Trump Korean Summit
- Thread starter cernjSHU
- Start date
As someone who is pro amnesty... clearly I am not in favor of it. Under Obama, ICE established a new policy to prioritize deporting illegal immigrants who commited crimes here. I am in favor of that.
Was there a NEW policy implemented under Obama’s to separate children and place them in a holding cell?
Hint: there wasn’t.... but keep hunting for something that happened under Obama that will let you feel ok about Trump implimentung this new policy.
I think the media did a fine job bringing attention to this complex issue. While Americans as a whole are divided on what they want as far as comprehensive immigration reform, a clear majority are uncomfortable with the process that separates families as a matter of policy. I am grateful we have a free and independent press that is able to chronicle events just like this one.
By bringing up her jacket?
Maybe post your issue with how it has been covered? I don’t watch cable news so I am not sure what your issue is.
Quite serious.
46,000 deported in 2011 leaving their kids behind.
Where was your outrage?
"The Obama administration has accepted the deportation of parents as an acceptable consequence of its immigration enforcement policy. In an interview aired on PBS’ “Frontline” last month, Cecilia Munoz, the administration’s top advisor on immigration, said that unless Congress passes a comprehensive immigration reform bill to provide a path to lawful status for undocumented immigrants, the deportation of parents will continue."
Sound familiar?
https://www.colorlines.com/articles/us-deports-46k-parents-citizen-kids-just-six-months
Last edited:
We are talking about separating parents. That is where all the outrage is.
Just read a piece today in our paper. Bleeding heart story about a mother separated from her kid. It was her second time crossing the boarder illegally.
Second time!!
I also saw a piece that said we separated 400,000 US citizens from the parents last year in our own court systems. Where is the outrage?
You have accepted the spins and lies of the MSM.
The Trump policy was zero tolerance for illegal crossing. 6 Month jail time for first offense, 2 years (felony) for second.
Separating parents who are incarcerated while awaiting their hearing was not his policy. He did not create it. He has issued an executive order to get around it with the hopes that Congress actually amends the law so we don't become a country ruled by executive order.
Again, you are conflating issues. Obama did not create a policy to separate children from their parents. Did it happen? Yes it did. It also happened under Trump as a part of a broken immigration system before he implemented a new policy.
THIS administration changed their policy to separate children intentionally - That was their intention.
They felt the best was to stop illegal immigrants from coming in was a policy of deterrence. You can agree with that decision if you like, but they need to own that decision.
As someone who supports and has donated money towards supporting amnesty - I am comfortable in my stance on parent separation of their children.
I do not think there is a factual question that children were being separated from their parents. The government confirmed it and the media reported it. The reporting makes us better as a nation.
The fact that you gloss of over the time this happened over the Obama administration makes you seem unreasonable to deal with. To see this as a new problem under Trump and not at minimum a 10 year problem is absurd. Families have been separated for years in this country because it has been the law. Now Trump has enforced the law much tougher than we have seen, but the issue has always been there.
https://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/113178.htm
William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008
"dictates that certain minors must be taken out of immigration detention within 72 hours."
Once a parent or guardian has been apprehended and charged for illegally entering the U.S., the children are then transported to the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is “responsible for their care and is required by law to place unaccompanied minors in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child.”
I'm not glossing it over. Immigration is a difficult and complex issue.
It has been difficult and complex for all past presidents.
When one of them throws gasoline on the fire, we should call them out for it.
That is what happened.
You're forgiving the deluge of gasoline because they didn't cause the spark.
I disagree.
Awfully fine job of misrepresenting the poster child for the faux outrage, who wasn't separated from their parents...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-face-child-separation-crisis-speaks-out.html
This is yet another excellent example of a free and independent press fact checking that stories published by the competition are indeed accurate. I view this as support for my overall contention that we are lucky to have such broad and varied access to information in this country. Thanks for sharing.
So providing you an example of fake news by the "free and independent" press proves your point? I would have thought "truth and integrity" would be more appropriate, but carry on. We have a MSM that is more concerned with speed and narrative rather than factual reporting.
