More fake protesting of the immigration issue? Ugh..

a reply to: Anathros



Anyone who doesn't see things your way is a fraud and anyone who protests something you don't care about is a domestic terrorist?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Thanks for the answering-questions-with-questions and non-answers though!

Question #1, directed at me personally, rather than the content of my post - Response: "No."
Question #2, directed at me personally, rather than the content of my post - Response: "No."

I literally did answer your questions despite the fact that they were towards me as a person and not my actual post. Now you're just lying.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Isurrender73

I believe that we can enforce our laws without causing undue pain and stress to the individuals who have broken our laws by coming into the country illegally. I am not against border control by any stretch of the imagination. I am against abuses of basic human rights whenever it happens and who ever does it.

My interest in the political differences is waning recently. I don't care if Clinton-Bush-Obama did it this way or that way.

I want us to do it the right way now, and now Mr. Trump is our President.

That begins with human treatment of detainees at the border and prodding the Congress to take on the long-disgregarded task of making immigration laws that make sense, not blaming one side or the other.

I have noticed a change in your posts of late and have given you a fair amount of stars.

Respect for standing up for your OWN beliefs and being your own person.

a reply to: trollz

You want me to parse out 20 year or so of Democratic/Republican political BS law rules and regulations?

Nah.

Our immigration policies should protect the people of the United States from foreign actors who desire to harm us on our own soil.

Our immigration policies should provide foreign people who want to come to the United States and become productive members of our society a straightforward, low-cost way of doing so.

No American policy should separate children from their parents when it is unnecessary, and if we do separate them and take them into our care, we should do our best to make them safe and comfortable as possible ... because they're just f-ing kids for godssake.

There you go. Enjoy.

a reply to: stosh64

Again, y'all are too kind.

Let's hope good trends continue, eh?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You want me to parse out 20 year or so of Democratic/Republican political BS law rules and regulations?

No, just summarize what the polices are that ICE and DHS have that you disagree with and tell us why and how you'd do things differently. You said you want us to do things the right way. Do you actually know what you want? If so, can you tell us?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Our immigration policies should protect the people of the United States from foreign actors who desire to harm us on our own soil.

They are doing so. Am I incorrect? If so, why am I incorrect? How are our immigration policies NOT in fact protecting us from foreign actors who would seek to harm us, such as terrorists?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Our immigration policies should provide foreign people who want to come to the United States and become productive members of our society a straightforward, low-cost way of doing so.

They do allow for people to come to the US and become members of our society in a straightforward manner. Last I checked, the United States takes in more legal immigrants that any other country in the world. Am I incorrect? Do our immigration policies NOT allow for people to immigrate to and become legal citizens of the US? If so, in what way do the policies not work, and how would you propose improving them?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
No American policy should separate children from their parents when it is unnecessary

Can you tell us why it wasn't necessary for the children who have been separated from their parents to have been separated? What were the situations that caused them to be separated?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
and if we do separate them and take them into our care, we should do our best to make them safe and comfortable as possible

We are making them safe and comfortable. We provide them with clean, healthy food, a safe, crime-free place to live and sleep, and better living conditions than they experienced throughout their trip here. Am I incorrect? What conditions are they living in that you feel are unsafe, and how are those conditions inferior to the conditions they endured to get here?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: trollz

You want me to parse out 20 year or so of Democratic/Republican political BS law rules and regulations?

Nah.

Our immigration policies should protect the people of the United States from foreign actors who desire to harm us on our own soil.

Our immigration policies should provide foreign people who want to come to the United States and become productive members of our society a straightforward, low-cost way of doing so.

No American policy should separate children from their parents when it is unnecessary, and if we do separate them and take them into our care, we should do our best to make them safe and comfortable as possible ... because they're just f-ing kids for godssake.

There you go. Enjoy.

This! I wholeheartedly agree. It's common sense that everyone should be on board with
FFS, it isn't difficult.

Instead we have politicians, both sides, and all MSM pushing the blame game and driving the hate and division.

It is so sad thinking what great potential there is with the human spirit only to see it devolving into what it has become.

Oh well, back out to my garden where none of this matters.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Before the middle of April 2018, the number of families split up at our border in the course of enforcing our laws was a fraction of what it is now.

The Trump Administration changed the policy of enforcement in 2018.

Folks are exercising their American right to assemble and speak because they do not support these changes made in their name.

