‘I Can’t Go Without My Son,’ a Mother Pleaded as She Was Deported to Guatemala

[Machismo]

Spreading around via social media isn't enough for what would be needed and ample transportation isn't really true when the US public transportation is crap and personal transportation isn't exactly cheap either and gas is going up again making it even worse.

That is an entirely over simplistic view of the issue and would not solve anything without government enforcement of it. You can't stay mobilized 24/7 on every single issue let alone remain informed on them constantly as the moment the people fatigue or get distracted on an issue, those who run the companies can claw it back without government enforcement of it.

Whether it is direct worker protection laws or enforcement of union contracts, it still takes government protections or else they aren't worth anything in the long run.

Removing the government from this venue just allows the biggest players to assume the role of government but with less oversight and more incentive to screw over people for personal gain.

Forming boycotts isn't difficult. The hard part is getting people to actually follow through, and put their money where their mouths are.

[Fugus]

Forming boycotts isn't difficult. The hard part is getting people to actually follow through, and put their money where their mouths are.

Even a boycott would not be enough and would be temporary at best and you can't boycott everything indefinitely till things change and then keep doing it repeatedly forever. You ignored everything I just posted with this comment.

[Machismo]

Even a boycott would not be enough and would be temporary at best and you can't boycott everything indefinitely till things change and then keep doing it repeatedly forever. You ignored everything I just posted with this comment.

I have been boycotting Wal-Mart for 15 years (with 3-4 exceptions in that time). I'm still boycotting Chevrolet and Ford. Boycotting doesn't take a great deal of vigilance. It requires that you simply choose to spend your money elsewhere.

[Fugus]

I have been boycotting Wal-Mart for 15 years (with 3-4 exceptions in that time). I'm still boycotting Chevrolet and Ford. Boycotting doesn't take a great deal of vigilance. It requires that you simply choose to spend your money elsewhere.

And again, that isn't a viable option for everyone and certainly not constantly. Not everyone has as many options as you do and many of these issues would require you to boycott over half of all industries out there along with the fact that many industries you can't entirely boycott no matter what you do because they have a monopoly or duopoly in a market in an area.

And again, you still ignored the meat of the post.

[Machismo]

And again, that isn't a viable option for everyone and certainly not constantly. Not everyone has as many options as you do and many of these issues would require you to boycott over half of all industries out there along with the fact that many industries you can't entirely boycott no matter what you do because they have a monopoly or duopoly in a market in an area.

And again, you still ignored the meat of the post.

It's viable for most people. It was viable 30 years ago, and we lived in the boondocks. Not only can you do it as a consumer, do it as an employee. Now, if you want to get into the monopolies and duopolies, most of those are a direct result of government interference. The top of that list would be things like utilities, and ISPs. The government helps to limit competition for both.

[Fugus]

It's viable for most people. It was viable 30 years ago, and we lived in the boondocks. Not only can you do it as a consumer, do it as an employee. Now, if you want to get into the monopolies and duopolies, most of those are a direct result of government interference. The top of that list would be things like utilities, and ISPs. The government helps to limit competition for both.

Your situation isn't my situation which isn't the situation of countless others. It isn't viable for everyone and in many situations it isn't viable for most people depending on the problem. It was more viable 30 years ago than it was now virtually across the board though.

And when it comes to Monopolies and Duopolies, I wouldn't say most of them are the direct result of government interference. They are the direct result of government refusing to interfere where they should be while trying to mess around where they aren't needed.

Good examples, internet. It has a huge sunk in cost of installation and is generally considered a natural monopoly given the costs and the fact they have to rip up streets and yards to lay cable whether it be actual cable, fiber, or DSL. These are markets that will naturally tend to only a single provider without government intervention and would require the city, county, or state owning the last mile of the infrastructure and leasing out out to the ISPs to have any actual competition.

It also has the downsides of the first person established basically can strangle anyone who comes in unless they are just as big. Their sunk costs are already paid so when the new guy comes in, just lower prices to near break even and starve them out at which point you raise the prices back.

Then you have companies like Walmart that comes into an area with prices, wages, and benefits far above what others can offer, then after you have strangled out all the local competition, the claws come out, the wages and benefits die and the prices go up some. I watched this personally where I live. They waited till basically you couldn't boycott them realistically and strangled out the local competition before doing so.

And the list goes on.

Your view ignores the reality of the situation mistaking it for the situation you specifically had 30 years ago when we had better worker protections and benefits and more competition than we do now.

