It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Destroying the illegal alien child separation canard

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



People committing illegal acts should not go to jail ?


So when you speed should you go to jail?

It's a stupid argument, you don't prosecute refugees, you either admit them, reject them or put them in camps but criminal prosecution is just stupid and pointless.

Pretty much everyone in the Trump campaign and administration are criminals, why aren't you calling for them to be prosecuted??


No one is getting prosecuted for being a refugee. You've been lied to.




posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: CB328

In Arizona if you speed more than 20 mph over the limit you are booked into jail on the misdemeanor charge of criminal speeding. If you have children with you , then you can have relatives get them until you are released. If nobody can get them they are placed in CPS custody.


Hey, hey, get the # outta here with those facts.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: face23785

But it does not have to be enforced either, does it? If it's been a choice for all other admins, or a situation has never arisen for it to be an issue... why does it become an issue for this one suddenly? What changed?


If you change the law you don't have to worry about whether it's enforced or not. Why is it suddenly an issue that it's "enforced more" when it was enforced before and nobody cared. Separating x many children is okay, but 2x is not? That a strange form of morality.

Sounds more like people just needed something to run on for the midterms.


I agree with you, the laws should be changed but until they are, they should not be used as an excuse to perform such deeds.

If one thinks they should be changed, then don't engage in them -- that's a choice. No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to enact zero tolerance and then to separate thousands of children, as per some law that never caused such issues before.

Besides, I think these facilities may have been equipped to deal with an occasional detained child, but I bet there is a big difference with having a child with a social worker, one on one... and a hundred children per social worker, with armed guards. Not letting senators in.

A bit different.


No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to break US law either. Any consequence of that is on them. No one is holding a gun to the government's head and forcing them to separate you from your children if you commit embezzlement either. You can tug on people's heart strings about how you were just taking money from greedy corporations and they have more than enough money anyway so your children shouldn't have to suffer so those 1 percenters can keep more of their money, and some people may buy that argument. So now you're exempt from that law. Maybe I want to be exempt from a different law because I've got a sad story too.

Where does it end?

No, sorry. How about, until the law is changed, having children shouldn't be used as an excuse to break the law? No one has room to complain for being prosecuted. This isn't the #ing Wild West.


No, no one was holding a gun to their heads either, but that should have no effect on us and our humanity.

Paraphrasing, someone -- To know what a society is like, take a look at how it treats those most unfortunate.

I was looking for that quote and the best I could find in a quick search was Sirius Black -- "If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors." Yes, from Harry Potter. Yes, I'm serious.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: face23785

But it does not have to be enforced either, does it? If it's been a choice for all other admins, or a situation has never arisen for it to be an issue... why does it become an issue for this one suddenly? What changed?


If you change the law you don't have to worry about whether it's enforced or not. Why is it suddenly an issue that it's "enforced more" when it was enforced before and nobody cared. Separating x many children is okay, but 2x is not? That a strange form of morality.

Sounds more like people just needed something to run on for the midterms.


I agree with you, the laws should be changed but until they are, they should not be used as an excuse to perform such deeds.

If one thinks they should be changed, then don't engage in them -- that's a choice. No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to enact zero tolerance and then to separate thousands of children, as per some law that never caused such issues before.

Besides, I think these facilities may have been equipped to deal with an occasional detained child, but I bet there is a big difference with having a child with a social worker, one on one... and a hundred children per social worker, with armed guards. Not letting senators in.

A bit different.


No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to break US law either. Any consequence of that is on them. No one is holding a gun to the government's head and forcing them to separate you from your children if you commit embezzlement either. You can tug on people's heart strings about how you were just taking money from greedy corporations and they have more than enough money anyway so your children shouldn't have to suffer so those 1 percenters can keep more of their money, and some people may buy that argument. So now you're exempt from that law. Maybe I want to be exempt from a different law because I've got a sad story too.

Where does it end?

No, sorry. How about, until the law is changed, having children shouldn't be used as an excuse to break the law? No one has room to complain for being prosecuted. This isn't the #ing Wild West.


No, no one was holding a gun to their heads either, but that should have no effect on us and our humanity.

Paraphrasing, someone -- To know what a society is like, take a look at how it treats those most unfortunate.

