Trump Korean Summit

[HALL85]

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.

I also have empathy for these people that live in countries where the government is unable to control the crime. If anything, we should also be addressing this issue with these governments and hold them accountable.

I do not like children being separated from their parents under any condition. We know that if families follow the asylum process and come to a point of entry they can stay together, but I also want to see Congress act with haste and get Mexico to help. Why can't we build interim refugee cities to house these people while they're asylum applications are being processed?

 

[Pirata]

But you really need to stop pretending that was the purpose of the Zero Tolerance policy

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.

I don't see how you can state your opinion of someone's intent as if it were fact.

Regarding ACA, I would not cite your example as an intent. Your confusing what with how.

 

[Merge]

I also have empathy for these people that live in countries where the government is unable to control the crime. If anything, we should also be addressing this issue with these governments and hold them accountable.

I do not like children being separated from their parents under any condition. We know that if families follow the asylum process and come to a point of entry they can stay together, but I also want to see Congress act with haste and get Mexico to help. Why can't we build interim refugee cities to house these people while they're asylum applications are being processed?

Entirely fair, but remember these people have been encouraged to come to the border and request asylum, which they have been doing.

In many cases they have been turned away saying to try again another day which they had been doing as well and kept getting turned away.

There is an appearance (from my, and many others view) that it is intentional, to frustrate them enough to come over illegally so we can charge them with a crime. I read that transcript of a father in court pleading not guilty and when reminded that would mean he would not see his son again while he awaits trial, he pleaded guilty. It’s heartbeaking imagining being in his shoes.

 

[Merge]

I don't see how you can state your opinion of someone's intent as if it were fact.

Yeah, who would ever do such a thing?

ACA had some good things but overall let's not kid ourselves about what its intent was. It was a stepping stone to single payer (read: US Government Health Care Insurance.)

Like I said, you were not nearly as forgiving when it was the Democrats.

I’m not confusing anything though. I have read enough about the issues with healthcare, from the people who were the architects of the policy to understand the nuances of the law and their intentions.

Same with separating families crossing the border. 15 months before the policy was implemented, they were discussing ways to deter people. Zero tolerance was how they implemented their deterance.

 

[Pirata]

I don't see how you can state your opinion of someone's intent as if it were fact.

Yeah, who would ever do such a thing?

ACA had some good things but overall let's not kid ourselves about what its intent was. It was a stepping stone to single payer (read: US Government Health Care Insurance.)

Like I said, you were not nearly as forgiving when it was the Democrats.

I’m not confusing anything though. I have read enough about the issues with healthcare, from the people who were the architects of the policy to understand the nuances of the law and their intentions.

Same with separating families crossing the border. 15 months before the policy was implemented, they were discussing ways to deter people. Zero tolerance was how they implemented their deterance.

Good catch on the intent thing! Lol. Albeit I think there was a fair amount written about the intent and I was paraphrasing that at the time.

Zero tolerance says we will prosecute illegal entry. Child separation was collateral damage.

 

[Merge]

Zero tolerance says we will prosecute illegal entry. Child separation was collateral damage.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children-idUSKBN16A2ES

“A third DHS official said the department is actively considering separating women from their children but has not made a decision.”

“With safety in mind, the Department of Homeland Security continually explores options that may discourage those from even beginning the journey,”


I might have bought your argument if they hadn’t started with child separation 15 months ago.
That is where this started. Separate children to deter families from coming.

How can you possibly say it was unintended when they specifically said that it was their goal?

 

[Pirata]

Time to rename this thread

 

[Pirata]

Zero tolerance says we will prosecute illegal entry. Child separation was collateral damage.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children-idUSKBN16A2ES

“A third DHS official said the department is actively considering separating women from their children but has not made a decision.”

“With safety in mind, the Department of Homeland Security continually explores options that may discourage those from even beginning the journey,”


I might have bought your argument if they hadn’t started with child separation 15 months ago.
That is where this started. Separate children to deter families from coming.

