Must Read Trump backs down, orders end to family separations at U.S. border

[bushdoctor]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So you still don't see the difference between separating the children from their parents and keeping them together.

 

The Flores agreement has made keeping families together illegal. 

 

[bushdoctor]

16 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

Its only a binary choice because Trump has created the rhetoric that illegal immigrants are the root cause of everything thats wrong with America. In saying that and pushing the "blame the immigrants" agenda, he is obliged to enforce the laws etc. 

Trump could have campaigned that people with red hair are the problem and he would now have a binary decision to enforce laws against redheads.

 

No, it’s a binary choice because there are only two options. Allow illegal immigration or not. 

There are no laws against red heads and there are laws against illegal immigration. Every country has them as far as I know. 

Edited June 24, 2018 by bushdoctor

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

 

If I shoplift, it’s a misdemeanor. It’s as much of a ‘victimless crime’ as illegal immigration IMO.  

I don’t get a free pass if I shoplift with my child. If I’m arrested the child is taken. If I’m convicted I’m separated from my child. 

Very few people would blame the government for arresting me, or blame the shoplifting law. Most people would probably put the blame directly on me where it belongs and think of me as a bad father. 

 

 

Again, you return to your ‘head loop’ with ridiculous comparisons and ‘But But But.... the law’.

 

This isn’t about the law, it’s about public opinion.

 

Forcibly separating children from their parents and caging them in ‘internment ‘ camps, has outraged millions of Americans.

 

And we’ve not yet seen the whole truth of this.

 

The government are denying news reporters access, the government are denying the Red Cross access.

 

And you are clinging to you ‘but but But... its the law’.

 

 

Let’s see where this goes (clue it’s not going where Trump wants it to go).

 

[bushdoctor]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again, you return to your ‘head loop’ with ridiculous comparisons and ‘But But But.... the law’.

 

This isn’t about the law, it’s about public opinion.

 

Forcibly separating children from their parents and caging them in ‘internment ‘ camps, has outraged millions of Americans.

 

And we’ve not yet seen the whole truth of this.

 

The government are denying news reporters access, the government are denying the Red Cross access.

 

And you are clinging to you ‘but but But... its the law’.

 

 

Let’s see where this goes (clue it’s not going where Trump wants it to go).

 

There are no internment camps. 

 

The fact is...it IS the law. 

[JCauto]

48 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

How many billionaires do you actually know? They can be asses just like the rest of us. 

None. You said smart people, not billionaires. And you just made my point - you don't necessarily have to be smart to be a Billionaire. 

[Andaman Al]

9 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

The Flores agreement has made keeping families together illegal. 

 

That is a Breitbart, Fox, Info Wars, Trump Supporter Lie. And it is clear it is a lie because one can read the Flores agreement.

[bristolboy]

37 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

   1 hour ago,  bristolboy said: 

Utter and absolute nonsense.

If the government had unlimited resources to enfoce all the lawsyou might have point. In fact, Federal enforcement of various laws is always a matter of priorities and resources. The Trump administration has made this it's #1 law enforcement priority based on lies about the harm that illegal immigration is doing to the nation.

____________________________________

 

How is my post complete and utter nonsense?  I said it’s pretty much a binary choice. Trump can either enforce the law or allow illegal immigration. He chose the former. (And in keeping with his campaign promises that helped get him elected.)

I challenge you to show me where it’s not a binary choice under current law? 

Are you saying that the Obama administration did something illegal by releasing detained immigrants on their own recognizance? Don't think so.

And as I pointed out, there was a pilot program that addressed this problem. Illegal immigrants weren't detained but kept track of through a system. The compliance rate was 99%, And just about as soon as it could, the Trump administration killed that program. The Trump administration is deliberately choosing the harshest enforcement measures as punishment.

 

And as noted earlier, he proposes to harm other law enforcement programs to fund this one.

 

And I didn't know that campaign promises were legally  binding. If so, you might ask Trump why he's done nothing to fulfill his promise to institute e-verify as a way to restrict illegal immigration

[stevenl]

15 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

The Flores agreement has made keeping families together illegal. 

 

Which also applied to Obama, but families were kept together.

 

Why don't you just be a man and admit, 'I don't care about children being separated, shut down the borders and build that wall'.

Edited June 24, 2018 by stevenl

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

The Flores agreement has made keeping families together illegal. 