I was looking for that quote and the best I could find in a quick search was Sirius Black -- "If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors." Yes, from Harry Potter. Yes, I'm serious.


You're not actually responding to the point. Why is it inhumane to enforce this law, but perfectly fine to enforce every other law on the books. You don't see the inherent problem with saying "yeah, this law sucks, so it's too inhumane to enforce it if the perp has kids"?

For the 3rd or 4th time, where does that end? Do I get a say in which laws we should be exempt from, or is that just up to you?



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

Your answer is an extreme over-complication

This isn't about immigration law (or any particular law).

Any Person arrested in the US (whether a citizen or not, whether its for an immigration law violation or not) will be "separated" from their children if they can't arrange for alternative care.

This has nothing to do with "zero tolerance" because the issue itself is an invented non-issue. American kids are separated, each day, by the thousands from their American parents in the US. Every time a parent is arrested on DUI, drug charges, assault charges, theft charges, conspiracy charges, burglary charges, etc. they are responsible for arranging alternative care for their kids while they're locked up

If these US citizens accused of drugs/theft/conspiracy/etc can't get a spouse/relative/guardian/etc to take custody of the kids, then those US citizen kids go into state care.

Immigration cases are far less common than the myriad of other laws parents are arrested/prosecuted within the United States for every single day. Not to beat a dead horse, but those US citizen children will also be separated from their parents unless they have alternative arrangements for childcare.

The fact the left is trying to turn this unavoidable consequence of law breakers being arrested into a wedge issue. In reality, there is no issue. There is no issue because this happens thousands of times per day, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the border/immigration/etc



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Kharron

Immigration cases are far less common than the myriad of other laws parents are arrested/prosecuted within the United States for every single day. Not to beat a dead horse, but those US citizen children will also be separated from their parents unless they have alternative arrangements for childcare.


Bottom line, that's okay, because making a big deal about that won't get anyone votes and campaign money.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Some hypothetical scenarios:



An undocumented immigrant is arrested for suspicion of unlawful entry while crossing the border. Said illegal immigrant has 2 children in his/her care.

If the subject cannot arrange for alternative child care arrangements, the children will have to be placed in state custody. Yes, state custody is not a great thing (blame your big government BS/bloated bureaucracy for that). But it sure beats dumping minors on the streets to fend for themselves.

Parent separated from children? YES




A mother of 3 is arrested in the United States for suspicion of shoplifting. The mother is a US Citizen, born in California.

If the subject cannot arrange for alternative child care arrangements, the children will have to be placed in state custody. Yes, state custody is not a great thing (blame your big government BS/bloated bureaucracy for that). But it sure beats dumping minors on the streets to fend for themselves.

Parent separated from children? YES




A father of 2 is arrested on suspicion of DUI charges. He lives in Georgia and is a union worker.

If the subject cannot arrange for alternative child care arrangements, the children will have to be placed in state custody. Yes, state custody is not a great thing (blame your big government BS/bloated bureaucracy for that). But it sure beats dumping minors on the streets to fend for themselves.

Parent separated from children? YES




A mother and father (both US Citizens) are brought in from their New Jersey home on an arrest warrant relating to drug distribution

If the subject cannot arrange for alternative child care arrangements, the children will have to be placed in state custody. Yes, state custody is not a great thing (blame your big government BS/bloated bureaucracy for that). But it sure beats dumping minors on the streets to fend for themselves.

Parent separated from children? YES


I'm sorry for the obvious examples, but this happens regardless of what crime the subject commits. It is not punitive action. The children must be cared for and they must have somewhere to go. With the risks of kidnapping, human/sex trafficking, child abuse, etc authorities must be sure they are releasing the children to a caregiver that is actually capable of providing child care needs.

edit on 7/12/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: face23785

But it does not have to be enforced either, does it? If it's been a choice for all other admins, or a situation has never arisen for it to be an issue... why does it become an issue for this one suddenly? What changed?


If you change the law you don't have to worry about whether it's enforced or not. Why is it suddenly an issue that it's "enforced more" when it was enforced before and nobody cared. Separating x many children is okay, but 2x is not? That a strange form of morality.

Sounds more like people just needed something to run on for the midterms.