How can you possibly say it was unintended when they specifically said that it was their goal?

Easy.

Catch-and-release was the status quo at the time. The primary consideration was to move from catch-and-release to catch and prosecute. In order to catch and prosecute they will have to separate children. They are prepared to do that for the sake of being able to prosecute. the prosecution is the deterrent. The separation is collateral damage.

My only beef with Trump was that he didn't issue the executive order prior to implementing the zero tolerance. I would have preferred that Congress would have changed the laws to allow prosecution with allowing the families to remain together.

however keep in mind that if they are prosecuted and if they issue the six-month prison term then the children will be separated. You can't incarcerate children for 6 months for a crime their parents committed. For the repeat offenders I believe the sentence can be up to 2 years. Same deal.

my opinion is that nobody sat
around saying, "hey we can separate children from their parents and that will be a deterrent". If that was the case then we would have seen catch and separate and release. We saw catch and prosecute. And oh by the way if we prosecute then we will have to separate.

 

[Merge]

Easy.

Catch-and-release was the status quo at the time. The primary consideration was to move from catch-and-release to catch and prosecute. In order to catch and prosecute they will have to separate children. They are prepared to do that for the sake of being able to prosecute. the prosecution is the deterrent. The separation is collateral damage.

Well done in your gymnastics to avoid the words they actually used.

 

[Pirata]

This is what I would call "ripping a child from their parent/guardian.

 

[Pirata]

Well done in your gymnastics to avoid the words they actually used.

No gymnastics. Hear it for yourself, but I'll take the compliment anyway.

I suppose now you will say Nielsen lied under oath?



(HanSolo doesn't like this)

 

[Merge]

No gymnastics. Hear it for yourself, but I'll take the compliment anyway.

I suppose now you will say Nielsen lied under oath?

I take them at their word when they said they were trying to do it in 2017.
In 2018 they found a legal way to implement their separation policy.

“A third DHS official said the department is actively considering separating women from their children but has not made a decision.”

“With safety in mind, the Department of Homeland Security continually explores options that may discourage those from even beginning the journey,”

They said it. You ignore it because it fits your bias.

 

[Pirata]

I take them at their word when they said they were trying to do it in 2017.
In 2018 they found a legal way to implement their separation policy.

“A third DHS official said the department is actively considering separating women from their children but has not made a decision.”

“With safety in mind, the Department of Homeland Security continually explores options that may discourage those from even beginning the journey,”

They said it. You ignore it because it fits your bias.

I am not ignoring. I am just not reading into these statements and twisting or supposing what was said.

You are taking the leap that “With safety in mind, the Department of Homeland Security continually explores options that may discourage those from even beginning the journey,” means that they are using the separation as the deterrent. Linking "options" with "separation" has been done by clipping words without their context or how they were actually said.

I respect your research. However, you are using the Feb 2 Lafferty town hall as the entire basis of your argument. There is no record of the entire transcript. Don't you find that interesting? You are using partial snippets of notes of the meeting from MSNBC. I think we can all agree that MSNBC is not exactly impartial.

Until I see a full transcript, I will stick with my belief that the statements are being clipped and pieced to together to fit the bias of a false narrative.

I also see you have not responded to my post about the reality of what will happen once they are sentenced to 6 Months. So great, we detain them together while they are being prosecuted. Then they are convicted and sentenced. Now what?

 

[Merge]

You are taking the leap that “With safety in mind, the Department of Homeland Security continually explores options that may discourage those from even beginning the journey,” means that they are using the separation as the deterrent. Linking "options" with "separation" has been done by clipping words without their context or how they were actually said.

Those were quotes provided to Reuters as a response to the February meeting from the DHS.

There is no leap. In their response to if they would be separating families - They brought up deterring them from trying to come. It is crystal clear. You just don't want to see it.

respect your research. However, you are using the Feb 2 Lafferty town hall as the entire basis of your argument. There is no record of the entire transcript. Don't you find that interesting? You are using partial snippets of notes of the meeting from MSNBC.

