Separating children from parents at border rationale "were just enforcing the law!"

[Mormolyce]

So earlier in the week I was debating whether to openly predict that Trump would fold and issue an EO ending the separation practice. I usually don't like to make concrete predictions, because no matter how obvious something seems you always have to take into account the fact we're talking about the US and Trump here, two intensely irrational actors.

But yeah, since everyone under the sun decried it, he caved. But really a lot of the damage has been done, these images will still be fresh come the mid-terms. And what did it accomplish? Any boner this gave the white supremacists has gone flaccid now.

This is what happens when you listen to a retard like Stephen Miller.

[Kiri]

Something which you assert is a core value.

I find no duty in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence requiring our government to spend blood and treasure for the well-being of anyone other than Americans.

I am loyal to my fellow American citizens. The rest of you might as well be so much dust.

- - - Updated - - -



"Ideals" are subjective. The Constitution is not. There is no duty in the Constitution laid upon our government to spend tax dollars on the well-being of those who aren't American.




Lots of things about Trump bother me: the way he's in bed with the Religious Right ( I don't like organized religion), his opposition to Abortion rights, his opposition to legalizing marijuana, his hostility to to LGBTQ rights, etc

But on borders/foreign policy/trade, I mostly agree with him.

The constitution also does not stipulate that immigration to the US should be hard, or that the federal government should handle immigration at all.

[Realitytrembles]

The constitution also does not stipulate that immigration to the US should be hard, or that the federal government should handle immigration at all.

Careful. You do realize what you're leading towards?

The principle that any power not explicitly given to the federal government is reserved to the states. States' rights on immigration?

[Skroe]

I am loyal to my fellow American citizens. The rest of you might as well be so much dust.

.

Your honor, the prosecution would like to submit state's evidence, Exhibit B.

One line, 19 words in length, characterized by disregard for other people.

- - - Updated - - -

Politico was quite scathing today.



So was the rest of the Media. And yeah I through Brietbart in there too just to get the Nazi perspective.

[Kiri]

Careful. You do realize what you're leading towards?

The principle that any power not explicitly given to the federal government is reserved to the states. States' rights on immigration?

What I am leading towards is you cherry picking what something being in the constitution means or does not mean.

1) Aiding non-Americans not mentioned in the constitution --> should not be done.

2) Immigration control not mentioned in the constitution --> should be done.

That is the inconsistency you show here. You should be against the mere existence of a federal agency to handle immigration as much as you are against treating non-Americans like human beings.

[DarkTZeratul]

What I am leading towards is you cherry picking what something being in the constitution means or does not mean.

1) Aiding non-Americans not mentioned in the constitution --> should not be done.

2) Immigration control not mentioned in the constitution --> should be done.

That is the inconsistency you show here. You should be against the mere existence of a federal agency to handle immigration as much as you are against treating non-Americans like human beings.

There's no inconsistency because you're misconstruing his position. He's not anti-immigration because he's a strict constitutionalist, he's anti-immigration because he's a hyper-nationalist. "American or fuck off and die," as it were.

[Independent voter]

Trump rolling back on his decision to separate families is a big win for Democrats and a non-issue for Republicans. Democrats aren't going to vote for Trump anyways.

I'm not sure how independents will view this, they'll probably forget about it by the time the election rolls around.

[Skroe]

Trump rolling back on his decision to separate families is a big win for Democrats and a non-issue for Republicans. Democrats aren't going to vote for Trump anyways.

I'm not sure how independents will view this, they'll probably forget about it by the time the election rolls around.

You forgot "and a disaster for Trump", because Congressional republicans are livid at him, and now the rest of us know how to beat Trump.

As for independents.... it's very unpopular with them. Trump gets a 63% disapproval rate from them on the topic of immigration as a whole, and 66% of them think Child-parent separation and detainment is unacceptable while only 16% approve it it. As a whole, 67% of Americans find the practice unacceptable.

And just as importantly, 68% of independents care "a lot" about this.

Since this is Donald Trump's first major individual retreat / defeat as President on his most important policy issue, this one will stick. Everyone has a parent and many voters have children or know somebody that does. This one resonates in a way prior, more abstract controversies don't.

This was an utter fucking catastrophe for Trump, but not nearly as much as those families which might not be reunited any time soon if either. Democrats, Independents and Anti-Concentration Camp Republicans must keep the pressure on the Trump Administration to reunite them in a matter of days, no matter the cost. This is not over.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sqm...ZLlnmWFA5/view

[Kiri]

There's no inconsistency because you're misconstruing his position. He's not anti-immigration because he's a strict constitutionalist, he's anti-immigration because he's a hyper-nationalist. "American or fuck off and die," as it were.

Yeah, just wanted to show that using the constitution as an argument here is silly.

[JohnBrown1917]

There's no inconsistency because you're misconstruing his position. He's not anti-immigration because he's a strict constitutionalist, he's anti-immigration because he's a hyper-nationalist. "American or fuck off and die," as it were.

I think they just call that fascism these days.

[LaserSharkDFB]

This was an utter fucking catastrophe for Trump, but not nearly as much as those families which might not be reunited any time soon if either. Democrats, Independents and Anti-Concentration Camp Republicans must keep the pressure on the Trump Administration to reunite them in a matter of days, no matter the cost. This is not over.

Exactly. When you commit a massive violation of human rights like this, you don't get to just say 'Whoopsie!' and wash your hands of it. You have to do everything you can to undo the damage, which in this case means - in part - to move heaven and fucking earth to reunite these families, before any other steps are taken and no matter how long it takes. Not to mention reparations, especially in those cases where one of the parents has been so devastated by this inhumane policy that they took their own life. If nothing else, these people deserve immediate citizenship for what we've put them through, if they'll still have us. We probably don't deserve them.