[Machismo]

Your situation isn't my situation which isn't the situation of countless others. It isn't viable for everyone and in many situations it isn't viable for most people depending on the problem. It was more viable 30 years ago than it was now virtually across the board though.

And when it comes to Monopolies and Duopolies, I wouldn't say most of them are the direct result of government interference. They are the direct result of government refusing to interfere where they should be while trying to mess around where they aren't needed.

Good examples, internet. It has a huge sunk in cost of installation and is generally considered a natural monopoly given the costs and the fact they have to rip up streets and yards to lay cable whether it be actual cable, fiber, or DSL. These are markets that will naturally tend to only a single provider without government intervention and would require the city, county, or state owning the last mile of the infrastructure and leasing out out to the ISPs to have any actual competition.

It also has the downsides of the first person established basically can strangle anyone who comes in unless they are just as big. Their sunk costs are already paid so when the new guy comes in, just lower prices to near break even and starve them out at which point you raise the prices back.

Then you have companies like Walmart that comes into an area with prices, wages, and benefits far above what others can offer, then after you have strangled out all the local competition, the claws come out, the wages and benefits die and the prices go up some. I watched this personally where I live. They waited till basically you couldn't boycott them realistically and strangled out the local competition before doing so.

And the list goes on.

Your view ignores the reality of the situation mistaking it for the situation you specifically had 30 years ago when we had better worker protections and benefits and more competition than we do now.

At some point, people have to be responsible for themselves. They have to take initiative, and put in the effort. Expecting the government to always take care of you... doesn't usually end too well.

[Fugus]

At some point, people have to be responsible for themselves. They have to take initiative, and put in the effort. Expecting the government to always take care of you... doesn't usually end too well.

Again, you are ignoring the issues here, that reasoning is overly simplistic and ignores the overall issues and ignoring the fact that the government is also a tool used as part of that process.

It typically takes the people taking initiative and putting in the effort before the government acts many times. And again, you think that removing the government will remove government in this situation, it won't. It will allow the businesses to assume the roll of government in this area which is even worse.

This is an area where you are either dealing with the government you elected or you are allowing the companies to become the government you didn't elect and aren't beholden to you at all.

Pick your poison and if you pick to get rid of the government to allow the companies to take on that role, you are picking to hurt yourself, your children, and your future even more based on ideology rather than have someone who is at least partially accountable to you in charge.

[Machismo]

Again, you are ignoring the issues here, that reasoning is overly simplistic and ignores the overall issues and ignoring the fact that the government is also a tool used as part of that process.

It typically takes the people taking initiative and putting in the effort before the government acts many times. And again, you think that removing the government will remove government in this situation, it won't. It will allow the businesses to assume the roll of government in this area which is even worse.

This is an area where you are either dealing with the government you elected or you are allowing the companies to become the government you didn't elect and aren't beholden to you at all.

Pick your poison and if you pick to get rid of the government to allow the companies to take on that role, you are picking to hurt yourself, your children, and your future even more based on ideology rather than have someone who is at least partially accountable to you in charge.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it's a shitty defense of laziness and complacency.

[Fugus]

I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it's a shitty defense of laziness and complacency.

And your response is a shitty response because it ignores the reality of the situation and provides a solution that is a non-solution as it doesn't work and isn't viable in many of the situations. Boycotting many of these places aren't as easy as boycotting facebook or google.

[Machismo]

And your response is a shitty response because it ignores the reality of the situation and provides a solution that is a non-solution as it doesn't work and isn't viable in many of the situations. Boycotting many of these places aren't as easy as boycotting facebook or google.

Boycotts work. Period. What it takes, is a bit of resolve. Don't blame me if you can't be bothered to put your money where your mouth is.

[Fugus]

Boycotts work. Period. What it takes, is a bit of resolve. Don't blame me if you can't be bothered to put your money where your mouth is.

Again, your solution is a non-solution when taken by itself and ignores the reality of the world we live in.

It isn't about putting my money where my mouth is, it is about looking and see how just that isn't enough to motivate change when there is no real legal teeth to anything and the public can't be 100% at attention at all times on every issue and many times a boycott isn't really possible in every situation which is where the government comes in at times.

Government regulation, just like Unions, Boycotts and all is a tool and it is actually one of the single most important tools as it is the one with the most teeth when it is properly used and actually doing its job.

