Trump on Pregnancy (1 Viewer)

[Mark_]

@ Doc,

The separation of families is not mandated by law. One reason in some of the separations IS policy and stems from how some of the parents are being housed. Due to a lack of detention facilities some immigrants are being transferred to federal prisons. As the prisons are segregated by gender and lack facilities to house families, those transferred to them have their families broken up.

Now if the people trying to get in to the U.S. illegally would just give the Federal government enough notice to build and staff family friendly detention centers this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Frothingslosh]

And above we see sophistry and denial in action.

The laws do not require children to be stripped from their parents, because they do not require immigrants to be jailed before they have their day in court. Even if you wanted to detain undocumented immigrants, it's possible to house them without breaking up the families. The stripping of children from their parents is a choice, as Trump and Sessions made clear when it started, that has been made by the administration for the express purpose of trying to scare people into not coming to the US. It is also a form of punishment without conviction (which, unfortunately, is more and more accepted in the US - another example would be asset forfeiture, which can be done by LEOs without ever charging you with a crime, and which is permanent regardless of whether you ever get charged), as well as being vile, immoral, and a crime against humanity. The administration is planning on building more cages for the children it hasn't already handed over to child traffickers; it could just as easily build facilities for entire families, but CHOOSES not to. And people like Doc will accept it because they're too caught up in 'conservatives are good, liberals are bad' to see evil when it's staring them in the face. Hell, as you see in Docs post, he'll stand there approvingly and watch as the evil is performed in front of him.

He also conveniently forgot to mention that the reason no DACA change was made was because Trump straight-up promised to veto the compromise bill that Democrats and Republicans managed to put together, expressly because it wasn't punitive enough to those people brought here as children. He made it extremely clear that his idea of 'compromise' was going to be 'do precisely what I told you to do'.

Doc said it himself - American conservatives have come to hate and despise brown children simply because their parents brought them here. Funny how 'no tolerance' doesn't extend to white people, such as, say, a realtor-turned-politician's wife who spent years living and working in the US without a visa.

This sad situation is ENTIRELY on the shoulders of Trump and the GOP politicians who have given up even the pretense of acting for any purpose other than the furthering of their own wealth and power and that of the people who own them. And the rank-and-file conservative has become so lost to all human decency that they stand there cheering as the administration shows time and again the kind of moral standards that actively begs for negative comparisons to the rise of one of the most evil regimes we've seen in the industrialized world.

To quote today's announcement by Steve Schmidt, lifelong Republican and once senior advisor to John McCain, one-time Presidential nominee for the Republican party:

29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of The Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life. Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.

It is corrupt, indecent and immoral. With the exception of a few Governors like Baker, Hogan and Kasich it is filled with feckless cowards who disgrace and dishonor the legacies of the party's greatest leaders. This child separation policy is connected to the worst abuses of humanity in our history. It is connected by the same evil that separated families during slavery and dislocated tribes and broke up Native American families. It is immoral and must be repudiated. Our country is in trouble. Our politics are badly broken.

The first step to a season of renewal in our land is the absolute and utter repudiation of Trump and his vile enablers in the 2018 election by electing Democratic majorities. I do not say this as an advocate of a progressive agenda. I say it as someone who retains belief in DEMOCRACY and decency.

On Ronald Reagan's grave are these words. " I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph and there is purpose and worth to each and every life." He would be ashamed of McConnell and Ryan and all the rest while this corrupt government establishes internment camps for babies. Everyone of these complicit leaders will carry this shame through history. There legacies will be ones of well earned ignominy. They have disgraced their country and brought dishonor to the Party of Lincoln.

I have spent much of my life working in GOP politics. I have always believed that both parties were two of the most important institutions to the advancement of human freedom and dignity in the history of the world. Today the GOP has become a danger to our democracy and values.

This Independent voter will be aligned with the only party left in America that stands for what is right and decent and remains fidelitous to our Republic, objective truth, the rule of law and our Allies. That party is the Democratic Party.

