I guess I don't understand the faux outrage on illegal children

This is my last post on this subject. I expect some will celebrate that and take the opportunity to throw more insults rather than actually discuss the topic. This post is not directed at them. If you want to have open discussion PM me. This board is no longer the place for that.

This thread has become a conservative circle jerk. "Liberals" don't support open borders or are against immigration enforcement. Joe Fan posted a poll the other day that listed 86% supporting border enforcement. Why did 700+ towns see some sort of protest last week? They aren't protesting enforcement but rather the method of enforcement. Reversing 40yrs of precedent by trying every illegal immigrant in criminal rather than civil court. The Administration openly stated on 2 occasions that removing the children from parents was policy aimed as a deterrent to would be crossers. Of course they later denied they said that like much of what they say knowing Trump can tweet something one day and deny he said it the next and his supporters will deny he ever said it.

Most liberals have little problem with enforcing the border or ICE. It's the methods the leverage and the rhetoric their leaders use to cover for their actions that border on inhumane. Using words like "infest", "rapists" and "insects" to cast a cloud on a population of immigrants which .09% are MS-13 is ignorance at best. My greatest fear in reading this thread is that the more rational posters on West Mall are beginning to bleed the rhetoric, albeit is slightly softer terms. That's a dangerous turn of events and represents that tha far right extreme is having a demonstrable effect on the middle.
 
Seattle Husker said:
This is my last post on this subject. I expect some will celebrate that and take the opportunity to throw more insults rather than actually discuss the topic. This post is not directed at them. If you want to have open discussion PM me. This board is no longer the place for that.

This thread has become a conservative circle jerk. "Liberals" don't support open borders or are against immigration enforcement. Joe Fan posted a poll the other day that listed 86% supporting border enforcement. Why did 700+ towns see some sort of protest last week? They aren't protesting enforcement but rather the method of enforcement. Reversing 40yrs of precedent by trying every illegal immigrant in criminal rather than civil court. The Administration openly stated on 2 occasions that removing the children from parents was policy aimed as a deterrent to would be crossers. Of course they later denied they said that like much of what they say knowing Trump can tweet something one day and deny he said it the next and his supporters will deny he ever said it.

Most liberals have little problem with enforcing the border or ICE. It's the methods the leverage and the rhetoric their leaders use to cover for their actions that border on inhumane. Using words like "infest", "rapists" and "insects" to cast a cloud on a population of immigrants which .09% are MS-13 is ignorance at best. My greatest fear in reading this thread is that the more rational posters on West Mall are beginning to bleed the rhetoric, albeit is slightly softer terms. That's a dangerous turn of events and represents that tha far right extreme is having a demonstrable effect on the middle.
Click to expand...

I'm not celebrating you leaving or withdrawing from this thread. But I think you have a blind-spot as to the Left's intent with the protests. Beto is running to be a US Senator and he is fully engaged with any extreme rhetoric needed to galvanize the Latino vote in his favor. He is not a fringe element at this point. The Democratic establishment is behind him all the way.

I'm not happy with Trump's rhetoric and am pleased with the apparent priority given to the plight of the children. Did the protests spur this? Probably so. But there is no doubt in my mind that the Left is engaging in a very high level of hypocrisy. The facts are there for all to see.
 
Mr. Deez said:
And this is why I roll my eyes when I hear liberals claim that Trump is "damaging the rule of law." They never explain what law he's damaging. It's just a cheap slogan. However, people who repeat the idiotic slogan sound especially stupid when they actively call for not enforcing the Immigration laws. That is the definition of damaging the rule of law.
Click to expand...
In my one twitter conversation with someone like this, he referred to the travel ban which of course is legal after the Supreme Court ruled on it. But at the time, I think the 9th court had ruled against it. I kept mentioning the insane number of supreme court cases that Obama lost, a lot of which were 0-9. Just went over his head. These people aren’t thinking but just grasping for straws.
 
I am still waiting for someone to explain how what the Trump admin is doing is "inhumane" and "not who we are" when obama admin did the same thing.
The Obama admin detained ( In dreadful jail like facilities))families and said it was necessary to send a message to Central American families that they are not welcome here.
Yet when Trump admin sent children brought here by illegal to child specific places with perks many American children don't have it is evil?
Now that illegals who bring children are being detained with the children it is still evil.
When Dems etc continue to be outraged no matter what and continue to rage against the same things obama did it is clear this is totally political.

