Herein lies the problem. The U.S. is no longer sparsely populated like in the 1800s. We have 325 million people. In 1950 we only had 151 million meaning our population has more than doubled in 60 years. There are already plenty of people here in inner cities and rural areas living in bad circumstances. Do we want to just keep taking people until we are overpopulated like China or India, where there is mass pollution and there are massive throngs of people living in poverty as they outstrip their resources? I think we should certainly still take immigrants, but immigration must be controlled and limited to those who apply legally. If we overpopulate and outstrip our resources, what is there left for the democrats to rule over? A polluted impoverished wasteland. (Insert your democrat jokes about detroit and other midwestern cities here)
I'd process them like we've done previously and appear to be going BACK to. House the families together while you process them. By taking the kids away from the parents the law prohibited these individuals from the expedited process. In other words, the intimidation tactic actually slowed down their processing and potential trip back to their home country. Finally, will someone please admit that DJT was full of **** when he proclaimed he had no power to do anything and only Congress could make this change? Rivers of excrement have been flowing from the administration on this poorly thought out policy change.
I did not find the “womp womp” comment funny at first and normally would not, but as I see the left and the media keep exaggerating this into “Trump is torturing children in concentration camps during a flood”, I am starting to find “womp womp” funny in response to the extreme exaggerations.
As opposed to Laura Ingraham calling the detention centers "summer camp"? The histrionics from both sides have been uphalling (sic).
I 100% agree that it is certainly not a summer camp or a good situation either, which is why I’m still on the “stop separating the families” side. I have seen the comments you describe as well find them equally ridiculous. It would be nice if both sides and the media would just call it what it is “a bad situation.” It is not torture and it is not a summer camp. It is not the worst situation, but it is not a good situation. It is a bad situation.
Actually he's correct in the long run. DJT knows that his executive action might not last the courts, especially with a conservative judge. That's why we need legislation pronto.
He signed an order. Everybody is going along with it not because it's legal but because that's what they want to do. Who would challenge it now? Certainly not the Democrats.
did Ingraham refer to the centers as summer camp ... or that the minors couldn’t be separated for a period which is barely the period of a summer camp (that these aged people would attend if they were here legally) I’ve made the same correlation to the PERIOD of time in these centers (20 days according to the Flores decision) ... that’s barely the length of a good summer camp. Anyhow ... It’s typical for words to be misconstrued for whatever purpose ... I’d be surprised to hear Ingram was stating the conditions/situations were “just like being at summer camp” Big Diff.
Are the notorious Trump lovers and Right-wing zealots at Vox.com (people like Ezra Klein and Dara Lind) spreading Trump's "rivers of excrement?" Link. From the article, "The executive order is titled “Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation,” and that’s not just wishful thinking. The Trump administration will need Congress to act quickly to validate the decision to keep families detained indefinitely. If Congress fails to act, it’s unlikely that the federal judiciary is going to allow this order to stand in its current form — because it appears to violate the 1997 Flores settlement that the administration cited as the reason it couldn’t detain families indefinitely to begin with." Or how about those Breitbart-imitators and starter kits at Time Magazine? Link. Here's what you're missing (or glossing over) in this. The people who are saying that Trump has a choice in the matter are not saying so because they think the law allows him to detain families together as the parents are prosecuted for improper entry. They are saying that he has a a choice because they think he can choose not to enforce the underlying criminal statute against improper entry. They are careful about how they're wording their argument, because they know how bad and dangerous it sounds to say that a written federal law should just be blown off as though it doesn't exist, but that is precisely what they're arguing. If anyone is a disingenuous bullshitter in this, it's them. Can Trump choose not to enforce the criminal statute as they want? Well, if we don't care about written laws, then I suppose so. However, Article II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." So if you care about the Constitution, then no, he doesn't have a choice. Of course, if one doesn't care about a federal statute being enforced, there's little reason to care if Art. II, Sec. 3 is followed or enforced. After all, it's still "just" a written law that's standing in the way of Left-wing orthodoxy. The reason why this issue and this line of thinking pisses me off and drives me toward polarization is that it's much bigger than Trump, separated children, or even democratic government itself. It goes to the heart of governance by laws and basic order rather than arbitrariness and opens the question of why we even have a president and a Congress rather than choosing the far more efficient government by an absolute monarch barking arbitrary and whimsical orders as he or she sees fit. It's a core, fundamental question that goes back to the Magna Carta, yet it's being deployed deceptively and frivolously as a cheap political tactic and maneuver.
"Who would challenge it now? Certainly not the Democrats.[/QUOTE] Bustander Apparently many Dems do not like it even though their faux outrage for 10 days has been over evil Trump separating the children. Their continued faux outrage is laughable and revealing.
Of course Democrats will challenge it. The last thing they want is due the issue to get resolved easily. They won't publicly fight it, but one of their activist groups will do it for them.
Bustander Apparently many Dems do not like it even though their faux outrage for 10 days has been over evil Trump separating the children. Their continued faux outrage is laughable and revealing.[/QUOTE] I hear you; but I just can't believe they'd take the chance to blow it now that they've gained a bit of political traction in all of this. They can say activism works, they made him back down etc... But as an Israeli diplomat once said, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." You may be right that the zealots on the Left will blow this one too because they are so obsessed. They can't think straight.