I agree with you, the laws should be changed but until they are, they should not be used as an excuse to perform such deeds.

If one thinks they should be changed, then don't engage in them -- that's a choice. No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to enact zero tolerance and then to separate thousands of children, as per some law that never caused such issues before.

Besides, I think these facilities may have been equipped to deal with an occasional detained child, but I bet there is a big difference with having a child with a social worker, one on one... and a hundred children per social worker, with armed guards. Not letting senators in.

A bit different.


No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to break US law either. Any consequence of that is on them. No one is holding a gun to the government's head and forcing them to separate you from your children if you commit embezzlement either. You can tug on people's heart strings about how you were just taking money from greedy corporations and they have more than enough money anyway so your children shouldn't have to suffer so those 1 percenters can keep more of their money, and some people may buy that argument. So now you're exempt from that law. Maybe I want to be exempt from a different law because I've got a sad story too.

Where does it end?

No, sorry. How about, until the law is changed, having children shouldn't be used as an excuse to break the law? No one has room to complain for being prosecuted. This isn't the #ing Wild West.


No, no one was holding a gun to their heads either, but that should have no effect on us and our humanity.

Paraphrasing, someone -- To know what a society is like, take a look at how it treats those most unfortunate.

I was looking for that quote and the best I could find in a quick search was Sirius Black -- "If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors." Yes, from Harry Potter. Yes, I'm serious.


You're not actually responding to the point. Why is it inhumane to enforce this law, but perfectly fine to enforce every other law on the books. You don't see the inherent problem with saying "yeah, this law sucks, so it's too inhumane to enforce it if the perp has kids"?

For the 3rd or 4th time, where does that end? Do I get a say in which laws we should be exempt from, or is that just up to you?


Why is it inhumane to enforce this law, but perfectly fine to enforce every other law on the books?

Any law that ends in inhumane policies should not be enforced. Who said it was just one?

In a compassionate administration, Zero Tolerance should not have been enforced until preparations were made to make sure humans are not being abused and families are not separated, and especially illegally separated for more than 20 days that the law allows. Some kids have been separated for months now, illegal under every one of our laws, but no one talks about it any more because we have other distractions.

Besides, we're way past talking about laws on this. We all know the law only allowed a 20 day detention.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: face23785

But it does not have to be enforced either, does it? If it's been a choice for all other admins, or a situation has never arisen for it to be an issue... why does it become an issue for this one suddenly? What changed?


If you change the law you don't have to worry about whether it's enforced or not. Why is it suddenly an issue that it's "enforced more" when it was enforced before and nobody cared. Separating x many children is okay, but 2x is not? That a strange form of morality.

Sounds more like people just needed something to run on for the midterms.


I agree with you, the laws should be changed but until they are, they should not be used as an excuse to perform such deeds.

If one thinks they should be changed, then don't engage in them -- that's a choice. No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to enact zero tolerance and then to separate thousands of children, as per some law that never caused such issues before.

Besides, I think these facilities may have been equipped to deal with an occasional detained child, but I bet there is a big difference with having a child with a social worker, one on one... and a hundred children per social worker, with armed guards. Not letting senators in.

A bit different.


No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to break US law either. Any consequence of that is on them. No one is holding a gun to the government's head and forcing them to separate you from your children if you commit embezzlement either. You can tug on people's heart strings about how you were just taking money from greedy corporations and they have more than enough money anyway so your children shouldn't have to suffer so those 1 percenters can keep more of their money, and some people may buy that argument. So now you're exempt from that law. Maybe I want to be exempt from a different law because I've got a sad story too.

Where does it end?

No, sorry. How about, until the law is changed, having children shouldn't be used as an excuse to break the law? No one has room to complain for being prosecuted. This isn't the #ing Wild West.


No, no one was holding a gun to their heads either, but that should have no effect on us and our humanity.

Paraphrasing, someone -- To know what a society is like, take a look at how it treats those most unfortunate.

I was looking for that quote and the best I could find in a quick search was Sirius Black -- "If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors." Yes, from Harry Potter. Yes, I'm serious.


You're not actually responding to the point. Why is it inhumane to enforce this law, but perfectly fine to enforce every other law on the books. You don't see the inherent problem with saying "yeah, this law sucks, so it's too inhumane to enforce it if the perp has kids"?