I think you laid it out correctly, but the policy under Obama was not working and incentivised illegals to come here and exploit the catch and release program with one important ingredient, kids. The truth is the vast majority of those who seek asylum do not get granted since they are basically just asking to get past the border, and out of those released 85%+ never show up for their hearing. We can all agree they are poor and may even feel threaten in their country, but unless that threat is their own government that will imprison or kill them if they return due to none criminal activities they need to get in line with the millions waiting that many are in the same boat.

We have more immigrants than ever before, the percentage per population is right up there with the highest ever before, so we are not stopping immigration as it keeps turning like it has for more than 100 years.

So Trump's policy is to enforce age old laws, BUT there has been repercussions in we never had a policy to keep families together when the parents get arrested. He got the feedback, heard the response and issued an EO...kind of end of story, well unless there is a bigger agenda here.

On a side note, these people/kids are most likely getting the best care that they have seen in a long time.

One last thing, it will be interesting if Americans arrested now demand the same thing of staying with their kids too, something the system is not design to handle.

originally posted by: kurthall

See you assume....I WORK WITH CHALLENGED CHILDREN! My life is children! Yes I care about them. I also do something about it.

Volunteer I hope or do you work in the challenged-children-for profit industry?

a reply to: Gryphon66

If that is your concern than you should applaud Trump for a positive and immediate reaction to the initial protests.

To blame the president, who takes an oath to enforce all laws, for enforcing the laws doesn't make much sense to me.

Releasing the Immagrant families into the community and expecting them to return for a court case without vetting them doesn't seem to be an adequate solution. Those truly seeking asylum may show up, but the criminal element will most assuredly not be showing up at court. Criminals have kids too and will use them if it gets them free access to the US.

The supreme court decided children should be seperated during the arrest and processing period. The EO Trump wrote changes the rulling of a Supreme Court decision. Something he doesn't technically have the right to do. The Supreme Court could throw out his EO anytime they want to. But rather than quibble about the law he reacted quickly and positively to a protest that he agreed with.

Maybe the administration didn't put enough forethought into the consequences of enforcing the law. But he sure is trying to give the people what they want. I don't remember any president acting according to the will of the people this swiftly or succinctly.

We gave a trillion dollars to bail out the banks because they made bad loans. But we can't spend 30 billion on a wall that the men and woman who secure our border want?

The wall is no longer a matter of personal opinion. The designs were military tested and we owe it to those who risk their lives protecting our borders to give them the type of security they are asking for.

Give Trump and those who feel they need it the wall and all but the criminals who are here get to stay. The wall can also be used to direct people to the proper places for seeking asylum, where we have the personnel and the facilities to handle the requests.

But we can't just let everyone in because their homeland is a warzone. Half the world is a war zone. People need to stop running away. People need ro fight for their freedoms.

I would rather die a free man than live as a slave to a repressive system. Our founding fathers risked everything to escape tyranny. At some point we have to tell people it's not economically feasible to let you stay, go home and fight.

a reply to: network dude

Because the law was there to cover all loop holes that's why. If push came to shove then they can up hold the law to that point, for you know dangerous criminals and child trafficking and what not, where the child is in future or immediate danger.
But when you start enforcing it as a blanket law with no allowances for only certain people, and start ripping apart entire families who are seeking asylum or looking to properly immigrate then it becomes a moral and ethics issue.
This sort of thing happened in the past with a lot of governments who just wanted to control every aspect of what's going on. It's not right, it's twisted.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

President Trump signed an Executive Order in line with his typical knee-jerk reactions to his press, and by doing so, has created an absurd amount of confusion at our borders that were already overwhelmed.

The Trump Adminstration made the policy change in April, whined that they couldn't do anything about it, and then reversed one element of their own policies as a publicity stunt.

Pretending that this is all somehow effective in keeping American safe is absurd, and honestly, that is my issue with it.

People are protesting because they don't like Trump's policies. See Amendment I.

You decry an appeal to emotion as you make one. You've truly bored me now.

Appeal to emotion as an exit, way to stay true to the game sport.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Because the law was there to cover all loop holes that's why. If push came to shove then they can up hold the law to that point, for you know dangerous criminals and child trafficking and what not, where the child is in future or immediate danger.
But when you start enforcing it as a blanket law with no allowances for only certain people, and start ripping apart entire families who are seeking asylum or looking to properly immigrate then it becomes a moral and ethics issue.
This sort of thing happened in the past with a lot of governments who just wanted to control every aspect of what's going on. It's not right, it's twisted.

is it the law, or not? You first and foremost need to clarify if this is the law, and if it is, and you don't agree with it, you need to change it. You don't get to dictate how the laws need to be fudged, disregarded, or adjusted to fit your narrow mind.