Funny and revealing to see Dems with their panties in a wad over Trump' s EO. For 10 days their faux outrage was over the separation of children from the adults who brought them here. The crying has been hilarious. Now that the children will not be separated Dems are all waddy since " kids do not belong in jails". At least Schumer admits this is about TDS.
And that's why this whole thing is horse crap. They don't want the law enforced. That is what this is really about for the Democrats, and that is all it is about.
Deez for the walk off Home run!!! GIVE US A KING ... indeed. Smh Copied/pasted in its entirety ... for emphasis. Thanks Deez “Are the notorious Trump lovers and Right-wing zealots at Vox.com (people like Ezra Klein and Dara Lind) spreading Trump's "rivers of excrement?" Link. From the article, "The executive order is titled “Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation,” and that’s not just wishful thinking. The Trump administration will need Congress to act quickly to validate the decision to keep families detained indefinitely. If Congress fails to act, it’s unlikely that the federal judiciary is going to allow this order to stand in its current form — because it appears to violate the 1997 Flores settlement that the administration cited as the reason it couldn’t detain families indefinitely to begin with." Or how about those Breitbart-imitators and starter kits at Time Magazine? Link. Here's what you're missing (or glossing over) in this. The people who are saying that Trump has a choice in the matter are not saying so because they think the law allows him to detain families together as the parents are prosecuted for improper entry. They are saying that he has a a choice because they think he can choose not to enforce the underlying criminal statute against improper entry. They are careful about how they're wording their argument, because they know how bad and dangerous it sounds to say that a written federal law should just be blown off as though it doesn't exist, but that is precisely what they're arguing. If anyone is adisingenuous bullshitter in this, it's them. Can Trump choose not to enforce the criminal statute as they want? Well, if we don't care about written laws, then I suppose so. However, Article II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." So if you care about the Constitution, then no, he doesn't have a choice. Of course, if one doesn't care about a federal statute being enforced, there's little reason to care if Art. II, Sec. 3 is followed or enforced. After all, it's still "just" a written law that's standing in the way of Left-wing orthodoxy. The reason why this issue and this line of thinking pisses me off anddrives me toward polarization is that it's much bigger than Trump, separated children, or evendemocratic government itself. It goes to the heart of governance by laws and basic order rather than arbitrariness and opens the question of why we even have a president and a Congress rather than choosing the far more efficient government by anabsolute monarch barking arbitrary and whimsical orders as he or she sees fit. It's a core, fundamentalquestion that goes back to the Magna Carta, yet it's beingdeployed deceptively and frivolously as a cheap political tactic and maneuver.”
Laura's comments were in the context of an article in the San Diego newspaper, where the writer indicates that the center she visited was very much like how you'd envision a boarding school, just with tighter security. It wasn't a draconian torture institution, it wasn't squaller, and in fact, it was comfortable with resources for continuing education and health care. So as I remember, her comment was something to the effect of "some of which are more like summer camps," referring to the fact that the kids are treated very well. She never claimed all of the centers were that way. And she never claimed that there haven't been issues of poor judgment and execution in regard to how the kids have been handled.
Why does anybody, lefty or righty, take anything Laura Ingraham says seriously? Her whole value is throwing out "I can't believe anyone would say that!" statements. She's like a right wing Bill Maher without a sense of humor.
Looks like Trump is doing the right thing. The only losers right now are the 55% of Republicans who liked the idea of asylum seekers being separated from their children.
For shits and giggles, I decided to look at what their platform currently says. I found this. "[We] denounce and call for an end to all family detention centers." The self-righteous BS and blatant dishonesty from these frauds is absolutely astounding.
I personally am long-ago fed up with cow-towing to people who are breaking the laws and, on top of that, are being given rights that are reserved for citizens of the US. I would argue it IS a summer camp compared to what they endured to get to said camp.
The problem is the clear indication that Mexico, the illegal immigrants and a significant number of Left-wingers don't care about our immigration laws. We know it. They are flooding the border and using politically coordinated sanctimony to get their way. I believe that is why they have hardened hearts about the children.
I'm all for viable borders and tough, even-handed enforcement of immigration laws. I think the perceived of immigrants "flooding our border" is every bit as much a contrivance as the outrage over family separation.
You beat me to it. It's a major problem and downplaying it is part of the Left's political strategy. They are provoking the heavy-handed response by Trump. I'm glad Trump stepped up on separating the kids but the real story is that they are coming daily in droves, they are being supported by the Cartels, the coyotes are making money, they are using their children as pawns and in short, have brought this all upon themselves. The failure of the Democrats to unite behind the law is telling and we know why.
Agree bystander Just like saying that 55% of Republicans like the idea of separating children from the person who illegally brought them here. What complete bs.
Look, people, it's just this simple. You are the captain of a commercial fishing boat who has responded to a distress call of another boat that has gone down. You arrive and start snatching people out of the water and onto your boat. However, you can see that your boat cannot carry them all without sinking itself and you need help from other boats, which thus far has not come. Do you just continue to take on survivors until your own boat sinks, dooming everyone? Or do you stop taking on more passengers and shooting those that try to climb aboard against your commands? You have to realize that if you try to save everyone, you may very well end up saving no one and condemning your own crew to death as well. This is where we are with illegal immigration in this country. Hard choices have to be made in order to save our boat and our crew, which *should* be foremost in the captain's mind.
Politicians and the media are a joke. Especially the left considering most media outlets are liberal. If Billary was in office this would be a non-issue as cnn wouldn't even report it.