He's far from the only person to flee the GOP as it becomes a greater and greater threat to human rights as well as Democracy itself. It's just sad to see so many so-called 'Americans' cheering on an organization that is blatantly goose-stepping the US to the fascist future they apparently hold so dear.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Oh, and for the record, 'They're only following orders/they're just doing what the law says' is called the Nuremberg Defense. It didn't save the Nazis, and one can only hope it won't save ICE.

 

[Vassago]

Just because it is the law doesn't mean it is right. While he cannot change the law, he does have the power to relax the enforcement of it or at least how it is interpreted to be enforced until Congress adopts the new one they are working on.

I mean, what's better? Keep separating them and creating a worse scenario for them that leads to more crime as they get older? This isn't solving the problem, it's making it worse.

How often are these children lost to their parents permanently after deportation? There was even an article the other day where a woman is suing the US because they LOST her child. She was detained and separated from him. Then she was granted a visa to stay, but they couldn't find her child after forcing the separation.

 

[Mark_]

@ Frothingslosh,

Isn't just “conservatives”. BOTH major political parties in the U.S. get involved in the same types of horrible, horrible abuse of power and blatant racism. Personally I don’t like either. BOTH are entrenched in their grabs for power.

Worst part is how each discriminates is different. Neither wants to see those who are in poverty get out.

What they do isn’t limited to “Brown” skin either. Most illegal immigrants come through the U.S./Mexican border because it is far easier to cross (and costs far less) than trying to fly in from Europe/Asia. This means that more detainees will be Hispanic than European. It doesn’t mean others are NOT detained, just that the media and politicians can point to more Hispanics as being “victims”.

For those who have money, they fly in on a visa. Their entry is “Legal”, but they “overstay”. Since they already have money they can afford a lawyer to make sure they don’t get detained. There are still Europeans who get deported, they just don’t make the news.

If there was a physical border between the U.S. and the Ukraine, you’d see the same issues but people would be talking about how “conservatives” discriminate against “Ukrainians” instead.

Please note, this is why you don’t hear about discrimination against Hispanics in Italy, but you do hear about their issues with people flooding in from Africa. Same basic problem, different groups involved.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Vassago, there are reports indicating that not only have up to 6000 children been permanently lost so far (there were 1500 in one month - April, maybe? - alone), but that hundreds of them wound up in the hands of child traffickers.

"We must enforce the law, no matter what" is not just a lie, but blatant hypocrisy. If police were obligated to enforce every law no matter what, for starters, there would be no warnings for traffic violations, people wearing US flag clothing and sitting on US flag towels would be arrested and fined, spitting in public would always result in tickets, and, well, there are some real crazy ones out there.

There's one town in Michigan that still has a law on the books that all drivers of motor vehicles are limited to 10 mph, and must have someone with a flag (during the day) or a red lantern (at night) at least 100 feet both in front and behind the vehicle to warn people that a car is coming; failure to follow that law comes with a $10 fine.

In Connecticut, it's illegal to sell pickles that don't bounce. Cops would have to inspect every pickle ever sold.

In one town in Delaware, it's illegal to trick or treat on Sunday.

In Gainesvill, GA, it's illegal to eat fried chicken with anything other than your fingers. Cops would need to enforce THAT.

So no, police are NOT actually obligated to enforce all laws on the books no matter what. It is and always has been a judgement call, with most departments having specific policies regarding which laws get enforced and which don't.

 

[Mark_]

"We must enforce the law, no matter what" is not just a lie, but blatant hypocrisy. If police were obligated to enforce every law no matter what, for starters, there would be no warnings for traffic violations, people wearing US flag clothing and sitting on US flag towels would be arrested and fined, spitting in public would always result in tickets, and, well, there are some real crazy ones out there.

More of an argument that says "We have stupid laws and need to remove them" than "We get to pick and choose which we enforce".

Personally I'd much rather see needless laws be removed AND the laws enforced consistently.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Oh, just remembered another good example: Sodomy laws.

Even back before they were deemed blatantly unconstitutional, they were only regularly enforced against gay men. Anal sex between a man and a woman was just as illegal, but the laws were almost never enforced against straight couples.