For the 3rd or 4th time, where does that end? Do I get a say in which laws we should be exempt from, or is that just up to you?


Why is it inhumane to enforce this law, but perfectly fine to enforce every other law on the books?

Any law that ends in inhumane policies should not be enforced. Who said it was just one?

In a compassionate administration, Zero Tolerance should not have been enforced until preparations were made to make sure humans are not being abused and families are not separated, and especially illegally separated for more than 20 days that the law allows. Some kids have been separated for months now, illegal under every one of our laws, but no one talks about it any more because we have other distractions.

Besides, we're way past talking about laws on this. We all know the law only allowed a 20 day detention.


So that would be every law? Because every law can result in a parent being separated from their kids.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

Kharron,

Perhaps we are thinking of different issues/circumstances. It appears you are referring to those immigrants who are making credible and lawful asylum claims. The issue myself and others here are referring to is illegal immigration (that is, folks attempting to enter the country without authorization and a valid/credible asylum claim)

When dealing with lawful asylum requests, it appears there is already a process in place that does not require an initial arrest (and therefore potential separation). Those making valid and credible asylum claims are not subjected to the same process as an individual suspected of violating our immigration law by entering the country unlawfully without a credible claim of asylum


Asylum is a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or at the border who meet the international law definition of a “refugee.” The United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted by their government in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980.


And as far as the asylum application process, there are two options (both for new entries and those already within the US)


There are two primary ways in which a person may apply for asylum in the United States: the affirmative process and the defensive process. Asylum seekers who arrive at a U.S. port of entry or enter the United States without inspection generally must apply through the defensive asylum process. Both processes require the asylum seeker to be physically present in the United States.

Affirmative Asylum: A person who is not in removal proceedings may affirmatively apply for asylum through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If the USCIS asylum officer does not grant the asylum application and the applicant does not have a lawful immigration status, he or she is referred to the immigration court for removal proceedings, where he or she may renew the request for asylum through the defensive process and appear before an immigration judge.

Defensive Asylum: A person who is in removal proceedings may apply for asylum defensively by filing the application with an immigration judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the Department of Justice. In other words, asylum is applied for “as a defense against removal from the U.S.” Unlike the criminal court system, EOIR does not provide appointed counsel for individuals in immigration court, even if they are unable to retain an attorney on their own.
With or without counsel, an asylum seeker has the burden of proving that he or she meets the definition of a refugee. Asylum seekers often provide substantial evidence throughout the affirmative and defensive processes demonstrating either past persecution or that they have a “well-founded fear” of future persecution in their home country. However, the individual’s own testimony is usually critical to his or her asylum determination.

Certain factors bar individuals from asylum. With limited exceptions, individuals who fail to apply for asylum within one year of entering the United States will be barred from receiving asylum. Similarly, applicants who are found to pose a danger to the United States are barred from asylum.


On the other hand, folks trying to enter the country unlawfully are taken into custody and charged with violation of US immigration law. Deportation proceedings are initiated, and they are required to arrange alternative child care during this criminal law process. If they are unable to secure alternative arrangement, their kids will have to be placed in custody of the government until an alternative caregiver becomes available or until the parents asylum request is either approved or they are repatriated to their home country



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: face23785

But it does not have to be enforced either, does it? If it's been a choice for all other admins, or a situation has never arisen for it to be an issue... why does it become an issue for this one suddenly? What changed?


If you change the law you don't have to worry about whether it's enforced or not. Why is it suddenly an issue that it's "enforced more" when it was enforced before and nobody cared. Separating x many children is okay, but 2x is not? That a strange form of morality.

Sounds more like people just needed something to run on for the midterms.


I agree with you, the laws should be changed but until they are, they should not be used as an excuse to perform such deeds.

If one thinks they should be changed, then don't engage in them -- that's a choice. No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to enact zero tolerance and then to separate thousands of children, as per some law that never caused such issues before.

Besides, I think these facilities may have been equipped to deal with an occasional detained child, but I bet there is a big difference with having a child with a social worker, one on one... and a hundred children per social worker, with armed guards. Not letting senators in.

A bit different.


