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

[JCauto]

4 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

Nope, it’s entering the country illegally that’s the problem, it’s a crime.  Applying for asylum is fine. 

Trump nor anyone else has nmade misdemeanors into felonies. 

It's a "crime" that has been treated as a misdemeanor in both Democratic and Republican administrations since its promulgation in 1996 (under Bill Clinton). As you well know, the administration has choices they can make in terms of how they view the law and prosecute it. And this administration has broken with previous ones in most respects, including this one, with the explicit choice of making life particularly difficult on anyone seeking to enter the USA, whether legally (seeking asylum) or not. When you remove people's ability to seek asylum by restricting the avenues by which they can do that and make any alternative illegal, then you inevitably are driving desperate people to escape their situation (which is life and death in terms of those seeking asylum) through breaking the law. That these policies and outcomes didn't occur prior to this administration demonstrate how different administrations treat the law differently and achieve very different outcomes. 

 

What I don't understand is why are the Trump supporters continuing to try to defend the clumsy and obvious attempts to change the application of the law as being something other than what they are. He ran on this platform, his Base are clearly in favour of these actions and want them continued, and they've managed to manufacture consent among a significant number of people that "illegal immigration" is a major problem despite not having much evidence for the claim. So why try to pretend this is just some continuation of business as usual? You have pushed for this policy and want it, so defend it. You wanted this, you got it, now you can't live with the optics of the cruelty that underpin it. This is because, ultimately, anyone with basic empathy for others can see what this is - institutionalized racism. 

[oldhippy]

4 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

Of course not. A better question might be are any of those things grounds for asylum. They are not. So if that bothers you I understand, but the thing to do is change the law, not endlessly complain about those who enforce it. 

So you are going lawyerish now?

I was talking about morals.

Again, reincarnate in Guatemala or Southern Sudan, next talk about grounds for asylum.

[pedro01]

 

If you rob a bank with a child - should you be seperated(sic) from the child?

[oldhippy]

1 minute ago, pedro01 said:

 

If you rob a bank with a child - should you be seperated(sic) from the child?

Who robbed a bank?

[Credo]

19 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

If you rob a bank with a child - should you be seperated(sic) from the child?

What an illogical canard.    They did not rob a bank and if they had they would be separated from the child.   The child would not be separated from them and put in detention.   

 

[canthai55]

7 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Even a Trump Library sounds like an oxymoron.

You know what would be appropriate - a Trump Super Max

With a banner over the entrance - "Wish You Were Here"

[Voodoochile]

None of this would happen if they enter the country the legal way.  That's all they deserve for trying to sneak in.

[oldhippy]

23 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

If you rob a bank with a child - should you be seperated(sic) from the child?

Yeah, bank robbers and "illegal" immigrants are all the same. Why not throw in gypsies, tramps and thieves?

[oldhippy]

1 minute ago, Voodoochile said:

None of this would happen if they enter the country the legal way.  That's all they deserve for trying to sneak in.

Oh? Can they enter the country "the legal way"?

PS: whose "legal ways"?

"Legal ways" as defined by Humanity, or as defined by Das Herrenvolk?

[Voodoochile]

1 minute ago, oldhippy said:

Oh? Can they enter the country "the legal way"?

PS: whose "legal ways"?

"Legal ways" as defined by Humanity, or as defined by Das Herrenvolk?

As defined by the country they are trying to enter  (in this case the USA) ??? Do you understand???

[Voodoochile]

Long live the Donald.

[oldhippy]

18 minutes ago, Voodoochile said:

As defined by the country they are trying to enter  (in this case the USA) ??? Do you understand???

no

 

[bushdoctor]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

It's a "crime" that has been treated as a misdemeanor in both Democratic and Republican administrations since its promulgation in 1996 (under Bill Clinton). As you well know, the administration has choices they can make in terms of how they view the law and prosecute it. And this administration has broken with previous ones in most respects, including this one, with the explicit choice of making life particularly difficult on anyone seeking to enter the USA, whether legally (seeking asylum) or not. When you remove people's ability to seek asylum by restricting the avenues by which they can do that and make any alternative illegal, then you inevitably are driving desperate people to escape their situation (which is life and death in terms of those seeking asylum) through breaking the law. That these policies and outcomes didn't occur prior to this administration demonstrate how different administrations treat the law differently and achieve very different outcomes. 