I mean... sure, release it. Of course I want to see it. It could absolve them easily if it supports your view.
However, it would be very bad for them if it supports mine. yeah... sure is interesting why we don't have a transcript.

Until I see a full transcript, I will stick with my belief that the statements are being clipped and pieced to together to fit the bias of a false narrative.[/QUOTE

I don't believe you. I don't think anything they said would change your view. I think you would continue to make excuses.

I also see you have not responded to my post about the reality of what will happen once they are sentenced to 6 Months. So great, we detain them together while they are being proscuted. Then they are convicted and sentenced. Now what?

We either grant them asylum based on their circumstances or we do not and deport them.

We have held children as bargaining chips for them to offer a guilty plea. I believe that is wrong and if the families are together, they lose that leverage.

 

[Pirata]

You are probably right on the likely scenarios of either asylum or deportation. Albeit I think in the case of lrepeat illegal crossings they may see some prison time.

 

[HALL85]

Anyone see the piece on 60 Minutes last night on illegals and the trafficking process? I am just as concerned about children separated from their parents, but there is very little outrage over illegals that are packed in trailers (dozens of which have died) or left to cross at unprotected borders (walls or patrols) many of which die along the way. Where is the humanitarian concern about these people? Securing the border will also decrease the carnage of these events.

 

[Section112]

Anyone see the piece on 60 Minutes last night on illegals and the trafficking process? I am just as concerned about children separated from their parents, but there is very little outrage over illegals that are packed in trailers (dozens of which have died) or left to cross at unprotected borders (walls or patrols) many of which die along the way. Where is the humanitarian concern about these people? Securing the border will also decrease the carnage of these events.

Yup! And noone seems to care about the immigrants that are trying to do it the right way, have applied for citizenship and are patiently waiting their turn. That by the way is the way it's supposed to occur.

 

[Pirata]

Anyone see the piece on 60 Minutes last night on illegals and the trafficking process?

I did not see that one but have seen and read others. Same story.

This related article was in the paper today:

http://enewspaper.mcall.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=06554cfb-95bc-4e8a-9461-7279827170d1

What strikes me as odd is that they "fear death" where they are but are now saying they will reconsider leaving because the US won't warmly receive them. Even with the separation that was taking place, you would think it is a better alternative than death.

I also do not understand why these people pay smugglers $1000s and don't just buy a plane ticket. A ticket to JFK cost $421 one-way. Round trip $591. My guess is that they are too uneducated to know how to get a passport and likely do not know this option exists. Sad.

Once inside the USA, they could apply for Affirmative Asylum. Immigration Lawyers can be had cheap and in many cases free. My niece's boyfriend is one such lawyer. Not sayig it would easier but seems much easier and safer that the journey most of are taking.

 

[Merge]

I am not ignoring. I am just not reading into these statements and twisting or supposing what was said.

Can’t twist these words.

 

[Merge]

I also do not understand why these people pay smugglers $1000s and don't just buy a plane ticket. A ticket to JFK cost $421 one-way. Round trip $591. My guess is that they are too uneducated to know how to get a passport and likely do not know this option exists. Sad.

There are probably many reasons why someone would pay someone to smuggle them in. I would guess the people selling the service are not quite on the “up and up” in regards to telling them all of the risks involved. They probably tell them that way is the safest and most reliable way to get in, may be afraid of coming in with a record of who they are, maybe afraid of customs agents holding them, they may need to leave in a hurry, they may not be well educated of their options etc... i would imagine your nieces boyfriend could provide some insight there as well.

 

[Pirata]

Can’t twist these words.

I'll meet you halfway at best.

1. Soboroff is an MSNBC Correspondent. Their bias is off the charts.
2. The interview was leading and Soboroff was looking for his soundbite.
   
