What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Perhaps you weren't listening to Cecilie, go read her posts again.

I wasn't listening at all, dope. I read it.


Cecile is dishonestly suggesting that every child is smuggled into the country rather than arriving with their parents. I chose not to address that but rather stick to the point.

 

[Coyote]

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.

They do have some Constitutional rights.

Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?

I never said they didn't. I said they shouldn't.

why shouldnt they? Everyone in this country citizen or not has some Constitutional protections, esp due process. It is whst seperates us from barberic rwgimes that can throw you in jsil for fictitous chsrges.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Mlll.

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.

Who's rights were violated?

Seriously?

The people who are going through this process legally. People who come here legally and are born here legally to legal parents. The people who lost their lives because we chose to have compassion on the lawbreaker instead of the victim (think Kate Steinle).

I could go on if you want. This is why I don't have any compassion right now. Nobody seems to want the consequences to be applied. Nobody.

Instead of offering a solution, Democrats choose to wear their feelings on their sleeve.

What rights are they violating?

It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.

In terms of victims such as Steinle the only perspn who violatrd her rights was was the one who killed her. No one else.

It isn't the Dems' responsibility? Excuse me, who makes the laws in this country? That'd be Congress, right? Some members of which are Dems? So wouldn't that mean that making laws to correct a situation they don't like IS their responsibility? Otherwise, what the **** are we paying them for? I myself don't consider "viewing with alarm" and grandstanding in front of the cameras to be a valuable public service I'm willing to pay my tax money for.

At what point do you go from, "This is wrong! This is horrible! Quick, everyone hate Trump!" to calling for something that is actually productive and meaningful to solving the alleged problem, such as . . . just off the top of my head here . . . a law that changes it?! 'Cause I'm still waiting for you to call for a solution that addresses the situation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.

It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:

Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart

But hey, this was Trump's fault.

 

[HappyJoy]

It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.

It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:

Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart

But hey, this was Trump's fault.

Those were children that crossed over on their own. Not ripped apart by government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"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.

You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims? Seriously?

I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.

It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.

And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.

You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.

No, I'm ignoring a point a blithering lackwit like YOU thinks is valid, because intelligent people recognize it as utter drivel.

Let me put this more clearly for you, since you seem to not be grasping the English:

Comparing criminals to the Pilgrims is ludicrous. It is an attempt at analogy so lame a third-grader would be embarrassed to try it. There is no amount of you screaming, "It's valid! No, it IS! You HAVE to accept it as valid!" that's going to make it worthy of me taking it seriously and responding to it.

Furthermore, the fact that you're championing it is just proof that I'm right to spit on it and walk away.

Now then, do let me know if any of this is still unclear, won't you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

They do have some Constitutional rights.

Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?

I never said they didn't. I said they shouldn't.

why shouldnt they? Everyone in this country citizen or not has some Constitutional protections, esp due process. It is whst seperates us from barberic rwgimes that can throw you in jsil for fictitous chsrges.

Yeah, but by allowing everyone to cross our border willy nilly like you apparently want them to do, we become inseparate from those barbaric regimes, by allowing that barbarity to permeate our society. Because not every person who crosses our border illegally is an angel.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You certainly aren't in opposition in this case.

Ha. Of what? Child abuse? That's weaksauce man.

My father was a victim of child abuse, he routinely told me horror stories. He was molested by his brother and beaten with a crossiron. He was starved, and his father tried to kill him.

No. Don't you dare insinuate that I support child abuse. None of what our President does to these children comes remotely close to that level of child abuse. Nor does it rise to the level of child abuse at all.

Causing mental and emotional harm to children over prolonged periods of time is certainly child abuse. Especially when done when discrestion allows for altenatives.

Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.

And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"

Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.

And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"

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

Discretion as in prosecutorial discretion, dope.

All of the people will be dealt with. Those who don't qualify or apply for asylum are deported immediately. Those who qualify are processed. Those granted asylum can stay and those denied are immediately deported.

Where is there "no enforcement" in that?

Oh, the government is going to their countries, dragging them up here, and shoving them across the border illegally? Is that what's happening?

"Prosecutorial discretion" = "do we prosecute or not?" DOPE.

"No enforcement" would be in the "You CAN'T put kids in foster care while their parents are locked up!" which leads to "You MUST release the parents with the children so they can be together", which is the same as not bothering to enforce the borders at all.

It's not that I don't think you're plenty stupid enough to really believe the garbage you're shoveling; it's just that I don't happen to think that's what's at play here.

What did they do seven weeks ago and for the last year, dope? They didn't prosecute those applying for asylum who crossed illegally and therefore did not have to separate them. It is done now by choice. By policy. By prosecutorial discretion, dope.

You are again attempting to dishonestly suggest that there is no enforcement without
this zero tolerance policy. The truth is, all of these people who were apprehended will be processed. That would be true even if there were no new policy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Perhaps you weren't listening to Cecilie, go read her posts again.

