Trump caves and will reunite familes

Bud Plug said:

1. Yes, "comes to live", not "wants to live, without following that country's immigration procedures".
2. Yes, the US could put them all up in a 5 star hotel with their parents, along with anyone else awaiting a hearing. Any reason they should? When a stranger knocks at your front door, do you feel obliged to invite them in, cook for them, and let them stay with you for as long they wish? How about if they break in?
3. The issue was exaggerated from the beginning. Most of children in these detention centers are not there because of family separation. Should they also be held in hotels pending trial as well (along with their human traffickers)?
4. A detention facility is not a jail. The only reason these kids can't go where they wish is because they have nowhere they can go - they can't be allowed to simply enter the US, and they have no one to look after them in Mexico or elsewhere. They are being detained for their own good, so they don't end up on the streets trying to steal food to survive, or worse.

Still yet to hear a reasonable alternative to the system in place.

Click to expand...

1. Thanks, you got it, no need to point out the paperwork needed.
2. More silliness, but again, you got that the USA 'underperformed' — is that PC enough for you — to be called abusive. Your hyperbole makes that very clear.
3. Human traffickers now? When you have the numbers for those 'trafficked children' in their 'rescue shelters', do let us know. Apparently it's beyond the powers of the CBP to come up with them. Which kinda puts the lie to what god-guys they are in all this. They're 'trafficking' in the kids too, not re-uniting them with their families. And they don't even know how many they've got.
4. More PC bullshit; a detention facility is a jail. Your claim that it's for their own good, and better than any alternative fails unless you produce parents, children and impartial observers who support it. None so far.

As to that reasonable alternative you're waiting to hear about, I suggest you check the White House website. He's the guy in charge of such stuff. Or do you imagine it won't be reasonable?

Bud Plug said:

It's easy to post refutations around here. So much inaccuracy and shoddy logic. Luckily, I still have some level of self control, or I could go on and on over multiple threads, day after day, kind of like Oagre!

However, the most time wasting posts of all are these "meta comments" like yours about the MO's of people. Just deal with my points, or don't. The rest is meaningless.

Click to expand...

Maybe we would post more reasonable responses to your posts, if you were honest enough to admit that you were wrong, for example, in a recent case, where you insisted that it would take a change in law by Congress to not separate children from their parents.

It is hard to take you seriously, if you are not willing to admit it when you were wrong.

oldjones said:

1. Thanks, you got it, no need to point out the paperwork needed.
2. More silliness, but again, you got that the USA 'underperformed' — is that PC enough for you — to be called abusive. Your hyperbole makes that very clear.
3. Human traffickers now? When you have the numbers for those 'trafficked children' in their 'rescue shelters', do let us know. Apparently it's beyond the powers of the CBP to come up with them. Which kinda puts the lie to what god-guys they are in all this. They're 'trafficking' in the kids too, not re-uniting them with their families. And they don't even know how many they've got.
4. More PC bullshit; a detention facility is a jail. Your claim that it's for their own good, and better than any alternative fails unless you produce parents, children and impartial observers who support it. None so far.

As to that reasonable alternative you're waiting to hear about, I suggest you check the White House website. He's the guy in charge of such stuff. Or do you imagine it won't be reasonable?

Click to expand...

1. The paperwork is exactly how you go from "illegal" to "legal". But I don't really have to tell you that.
2. It is silly to break into someone's home and expect to be united with your children as you await a hearing.
3. Not sure when the human trafficking statistics will become available, but I'll be happy to share them when they do. I'm going on current reports that 10K of 12K children in custody were not accompanied by their parents. Someone was paid to smuggle them over the border (or worse, they were abducted). What I'm pretty sure of is that 10,000 kids didn't just organize their own trips across Mexico and illegally across the US border.
4. What would you think of US government policy if they simply allowed these kids to wander the streets and fend for themselves, with all the resultant mayhem? Only detention can prevent that. If the answer is "I'd be against that policy", then I think you are not arguing so much about "jails" and "freedom" as you are about having parental care.

danmand said:

Maybe we would post more reasonable responses to your posts, if you were honest enough to admit that you were wrong, for example, in a recent case, where you insisted that it would take a change in law by Congress to not separate children from their parents.

It is hard to take you seriously, if you are not willing to admit it when you were wrong.

Click to expand...

As soon as you can accurately represent any of my positions, then I'll take a look at correcting them.

here

Bud Plug said:

What do you mean? Are you saying Trump created the law that prohibits illegal entry into the US? Presidents can't create laws. That's what Congress does.

