Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

Mr. Deez said:
It's what you'd call "political privilege." If you're a Democrat, you're allowed to create false narratives, and the media will reinforce them. A Republican doesn't have that privilege. They can pretend that certain things caused various problems without evidence, and it'll just get presumed.

They can also use false issues to cover for their unpopular positions on different but related issues. For example, consider the family separation issue. They are allowed to use that as an underlying issue, so they can bring righteous Sally Struthers-style emotionalism to their side. However, if you look at the issue in detail, there isn't much attempt to avoid separation other than by releasing people. To be clear, there's room for them to make the distinction, but the question isn't asked. Somebody should ask a Democrat this question: "If a person crosses the border illegally with someone he claims to be his child, what should happen to them?" Then make them answer it specifically. But nobody does that. They just let the righteous bellyaching about family separation go on without making them offer specifics even on a superficial level.
Click to expand...
Is it a "false narrative" that Trump refused to add more immigration judges? How 'bout cutting off funding in the immigrant source countries exacerbating the problem? Remember when individuals actually stated that splitting the families up would act as a deterrent?

Im not saying that the left's narrative isn't biased but repeatedly only pointing out one sides bias is merely pointing at your own.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Is it a "false narrative" that Trump refused to add more immigration judges? How 'bout cutting off funding in the immigrant source countries exacerbating the problem? Remember when individuals actually stated that splitting the families up would act as a deterrent?
Click to expand...

The problem is that none of that is driving family separation. It's happening as an operation of law, and frankly, on paper it's a good law. It's the same policy behind having juvenile detention centers rather than putting kids in adult prisons.

Seattle Husker said:
Im not saying that the left's narrative isn't biased but repeatedly only pointing out one sides bias is merely pointing at your own.
Click to expand...

Of course Trump is biased in all kinds of ways. The difference is that he's called on it repeatedly.
 
Is it a "false narrative" that Trump refused to add more immigration judges? How 'bout cutting off funding in the immigrant source countries exacerbating the problem? Remember when individuals actually stated that splitting the families up would act as a deterrent?
Click to expand...

That is the first I heard of Trump refusing to add judges. I am not sure what is within his power alone and how he needs new laws passed in order to take action. If he did in fact do that, it could be because he is looking for ways to save money or it could be that is trying to make life hard on immigrants. I could believe either, but we can both agree on the result; problems.

I do know absolutely that he cut off funding to Central American countries. I could agree with it if I knew the history behind the funding and how it was being spent in the receiving countries. I agree that the amount is probably insignificant in terms of affecting the budget. If the money was being used to support poor families then I am against cutting off the funding. That isn't a given though based on what I know about foreign aid. In fact, anyone who has studied the results of US foreign aid has found the actual results are negative. The law of unintended consequences is demonstrated consistently. Based on that understanding, I am for cutting off all foreign aid. Further, if the studies are correct, and there are enough they said the same thing consistently to believe them to be reliable, then ending the aid should in the long term be a benefit to those countries.

I think the bigger problem in Central America, at least historically, is US military intervention. Not sure it has caused the increase in refugees from the area, but in the past it has harmed their economies, which is a factor though more indirect.

I do remember Trump or someone in his administration or at least reports in the news that he said that splitting up families is a deterrent. That is cruel. In a vacuum I do not agree with splitting up families. I do heard that a large % of the adults traveling with the children are not their parents and many times are using the children to gain entry. Under those circumstances I agree with investigating and separating the children from the adult if there is a reasonable suspicion that the adult is not a parent. I don't know if I agree with Deez on his comment about exposing the children to adult prisons. I don't know that is a 1:1 comparison. The detention centers aren't for criminals per se. And if the adult is the parent I would think the child would be better taken care of with them than in a juvenile holding area where bullying would expected.