So which is it Dems? Too bad SH opted to leave it would be interesting to see what he thought on this.
Do you want the kids brought in by illegals to be detained with the person who brought them?
 
Seattle Husker said:
This thread has become a conservative circle jerk.
Click to expand...

Nice. Libs have a tendency to use crude/profane references. Sorry you opted to continue that line of thought.

The official position of the left's party (DNC) has been in opposition to the enforcement of the law. period. It's not the "method" it's the fact it's being enforced.

As was said innumerable times in this thread ... even the separation conditions weren't "abhorrent" as was alleged. Unfortunate? Yes. Necessary? You bet.

Anyhow ... I won't spend too much on this given your apparent decision to punch out.

Perhaps rather than see this thread as a conservative "amen corner" ... you might consider that this really isn't a wayward position to take on this issue. I know ... crazy.
 
Joe Fan said:
Another mother separated from her child at the border
Print the signs, get the buses ready, alert the media
Click to expand...

I'll bet her heart started pounding like Billy Hayes' in Midnight Express when they opened her trunk. She was hoping that two year old was gonna be her free pass into the U.S.
 
DhSVSBsV4AAGGy0.jpg
 
JF
This vid ( 2.28 sec) on illegal immigration is a good adjunct to your post
Notice Clinton mentioning Barbara Jordan. Trumps expressions are priceless
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Y'all made Seattle Husker leave? That's awesome!
Click to expand...

perhaps I misread ... but I understood SH to say he wasn't going to discuss this topic here any longer. IOW ... he's not participating in this thread.

As much as I love Heisenberg aka @4th_floor ... I agree with @Mr. Deez ... name calling isn't enhancing the discussion. Just "be the danger." :)

Withdrawing is likely a sign he's realizing he can't continue to shovel what he's pushing ... but can't quite bring himself to publicly admit it, either. It happens.
 
Hey, I don't even see what he is shoveling any more. But I know from long past history that he almost never admits the invalidity of any position he takes, Instead it is interminable deflection, spin, snark, and an astonishing ability to take an argument so far into the weeds you can't even follow the original point.

Having not seen his posts here, I found (and still find) it refreshing and surprising that he was so thoroughly out-argued that he finally withdrew from a thread entirely (assuming Horn6721 has it right). I couldn't resist commenting on it, but I didn't call him an *******.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Hey, I don't even see what he is shoveling any more. But I know from long past history that he almost never admits the invalidity of any position he takes, Instead it is interminable deflection, spin, snark, and an astonishing ability to take an argument so far into the weeds you can't even follow the original point.
Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't want to admit that a position he takes is invalid. Who in here does? Nobody. And let's be honest. When he gets challenged he gets confronted with a lot more raw dick-slapping than actual refutation of what he says.
 
Mr. Deez said:
He's not an *******. He's a decent guy whose intentions are good. ....
Click to expand...

He tried to get me banned from the entire site some time back. I discussed it with management at the time and they did not want to ban me since, in part, my posts tend to generate site traffic.

As a compromise, I voluntarily blocked him and have not seen any of his posts for quite awhile now. This is something he knows well since he was the one who began the cry for censorship. Despite all of this, he continues to reply directly to my posts (as I am reliably informed) which he can now do at will without the fear of having to deal with a reply from me directly to him.

What kind of person does this?
Is this really the behavior of a "decent guy with good intentions" as you contend? I suggest not. I say it is instead the behavior of a coward.
 
I gotta give the faux outraged some props. As one whine is proven to be false they find another.
NOW Trump is evil since there is a plan to do DNA testing on children separated from the illegal person who brought them here.

Duh to make sure it is a parent and not a child trafficker. The Faux outraged apparently doesn't think anyone would try to use a child to get into our country.:rolleyes1:
So they are calling this an outrage and a violation of the child's rights>
What is a violation of a child's rights would be to be brought here and sold into sex slavery.
It isn't a perfect system or solution but it is better than taking someone's word for it.
I guess just like leftists want catch and release they would not want any attempt to make sure it is a real parent.
 
Joe Fan said:
As a compromise, I voluntarily blocked him and have not seen any of his posts for quite awhile now. This is something he knows well since he was the one who began the cry for censorship. Despite all of this, he continues to reply directly to my posts (as I am reliably informed) which he can now do at will without the fear of having to deal with a reply from me directly to him.