Click to expand...

and here

nottyboi said:

The president can, through executive orders, define how laws are interpreted and under national security he can do whatever he wants Congress can stop him ,,,eventually This is what Trump has done through executive orders. He has directed how the law is to be enforced and this is the result.

Click to expand...

Bud Plug said:

The President doesn't decide what is a "crime", as you put it. Or were you just exaggerating for effect?

Click to expand...

danmand said:

here

Click to expand...

Not sure how to include my original quote with your text. I'm referring to your post #65.

My statement is correct. The rest are questions. Nothing to correct here.

danmand said:

and here

Click to expand...

Same problem re including quotes from your post. Let me know if there is a way to do that. Referring to your post #66.

My statement is correct. You quote the wrong post from Nuttyboi. It is a different passage where he claims that Trump "criminalized" illegal border crossings, etc. Nottyboi's statement about EO authority is also inaccurate. However, the explanation for the true scope of EO authority is a long one (and a subject I've addressed before), and not really relevant to the point you are trying to make, so I won't repeat it here.

Nothing to correct here.

In short, I think the problem here is that you and Nottyboi are not completely clear on some of the legal principles that apply to the interplay of federal statutes and the administration of justice under the US legal system.

Bud Plug said:

What he actually said is he'd like to believe that he would have acted. A subtle difference.

Click to expand...

Your subtle difference claim is subtly wrong. Trump stated " You know I really believe, you don't know till you are tested, but I think, I really believe I would have run in there, even if I didn't have a weapon .....".
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/968177543743524866

That's pretty black and white, please don't try to twist this too BP. Trump wanted people at the news conference to believe he would have been a hero on that day. He even tried the old "I'm sure you would have too ....." line.

Yet the self proclaimed hero had the opportunity to show his metal with his New York Academy classmates, but instead used four educational deferments to avoid Vietnam military service and then the famous bone-spur deferment .... yet he was able to march, play tennis and "I was very active in many sports". Interestingly it wasn't a military doctor that examined him: “I had a doctor that gave me a letter — a very strong letter on the heels,” Trump told the New York Times. <rolleyes>

But Trump apparently indeed made sacrifices as he told the Gold Star family he was criticizing at the time: "included creating jobs and helping establish a Vietnam War memorial in New York". Yep, Trump is the greatest, bestest, biggest, most intelligent President and hero ever!

Promo said:

Your subtle difference claim is subtly wrong. Trump stated " You know I really believe, you don't know till you are tested, but I think, I really believe I would have run in there, even if I didn't have a weapon .....".
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/968177543743524866

That's pretty black and white, please don't try to twist this too BP. Trump wanted people at the news conference to believe he would have been a hero on that day. He even tried the old "I'm sure you would have too ....." line.

Yet the self proclaimed hero had the opportunity to show his metal with his New York Academy classmates, but instead used four educational deferments to avoid Vietnam military service and then the famous bone-spur deferment .... yet he was able to march, play tennis and "I was very active in many sports". Interestingly it wasn't a military doctor that examined him: “I had a doctor that gave me a letter — a very strong letter on the heels,” Trump told the New York Times. <rolleyes>

But Trump apparently indeed made sacrifices as he told the Gold Star family he was criticizing at the time: "included creating jobs and helping establish a Vietnam War memorial in New York". Yep, Trump is the greatest, bestest, biggest, most intelligent President and hero ever!

Click to expand...

I did say the difference was subtle. Do you really think there's a meaningful difference between "you don't know till you are tested, but I think, I really believe I would have run in there" and my paraphrase of "he'd like to believe"? I don't think so. But I think both are subtly but qualitatively different than claiming that Trump said, unreservedly, that he would have run in to confront the shooter. They are both kinds of bragging, but the way you put it exaggerates his bragging slightly.

My paraphrase was, like all paraphrasing, subtly inaccurate, but I think your paraphrase (also subtly inaccurate) was a subtle exaggeration.

Bud Plug said:

1. The paperwork is exactly how you go from "illegal" to "legal". But I don't really have to tell you that.
2. It is silly to break into someone's home and expect to be united with your children as you await a hearing.
3. Not sure when the human trafficking statistics will become available, but I'll be happy to share them when they do. I'm going on current reports that 10K of 12K children in custody were not accompanied by their parents. Someone was paid to smuggle them over the border (or worse, they were abducted). What I'm pretty sure of is that 10,000 kids didn't just organize their own trips across Mexico and illegally across the US border.
4. What would you think of US government policy if they simply allowed these kids to wander the streets and fend for themselves, with all the resultant mayhem? Only detention can prevent that. If the answer is "I'd be against that policy", then I think you are not arguing so much about "jails" and "freedom" as you are about having parental care.

Click to expand...