 

No it didn't. It made imprisoning families illegal. Not the same thing.

[bushdoctor]

It’s not a lie. Go ahead and read the Flores agreement. It’s also easily researched.

I’ll suggest this site as a starting point....

 

www.lmgtfy.com

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by bushdoctor

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

 

If I shoplift, it’s a misdemeanor. It’s as much of a ‘victimless crime’ as illegal immigration IMO.  

I don’t get a free pass if I shoplift with my child. If I’m arrested the child is taken. If I’m convicted I’m separated from my child. 

Very few people would blame the government for arresting me, or blame the shoplifting law. Most people would probably put the blame directly on me where it belongs and think of me as a bad father. 

 

 

Really? Shoplifting is a victimless crime? Is stealing a victimless crime. Because that's what shoplifting is.

And why is it being a misdemeanor relevant? (Apart from the fact that it isn't always a misdemeanor).

[bushdoctor]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Are you saying that the Obama administration did something illegal by releasing detained immigrants on their own recognizance? Don't think so.

And as I pointed out, there was a pilot program that addressed this problem. Illegal immigrants weren't detained but kept track of through a system. The compliance rate was 99%, And just about as soon as it could, the Trump administration killed that program. The Trump administration is deliberately choosing the harshest enforcement measures as punishment.

 

And as noted earlier, he proposes to harm other law enforcement programs to fund this one.

 

And I didn't know that campaign promises were legally  binding. If so, you might ask Trump why he's done nothing to fulfill his promise to institute e-verify as a way to restrict illegal immigration

Nope, never made that claim, but you already know that. 

 

The catch and rejease prigram was a failure. It had a very high rate of no shows. People skipped out and disappeared int the country. 

[bushdoctor]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Really? Shoplifting is a victimless crime? Is stealing a victimless crime. Because that's what shoplifting is.

And why is it being a misdemeanor relevant? (Apart from the fact that it isn't always a misdemeanor).

Omg. Because illegal entry is a misdemeanor, unless it’s a felony. 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, bushdoctor said:

Nope, never made that claim, but you already know that. 

 

The catch and rejease prigram was a failure. It had a very high rate of no shows. People skipped out and disappeared int the country. 

And as I also pointed out there are other ways to do this. And the Trump administration wants nothing to do with them.

[bushdoctor]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

And as I also pointed out there are other ways to do this. And the Trump administration wants nothing to do with them.

 

What other ways did you name? 

 

[bristolboy]

Just now, bushdoctor said:

 

What other ways did you name? 

 

I didn't name any. I just wanted to see how interested you were in finding out.

"The family case management program, a pilot started in January 2016, allowed families seeking asylum to be released together and monitored by caseworkers while their immigration court cases proceeded.

The pilot was implemented with around 700 families in five metropolitan areas, including New York and Los Angeles, and it was a huge success. About 99 percent of immigrants showed up for their hearings."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/opinion/children-detention-trump-executive-order.html

It also cut cost the government $36 per day, a tiny fraction of what it cost to lock families up.

If you want to learn more about it, you'll find more here:

https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/The-Real-Alternatives-to-Detention-FINAL-06-27-17.pdf

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

 

Millions of people disagree with you on that.  There are also statistics but I really don’t like statistics much, too easily manipulated. 

It affects things you might not be thinking of. You can find them by doing a quick internet search. 

So you do agree then, the opinions of millions of people matter.

 

Which is exactly what’s happening now.

 

Millions of Americans are outraged over Trump ‘hiding’ behind the excuse that he is just following the law.

 

The longer this goes on, the worse it gets for Trump and the Republicans.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

Millions of people also want secure borders. 

 

You seem to like to play word games. Why. Don’t you address the issues with honesty and in a genuine way? 

I am.

 

The US is a democracy, Trump has made a major miscalculation.

 

His lies didn’t help and are not helping.

 

This on’e on Trump -November is on its way.

[Scott]

Posts removed.   Continue with the trolling and bickering and you WILL be put on suspension.  

 

You have been warned.  

 

 

[bushdoctor]

50 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Which also applied to Obama, but families were kept together.

 

Why don't you just be a man and admit, 'I don't care about children being separated, shut down the borders and build that wall'.

 

The Flores agreement was made in response to Obama’s enforcement. It could only have applied to him after it was made. 

Please do at least some fact checking before you post. 