Either way it is a bad situation, for which it doesn't seem anyone is trying to improve. I agree with Trump that illegals should not be allowed to enter the country and expected to show up to a court appearance later. They should be held at the border and accepted or denied entry there. But the infrastructure is not in place to properly do that. I am all for improving the resources and process while carrying out the direction of the President.
 
Monahorns said:
I don't know if I agree with Deez on his comment about exposing the children to adult prisons. I don't know that is a 1:1 comparison. The detention centers aren't for criminals per se. And if the adult is the parent I would think the child would be better taken care of with them than in a juvenile holding area where bullying would expected.
Click to expand...

Just to make it clear, I don't think families should be separated unless there's reason to believe the alleged parents aren't actually the parents, have abused the children, or have criminal records. As a general rule, we should have family detention centers that deal only with illegal border crossers. It's a big enough class of people to have a separate system from the normal criminal justice system.

I only brought that point up to explain why it happens. The general rule that we keep adults and children separate in the criminal context is a good thing.
 
Mona
What Trump actually said was
"“[W]hat we have to do is Congress has to meet quickly and make a deal. I could do it in 45 minutes. We need to get rid of chain migration. We need to get rid of catch and release and visa lottery. And we have to do something about asylum. And to be honest with you, you have to get rid of judges.”
Maybe that is what SH is referencing.

What actually he did do was send extra judges to the border to speed up cases.
 
:brickwall:
"In her Saturday op-ed entitled, “The Treatment of Migrants Likely ‘Meets the Definition of a Mass Atrocity’,” writer Kate Cronin-Furman begins by saying that CBP agents must be held accountable for their participation in upholding immigration law.

“Those of us who want to stop what’s happening need to think about all the different individuals playing a role in the systematic mistreatment of migrant children and how we can get them to stop participating,” Cronin-Furman wrote.
The identities of the individual Customs and Border Protection agents who are physically separating children from their families and staffing the detention centers are not undiscoverable. Immigration lawyers have agent names; journalists reporting at the border have names, photos and even videos. These agents’ actions should be publicized, particularly in their home communities.”

Cronin-Furman then argued how doxxing CBP agents isn’t actually doxxing, comparing it to putting pressure on the Nazis during World War II."

:whiteflag:
 
Democrats voted to fine Americans for not buying health insurance, but want to give it to illegal non-citizens for free. Let this sink in.

:idk::yikes::cursing2:
 
Yes Trump sometimes says and tweets stuff I wish he would not.
But he has this exactly right when he says if the illegals do not like the conditions at facilities they can go back.
Or stay home.
 
Last edited:
The collective memory of US Media reminds me of that of my grandmother. Very selective.

Watch their guy back in 2014 saying --
“Do not send your children to the borders.
If they do make it, they’ll get sent back.
More importantly they may not make it.” ​
You would think showing this now would be timely and on point. But they dont show it. And they wont.

 
Yes.

The funny thing is that most of the Mexicans I know are against illegal immigration.

The news media parades Mexican illegal immigration sympathizers, but I don't think they are in a majority. The thing conservatives can't do though is talk about all Latinos like they are illegal. There are also way too many cases of Latino citizens being denied passports or even re-entry by US Immigration.
 
DOJ has, at long last has, clarified some of the "asylum rules." The main restrictions apply to illegal aliens applying for asylum who attempted “to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country.” The new rules apply only to illegal aliens from countries other than those bordering the United States.

I would not have allowed this specific allowance for Mexicans and Canadians, but I suppose this concession was part of a closed door negotiation that we will not learn the truth about for 20 years.

In addition, this new rule has two more obvious flaws --
(a) It does not go into effect for 30 days (from Monday).
(b) It does not apply to "asylum seekers" who’ve already applied.
These latter two exceptions seem like something the Bushes came up with.

This is something that I have argued for 20 years, but here we are. Nice of the AG to throw us some crumbs.