1. Done. Immigrants are immigrants are immigrants. Legal is different from illegal, neither can be assumed in this context.
2. Not comparable. The danger of such separation hasn't deterred crimes by parents. So why do you and this Administration imagine it would deter people desperate enough to trek thousands of dangerous miles? It is stupidity so determined it can only be a dogma of faith. Like mandatory minimum sentences stopping criminals.
3. What's holding them up? Can't they count? Don't they keep records? I don't believe that, nor the unsubstantiated numbers you pulled out of nowhere.
4. More fantasies. Who is proposing that? I alluded above to more reasonable alternatives. And I'm sure your favourite PotUS has finally tasked some of his people to think up some more. Many months later than he should.

Nothing useful or entertaining is coming out of these exchanges over technicalities, false assumptions and misinterpretations. I'll leave you to them. The issue was and is, an unnecessarily cruel and abusive policy that the President approved and lied to the people about, for the crassest of ideological reasons, then retracted. We can discuss that any time you'd like.

Bud Plug said:

It's easy to post refutations around here. So much inaccuracy and shoddy logic. Luckily, I still have some level of self control, or I could go on and on over multiple threads, day after day, kind of like Oagre!

However, the most time wasting posts of all are these "meta comments" like yours about the MO's of people. Just deal with my points, or don't. The rest is meaningless.

Click to expand...

LOL, did I hurt your feelings? "inaccuracy and shoddy logic" are the hallmark of your posts. I personally have provided absolute proof several times (as well as several others) that you don't do proper research before commenting, you regularly make up "facts" to suit your narrative, you often incorrectly interpreting information and in almost every post you twist the facts to support your argument.

Self control ....... you've had many little hissy fits when conversations haven't gone your way. You are always the first to hurl insults instead of rebutting another poster.

Bud Plug, if you can't stand the heat, get of of the kitchen ....... or ...... if you are gonna bullsh*t, expect aggressive blow-back.

oldjones said:

1. Done. Immigrants are immigra
2. Not comparable. The danger of such separation hasn't deterred crimes by parents. So why do you and this Administration imagine it would deter people desperate enough to trek thousands of dangerous miles? It is stupidity so determined it can only be a dogma of faith. Like mandatory minimum sentences stopping criminals.
3. What's holding them up? Can't they count? Don't they keep records? I don't believe that, no unsubstantiated numbers you pulled out of nowhere.
4. More fantasies. Who is proposing that? I alluded above to more reasonable alternatives. And I'm sure your favourite PotUS has finally tasked some of his people to do exactly that. Many months later than he should.

Nothing useful or entertaining is coming out of exchanges over technicalities, false assumptions and misinterpretations. I'll leave you to them. The issue was and is, an unnecessarily cruel and abusive policy that the President approved and lied to the people about, for the crassest of ideological reasons, then retracted. We can discuss that any time you'd like.

Click to expand...

I'll leave others who may choose to read our exchange to determine where there have been false assumptions and/or misinterpretations. As to the precise numbers on unaccompanied children attempting to cross (and related human trafficking issues), looks like Factcheck.org ran into the same statistical confirmation problem I did. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/qa-on-border-detention-of-children/

What Trump is choosing to do now (for political reasons) is not necessarily what the US is obliged to do, either legally or morally, and the latter was the heart of this exchange.

Promo said:

LOL, did I hurt your feelings? "inaccuracy and shoddy logic" are the hallmark of your posts. I personally have provided absolute proof several times (as well as several others) that you don't do proper research before commenting, you regularly make up "facts" to suit your narrative, you often incorrectly interpreting information and in almost every post you twist the facts to support your argument.

Self control ....... you've had many little hissy fits when conversations haven't gone your way. You are always the first to hurl insults instead of rebutting another poster.

Bud Plug, if you can't stand the heat, get of of the kitchen ....... or ...... if you are gonna bullsh*t, expect aggressive blow-back.

Click to expand...

You silly man. On one occasion you were correct about a tangential matter, and I agreed you were correct (although you didn't have the grace on that occasion to retract your more outrageous allegation that I had been lying, as opposed to have simply been wrong). You've let that go to your head.

I'm actually the last to resort to personal insults in these threads, as you've proven once again.

Bud Plug said:

Except:

1. They are not immigrants.
2. They were not being abused.
3. The law being applied was not Trump's law, but rather had been passed by Congress.
4. You don't have to see law breakers as sub-human to think there should be consequences for breaking the law. Being detained pending trial is an obvious consequence of attempting illegal entry.

Click to expand...

1. They are labelled “illegal” immigrants. It’s a subjective, perjorative label...kinda like how marijuana is “illegal” until the law changes and then it’s not.