Somewhat related, I was having a conversation with a colleague of mine who is a Syrian immigrant (20 years in the U.S.), with family in Syria. He also works for a non-profit that assists in helping Syrian immigrants get housing and employment. I asked him about our news coverage of what is going on over there and he said the accuracy of reporting is appalling. He also said the news media in Syria totally misrepresents what is happening here, but you would hope that they are not the standard we want to measure against.
That law was created in 2008 specifically relating to unaccompanied minors arriving in the US.
We essentially are making them unaccompanied by charging their parents, a practice that is new.
The new zero-tolerance policy results in many families being separated which were not separated previously. If you are ok with it, that is your opinion which you are entitled to.
Don't try and make excuses for it. Just own it.
Truth, integrity, speed, narrative and factual reporting are all important, and yes, it can be difficult to get all five at the same time in a rapidly advancing storyline.
As I understand it, the mother was captured illegally crossing a river and the picture was taken at the time. The fact that they were ultimately not separated does not make the picture or the story fake news.
I think the new story raises more questions for more investigation. There is no independent confirmation (other than the father's comment) that the mother and child were ultimately not separated. That should be confirmed and if it is true, why? In theory, the policy at that moment was separation and if the first set of facts are correct, there is no question the mother was entering illegally. Why was the rule not followed in this situation?
So far, I see great camerawork of a real event and fantastic follow up reporting by the daily mail. We are lucky to be able to sit at home and have access to this kind of information.
As I understand it, the mother was captured illegally crossing a river and the picture was taken at the time. The fact that they were ultimately not separated does not make the picture or the story fake news.
I think the new story raises more questions for more investigation. There is no independent confirmation (other than the father's comment) that the mother and child were ultimately not separated. That should be confirmed and if it is true, why? In theory, the policy at that moment was separation and if the first set of facts are correct, there is no question the mother was entering illegally. Why was the rule not followed in this situation?
So far, I see great camerawork of a real event and fantastic follow up reporting by the daily mail. We are lucky to be able to sit at home and have access to this kind of information.
I never said I was okay with it. I'm not okay with it.
What I did say was that Trump was enforcing the law. His policy was to enforce the law. To borrow a phrase from you, you are conflating the issue and stating that that he has a policy to separate children. He does not have a policy to separate children. He has a policy to enforce the law.
I'm fine to own that. Sometimes enforcing the law forces people to make some hard decisions. My dad has in NYPD detective did not enjoy putting people in prison. But he enforce the law none the less.
You are making excuses for the policy. The policy was deterrence
"If people don’t want to be separated from their children, they should not bring them with them. We’ve got to get this message out..."
I'm sure your father used discretion as a detective?
I'm not saying we need to grant everyone asylum status who tries to come into the US, but we knew the consequence of zero-tolerance and we aimed for that to the a deterrent. Not an unintended consequence, but an intended one.
Nowhere did I question the fact that children were being separated. I have also stated that separating is a bad thing and it is good that it has been stopped.
Spin 1. "Ripped from their parents"
Spin 2. "Put in cages"
Lie 1: "Trump initiated a policy to separate children from parents"
Lie 1 goes hand in hand with Spin 3 which is to refer to it as "Trump's separation policy"
Spin 4" Calling it child abuse.
If you accept the child abuse spin as truth than the only difference between Bush, Obama, and Trump is a matter of scale. You are saying that child abuse is OK as long as you don't do it too much. So either reject the child abuse spin or accept that Obama was also a child abuser. You cannot have it both ways.
For the record, I do not think Bush, Obama, or Trump are child abusers.
The reporting is further dividing us.
The real underling issue is the left wants open borders, amnesty, and easy path to citizenship. They will say anything they can to achieve that.
People on this site have posted their own truth. They have concluded that it was Trump's primary intent to separate children.
Zero-tolerance was a policy to enforce the law and secure the border. Separating children was a consequence of that policy caused by the laws of the land and now suspended by executive order.
Trump, Huckabee, Nielsen, Sessions, etc have stated numerous times that the intent and purpose is to secure our borders and establish an enforceable and comprehensive immigration policy that balances our interests, resources, and compassion.
Last edited:
The fact is they discussed separating children as a deterrent in 2017, and did it in 2018. Not as an unintended consequence, it was an intentional deterrent. They can spin it however they want, but you really need to stop pretending it was unintended.