3. What he wrote was not what was said and so yes, the words were twisted. Go watch the video again carefully.
   
   "Consequences" is not a synonym for "deterrence". His first "yes" was clearly not a confirmation of the leading question. The "yes, yes" did acknowledge "consequences" which is an obvious and general observation.​
4. Padilla is 6 levels down from the President (per their org chart)
   
   He is an implementer of policy not a developer or a spokesperson of policy​

5. In the same set of tweets you posted was a video of Nielsen. She is a direct report to the president and a legitimate spokesperson. She has the skills to avoid the traps of the leading interview. That was ignored. Given Nielsen or Padilla, I'll take Nielsen.
​

Again, halfway at best.

 

[Pirata]

Merge, this is part of the Tweet string you posted. Soboroff's comments on the interview do not reflect the entire interview. I guess he hopes no one will watch it.



Listen to the exchange regarding asylum.

When he confronts her with, "asylum petitions are being denying when they come through a port of entry"

She replies with the multiple legitimate reasons why they are denied.

Paraphrasing his response, I am hearing, "Because the petitions are being denied, their only recourse is to enter the US illegally".

He (and you perhaps) expect the rest of us to accept that.

• Apply to get in.
• Get denied because you don't meet the criteria.
• Awe heck, just jump the fence and come in anyway.

With regard to his hack job on the spillover violence, he leaves out the part where spillover violence is a complex topic that the various agencies have not agreed upon. Nielsen does not fall for that trap either. FWIW, I find her a a strong and competent person She is an attorney by education and has comported herself quite well. I give her a pass for being a Hoya.

 

[Merge]

His first "yes" was clearly not a confirmation of the leading question. The "yes, yes" did acknowledge "consequences" which is an obvious and general observation.

"So, Separating parents and their kids is to put consequences on them coming here."

"Yes"

He is an implementer of policy not a developer or a spokesperson of policy

Correct. A spokesperson will be more careful in their spin.

 

[Merge]

Soboroff's comments on the interview do not reflect the entire interview. I guess he hopes no one will watch it.

Not sure why you would suggest that. He posted that video first in his thread on twitter.

Listen to the exchange regarding asylum.

When he confronts her with, "asylum petitions are being denying when they come through a port of entry"

I did listen and what's funny to me is that your "quote" above is not what he actually said. He did not say asylum petitions are being denied... he said they are turned away.
When he said "turned away" he literally means people are turned away on the bridges and told to try again another day. What she said is that they were denied asylum which is false.
They were not denied. They were turned away. That is an important distinction.

He (and you perhaps) expect the rest of us to accept that.

• Apply to get in.
• Get denied because you don't meet the criteria.
• Awe heck, just jump the fence and come in anyway.

No. That is not what I expect you to accept.

I expect you to accept that the US has a policy in place when we grant asylum in certain circumstances.
People are encouraged to come to the US and request asylum. They come with their family and what they can carry on their backs .
If there is a crisis where more people are coming to request asylum, we should have a better response to that crisis than to stop processing their applications and turn them away at the border.

When they cross the border illegally with their families after trying to request asylum multiple times - We should have a better response then separating them from their children and telling them they can see them again if the plea guilty to entering the US illegally.

 

[Pirata]

I expect you to accept that the US has a policy in place when we grant asylum in certain circumstances.

We do! 23,000 per year or thereabouts. https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics

 

[Pirata]

When they cross the border illegally with their families after trying to request asylum multiple times - We should have a better response then separating them from their children and telling them they can see them again if the plea guilty to entering the US illegally.

Bullshit.

Here is the response. If you want your family to stay together, do not cross the border illegally.

We made 1.1 million permanent residents in 2017, 703,000 naturalization 54,000 refugees, 23,000 asylums.

Why don't you just join the Occupy ICEers and start chanting "No Borders No Nations".

One of the more brilliant chants of the last few centuries. The ironic is that what is allowing them to chant, is their nation.