I wasn't listening at all, dope. I read it.


Cecile is dishonestly suggesting that every child is smuggled into the country rather than arriving with their parents. I chose not to address that but rather stick to the point.

No, shitstain. This just demonstrates how very little you actually know about the border and illegal immigration, you armchair Einstein.

I never once said all children smuggled into the country arrive without their parents. NO ONE has ever said that. The fact that you assume it's a binary either/or choice is evidence that you're pontificating on a subject you know less about than I do about quantum physics.

Let me guess, ass napkin. You didn't realize that coyotes ALSO smuggle adults and family groups across the border, as well as unaccompanied children?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.

It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:

Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart

But hey, this was Trump's fault.

Those were children that crossed over on their own. Not ripped apart by government.

Hey, now the government is "ripping children apart", according to Brain Trust here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

'Cause I'm still waiting for you to call for a solution that addresses the situation.

Heh, I think I remember saying something to that effect yesterday. But alas, emotions and bleeding hearts rule the day, not the rule of law.

As the old saying goes, people who don't like a law as it currently stands should strive towards changing it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ha. Of what? Child abuse? That's weaksauce man.

My father was a victim of child abuse, he routinely told me horror stories. He was molested by his brother and beaten with a crossiron. He was starved, and his father tried to kill him.

No. Don't you dare insinuate that I support child abuse. None of what our President does to these children comes remotely close to that level of child abuse. Nor does it rise to the level of child abuse at all.

Causing mental and emotional harm to children over prolonged periods of time is certainly child abuse. Especially when done when discrestion allows for altenatives.

Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.

And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"

Then perhaps their parents shouldn't do it.

And we all know about your "discretion allows for alternatives", otherwise known as "just stop enforcing the border!"

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

Discretion as in prosecutorial discretion, dope.

All of the people will be dealt with. Those who don't qualify or apply for asylum are deported immediately. Those who qualify are processed. Those granted asylum can stay and those denied are immediately deported.

Where is there "no enforcement" in that?

Oh, the government is going to their countries, dragging them up here, and shoving them across the border illegally? Is that what's happening?

"Prosecutorial discretion" = "do we prosecute or not?" DOPE.

"No enforcement" would be in the "You CAN'T put kids in foster care while their parents are locked up!" which leads to "You MUST release the parents with the children so they can be together", which is the same as not bothering to enforce the borders at all.

It's not that I don't think you're plenty stupid enough to really believe the garbage you're shoveling; it's just that I don't happen to think that's what's at play here.

What did they do seven weeks ago and for the last year, dope? They didn't prosecute those applying for asylum who crossed illegally and therefore did not have to separate them. It is done now by choice. By policy. By prosecutorial discretion, dope.

You are again attempting to dishonestly suggest that there is no enforcement without
this zero tolerance policy. The truth is, all of these people who were apprehended will be processed. That would be true even if there were no new policy.

Catch and release (term) - Wikipedia

Next time, look it up your own lazy self. DOPE.

If it's so "dishonest" to suggest there's no enforcement without the zero tolerance policy, then why don't YOU tell me what they did seven weeks ago that was so much better?

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

You're comparing criminals sneaking into our country to the Pilgrims? Seriously?

I hope you won't be too surprised that I'm not even going to bother reading this puddle of rancid piss.

It's a valid comparison if you say these refugees are bad parents for taking their kids on a dangerous trip. No wonder you won't answer it, coward.

And now I've gone from ignoring a puddle of rancid piss to ignoring a puddle of festering vomit.

You're ignoring a valid point in an argument is what you're doing.

No, I'm ignoring a point a blithering lackwit like YOU thinks is valid, because intelligent people recognize it as utter drivel.

Let me put this more clearly for you, since you seem to not be grasping the English:

¿Que?

Comparing criminals to the Pilgrims is ludicrous. It is an attempt at analogy so lame a third-grader would be embarrassed to try it. There is no amount of you screaming, "It's valid! No, it IS! You HAVE to accept it as valid!" that's going to make it worthy of me taking it seriously and responding to it.

Unclench your nuts. The question is about the moral decision to travel with children on a risky trip, nothing more.

Furthermore, the fact that you're championing it is just proof that I'm right to spit on it and walk away.

Now then, do let me know if any of this is still unclear, won't you?

So, answer the question, why are parents who put their children on a boat and then a foreign land where many died a good parental decision and those running away from rape, murder, forced prostitution and other perils an example of bad parenting?

I mean, other than your need to delegitimize these people.