Don’t take it from me. Take it from John Kelly in March 2017.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/poli...en-from-parents-immigration-border/index.html
Don’t take it from me. Take it from John Kelly in March 2017.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/poli...en-from-parents-immigration-border/index.html
I did. Did you listen to whole video?
Wolf is trying to get a sound bite on separation.
Kelly says at the end, "it is more important to get these children off this terrible network"
(Do a little digging and watch the videos about the journey).
The bigger picture Kelly is saying is that there is a crisis at the southern border.No denying that. We have to get a grip on it. We will enforce the law. That will cause families to be separated. As harsh as that it is, we are prepared to that. We will do it as humanely as possible.The short term suffering is tragic but he long term benefit outweighs it.
That message is not reported. Instead they go for the headlines.
Let's not kid ourselves. The left is "not passing up an opportunity to use this crisis".
If they truly cared for children they would open their eyes.
BTW, its been changed. The executive order overrides the law forth the time being and we no longer separate the illegally entered parents from kids.BTW, those who came in the front door never got separated. Also keep in mind that that 83% come across without parents. Of the remaining 13% some unknown percentage is with traffickers posing as parents.
Keep your eye on the donut and not the hole.
Last edited:
But you really need to stop pretending that was the purpose of the Zero Tolerance policy
Serious question:
What prevents the people seeking Asylum from getting a passport and buying a plane ticket and coming to the United States?
Once inside the United States they can then apply for Asylum.
It would seem to be an easier, safer, and less expensive path then paying a coyote $2,0000 to $5,000 and subjecting yourself to the horrific journey by raft, foot, train-top etc.
I've not traveled to South America and I'm not familiar with their passport policies. Is there anyone on the board familiar with that and can say one way or the other whether it's reasonably easy for a citizen in those countries to obtain a passport.
What prevents the people seeking Asylum from getting a passport and buying a plane ticket and coming to the United States?
Once inside the United States they can then apply for Asylum.
It would seem to be an easier, safer, and less expensive path then paying a coyote $2,0000 to $5,000 and subjecting yourself to the horrific journey by raft, foot, train-top etc.
I've not traveled to South America and I'm not familiar with their passport policies. Is there anyone on the board familiar with that and can say one way or the other whether it's reasonably easy for a citizen in those countries to obtain a passport.
Last edited:
I think it is important to differentiate between fake and biased.
The spin “Ripped from their parents” makes you feel uncomfortable because it is more biased and emotionally charged than “detained separately”. That does not mean it is fake. I do not need video of children being ripped from their parent’s arms to believe it may have happened. Can you envision a scenario where that may have happened?
Do you think Obama intended to provide ACA plans that were mainly high deductible plans which left people paying for healthcare out of their own pockets but financially safe in the event of a significant issue?
He did. That was intended.
Did he ever say so? No.
You can take them at their word all you want, we will never agree, and you wouldn’t apply that same forgiveness to democrats.
Better yet... imagine it was your kids.
They tell you they are going to bring your kids to be cleaned, and when you ask where they are, they tell you they aren’t coming back.
How are you going to feel when I downplay your interpretation of what happened?
You’re right, they just took them and lied to them that they would return. SO much better.
“I don’t have any idea where they are,” she’d told a Post reporter shortly before the hearing began. “Nobody knows anything. Nobody says anything — just lies. They said they were taking them for questioning, and we were only going to be apart for a moment. But they never came back.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.385727a96814
The reason those headlines exist is because someone claimed their child was ripped from their arms. I have no idea if it is true. Neither do you.
Shouldn’t there be validation that this actually occurred or are sensationalized headlines and narratives with no proof ok for you?
Is there a typo in your post? Did you mean to say unintended in one of those intended?
Last edited:
Sure, but unfortunately there is no proof other that testimony. I am not sure why lying to them about where their kids are going and physically taking them from their arms are a materially different enough to say “fake news” Both are disturbing.
I just try to put myself in their shoes, people leaving their country with nothing because they fear for the lives of their children. I imagine the panic that would set it when I realize that the border agents lied and my children are not coming back to me.