 

[Pirata]

When he said "turned away" he literally means people are turned away on the bridges and told to try again another day.

Yes, they are told to come back due to resources. Turned away is not accurate. My use of denial was that eventually they may be denied. I should not have used the quotes or should have added "to the effect"

They do get their chance. The data I see is about 1 in 100 get approved that enter illegible.

 

[Merge]

My use of denial was that eventually they may be denied. I should not have used the quotes or should have added "to the effect"

Lol, nice spin again. I rate that one a 6.7. You can do better.

Nielsen literally said they were denied. Not that they probably would eventually be denied.
It was a lie, but you take her word that they are processing people at capacity.

How many people can they process at a time at each port of entry?
Hoe long is a reasonable wait time at the US border for asylum seekers?
Has she asked for additional resource to help process people waiting at the border?

I don't think anyone will be honest with you here because the truth is going to be ugly.

 

[knowknow456]

This is an interesting conversation but the bottom line is we separated children from their parents. If the reports coming out are accurate, we are having a hard time putting these families back together. I do not expect Walmart level inventory control, but is it possible we can't keep track of the 2,300 children we separated?

 

[HALL85]

This is an interesting conversation but the bottom line is we separated children from their parents. If the reports coming out are accurate, we are having a hard time putting these families back together. I do not expect Walmart level inventory control, but is it possible we can't keep track of the 2,300 children we separated?

I'm all for reuniting these kids with their actual parents, but if we really care about children, shouldn't we be just (or more) as concerned with those that are dying while crossing illegally?

 

[Merge]

I'm all for reuniting these kids with their actual parents, but if we really care about children, shouldn't we be just (or more) as concerned with those that are dying while crossing illegally?

Of course.
Why are you implying we can not be concerned with both?

 

[knowknow456]

I'm all for reuniting these kids with their actual parents, but if we really care about children, shouldn't we be just (or more) as concerned with those that are dying while crossing illegally?

Of course, we should be concerned with those that are dying while crossing illegally. It is ridiculous to ask that question.

I think the United States has a duty to keep track of the children they separated, even if the parents who brought them here entered illegally. I hope we did.

 

[HALL85]

Of course.
Why are you implying we can not be concerned with both?

Because there seems to be very little attention paid by politicians and the media on the latter. I'm not into the party blame game. I just think Congress has failed miserably on the whole border security/safety issue over a very long period of time. Saw Bob Corker on FTN this weekend, who basically acknowledged that they had only accomplished piecemeal legislation over the past two decades....WTF. Do your job.

 

[knowknow456]

I'm not into the party blame game.

I think you are, but don't realize it.

 

[HALL85]

I think you are, but don't realize it.

I think you misunderstood my point....partisanship blame game. Both parties have really done a poor job....and the approval ratings show it.

 

[Pirata]

Nielsen literally said they were denied. Not that they probably would eventually be denied.

Exactly, Nielsen said denial. The quote you were referring to said "turned back" and that was the one I was referring to when I posted.That is why I correctly myself. Seemed pretty clear to me.

"So, Separating parents and their kids is to put consequences on them coming here."

"Yes"

You did not quote that accurately. I let it go.

How do you want to move forward. Are we going to play small ball with the snarky retorts.or do you want to discuss the issue? I can do either.

 

[Pirata]

I think the United States has a duty to keep track of the children they separated, even if the parents who brought them here entered illegally. I hope we did.

Rest assured the left will do everything they can to convince the public that HHS, ICE, and CBP screwed it up.

Case in point; Rachael Madow going babalou because Azar went to New Hampshire on a Saturday.

 

[SPK145]

This is an interesting conversation but the bottom line is we separated children from their parents. If the reports coming out are accurate, we are having a hard time putting these families back together. I do not expect Walmart level inventory control, but is it possible we can't keep track of the 2,300 children we separated?

It’s the government, they can’t keep accurate track of anything, another bi-partisan effort.