossing the border is unimportant and should be ignored".

The difference is in most traffic violations you don't go to jail and if you do, you can request bail.

And yes, our immigration laws do consider a first time offense of crossing the boarder illegally a misdemeanor, a minor wrongdoing by definition. A first time offense carries a maximum of 6 mos in jail which is rarely used. To give you an idea how minor the offense is, Misdemeanor Trespassing carries a heavier penalty in most states and it wasn't until the 1996 immigration reform law that there was any legal penalty at all.

The first step in fixing the immigration system is to fix the law.

There is another difference. If they take away your kids for speeding, unlikely but I'll accept it. You have an actual idea were they are, and you can be certain that you will get them back after you get out of the "pokey" as you so colorfully said, providing that's the only thing you did, not only that you will have the benefit of assured legal representation. The people who get caught here have none of these assurances.

Unless you decide to keep trying to game the system by claiming, "Oh, I just wanted asylum, and thought you got that by sneaking into the country", you DO know where your kids are, and you get them back as soon as your case is processed. Better yet, if you ACTUALLY want asylum, you go to a port of entry and declare that fact, and the kids are never taken at all.

The first step in fixing immigration is to make it clear that we HAVE laws, and we demand that they be respected, and we aren't interested in having people in our country whose first act IN this country is to spit on it.

Guilt trip over how hard breaking the law makes a person's life? Keep it for yourself, because I'm not accepting delivery.

‘Hopefully, they’ll get you to her’: Texas judge can’t promise migrant families they’ll be reunited
This judge doesn't seem to agree with your stating of facts.

Okay, first things first. Citing Politico as a fact source? You already lost the argument, and I am now pissing on your pitiful excuse for intelligence.

Second thing: you should really try reading the article for context, rather than just pouncing on the headline.

"Magistrate Judge J. Scott Hacker, presiding over the hearing in Texas federal court, could tell her only that reunification with her child was out of his hands." That's quite true, since that's not his job. Does the fact that it's not the judge's job mean it's never going to happen? Uh duhhhh.

"“Hopefully, they’ll get you to her,” Hacker told the woman, who was communicating through a translator, before sentencing her to time served in detention and paving the way for her likely deportation." Again, all this tells us is that the judge is a gormless doof who shouldn't be allowed to speak extemporaneously. Says not one damned factual thing about anything else.

“I can’t promise you anything,” Hacker told a father asking about his son before receiving a sentence of time served. “That’s all up to another part of the government.”" Second part of the statement explains the first part. He CAN'T promise anything, 'cause that's not his job. Again, does that say anything at all about the people whose job it IS? Only if you're a drooling fool.

"All but 16 of the migrants whose cases the court heard on Monday were sentenced to time served in custody, and all but five had been apprehended since Thursday. " I guess that'd be that "prolonged, traumatic period of time" you leftist twats keep yabbling on about.

If you can find one thing in that article that is an actual, hard fact contradicting anything I've said, that'll be a pretty neat trick, 'cause it's not there.

 

[forkup]

So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid.

You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid. Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.

Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass

Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.

"Using hyperbole to make a point" is another way of saying "Saying something utterly ridiculous, because I have nothing real".

Next time, try debating like an intelligent adult, instead of a hyperventilating adolescent hormone bomb. Always assuming you have that capability.

FYI, if you really think parenting involves putting your children in risky situations comparable to traveling across third-world countries in the company of human smugglers in order to break illegally into a country which will put you in jail for doing so if they catch you, then I stand by my earlier statement that you should never have been allowed to breed.

How much risks do you think people on the Mayflower took to get to the US, they weren't all singles you know? And the risks were far greater? Did that make them unfit parents? Escaping crushing poverty, violence, or outright famine in some cases doesn't make you unfit. In fact it seems to me as a thoroughly responsible thing to do if the need is great enough. I find it outright alarming that for some Americans being for Trump means you don't question even something like this. I don't care if you call it "Common sense", "deserved" ,"criminal", "a matter of national security", " the Democrats fault" or any other justification. The fact remains that the US government is now at a point that they separate parents from their children for no better reason that they feel it would "deter" others. An act that even the First Lady, nor any other former First Lady supports. Today the US stepped out of the Human rights council. That's the state of the country. Human Rights are no longer something that the US is willing to promote and looking at this story even adhere to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How proud you must be supporting a policy that tears children from their parents arms WITHOUT regard. Stop pretending it has anything to do with stopping trafficking, you and I both know it doent and that is directky from the mouths of those who impmemented it as a deterrant. At least have the integrity to be honest about it.