 

[Vassago]

And now Trump says he will sign an executive order stopping the family separations, something he should have done before making comments such as "the law is the law!"

I wonder why the sudden change of (lack of) heart.

 

[Vassago]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that laws prohibiting people from wearing, sitting on, stepping on, whatever they really want to do with the flag, are unconstitutional as they violate freedom of speech. They can't enforce them any more.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Ah yes, valid point. I see people on both sides of the political divide raging about that one so often that I sometimes forget about that...especially when I see someone sitting or standing on the flag while whining about those evil, unpatriotic liberals. (Saw that one this morning.)

Funny how quietly kneeling during the anthem in protest of police brutality is 'disgusting disrespect for the flag', but wearing it or parking your ass on it isn't.

Edit: To be specific, I knew burning the flag was legal, I just forget that the decision also included wearing, sitting on, and standing on it.

 

[Mark_]

You can pretty much do as you please to the flag, just make sure what you do is OK with your employer before you do it on company time as a representative of the company.

 

[Frothingslosh]

And now Trump says he will sign an executive order stopping the family separations, something he should have done before making comments such as "the law is the law!"

I wonder why the sudden change of (lack of) heart.

Missed this one.

My guess is that McConnell sat him down and explained (likely using one-syllable words) that this issue would utterly DESTROY the GOP this November if it were still in play on election day.

Well, as much as is possible when 30% to 40% of the electorate votes party and doesn't even pay attention to the issues, and more states than not are heavily gerrymandered red. I think that even with a mere 40% total vote, the GOP would still have between 45% and 50% of the seats in the House.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Frothy, I'm not saying that what is being done is right. But the ICE policy appears to be that they will charge the illegals with ... well, illegal immigration, which IS on the books as a crime. However, rather than letting the adults make bail (which most of the illegal immigrants won't be able to do anyway, having no collateral), they are being remanded to custody. The separation of families is NOT ideal and I don't think of it as a good thing, but we don't have the facilities to house whole families under reasonable conditions and still keep them in custody. We must remember that the goal is to send back the ones that have no business being here, and we can't do that if we can't find them. If we don't detain them then they will scatter into obscurity. We WON'T be able to find them in a timely manner when their deportation hearing comes up. You know that to be true and I will refuse to believe you if you choose to deny that statement.

Remember that at heart, I'm a believer in the practical side of things. Our jails are overcrowded already. If we build a detention camp like we did for the Japanese-Americans during WWII, I guess that might do the trick. But the guards needed to keep the illegals from escaping an open detention camp would also be prohibitively costly.

This is a no-win situation. If we detain them as a family, we have to guard them or lose track of them. If we release them on bond, they are in the wind. If we detain them in a way to assure that we CAN track them, then we get separation of children from parents because of the facilities we have to use. And the way the laws are written, we don't have many other options.

Further, it is true that DJT could issue an executive order telling someone to not enforce the laws of this country as written. OOPSIE - isn't that exactly what BHO did when he changed the reimbursement program on ACA, because without that change it would have fallen apart sooner? And wasn't that eventually deemed to have violated the "separation of powers" clause? DJT is not going to do that because it wasn't that long ago that he was excoriating Obama for doing that.

I don't know DJT personally, so I have to guess on some things. In the last few months, I have seen him as using the "carrot and stick" method in various ways. In specific for the gang in Congress, he delayed strict enforcement of DACA for two months. That didn't spur Congress to act, so now he's giving them the stick by strictly following the law to goad them into no longer sitting on their toches. I hate the fact that we have such a polarized and gridlocked Congress, but that is the way politics has gone in the last many years. Sometimes the only way to get them to act is to do something very distasteful and extreme. Sometimes even that doesn't work any more.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The USA needs a viable third party that is more in the middle of the road between liberalism and conservatism. This putative party needs to be big enough to essentially "rub it in the faces" of Congress that the ONLY way any of them will get what they want is through a dreaded C-word. Compromise.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It would appear that DJT has found a way to at least temporarily halt the separation of families. That made it on our news this evening. Another "carrot" to Congress with hopes that they will give him a new law on the subject. But if Congress passes it up again, I suspect he will have to reinstate the zero-tolerance policies again.