[Bodakane]

Something which you assert is a core value.

I find no duty in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence requiring our government to spend blood and treasure for the well-being of anyone other than Americans.

I am loyal to my fellow American citizens. The rest of you might as well be so much dust.

- - - Updated - - -



"Ideals" are subjective. The Constitution is not. There is no duty in the Constitution laid upon our government to spend tax dollars on the well-being of those who aren't American.




Lots of things about Trump bother me: the way he's in bed with the Religious Right ( I don't like organized religion), his opposition to Abortion rights, his opposition to legalizing marijuana, his hostility to to LGBTQ rights, etc

But on borders/foreign policy/trade, I mostly agree with him.

There is however, precedent of making a clear and attainable path to citizenship so these illegals can become Americans, pay taxes, etc.

It is next to impossible to become a citizen anymore and this country was absolutely built on immigrants coming here to become citizens. If the foundation of this country is the Constitution, then the structure built on it was constructed by immigrants.

[Levelfive]

Trump rolling back on his decision to separate families is a big win for Democrats and a non-issue for Republicans. Democrats aren't going to vote for Trump anyways.

I'm not sure how independents will view this, they'll probably forget about it by the time the election rolls around.

Let's be clear: this is on par with Trump apologizing to the libs or actually having a tiny penis--it's a terrible psychic blow to his supporters who fetishize "strength" without knowing the meaning of the word.

[Draco-Onis]

Trump rolling back on his decision to separate families is a big win for Democrats and a non-issue for Republicans. Democrats aren't going to vote for Trump anyways.

I'm not sure how independents will view this, they'll probably forget about it by the time the election rolls around.

Zero tolerance is still in place Trump just set up a fight so that he can imprison illegal families as long as he wants, this will have to go to the supreme court. We also now have thousands of kids with no method to how they will be reunited with their families. This mess is only getting started, it's a "win" in spirit only.

[tyrlaan]

Something which you assert is a core value.

I find no duty in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence requiring our government to spend blood and treasure for the well-being of anyone other than Americans.

I am loyal to my fellow American citizens. The rest of you might as well be so much dust.

Ooh, so much edge I almost got cut while reading your post.

Through all your posturing, you seem to have forgotten much of America and its history. Again I implore you to find the right country for you. It's not America, but I'm sure its out there.

So earlier in the week I was debating whether to openly predict that Trump would fold and issue an EO ending the separation practice. I usually don't like to make concrete predictions, because no matter how obvious something seems you always have to take into account the fact we're talking about the US and Trump here, two intensely irrational actors.

But yeah, since everyone under the sun decried it, he caved. But really a lot of the damage has been done, these images will still be fresh come the mid-terms. And what did it accomplish? Any boner this gave the white supremacists has gone flaccid now.

This is what happens when you listen to a retard like Stephen Miller.

Miller isn't a retard. He's a villain. Like, if he had a handlebar mustache he would spend time twirling it when doing interviews. The dude is absolute slime and, until proven otherwise, the most blatantly racist person in the administration. But stupid he is not, which is kind of unfortunate.

Question for all - I'm assuming that Trump in no way needed to sign an EO over this, right? That was just optics?

[Draco-Onis]

Question for all - I'm assuming that Trump in no way needed to sign an EO over this, right? That was just optics?

Yup like the vast majority of his executive orders he could have done it with a call.

[Levelfive]

Question for all - I'm assuming that Trump in no way needed to sign an EO over this, right? That was just optics?

He could have just directed Sessions to rescind the policy--this lets them keep that policy in place, knowing it will bump up against the Flores settlement in 20 days, at which point the courts will have to step in.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trumps-ploy

"The President says he’s signing an executive order to end family separations. The actual aim seems to be to pick a fight with the courts and allow separations to continue while blaming judges. According to The New York Times, the President will sign an executive order allowing children to be detained indefinitely with their parents. The problem is that that violates a 1997 consent decree saying that you can’t detain/imprison children for more than 20 days (technically what’s currently happening isn’t detention). It straight up violates that order. So what will almost inevitably happen is that a court will step in, say you can’t do that and then Trump will announce that the judge is forcing him to keep separating families."

In case you doubt that's the intent:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...re-you-have-it

"And there you have it. DOJ confirms that the White House knows the President’s executive order is in fact illegal on its face. What it does is set a 20 day countdown until Trump blames a court for forcing him to separate more families again.

JUST IN: Senior Justice Department official Gene Hamilton confirms the Flores settlement still controls, and that unless Congress or the court acts, the government can only detain families together for "up to 20 days."

— Steven Portnoy (@stevenportnoy) June 20, 2018"

- - - Updated - - -

Yup like the vast majority of his executive orders he could have done it with a call.

It's worse and more nefarious than that. As one would expect.

[Jeezy911]

Actual lolwut

Do you just roll your head on the keyboard and let autocorrect do the rest? What do you even think you're saying here?

I'm saying you are not worthy of debate with jeezy the goat. Clear enough?

- - - Updated - - -

The 6th of April 2018 was 30 years ago?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attor...-illegal-entry

Seems you life in the future...

Oh so I guess that's when the laws were passed?

[GennGreymane]

I'm saying you are not worthy of debate with jeezy the goat. Clear enough?

- - - Updated - - -


Oh so I guess that's when the laws were passed?

baaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh - Jeezy

Also

Oink Oink - Jeezy

[Jeezy911]

This should be good. What's been going on for 30 years?

Separating families at the border.