[draganid]

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the democrats use immigrants to line their voterbase, pretending they value them and their lives, the only reason they do is for the votes, if 50%+ of immigrants voted republican the democrats would not care about immigration issues and would never push them this hard on their media.
And if the majority of immigrants voted republican, republicans would be the one fighting against border control and trying to make mass immigration easier, instead of the democrats.

Its pathetic that either side would use mass immigration as a political tool even though it damages the country as a whole and puts its future at risk.
If you suddenly let in 150 million immigrants and none of them cared one bit about democracy or freedom, how long would it take for democracy and freedom to die?

if the repubs would lighten the fuck up about illegals they probably WOULD vote repub! they mostly come from heavily catholic backgrounds and have similiar values about abortion and being gay. it blows my mind that they arent trying to fast track them to being citizens to pump up their voter base with actual young people and not the dinosaur crowd they love so much

[Deleted]

Oh and for the record, if you're going to break the law don't involve your children.

"Oh and for the record, if your parents are going to break the law, don't go with them, because as a child, you are fully within your rights to disobey your parent and fully within your rights to stay behind when your parent decides to move."

I mean, I get it, Trump, Sessions and everyone who supports them want to punish all those evil, evil people who are seeking a better life in the US and do so illegally, but I wonder, does a single one of those aforementioned people ever realize that they're actually punishing innocent children for decisions that they did not make.

Oh, I forgot completely!

There's no need to realize that that's what they're doing. Just keep on spewing the complete and utter lies about it being the Democrats' fault, and a law that the Democrats "forced" on Trump and his administration!

[Torto]

"Oh and for the record, if your parents are going to break the law, don't go with them, because as a child, you are fully within your rights to disobey your parent and fully within your rights to stay behind when your parent decides to move."

I mean, I get it, Trump, Sessions and everyone who supports them want to punish all those evil, evil people who are seeking a better life in the US and do so illegally, but I wonder, does a single one of those aforementioned people ever realize that they're actually punishing innocent children for decisions that they did not make.

Oh, I forgot completely!

There's no need to realize that that's what they're doing. Just keep on spewing the complete and utter lies about it being the Democrats' fault, and a law that the Democrats "forced" on Trump and his administration!

Spare me the blather, there are kids all around the globe who suffer from the result of bad parents. If you're going to give a free pass to every immigrant because they have a child then you might as well not have a border at all, which we all know is the end game for the 'no borders' leftists. And I know your type, bleeding hearts for immigrants right up to the point they move into your neighborhood then you don't want to know. It's people like you that are the reason Europe is in such a shitty position.

[gobio]

This is her and her home back in Guatemala, is there any doubt as to why she wanted to come to the US?

They bring their kids because they know it will mess up the system, they used to just release the women and children until a hearing date came up because they didn't know what to do with the kids.

I feel sorry for them but if we open the borders three quarters of Latin America will move to the US, I know I would if I were them.

Oh please, there are 13 billion Chinese, those live in rural area lives not much better than that picture, those live in city suck in poison air in ALL major chinese city.
Say the word and open your border. NOW!

[DarkTZeratul]

Oh please, there are 13 billion Chinese, those live in rural area lives not much better than that picture, those live in city suck in poison air in ALL major chinese city.

And if there weren't an entire fucking ocean between us they'd probably be coming across our border, too. As it is, they're actually contributing to a considerably greater category of illegal immigrants: those who come legally on work or tourist visas and then don't leave.

[Noradin]

Does that apply, though? Afaik, immigration courts are not criminal courts to begin with. That's why those unaccompanied minors are not given attorneys, after all.

That is the excuse, the intent is to scare immigrants away.
And it does apply insofar as these minors cannot be arrested for a "crime" their parents commit.

[Macaquerie]

Spare me the blather, there are kids all around the globe who suffer from the result of bad parents. If you're going to give a free pass to every immigrant because they have a child then you might as well not have a border at all, which we all know is the end game for the 'no borders' leftists. And I know your type, bleeding hearts for immigrants right up to the point they move into your neighborhood then you don't want to know. It's people like you that are the reason Europe is in such a shitty position.

At least the no borders leftists recognize that America, Australia, and the European countries are not actually part of a unified Republic of Whitestan. This issue in no way affects you, please refrain from commenting on it further.

[GreenJesus]

Looks like she got to contact his son and he has been having fun and learning. Longwinded sob story and a waste of time. Thanks. Next time don't cross the border illegally. Thanks for playing.