From Barr --

“The rule’s bar on asylum eligibility for aliens who fail to apply for protection in at least one third country through which they transit en route to the United States also aims to further the humanitarian purposes of asylum. It prioritizes individuals who are unable to obtain protection from persecution elsewhere and individuals who are victims of a “severe form of trafficking in persons” as defined by 8 CFR 214.11, many of whom do not volitionally transit through a third country to reach the United States.”

“By deterring meritless asylum claims and de-prioritizing the applications of individuals who could have obtained protection in another country, the Departments seek to ensure that those refugees who have no alternative to U.S.-based asylum relief or have been subjected to an extreme form of human trafficking are able to obtain relief more quickly. "​

Barr said the rule seeks to "curtail the humanitarian crisis created by human smugglers bringing men, women, and children across the southern border.”
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
DOJ has at long last has clarified asylum rules to restrict illegal aliens from countries, other than those bordering the United States, for applying for asylum if they have attempted “to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country.”

I would not have allowed this specific allowance for Mexicans and Canadians, but I suppose this concession was part of a closed door negotiation that we will not learn the truth about for 20 years.

In addition, this new rule has two more obvious flaws --
(a) It does not go into effect for 30 days (from Monday).
(b) It does not apply to "asylum seekers" who’ve already applied.
These latter exceptions seem like something the Bushes came up with.

This is something that I have argued for 20 years, but here we are. Nice of the AG to throw us some crumbs.
Click to expand...
It's a good start.
 
This Bloomberg headline is lazy and inaccurate. As a country, we deserve so much better news reporting than we get.

The new rule curtails asylum claims from illegal aliens who enter (or seek to enter) via the southern land border—regardless if they are from Central America or not. Many more illegal aliens than just Central Americans attempt to cross through Mexico (again, excluding Mexicans and apparently Canadians)

 
Joe Fan said:
DOJ has, at long last has, clarified some of the "asylum rules." The main restrictions apply to illegal aliens applying for asylum who attempted “to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country.” The new rules apply only to illegal aliens from countries other than those bordering the United States.

I would not have allowed this specific allowance for Mexicans and Canadians, but I suppose this concession was part of a closed door negotiation that we will not learn the truth about for 20 years.

In addition, this new rule has two more obvious flaws --
(a) It does not go into effect for 30 days (from Monday).
(b) It does not apply to "asylum seekers" who’ve already applied.
These latter two exceptions seem like something the Bushes came up with.

This is something that I have argued for 20 years, but here we are. Nice of the AG to throw us some crumbs.

From Barr --

“The rule’s bar on asylum eligibility for aliens who fail to apply for protection in at least one third country through which they transit en route to the United States also aims to further the humanitarian purposes of asylum. It prioritizes individuals who are unable to obtain protection from persecution elsewhere and individuals who are victims of a “severe form of trafficking in persons” as defined by 8 CFR 214.11, many of whom do not volitionally transit through a third country to reach the United States.”

“By deterring meritless asylum claims and de-prioritizing the applications of individuals who could have obtained protection in another country, the Departments seek to ensure that those refugees who have no alternative to U.S.-based asylum relief or have been subjected to an extreme form of human trafficking are able to obtain relief more quickly. "​

Barr said the rule seeks to "curtail the humanitarian crisis created by human smugglers bringing men, women, and children across the southern border.”
Click to expand...

Trump took Obama's rhetoric, and made it policy
Go figure

 
JF
Thanks for verifiable facts.
Sad the media will ignore facts and millennial voter age might believe Ilan and AOC and think CPB did cage kids and make them drink out of toliets,
 
Facts won't change Progressives minds. I shared the Obama video with a Progressive friend of mine. He was aghast that I would try to say that Obama is bad like Trump. I tried to tell him I agree with Obama. He liked that but said Trump is a racist and evil so everything he says should be judged through that lens. I pushed back, he gave a little ground saying you do have to listen to Trump's actual policy before judging but couldn't grasp that any Trump policy could be anything other than evil and racist. This is a very intelligent PhD type of guy. But education isn't a protection against bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top