No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to break US law either. Any consequence of that is on them. No one is holding a gun to the government's head and forcing them to separate you from your children if you commit embezzlement either. You can tug on people's heart strings about how you were just taking money from greedy corporations and they have more than enough money anyway so your children shouldn't have to suffer so those 1 percenters can keep more of their money, and some people may buy that argument. So now you're exempt from that law. Maybe I want to be exempt from a different law because I've got a sad story too.

Where does it end?

No, sorry. How about, until the law is changed, having children shouldn't be used as an excuse to break the law? No one has room to complain for being prosecuted. This isn't the #ing Wild West.


No, no one was holding a gun to their heads either, but that should have no effect on us and our humanity.

Paraphrasing, someone -- To know what a society is like, take a look at how it treats those most unfortunate.

I was looking for that quote and the best I could find in a quick search was Sirius Black -- "If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors." Yes, from Harry Potter. Yes, I'm serious.


You're not actually responding to the point. Why is it inhumane to enforce this law, but perfectly fine to enforce every other law on the books. You don't see the inherent problem with saying "yeah, this law sucks, so it's too inhumane to enforce it if the perp has kids"?

For the 3rd or 4th time, where does that end? Do I get a say in which laws we should be exempt from, or is that just up to you?


Why is it inhumane to enforce this law, but perfectly fine to enforce every other law on the books?

Any law that ends in inhumane policies should not be enforced. Who said it was just one?

In a compassionate administration, Zero Tolerance should not have been enforced until preparations were made to make sure humans are not being abused and families are not separated, and especially illegally separated for more than 20 days that the law allows. Some kids have been separated for months now, illegal under every one of our laws, but no one talks about it any more because we have other distractions.

Besides, we're way past talking about laws on this. We all know the law only allowed a 20 day detention.


So that would be every law? Because every law can result in a parent being separated from their kids.


Illegally separated and subjected to harm? Yes, any law. Why are you even asking me this? Do you think laws are more important than human life?



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Haven't read the rest of the replies but I will be back later, leaving the page up. Family time.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

Enjoy


Mine went to bed to early



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: face23785

But it does not have to be enforced either, does it? If it's been a choice for all other admins, or a situation has never arisen for it to be an issue... why does it become an issue for this one suddenly? What changed?


If you change the law you don't have to worry about whether it's enforced or not. Why is it suddenly an issue that it's "enforced more" when it was enforced before and nobody cared. Separating x many children is okay, but 2x is not? That a strange form of morality.

Sounds more like people just needed something to run on for the midterms.


I agree with you, the laws should be changed but until they are, they should not be used as an excuse to perform such deeds.

If one thinks they should be changed, then don't engage in them -- that's a choice. No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to enact zero tolerance and then to separate thousands of children, as per some law that never caused such issues before.

Besides, I think these facilities may have been equipped to deal with an occasional detained child, but I bet there is a big difference with having a child with a social worker, one on one... and a hundred children per social worker, with armed guards. Not letting senators in.

A bit different.


No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to break US law either. Any consequence of that is on them. No one is holding a gun to the government's head and forcing them to separate you from your children if you commit embezzlement either. You can tug on people's heart strings about how you were just taking money from greedy corporations and they have more than enough money anyway so your children shouldn't have to suffer so those 1 percenters can keep more of their money, and some people may buy that argument. So now you're exempt from that law. Maybe I want to be exempt from a different law because I've got a sad story too.

Where does it end?

No, sorry. How about, until the law is changed, having children shouldn't be used as an excuse to break the law? No one has room to complain for being prosecuted. This isn't the #ing Wild West.


No, no one was holding a gun to their heads either, but that should have no effect on us and our humanity.

Paraphrasing, someone -- To know what a society is like, take a look at how it treats those most unfortunate.

I was looking for that quote and the best I could find in a quick search was Sirius Black -- "If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors." Yes, from Harry Potter. Yes, I'm serious.


You're not actually responding to the point. Why is it inhumane to enforce this law, but perfectly fine to enforce every other law on the books. You don't see the inherent problem with saying "yeah, this law sucks, so it's too inhumane to enforce it if the perp has kids"?

For the 3rd or 4th time, where does that end? Do I get a say in which laws we should be exempt from, or is that just up to you?