 

[Kondor3]

It's time to begin redefining "due process" for Illegal Aliens who are caught on our side of the border, and fast-walking Illegals through what's left after redefinition.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Lots of good information but the fact remains there is no law that requires Trump to separate the kids from their parents at the border. This is policy which can be changed at the discretion of the president. Claiming the law made me do it is just bullshit. He clearly feels separating the kids from the parents is a determent so why doesn't he admit it. I'm sure most of his supporters would agree.

The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it. I realize that you think the President can just pick and choose what laws to obey and how to do so, but don't think for a second that I believe you wouldn't be screaming about "imperial Presidency" if Trump started acting like Obama.

It is the law that crossing the border without permission is a criminal act. It is the law that the President is required to enforce the law. And it is the law that children cannot be held longer than 20 days.

It is not President Trump's job to make law, or to ignore it.

The fact remains that there ARE laws that require it.

Only after the parents are prosecuted which is the new policy, fool.

No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days. Period. End of discussion. You can say, "Trump can just sign an order to ignore that" and force me to say it for 100 more times on top of the 100 you've done it so far, but the answer will remain the same.

The only fool here is the one who deliberately forgets what he's told five seconds after it's said, because he REALLY wants to believe he can wish the world different.

Let me save you some time.

The law requires that children whose parents have been arrested MUST not be detained longer than 20 days.

"Trump could just issue and executive order and change that."

The President does not have the legal authority to ignore or change the law unilaterally. Congress could change it, but I notice you're not spending ANY time excoriating the people who have that power, and ALL your time blaming someone who doesn't.

Until I hear you say something about "Why doesn't Congress do something?" you lack all moral credibility on this subject, and have summarily lost the debate.

There. Now copy and paste that somewhere, and stop chasing your tail.

No, dumbshit, the law requires that if the parents are arrested, the children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days.

"If"

The new policy changed that to "when".

The separation is the result of their zero tolerance, 100% prosecution policy, dope.

There's no getting around that.

Damned right it did, and if you're looking for us to be ashamed that people breaking the law are being arrested, you're barking up the wrong tree.

The separation is the result of people trying to break our laws and game our system, DOPE.

There's no getting around THAT.

So now you admit it's the policy? Nice flop, loser.

It is the policy of this president that is unnecessarily bringing pain and suffering to children for nothing more than bolstering his support from his loser base.

These people have been processed for decades without any such deplorable measures.

 

[MikeK]

How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?

Unnecessary? Why is it unnecessary?"

If someone perpetrates a burglary while accompanied by his/her two year-old. If you are a cop, or a sentencing judge, what do you do?

 

[HappyJoy]

It isnt the Dems responsibility to clean up Trump's mess.

It wasn't Trump's mess to begin with. I didn't see you wailing about this four years ago when these images came along:

Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused in Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed | Breitbart

But hey, this was Trump's fault.

Those were children that crossed over on their own. Not ripped apart by government.

Hey, now the government is "ripping children apart", according to Brain Trust here.

From their families, idiot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unclench your nuts. The question is about the moral decision to travel with children on a risky trip, nothing more.

You don't have the right to lecture anyone on morals when you let the decisions of parents who send their children on dangerous journeys alone to pass without so much as a whimper on your part. No. Willfully exposing a child to danger is perhaps the most immoral thing one can think of.

 

[HappyJoy]

How about the unnecessary separation of children from their parents?

Unnecessary? Why is it unnecessary?"

If someone perpetrates a burglary while accompanied by his/her two year-old. If you are a cop, or a sentencing judge, what do you do?

These people didn't perpetrate a burglary, they sought asylum. At worst they committed a misdemeanor.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I see. This is only if you
By that logic everybody who ever emigrated with kids should all lose their parental rights. See the only way your argument works is, if you see parents who try to cross the border as reckless and not desperate. By the way I love how you so studiously used air quotes when saying people. So you didn't have to use parents. Like taking away parents from their children because of something that is even by law a simple misdemeanor is not by it's very nature immoral and makes them undeserving of raising a kid.

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

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

Which is of course much better than the situation they're fleeing.

There's an old saying regarding the actions of refugees. " Parents only put their children in a boat whe the land is no longer safe."

What a load of horseshit. I realize you want to pretend that every single one of these people is fleeing horrible persecution, but the fact is that most of them just want to take advantage of our standard of living. Which is understandable, but it's also not my ******* problem.

I don't have to pretend anything. We have a process that determines that. It's you pretending that is not the case.

That's right, we do. And that system says if you want asylum, you take your happy ass to a port of entry and tell them so. If you choose instead to cross the border between ports of entry, the system THEN says that your ass is a criminal and gets arrested.

It's YOU pretending that that's somehow "outrageous" or "eeeeevil" or "shocking". The only thing outrageous and evil and shocking here is how the last thing on your mind is the protection of your own ******* country.

We've managed to process those claims for decades without these measures. Trump has taken us down to the level of dictators.

Protection? These people are all already in custody, dope. Prosecuting them and separating families does noting to change that.