What kind of person does this?
Is this really the behavior of a "decent guy with good intentions" as you contend? I suggest not. I say it is instead the behavior of a coward.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you blocking him is a compromise. If he wanted you banned, it would make far more sense for him to block you. Either way, you chose to block him. You didn't have to. That was your call. I don't see how that triggers a duty on him to ignore what you post or makes him cowardly. If you don't like what he's doing, you can unlock him and argue the point.
 
I'm not into the he said/he said.

Unless Dionysus thinks it'll benefit the Board ... until I hear from him, it really doesn't matter.

SH has established his position on this matter of immigration and its regrettably wrong.
 
For all the faux outraged people ( including my relative) who screamed that Trump is evil for tearing children away from parents what will they say about this?? From Daily Mail
"
  • Homeland Security Department has cited 'many instances where human traffickers have used children to cross the border to gain illegal entry'
  • Now DOJ and DHS say 46 of the 103 children in custody who are under 5 years old wouldn't be safe with the adults who brought them across the border
  • Some weren't actually their parents; others are in prison for kidnapping, child abuse or murder; another is wanted for murder in Guatemala
  • Still others gave phony birth certificates or planned to house a child with a known child sex abuser
  • A dozen were deported but declined to take their children with them " http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...order-murderers-child-abusers-kidnappers.html
 
Horn6721 said:
For all the faux outraged people ( including my relative) who screamed that Trump is evil for tearing children away from parents what will they say about this?? From Daily Mail
"
  • Homeland Security Department has cited 'many instances where human traffickers have used children to cross the border to gain illegal entry'
  • Now DOJ and DHS say 46 of the 103 children in custody who are under 5 years old wouldn't be safe with the adults who brought them across the border
  • Some weren't actually their parents; others are in prison for kidnapping, child abuse or murder; another is wanted for murder in Guatemala
  • Still others gave phony birth certificates or planned to house a child with a known child sex abuser
  • A dozen were deported but declined to take their children with them " http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...order-murderers-child-abusers-kidnappers.html
Click to expand...
Something like, "Human traffickers have rights, too." Because they are just that infected with TDS.
 
Horn6721 said:
Now DOJ and DHS say 46 of the 103 children in custody who are under 5 years old wouldn't be safe with the adults who brought them across the border
Click to expand...

Saw a lot of twitter rage about the comment that a percentage of the adults "were not eligible" to be reunited with the kids, and of course the left never bothered to find out what that meant, they just yelled "WTF DOES THAT MEAN??? THIS IS NAZI TACTICS" - never mind that the reason for that ineligibility was that they either weren't really the parents, they had violent criminal records, or they were suspected of abuse.

The other issue is apparently that some have already been deported but the kids are still here. And of course people are saying "NO! you have to reunite the families." I think the assumption is probably not that we will send the kids back to the country where the adults were sent. But it does beg the question, and raise the very real elephant in the room: if CHS is separating some 400,000 kids every year in the U.S. from their parents and putting them into the foster system, why are we so outraged about 2,000 more in this case - particularly when we've set ourselves up as the arbiter of "what is best for the children" in all these other issues. But in this case.. who cares if they're violent gang members? Those families need to stay together!
 
PH

That is such a good logical question that no faux outraged ever answers, Why is it ok to separate children from parents convicted here
but not ok to follow the law and court ruling for children brought here by illegals?
I wonder if anyone will ever be honest. This is not about the children.
 
Point blank, they will never believe any report that doesn't say that crying children aren't being kept in dog cages, torn from their mother's bosom.
They really, really won't.
 
You know if even just ONE Dem head admitted Trump is not doing anything Obama didn't do, especially putting kids in cages and is in fact following law and court ruling
and how complicated this situation is maybe both sides could work out a good solution that would be good for our country,
 
Horn6721 said:
You know if even just ONE Dem head admitted Trump is not doing anything Obama didn't do, especially putting kids in cages and is in fact following law and court ruling
and how complicated this situation is maybe both sides could work out a good solution that would be good for our country,
Click to expand...

They have no reason to do that. They're allowed to put out a deceptive narrative that this is all happening because Trump changed something. And that is superficially true. What they leave out (or minimize) is that what changed is that Trump has decided to start enforcing a criminal statute that has been on the books for decades. Why leave that out? Because it implies the obvious. Obama (and Bush and Clinton and Bush 41 and Reagan) basically were derelict in their duty to enforce the law that Congress enacted. And of course, it becomes much tougher to bash Trump in the equation. How do you blame a president for enforcing the law? That's his whole friggin job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top