 

What I don't understand is why are the Trump supporters continuing to try to defend the clumsy and obvious attempts to change the application of the law as being something other than what they are. He ran on this platform, his Base are clearly in favour of these actions and want them continued, and they've managed to manufacture consent among a significant number of people that "illegal immigration" is a major problem despite not having much evidence for the claim. So why try to pretend this is just some continuation of business as usual? You have pushed for this policy and want it, so defend it. You wanted this, you got it, now you can't live with the optics of the cruelty that underpin it. This is because, ultimately, anyone with basic empathy for others can see what this is - institutionalized racism. 

Nope, it’s just enforcing the law. The only difference is trump isn’t stupid enough to release the offenders and hope they show up for their hearing. He is actually enforcing the law unlike his predecessors. You can wordsmith it but that doesn’t make it any less true. 

[Voodoochile]

1 minute ago, oldhippy said:

no

 

Then I suggest you get some help

[oldhippy]

3 minutes ago, Voodoochile said:

Long live the Donald.

When people run out of arguments (if they ever had any), they start screaming slogans.

Do you think your hysterical screaming contributes to the discussion?

 

[bushdoctor]

1 hour ago, JCauto said:

It's a "crime" that has been treated as a misdemeanor in both Democratic and Republican administrations since its promulgation in 1996 (under Bill Clinton). As you well know, the administration has choices they can make in terms of how they view the law and prosecute it. And this administration has broken with previous ones in most respects, including this one, with the explicit choice of making life particularly difficult on anyone seeking to enter the USA, whether legally (seeking asylum) or not. When you remove people's ability to seek asylum by restricting the avenues by which they can do that and make any alternative illegal, then you inevitably are driving desperate people to escape their situation (which is life and death in terms of those seeking asylum) through breaking the law. That these policies and outcomes didn't occur prior to this administration demonstrate how different administrations treat the law differently and achieve very different outcomes. 

 

What I don't understand is why are the Trump supporters continuing to try to defend the clumsy and obvious attempts to change the application of the law as being something other than what they are. He ran on this platform, his Base are clearly in favour of these actions and want them continued, and they've managed to manufacture consent among a significant number of people that "illegal immigration" is a major problem despite not having much evidence for the claim. So why try to pretend this is just some continuation of business as usual? You have pushed for this policy and want it, so defend it. You wanted this, you got it, now you can't live with the optics of the cruelty that underpin it. This is because, ultimately, anyone with basic empathy for others can see what this is - institutionalized racism. 

It’s still a misdemeanor, so how can it be treated any differently? This is not a new law. 

Edited June 22, 2018 by bushdoctor

[Voodoochile]

2 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

When people run out of arguments (if they ever had any), they start screaming slogans.

Do you think your hysterical screaming contributes to the discussion?

 

Actually seeing that it came after I answered your post that was just spontaneous support to the man and some of his policies.

 

And people scream slogans for a lot of different reasons actually, victory (or just being right) is one of them:))

 

 

 

 

[oldhippy]

1 minute ago, Voodoochile said:

Actually seeing that it came after I answered your post that was just spontaneous support to the man and some of his policies.

 

And people scream slogans for a lot of different reasons actually, victory (or just being right) is one of them:))

 

 

 

 

I will not waste more time on "a true believer".

Ignore list.

What happened to "Enjoy life and don't mess it up for others"?

 

 

 

 

[neeray]

54 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

When people run out of arguments (if they ever had any), they start screaming slogans.

Do you think your hysterical screaming contributes to the discussion?

 

"Long Live the Donald"

 

They assassinated JFK, his brother and Dr Martin Luther King !

[oldhippy]

How about a compromise?

Let all of Central America emigrate to the US, with an Einstein Visa (like Melania).

 

 

[wayned]

3 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

It’s still a misdemeanor, so how can it be treated any differently? This is not a new law. 

True it is a misdemeanor, but if the immigrant goes to an immigration officer and tells them that they want to apply for asylum, the officer should have them fill out an I- 589 form which is an application for asylum and for withholding of removal which vacates the misdemeanor charge until the application is either approved or denied by an immigration court.  The application does not have to be done at a port of entry but can be applied for in the US within one year of arrival by the immigrant whether he/she is here legally or illegally.