------------------------- i don't care about the TRAFFICKING . I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law Coyote . --------------------- just a comment .

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)

"My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished." Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

See link posted above.

I'll take that as an "I have nothing".

 

[koshergrl]

------------------------- i don't care about the TRAFFICKING . I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law Coyote . --------------------- just a comment .

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)

"My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished." Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

See link posted above.

I'll take that as an "I have nothing".

I take it he's related to that other cretin..what was his name...who kept saying "I already posted the verification" and "Multiple threads have links in them that I posted that support what I'm saying in this thread now"...

that was just the other day...who the hell was that...

anyway I think he's this guy's sock.

 

[forkup]

------------------------- i don't care about the TRAFFICKING . I just want to scare the zhit out of the third worlders that they might have their kids taken from them if they violate American Law Coyote . --------------------- just a comment .

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)

"My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished." Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

See link posted above.

I'll take that as an "I have nothing".

I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"

 

[koshergrl]

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)

"My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished." Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

See link posted above.

I'll take that as an "I have nothing".

I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"

I'll take that as you admitting you can't actually iterate how the link supports your comments.

 

[Coyote]

You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid. Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.

Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass

Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.

"So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."

Dude, you were very clear. If you're not comparing them, this has no point.

I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling

Sometimes you take risks for your kids!

That sentence is entirely context driven. Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't

I don't know about anyone else, but the riskiest situations I put my kids in is sending them to a play group with other kids who MIGHT have germs. I most assuredly would not ever CONSIDER putting them anywhere near the evil filth in human form that is a coyote (someone who smuggles people across the border, for those of you who don't live in this area), or trekking across pretty much ANY country in Central America, or hiking through the Arizona desert (or Texas or New Mexico or California, for that matter).

Your fortunate entitled butt has never lived in a country where your children were ever in serious danger on a daily basis. You can thank your lucky hyperventilating hormonal ass you weren't born in Guatamala, Hondoras or El Salvadore because it is only by accident of birth you are here to smugly criticize their parenting skills.

In Gang-Ridden Honduras, Violence and Corruption Mean Few Grow Old

 

[Flopper]

Coyote

If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.

Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.

So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.

How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, separates, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?

Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?

Why all the emotion and no solution?

If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act. However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have some documentation.

First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.

Second, these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.

So there are no basic human rights?

You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what you fail to understand.

I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.

I SAID NOTHING ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime. The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.

 

[kaz]

You should never have been allowed to reproduce, simply because you're pig-stupid enough to compare crossing the street (presumably at an intersection, but given your shocking level of brain damage, I won't assume anything) with entering the country illegally.

Your post is invalid, your presumption of functional intelligence is invalid, your existence is invalid. Maybe you should send your kid in to debate on your behalf.

I wasn't comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. I was comparing putting kids in risky situations, to establish that doing so can be in the child's best interest in certain circumstances. I used hyperbole to make a point. The fact that you aren't capable of recognizing it for what it was and the fact that it prompted you to do an ad hominem attack, tells me everything I need to know about your debating skills.

Of course you were comparing crossing the street with illegal immigration. Read your post, dumb ass

Another one who has absolutely no clue about the use of hyperbole to emphasize a point. I read my post, I replied to a specific point Cecilie was making. The point that the parents put their kids in risky, dangerous situations. At no point did I say that crossing the street was like illegal immigration. I stated that putting your kids in risky situation can be a justifiable action. Trying to make a strawman argument shows a lack of actual good arguments.

"So do I, every time I let my kid cross the street,I do it because crossing that street gets her to school, that school is how she gets a future. Does this mean I should lose my parental rights? In the end, sometimes as a parent you take certain risks in order to provide a better future for your kid."

Dude, you were very clear. If you're not comparing them, this has no point.

I crossed a street with my kid, but I did it for them
I left my kid in the car while shopping, but I did it for them to let them finish their nap
I dropped my kid off a cliff, but I did it for them to earn stunt money to pay for their schooling

Sometimes you take risks for your kids!

That sentence is entirely context driven. Running across the hot desert is nothing like crossing the street in front of your school and being willing to do the latter doesn't justify the former, no it doesn't

Hence me clearly stating that I used hyperbole to emphasize my point. Hyperbole by it's nature is an exaggeration. I do not think they are similar but as such it did serve to emphasize that in the case of parents crossing the border they feel the risks they take are justified.