Why is it inhumane to enforce this law, but perfectly fine to enforce every other law on the books?

Any law that ends in inhumane policies should not be enforced. Who said it was just one?

In a compassionate administration, Zero Tolerance should not have been enforced until preparations were made to make sure humans are not being abused and families are not separated, and especially illegally separated for more than 20 days that the law allows. Some kids have been separated for months now, illegal under every one of our laws, but no one talks about it any more because we have other distractions.

Besides, we're way past talking about laws on this. We all know the law only allowed a 20 day detention.


So that would be every law? Because every law can result in a parent being separated from their kids.


Illegally separated and subjected to harm? Yes, any law. Why are you even asking me this? Do you think laws are more important than human life?


No one has been illegally separated. Some kids have been held longer than 20 days, for various reasons. In a lot of cases it's because their parents are in jail. Would you prefer the kids be jailed as well, or that the parents just be made exempt from the law? We keep coming back to that. Why do you think these people should be exempt from the law?

What harm have they been subjected to that every kid whose parent gets arrested is subjected to?

Your final point is just silly. A complete disregard for the law would lead to much more human suffering than enforcing it does.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



People committing illegal acts should not go to jail ?


So when you speed should you go to jail?

It's a stupid argument, you don't prosecute refugees, you either admit them, reject them or put them in camps but criminal prosecution is just stupid and pointless.

Pretty much everyone in the Trump campaign and administration are criminals, why aren't you calling for them to be prosecuted??

Speeding IS NOT a crime. The speed limit is a local ordnance .
What a lame rebuttal
But , I have learned just expect such from some...

edit on 7/12/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



People committing illegal acts should not go to jail ?


So when you speed should you go to jail?

It's a stupid argument, you don't prosecute refugees, you either admit them, reject them or put them in camps but criminal prosecution is just stupid and pointless.

Pretty much everyone in the Trump campaign and administration are criminals, why aren't you calling for them to be prosecuted??


If you engage in such a speed as for it to be criminal behavior, yes!

Violate the law - expect criminal prosecution - anything else is anarchy and stupid. If you want to repeal a law, do it through elected representatives. If they refuse to do so ( as is the case now) it is because CITIZENS who voted for the politicians do NOT support repeal.

You seek to reject democracy in favor of left-wing dictatorship



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   
This is a delightfully slippery slope, and one that many supporters of separation seem to be missing.

Most of you claim that its truly just to tear kids away from their families, after all, the parents are evil criminals who deserve it all right?

This logic is stupid, because it's predicated on the law itself being just. How many of you folks would be up in arms if you were arrested for not vaccinating your children (and have them taken from your custody because of it)?

I mean, this whole argument in favor of separating children from immigrants seeking asylum is so asinine its akin to advocating the death penalty for all crimes and misdemeanors....
edit on 28pm18fpmThu, 12 Jul 2018 22:04:50 -0500America/ChicagoThu, 12 Jul 2018 22:04:50 -0500 by Wayfarer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
This is a delightfully slippery slope, and one that many supporters of separation seem to be missing.

Most of you claim that its truly just to tear kids away from their families, after all, the parents are evil criminals who deserve it all right?

This logic is stupid, because it's predicated on the law itself being just. How many of you folks would be up in arms if you were arrested for not vaccinating your children (and have them taken from your custody because of it)?

I mean, this whole argument in favor of separating children from immigrants seeking asylum is so asinine its akin to advocating the death penalty for all crimes and misdemeanors....


No one wants to separate parents from children.
However, this happens to anyone, citizen or not, regardless of the offense, when parents go to jail.

In the specifc case of immigrants, blame the ACLU's incompetence/unintended consequences in the Flores case. The Flores settlement was signed by Democrat Bill Clinton's administration in 1997.

Recently,Republicans in Congress have proposed legislation that would overrule Flores and allow children to be kept with their parents in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody . Democrats did NOTHING.

This separation of children policy has been going on for years, throughout the Obama Presidency, with neither Obama nor the left raising a finger. Hypocrisy much ?

Trump at least signed an executive order to end it, something Obama could have done, but did NOTHING.
edit on 12-7-2018 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: face23785

But it does not have to be enforced either, does it? If it's been a choice for all other admins, or a situation has never arisen for it to be an issue... why does it become an issue for this one suddenly? What changed?