 

" If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum. "

 

If the immigrants that are entering illegally are in fact stating that they want asylum and ICE is arresting them for illegally entering the US, ICE, Trump, Sessions, and their cohorts (Steven Miller and John Kelly) are violating the current law whether we like it or not!

[bushdoctor]

1 hour ago, wayned said:

True it is a misdemeanor, but if the immigrant goes to an immigration officer and tells them that they want to apply for asylum, the officer should have them fill out an I- 589 form which is an application for asylum and for withholding of removal which vacates the misdemeanor charge until the application is either approved or denied by an immigration court.  The application does not have to be done at a port of entry but can be applied for in the US within one year of arrival by the immigrant whether he/she is here legally or illegally.

 

" If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum. "

 

If the immigrants that are entering illegally are in fact stating that they want asylum and ICE is arresting them for illegally entering the US, ICE, Trump, Sessions, and their cohorts (Steven Miller and John Kelly) are violating the current law whether we like it or not!

Although that sounds nice, reality is it’s being severely abused resulting in a current 600,000 person backlog. Everyone should know by now, if you entervillegslly you WILL be prosecuted. That doesn’t prevent them from applying for asylum. 

 

Before you you could come in with a child, claim asylum and disappear. Not a secure border. Trump promised to secure the border. He is doing what he said he would do. I don’t know why all the surprise and shock that breaking laws has consequences. As an experiment, try that in many other countries and reality will hit you. If I overstay my visa in Thailand, bot even sneaking in, I can be blacklisted. Even though they can be reasonably sure I’m there to spend money, not take it. 

Edited June 22, 2018 by bushdoctor

[bushdoctor]

I randomly search Canada and this is the first thing I saw.....

 

https://www.immigroup.com/news/entering-canada-illegally-has-consequences

[mtls2005]

7 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

A lot of people are getting their information from news sources like this. It’s no wonder there is so much confusion. Did anyone actually listen to the video of Secretary Nielsen that I posted? It explains a lot.

 

 

The caption should have been "Lock her up". And if she wasn't "locked up" that is truly wonderful news, but clearly thousands of other children have been locked up.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

That is not a trump policy, he is only enforcing the law as he promised to do in his campaign. Trump has a choice, prosecute illegal imigration or let them continue to come in. What did you really expect? If there is a law that needs to be fixed then congress needs to fix it. That’s how government works. 

And the Republicans have control of Congress.

 

So take your pick, Trump, the Republicans or Trump and the Republicans.

[stevenl]

11 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

That is not a trump policy, he is only enforcing the law as he promised to do in his campaign. Trump has a choice, prosecute illegal imigration or let them continue to come in. What did you really expect? If there is a law that needs to be fixed then congress needs to fix it. That’s how government works. 

So what when the president asks Congress not to fix anything because it would look bad? And tells them to wait till after the elections?

[mtls2005]

34 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So what when the president asks Congress not to fix anything because it would look bad? And tells them to wait till after the elections?

 

Trump being Trump.

 

He's made a political calculation that he can retain both majorities by invoking the Immigration scare.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

I randomly search Canada and this is the first thing I saw.....

 

https://www.immigroup.com/news/entering-canada-illegally-has-consequences

Have another ‘random search’ and see if you can find the Canadian government caging children in concentration camps.

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Trump being Trump.

 

He's made a political calculation that he can retain both majorities by invoking the Immigration scare.

The poster I responded to in claiming Trump can't help it, he is only doing what the law requires him to do, Congress should act.

 

Maybe this will convince him it is Trump who wants this.

[mtls2005]

Seems like he's quadrupling down, resurrecting the playbook of Lee Atwater (and Roger Stone and Paul Manafort) with the "Willie Horton" gambit.

 

When did "Angel Families" become a thing?

 

Trump autographed photos of deceased crime victims for White House 'Angel Families' event

 

President Donald Trump appears to have autographed photos of deceased young people that were featured at a White House event Friday highlighting victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.

 

There were 11 photos total being held up by family members who had lost loved ones, and all of the photos bore Trump's unmistakably scrawled signature in large-tipped black pen.

 

Autographing the photos was an unusual decision, in that it appeared to combine the celebrity element of an autograph with the solemn image of a dead loved one.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/22/trump-autographed-photos-of-dead-crime-victims-for-white-house-event.html

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2018 by mtls2005