2. Separating children from their parents as a form of punishent/deterrence is harmful to the child and an act of abuse by the State. That this even has to be explained to you is appalling.

3. Trump enacted the “zero tolerance” policy with the specific intent to create this crisis.

4. Maybe you are cool with abducting children to punish their parents and scare other potential “law breakers.” Most would see it as a human rights abuse. The fact that you don’t tells us all we need to know about you.

Bud Plug said:

I'll leave others who may choose to read our exchange to determine where there have been false assumptions and/or misinterpretations. As to the precise numbers on unaccompanied children attempting to cross (and related human trafficking issues), looks like Factcheck.org ran into the same statistical confirmation problem I did. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/qa-on-border-detention-of-children/

What Trump is choosing to do now (for political reasons) is not necessarily what the US is obliged to do, either legally or morally, and the latter was the heart of this exchange.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the effort. So no numbers on trafficked children; unless we assume gross dereliction by DHS and CBP we must assume the numbers are too insignificant to merit a category. The idea that they'd not notice or not care if there were significant numbers, is too horrible.

The thread is about executive policy finally reuniting families, needlessly and cruelly separated by earlier executive policy. All Donny's choices, all the time. And as the mighty USA has repeatedly shown the world, no one obliges it to do anything it doesn't want to.

Why didn't it want to do right from the get-go? Like the election, the people wanted something, the system gave them something else.

See ya.

Bud Plug said:

I'll leave others who may choose to read our exchange to determine where there have been false assumptions and/or misinterpretations. As to the precise numbers on unaccompanied children attempting to cross (and related human trafficking issues), looks like Factcheck.org ran into the same statistical confirmation problem I did. https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/qa-on-border-detention-of-children/

What Trump is choosing to do now (for political reasons) is not necessarily what the US is obliged to do, either legally or morally, and the latter was the heart of this exchange.

Click to expand...

Trump was not obliged to do anything legally. He CHOSE to enact and execute these procedures in this manner. Morally, he realized it was unethical when many people acted with outrage and he backed down. For you to say "morals are optional" really says a lot about you. Having the leader of the free world with no morality? Ok by you? OMG!!!

Oagre had it right 2 pages ago...Bud Plug just goes on and on making one ignorant, half-witted claim after another. The guy is a racist moron...I’m surprised he doesn’t advocate putting land mines across the border and alligators in the Rio Grande to “deter” those nasty, brown-skinned “illegals”.

I really need to be more disciplined and refrain from reading his posts.

LT56 said:

1. They are labelled “illegal” immigrants. It’s a subjective, perjorative label...kinda like how marijuana is “illegal” until the law changes and then it’s not.

2. Separating children from their parents as a form of punishent/deterrence is harmful to the child and an act of abuse by the State. That this even has to be explained to you is appalling.

3. Trump enacted the “zero tolerance” policy with the specific intent to create this crisis.

4. Maybe you are cool with abducting children to punish their parents and scare other potential “law breakers.” Most would see it as a human rights abuse. The fact that you don’t tells us all we need to know about you.

Click to expand...

1. Illegal is an appropriate pejorative term for people who do something illegal. If crossing borders and relocating at will ever becomes permissible, I guess the term "illegal immigrant" will then become inappropriate.
2. Everyone who is detained pending a trial is separated from their children. It is a detestable thing for children to endure, but it is a consequence of the actions of the parent. Blame them for subjecting their children to such experiences. It is mind boggling to me how some cannot see where the blame lies here.
3. Trump created the zero tolerance policy to discourage illegal migration to the US, partially in response to efforts by some to challenge the US borders by organizing caravans of illegal migrants to overwhelm border security resources. If your own home were under siege, wouldn't you consider something similar?
4. It isn't the "abduction of children", any more than when the CAS takes a child into its custody when their parents go to jail here in Ontario. These are steps taken for the protection of children, not vice versa. You are learning something about me. You're learning that I don't think people should be able to bully their way across borders, and that they should be detained and tried for doing so, and that if they choose to involve their children in such attempts that the children should be taken into the protection of the state while the parents await a hearing - for the protection and safe guarding of these children.

nottyboi said:

Trump was not obliged to do anything legally. He CHOSE to enact and execute these procedures in this manner. Morally, he realized it was unethical when many people acted with outrage and he backed down. For you to say "morals are optional" really says a lot about you. Having the leader of the free world with no morality? Ok by you? OMG!!!

Click to expand...

Trump realized that he was losing ground politically. That doesn't mean "morals are optional" (by the way, where did I say that? See what I mean about accuracy!). It does mean that he changed his mind for political reasons, not because the previous policy was morally deficient.