If you change the law you don't have to worry about whether it's enforced or not. Why is it suddenly an issue that it's "enforced more" when it was enforced before and nobody cared. Separating x many children is okay, but 2x is not? That a strange form of morality.

Sounds more like people just needed something to run on for the midterms.


I agree with you, the laws should be changed but until they are, they should not be used as an excuse to perform such deeds.

If one thinks they should be changed, then don't engage in them -- that's a choice. No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to enact zero tolerance and then to separate thousands of children, as per some law that never caused such issues before.

Besides, I think these facilities may have been equipped to deal with an occasional detained child, but I bet there is a big difference with having a child with a social worker, one on one... and a hundred children per social worker, with armed guards. Not letting senators in.

A bit different.


No one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to break US law either. Any consequence of that is on them. No one is holding a gun to the government's head and forcing them to separate you from your children if you commit embezzlement either. You can tug on people's heart strings about how you were just taking money from greedy corporations and they have more than enough money anyway so your children shouldn't have to suffer so those 1 percenters can keep more of their money, and some people may buy that argument. So now you're exempt from that law. Maybe I want to be exempt from a different law because I've got a sad story too.

Where does it end?

No, sorry. How about, until the law is changed, having children shouldn't be used as an excuse to break the law? No one has room to complain for being prosecuted. This isn't the #ing Wild West.


No, no one was holding a gun to their heads either, but that should have no effect on us and our humanity.

Paraphrasing, someone -- To know what a society is like, take a look at how it treats those most unfortunate.

I was looking for that quote and the best I could find in a quick search was Sirius Black -- "If you want to know what a man’s like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors." Yes, from Harry Potter. Yes, I'm serious.


You're not actually responding to the point. Why is it inhumane to enforce this law, but perfectly fine to enforce every other law on the books. You don't see the inherent problem with saying "yeah, this law sucks, so it's too inhumane to enforce it if the perp has kids"?

For the 3rd or 4th time, where does that end? Do I get a say in which laws we should be exempt from, or is that just up to you?


Why is it inhumane to enforce this law, but perfectly fine to enforce every other law on the books?

Any law that ends in inhumane policies should not be enforced. Who said it was just one?

In a compassionate administration, Zero Tolerance should not have been enforced until preparations were made to make sure humans are not being abused and families are not separated, and especially illegally separated for more than 20 days that the law allows. Some kids have been separated for months now, illegal under every one of our laws, but no one talks about it any more because we have other distractions.

Besides, we're way past talking about laws on this. We all know the law only allowed a 20 day detention.


So that would be every law? Because every law can result in a parent being separated from their kids.


Illegally separated and subjected to harm? Yes, any law. Why are you even asking me this? Do you think laws are more important than human life?


No one has been illegally separated. Some kids have been held longer than 20 days, for various reasons. In a lot of cases it's because their parents are in jail. Would you prefer the kids be jailed as well, or that the parents just be made exempt from the law? We keep coming back to that. Why do you think these people should be exempt from the law?

What harm have they been subjected to that every kid whose parent gets arrested is subjected to?

Your final point is just silly. A complete disregard for the law would lead to much more human suffering than enforcing it does.


The courts have already ruled people were held apart illegally, that it was unconstitutional, and the government is already working on reuniting the families. The government already asked for an extension and was struck down on it and then yesterday they announced all of the youngest children have now been reunited.

It is kind of pointless arguing that any of this was legal when it was already found illegal and steps are being taken to remedy it.

And the last point is not silly, at all. Are laws more important than human life? I think the laws are in in place to protect human life and make it easier, if they start working against that goal they should be ignored and changed. But anyone with a conscience should ignore a bad law if it causes harm.



posted on Jul, 12 2018 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

We aren't supposed to notice that, however! I have actually seen people claiming that illegal entry is "no more serious than a traffic ticket", as a reason to not incarcerate these people.

It's beyond bizarre.

And, yes, a good 80% are sent alone, by their parents. Yet not one Leftist complains about that. How many are with human traffickers, we don't even know. Many whoa re unaccompanied end up sneaking away from the facilities where they are held, too. Many of those re teen gang members. Some carry diseases.




top topics



 
34
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join