[stevenl]

Good information on Flores agreement on Vox, https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17484546/executive-order-family-separation-flores-settlement-agreement-immigration.

[bushdoctor]

Let’s not forget that only Congress can write laws. The president can’t do it.

[bristolboy]

10 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

 

No, it’s a binary choice because there are only two options. Allow illegal immigration or not. 

There are no laws against red heads and there are laws against illegal immigration. Every country has them as far as I know. 

Trump doesn’t need to put families in detention centers to enforce his immigration policy. There are better options.

Community supervision and electronic monitoring are two alternatives that the government has used instead.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/22/17483230/family-separation-immigration-alternatives-immigrant-detention-centers

[bushdoctor]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Trump doesn’t need to put families in detention centers to enforce his immigration policy. There are better options.

Community supervision and electronic monitoring are two alternatives that the government has used instead.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/22/17483230/family-separation-immigration-alternatives-immigrant-detention-centers

Hasn’t this been posted already? 

This still amounts to releasing illegal immigrants into the community. Breaking the law should not be rewarded. That only encourages more. 

Edited June 24, 2018 by bushdoctor

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, bushdoctor said:

 Haven't you posted about this already? 

This still amounts to releasing illegal immigrants into the community. Breaking the law should not be rewarded. 

Actually, if you're awaiting trial then you haven't been convicted yet. By your logic, nobody who is charged with a crime and awaiting trial should be released into the community. And this is a victimless crime to boot. So nothing in the nature of the crime represents a threat to the community. 

 

[JCauto]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, if you're awaiting trial then you haven't been convicted yet. By your logic, nobody who is charged with a crime and awaiting trial should be released into the community. And this is a victimless crime to boot. So nothing in the nature of the crime represents a threat to the community. 

 

Bawk! Law is law! Bawk! Black or white! Bawk! 

Just thought I'd give you bushdoctor's response to save him some time. His favourite book in the last 10 years was a bit naughty, "0 Shades of Gray".

[bristolboy]

A devastating article by Dalia Lithwick:

 

How They Defend the Indefensible

 

You can call it a “policy” (Jeff Sessions) or you can call it a not-policy (Kirstjen Nielsen) or you can call it a “law” (Sarah Huckabee Sanders). You can say that yes it’s a policy but nobody likes it (Kellyanne Conway) or you can say it’s a “zero-tolerance” enforcement of a Democratic law (Donald Trump) or a zero-tolerance enforcement of an amalgam of various congressional laws (Nielsen) or a zero-tolerance enforcement of the Department of Justice’s own preferences with respect to enforcing prior laws (Sessions).

You can say the purpose of the Justice Department’s family separation policy is deterrence (Stephen Miller, John Kelly) or you can claim that asking if the purpose of the policy is deterrence is “offensive” (Nielsen)...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/how-the-trump-administration-is-defending-its-indefensible-child-separation-policy.html

[bushdoctor]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, if you're awaiting trial then you haven't been convicted yet. By your logic, nobody who is charged with a crime and awaiting trial should be released into the community. And this is a victimless crime to boot. So nothing in the nature of the crime represents a threat to the community. 

 

We’re talking about people who enter illegally right? 

[bushdoctor]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

A devastating article by Dalia Lithwick:

 

How They Defend the Indefensible

 

You can call it a “policy” (Jeff Sessions) or you can call it a not-policy ( Kirstjen Nielsen) or you can call it a “law” (Sarah Huckabee Sanders). You can say that yes it’s a policy but nobody likes it (Kellyanne Conway) or you can say it’s a “zero-tolerance” enforcement of a Democratic law (Donald Trump) or a zero-tolerance enforcement of an amalgam of various congressional laws ( Nielsen) or a zero-tolerance enforcement of the Department of Justice’s own preferences with respect to enforcing prior laws (Sessions).

You can say the purpose of the Justice Department’s family separation policy is deterrence ( Stephen Miller, John Kelly) or you can claim that asking if the purpose of the policy is deterrence is “offensive” ( Nielsen)...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/how-the-trump-administration-is-defending-its-indefensible-child-separation-policy.html

This purposely takes comments out of context. 

[bushdoctor]

It’s really humorous to me that being opposed to immigration law seems to mean you need to try to change facts and use tricky wording. Why can’t legitimate facts be enough to let people decide? 

Edited June 24, 2018 by bushdoctor