ACLU Complains: "Trump Used the Word 'America' More Than 80 Times"

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Byrd

The ACLU is not everyone's cup of tea, in particular those who side with the Supreme Court. They often take the position the Supreme Court is wrong, so they argue based on a belief their opinion trumps that of the SCOTUS. They have often said as much.

Point taken, I suppose... but... how does that relate to the incorrect narrative of ACLU's complaint being about Trump's overuse of the word "America"?

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Byrd


Okay, thanks. I read the ACLU's statement again out of fairness,

Thank you for having the decency to verify.

but I still do not understand why the ACLU has a dog in this fight, because the so-called 'dreamers' are not Americans *yet*

Because anyone in the country (citizen or not) has certain rights under our laws... for example, you can't just collect a non-citizen who is here illegally and chain them up as a galley slave on your trireme on Lake Belvedere.

It is illegal to (real cases) lock them in a house and force them to work for no wages and beat them even if the "owner" is an American citizen and the slave is some impoverished woman from Indonesia.

...etc.

These are what the framers of the Declaration of Independence called "inalienable human rights" - the right of any human being to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

... and are they complaining about the path offered to give them citizenship, or are they just complaining because they are against the idea that America does not necessarily need to include a bunch of non-Americans?

Let simply highlight what they said:

...after a divisive first year, we hear and feel how exclusionary that ‘America’ is, with policies that have harmed so many vulnerable American communities.

Communities would include LGBT, Muslim, Hispanics, DREAMers, etc. You may not be aware of things like his approval for the Dakota Access Pipeline to go through Native American tribal lands (in spite of all their protests and Obama putting a halt to it for awhile) but I was aware of it.

They also point out that Trump is not giving them any sort of path, but making it conditional on his getting what he wants:

In particular, the immigration plan put forth by Trump would hold Dreamers hostage to his demands for a harmful border wall and an even larger mass deportation force.

Given the number of "changes of heart" he's had in this issue (and some are fairly spectacular reversals) they do not seem to believe that he will keep any particular promise.

___ bless _______!

_______ _______ ___ shed his grace on the...

This post has been autopolicticallycorrected.

originally posted by: ausername
___ bless _______!

_______ _______ ___ shed his grace on the...

This post has been autopolicticallycorrected.

"Bless" triggered me, you must be censored for your own good.

Remember, censorship is free speech.

a reply to: Byrd

It speaks to why people make assumptions based on the title.

Once an organization like that looses the trust of many people, it's easy to understand why it can lead to jumping to conclusions without all the information.

a reply to: Byrd

One issue I would have is how do you stop the human traffickers, drug cartels and flow of new gang members that take advantage of the porous, undermanned border without something like a fence? Criticism never seems to include alternative idea's, just partisan hate.

I've mentioned before I don't care for Trump, nor am I Republican, but he does seem to be looking for compromise. How does refusal by either side lead to compromise and find solutions that lead to anything good? Gridlock is a product of those who want a single party rule and we all know how that comes out historically. Opposing views are silenced.

Compromise is not a dirty word. Partisan stonewalling is a dirty phrase however. People like the ACLU, so buried in their my way or the highway ideology bring nothing to the table but division and hate. Both of the main Parties seem to be in my way or the highway mode and promoting division.

Anyone not pissed off at both sides right now is ignoring what's happening IMO. Both sides wanting to have complete control I mean. Both sides are wrong as is much of what the branch of the DNC called the ACLU is involved in.

a reply to: Byrd

Okay, thanks. That makes more sense. Respect.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Byrd

One issue I would have is how do you stop the human traffickers, drug cartels and flow of new gang members that take advantage of the porous, undermanned border without something like a fence? Criticism never seems to include alternative idea's, just partisan hate.

Reduce and remove the demand.

They're not coming here to push-advertise these things. They're coming here because our culture has subsets of society that desire these things and are willing to pay for them. There's a huge market for drugs and a big market for the sex trade, thanks to our society's interests. We have a big demand for unskilled workers in the hotel industry (how many people want their kids to grow up to be hotel maids?) and in construction trades and in farm field work - taking jobs that most Americans don't want and don't want for their kids because the work is physically brutal and the salaries are not consistent or high paying. A number of owners want immigrant and undocumented labor because they can charge these people a lot of money to stay in "company housing" (often with 15 people in a single room) and sell them food and quite often they short them pay or refuse to pay them.

They couldn't do it to Americans but they like to see other nationalities come in because they can make even more money by treating these people badly.

As to gangs, they tend to be in urban areas where parts of the population aren't well integrated with the rest of society. Gang members don't decide to go to (for example) Muleshoe Texas because they like the scenery (okay... very few people actually like the scenery in Muleshoe. It's not bad, mind you, but it's not to everyone's tastes.)

Gangs avoid places that are not suitable to their activities. For example here in Texas, there's no gang activity in Sanderson, New Baden, or Eden (and other towns under 800 population) and it's not due to virtue but to the fact that they're way the heck out in the middle of Nowhere, Texas. There's not a lot of guns, it's not worth burglarizing houses, the main economic powerhouses are the local tiny grocery story (which usually has less than $100 in the till) and gas station. Gangs don't move there (low drug activity, and beer's easily available so there's no rum-runners.)

The ACLU has become a joke.

They spend way too much time fund raising and far too little time in actually protecting the civil liberties of most Americans.

That is just my opinion.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Byrd

One issue I would have is how do you stop the human traffickers, drug cartels and flow of new gang members that take advantage of the porous, undermanned border without something like a fence? Criticism never seems to include alternative idea's, just partisan hate.

Reduce and remove the demand.

...and in the meantime just let the flow of heroin and human traffickers continue as is? One way to reduce demand is to cut off the supply. Those Poppy fields are not in the US and they don't cross the border legally. Less heroin and meth, less victims and the addicts are victims. Victims of a ready supply guaranteed by inaction while the politicians use them as campaign tools.

What does where the Mexican drug gangs are have to do with it?

I think we have drifted off topic here, so I'll leave it that.