 

[ColinEssex]

So has this separation law just come in? If not what has been the process over the last 20-30 years. Why was it not working?

Mexican immigration has been going on since the Wild West Cowboys and Indians time.
Surely that's enough time to develop and implement a robust user friendly policy. How hard can it be?

Doc, I had no idea you were a Trump lover. It must be weird to support a president who polled the least votes from the populace but still won the election.

The British government is currently deciding whether to cancel his proposed visit to the UK because of his irrational and bizarre methods.

Col

 

[Frothingslosh]

Colin, I really hope they do. The Orange Hitler-Wannabe is an embarrassment and is absolutely unable act like a civilized human being, much less the leader of a nation, and all that would come from such a visit would be him embarrassing himself AGAIN and yet more fraying of our relations with our allies.

Doc, I don't care how 'reluctantly' you bought into the Trump administration's lies, nor how 'reluctantly' you supported that abomination of a policy. Anyone who supported the completely unnecessary separation of families and the detention and LOSING of thousands of immigrant children, especially based on a blatant lie even a brain-damaged three year old could see through, has proven themselves to be completely morally bankrupt and is walking proof of just how far America has fallen. Those who supported this travesty are vile, utterly reprehensible wretches turning to any possible excuse to justify their blatant racism, and any of them claiming to be Christians (or even decent people) are lying to themselves.

And you supported this bullshit, so spare me your lies and self-justifications about how reluctantly you joined this evil, or about how your lord and master claimed he had no other choice. You mindlessly spewed the lies you were fed by the administration, despite them being blatantly, demonstrably false. That is something I've gotten used to from you, but until now I've accepted your claims to being good at heart, despite your support for a racist hatemonger, but this support of breaking families up, imprisoning children, and freaking LOSING THEM is beyond the pale. Lie to yourself about being a decent person in a bad situation if you must, but stop lying to the rest of us. Your support of this unforgivable nazi-esque travesty shows otherwise.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The level of vituperation is unworthy of you, Frothy. More than once I said it was not a good policy. I have made it clear in the past that I didn't vote FOR Trump so much as I voted AGAINST Hillary. And in some of the things he does, I actually DO support DJT for saying what needs to be said on the international front. The US has been "Uncle Sugar" for too long for the international thugs who take our money and spit in our faces. Cutting off some of those thugs would relieve the stress on our treasury, however much it is like a drop in the bucket. And explaining something with a different viewpoint than others might have does not equate to full-on support for everything he does.

But you don't like my pragmatic viewpoint. That's fine. And as to the implied comparison to a brain-damaged three-year-old, thank you. It's a step up from 'pond scum' that I have heard on other occasions, not necessarily from you. It is a common practice among the liberal-leaning types to yell like hell because they know their arguments are otherwise kind of weak.

I support enforcing the integrity of our borders. YOU TELL ME how you do that without some form of incarceration that prevents the dispersion of those you wish deport. But when you do, tell me WHERE you will perform this incarceration. Given the numbers of people, tell me which facilities can support this load without becoming like a gulag. If you can't, then you are just a side-lines rabble-rouser who seeks moral high ground in an attempt to support the criminal behavior of illegally crossing USA borders.

Don't try to use your outrage to hide the fact that they are breaking the law. Don't tell me we have to do something else without say more specifically what that something else is. I have no intention of rolling over and playing dead in the face of your anger. I am glad for your sake that Trump did something I didn't think he could do. On that fine point, I was incorrect in an assumption. There, happy now? (Probably not.)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

So has this separation law just come in? If not what has been the process over the last 20-30 years. Why was it not working?

No, the law was on the books but for eight years before DJT came into office, Obama used executive orders to essentially ignore it and fan the flames of illegal entry to the USA. And before that, I don't remember details of what was being done. But I know that whatever it was, it wasn't enough.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The bitter elitist left still doesn't understand the last election. Its about the forgotten middle class. The people you keep giving the middle finger to for the last 50 years.

Presidential elections are decided by the middle class and not the fringe right or lunacy left.