Either we protect our borders, or we let everyone in, you make the call.

a reply to: Isurrender73

No one is "blaming" Trump for enforcing the law. There is more than one way to enforce this particular law, however.

Do you have any evidence on the failure of catch-and-release? If so, that would be a more compelling argument.

Does 30 billion on a wall and the ensuing growth of government to patrol the wall strike you as being fiscally responsible when it's unnecessary?

Not me.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Because the law was there to cover all loop holes that's why. If push came to shove then they can up hold the law to that point, for you know dangerous criminals and child trafficking and what not, where the child is in future or immediate danger.
But when you start enforcing it as a blanket law with no allowances for only certain people, and start ripping apart entire families who are seeking asylum or looking to properly immigrate then it becomes a moral and ethics issue.
This sort of thing happened in the past with a lot of governments who just wanted to control every aspect of what's going on. It's not right, it's twisted.

is it the law, or not? You first and foremost need to clarify if this is the law, and if it is, and you don't agree with it, you need to change it. You don't get to dictate how the laws need to be fudged, disregarded, or adjusted to fit your narrow mind.

Either we protect our borders, or we let everyone in, you make the call.

That's not how it works. You know the law isn't black and white and it's not like physics of nature and the universe. We have things call due process you know.

I understand you're the most stand up citizen that is straight as an arrow and never breaks any laws and pre pays your taxes or something like that, but, if you don't understand what blanket laws are and how they are abused you should go take a look at the thousands of lives ruined by drinking and driving laws because it's a 100% almost open and shut case, cops abuse their power all the time to get a quick bust in those cases, and they also let a lot of people off the hook as well.

The point I was getting at is they were starting to just rip apart children from the adults regardless of the circumstances, or affiliation. Sure it's the law, but here's where we differ, my morality is clearly in a different mind than yours. Imagine if you were seeking asylum from somewhere and your child gets detained for 20 days without reason. Even Trump felt bad, clearly you don't.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Isurrender73

No one is "blaming" Trump for enforcing the law. There is more than one way to enforce this particular law, however.

Do you have any evidence on the failure of catch-and-release? If so, that would be a more compelling argument.

Does 30 billion on a wall and the ensuing growth of government to patrol the wall strike you as being fiscally responsible when it's unnecessary?

Not me.

You say unecessary. The DHS and Border patrol disagree with you. It's not about feelings it's about respecting the will of those who defend your nation. We spend 600 billion annually on the military already.

I don't believe Trump is asking for more human support once he gets the wall in place. I think the assests currently in place will suffice if they have the wall to help them. It's a one time cost to protect our border.

I can't agree with any opinion that is not shared by the people who risk their lives to protect the border. Those peoples well being and peace of mind is priceless to me. So 30 billion is nothing in my opinion.

I need evidence that criminals don't show up for court if they won't latter be prosecuted because they move to a sanctuary city?

140,000 didn't show up.
www.politifact.com...

a reply to: Anathros

We can have compassion and secure the border at the same time.

When Americans are separated from their children in the legal system their children are placed with family members or in the foster system not placed in cages and separated at times, by thousands of miles.

Whatever the case may be there has to be a better more cost effective way to handle the situation and not treat these people like scapegoats and animals.

Do not lose you're sense of compassion or logic as a person fortunate to be born in this great country because of xenophobic fears. We can secure border, get rid of the criminals and leeches and offer a controlled amount of vetted law abiding citizens a pathway to citizenship. A solution all Americans can get behind.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Aren't the protests actually real and happening. Has the definition of 'fake' become something not agreed with.

The MSM 'actually exists', and they do 'the news' all day, I guess that means they're inherently Real News?

This whole fiasco probably went like...



"We are going to need some serious emotional manipulation, think of the children grade stuff, if we are ever going to get enough illegals able to vote. There's no way acual citizens will let us pull off the garbage we have in mind and our popularity is dropping daily."

-behind closed doors

a reply to: conspiracy nut

The Administration has suggested using no longer used military bases. If the accommodations were sufficient for military personnel they should be sufficient for immigrant families.

This administration keeps coming up with solutions. The left keeps protesting things the administration has already started fixing. I understand protesting. But why protest when you have already won the debate?