So mothers who rob banks to send their kids to better preschools shouldn't lose their kids because "they feel the risks they take are justified." That's what you think

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

Yeah, they are.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/immigration-deported-parents.html

I'm no more interested in the Times' wailing melodrama than I am yours. Get off the train tracks, Nell Fenwick; Snidely Whiplash is nowhere in sight.

And I'd give this "hard reporting" a D- in any journalism class. That "reporter" should be ashamed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Coyote

If you don't mind me bringing you back to this discussion, I've had a burning question. What is the probability that every adult who crosses our border illegally with a child is related to the child? How do we know they aren't lying? In that case, the moral onus lies on the adults who bring them here and use them as tools to leverage our government.

Of the 12,000 children who came here, 10,000 of them came here alone. The other 2,000 were brought here by adults claiming to be their parents. When DHS could not verify their relationship, they were separated. Once again, in accordance with existing law.

So I ask again, how can we know that these so called "parents" aren't lying and simply using the child as a tool? Do you wonder why so many children are classified as unaccompanied? Because their "sponsors" abandon them for fear of being discovered and deported themselves.

How can your side of the aisle claim to care about the relationship between parent and child when the parent willfully separates (yes, separates, something you're currently making a bid deal about) themselves from their child via sending them across the dangerous frontier and across our border? Where is the outcry over that? Oh, is it because the parent is trying to "make a better life for their child"? Where is your concern over the possibility of child trafficking?

Could it be possible you are ignoring, forgetting, or downright dismissing the fact that the separation in about 80% of the cases has already occurred?

Why all the emotion and no solution?

If there is any evidence of child trafficking, the immigration authorities should definitely act. However it is not logical to make that assumption without evidence of such. One of the few rights illegal immigrants have is Due Process. Since most of these families came with the intent of applying for asylum, most of them will have some documentation.

First... I can contend that the exact opposite is true. You can't assume that all of these adults with minors are in fact families.

Second, these people had no rights in America (constitutional or otherwise) before they crossed the border illegally, why should they suddenly attain them when they do? If you aren't a citizen, you should not be entitled to constitutional rights until you go through the proper channels. Period. Full stop.

So there are no basic human rights?

You want compassion to overrule the law. I want the law to stand sacrosanct against emotional arguments like yours. Too much emotion and compassion can erode the rule of law. You can have your basic human rights, but you surrender all others when you commit a crime against justly enacted law. That's what you fail to understand.

I'm beginning to think people like you and Coyote hold no respect for the law. Otherwise you would demand that it be enforced. But you want the law to be selectively applied.

I SAID NOTHING ABOUT DENYING THEM THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

No, you do not surrender rights by a committing crime. The accused certainly has constitutional rights, even non-citizens.

You're missing the point entirely. It makes zero sense to say that any illegal who sets foot on American soil gains constitutional rights when they do.

I believe in reciprocal punishment. If you violate the rights of others by committing a crime, you should lose yours. You have forfeited them because you had no respect for the rights of others. Due process is guaranteed, but the rest of your rights go bye bye.

 

[forkup]

Scare them? You have to be joking. In Guatemala children 10 to 15 are routinely kidnapped, raped and murdered and the police don't even investigation. Teens are forcibly recruitment by street gangs and transnational drug cartels, after witnessed the murders of family members, friends and classmates. Exactly how do you plan to scare the shit out of them?

Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)

"My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished." Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

See link posted above.

I'll take that as an "I have nothing".

I take it he's related to that other cretin..what was his name...who kept saying "I already posted the verification" and "Multiple threads have links in them that I posted that support what I'm saying in this thread now"...

that was just the other day...who the hell was that...

anyway I think he's this guy's sock.

Yes how insanely irresponsible off parents to try to go to the US when they so obviously live in paradise. You should definitely punish parents like that and send them on their way minus the children. After all they deserve no better. (I hope I laid on the sarcasm thick enough)

"My life sucks, so I'm going to break the law, and I'm going to drag my kid along while I do it so that I can use him to get out of being punished." Yup, that's insanely irresponsible, and they deserve exactly what they get for it.

Oh, and no one is "sending them on their way minus the children". Maybe you should have spent less time "laying on the sarcasm", and a little more time laying on the truth.

See link posted above.

I'll take that as an "I have nothing".

I"ll take that as" I'm to chickenshit to click a link that directly contradicts what I'm claiming"

I'll take that as you admitting you can't actually iterate how the link supports your comments.

‘Hopefully, they’ll get you to her’: Texas judge can’t promise migrant families they’ll be reunited
This judge doesn't seem to agree with your stating of facts.

Literately the post above hers.