Read A Damn Book, You Idiots.

[Hijinx]

Science tells us that we (meaning humans) did not originate in the North American continent, so I'm not sure what you are calling "native" Americans. Do you mean the American Indian, who came here from Siberia?

Assuming you do mean the American Indian, realize that the reason they were overtaken and no longer have control of the North American continent or the culture therein is because they had an open-borders immigration policy where they let in pretty much anybody - especially those who were claiming asylum from religious persecution from their homeland.

Now, as a US citizen, I am not interested in losing control of the majority of the North American continent and its culture to Central and South Americans, or Asians, or Europeans, or Africans, or anyone else. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would root for such an outcome. Are YOU seeking such an outcome? I would think that if you simply looked at your own (assumed) example, you would see just how completely idiotic such a scenario would be as a governmental policy.

Post of the day for me. I am another who cannot understand why we want to bring these people in , pay for their welfare, food, education, hospitalization, while we have thousands of Americans here who we are already paying for.Get enough of these people here and their culture will take over. What is their culture? See Mexico, is that the Governance you want here?

 

[Sapidus]

Science tells us that we (meaning humans) did not originate in the North American continent, so I'm not sure what you are calling "native" Americans. Do you mean the American Indian, who came here from Siberia?

Assuming you do mean the American Indian, realize that the reason they were overtaken and no longer have control of the North American continent or the culture therein is because they had an open-borders immigration policy where they let in pretty much anybody - especially those who were claiming asylum from religious persecution from their homeland.

Now, as a US citizen, I am not interested in losing control of the majority of the North American continent and its culture to Central and South Americans, or Asians, or Europeans, or Africans, or anyone else. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would root for such an outcome. Are YOU seeking such an outcome? I would think that if you simply looked at your own (assumed) example, you would see just how completely idiotic such a scenario would be as a governmental policy.

Jesus are you delusional.

They didnt allow in anyone the land was taken by force.

Have you ever heard of the trail of tears? How about a reservation?


Why do you think your stupid version of revisionist history is going to fool anyone ? Does it make you feel better to believe that crap?


Does it make you feel better to tell yourself these people deserve to be separated from their children because they did something wrong?


it is patently obvious you will sue any excuse to justify inhumane behavior.

There was no need for this change in policy yet you continue to defend the in humane treatment of people because their skin tone is darker than yours.


You should join the unite the right march coming up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.0927d523d0b9

 

[Gilligan]

Jesus are you delusional.

They didnt allow in anyone the land was taken by force.

Have you ever heard of the trail of tears? How about a reservation?


Why do you think your stupid version of revisionist history is going to fool anyone ? Does it make you feel better to believe that crap?


Does it make you feel better to tell yourself these people deserve to be separated from their children because they did something wrong?


it is patently obvious you will sue any excuse to justify inhumane behavior.

There was no need for this change in policy yet you continue to defend the in humane treatment of people because their skin tone is darker than yours.


You should join the unite the right march coming up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.0927d523d0b9

What does any of your random irrational ranting above have to do with how we handle illegal immigrants now?

 

[PsyOps]

Jesus are you delusional.

They didnt allow in anyone the land was taken by force.

Have you ever heard of the trail of tears? How about a reservation?


Why do you think your stupid version of revisionist history is going to fool anyone ? Does it make you feel better to believe that crap?


Does it make you feel better to tell yourself these people deserve to be separated from their children because they did something wrong?


it is patently obvious you will sue any excuse to justify inhumane behavior.

There was no need for this change in policy yet you continue to defend the in humane treatment of people because their skin tone is darker than yours.


You should join the unite the right march coming up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.0927d523d0b9

History has a habit of repeating itself. The taking of land is nothing new. Europeans weren't the first to take land from natives or current occupiers of the time, and it won't be the last. Europeans came here stole this land from the natives and established a nation. We now live in a sovereign nation. We live in the greatest, freest, most powerful and influential nation that has ever existed on this earth. Are you willing to be the first to leave and give it back to the natives?

Once this nation became sovereign, we established laws to govern us. Several of those laws dealt with how people can cross our borders. Every country has such laws. In simple, you cannot just cross our borders freely. That is the law. If you cross our borders in violation of our laws, you have committed a criminal act. That's the part gets left out of this - these adults have committed crimes against this country. If I - as an American - commit a crime, I will be arrested, charged, and tried.

Now I'm not questioning the fact that most of these illegals are either looking for better opportunities for their families or seeking asylum. I really have compassion for them. But they are cutting the line and committing crimes. "Deserving" to be separated from their kids is moot. They deserve to be separated from their kids as much as any American that has to pay for crimes they commit. Please explain to me why these illegals deserve different treatment than an American parent that commits a crime and gets separated from their children?

The other factor that doesn't get talked about is the danger these 'parents' have put their own kids in to get them in this country. That is a form of child endangerment or even abuse, which I think should be an additional criminal charge.

We're already bending over backwards by exercising leniency for these people. None of this is Trump's fault. We have laws that congress must deal with. The president's job is to, through his DOJ, enforce our laws not make or change them. He may have done the compassionate thing with his EO - which you should be reminded is what you people on the left wanted and now complaining about doing it. But he did what Obama did over and over... rewrite existing law.

 

[BOP]

It is amazing how hard you morons work to support the President's policy of separating children from their parents. You all really should be ashamed of yourselves.

There is nothing right, moral, ethical or justifiable about this President's policy. Nothing.

I understand why comrade GURPS posts this sh!t...anyone who can actually stand up to support this President's policy really needs to take a hard look in the mirror.

I borrowed this from a FB friend:
In March of 1993, The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Flores vs Reno. (Yes, “That” Reno. Janet Reno, Bill Clinton’s first Attorney General who ordered that young Elian Gonzalez be torn from his parents arms while hiding in a Miami closet. You might remember the iconic photograph.)

The Court decided that minors could not be incarcerated with the adults accompanying them across the United States border illegally. The decision was the result of a long dispute in how to best care for these children while the adults were detained for criminal proceedings.

You see, when aliens cross the border illegally, they are incarcerated until their criminal case is decided. The understandable argument at the time was “why should children be incarcerated while their parents are in jail?” It seemed a fundamental violation of international human rights. Makes sense, right?

As a result, The Flores case drew a line in the sand. Children could not be incarcerated with their parents or accompanying adult while being held for illegal immigration violations. And a subsequent 1997 agreement stipulated that children must be placed in a safer environment where they could enjoy certain privileges, including education, a clean, safe environment and other normal life cycle amenities that incarcerated individuals do not enjoy.

It was considered a “victory” for human rights. By separating adult and child, we protected the children, reducing any harm done to them for their parent’s or accompanying adult’s decisions.

A lot has happened since then. However, bottom line, these juvenile shelters have been operating in accordance with the law, and overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services to protect those children from the hazards of parental incarceration since 1997.

So, since Donald Trump was running his real estate empire, selling wine and casinos in 1993, we are left to determine just how he managed to orchestrate this cruel “separation of immigrant parent and child” 25 years BEFORE he was President of the United States. The obvious answer is, he didn’t. He had nothing to do with establishing this United States immigration policy. Today, he simply enforces it.

This one story illustrates how important it is for us to do our research regarding today’s headlines.

 

[BOP]

I used to like Soledad years back when she was a host for a science show, and reported on technology. She was smart and really cute.

Too bad.

Ditto.

Let's tell the truff: she was and still is hot. That whole leftist thing is pretty off-putting though.

 

[BOP]

Prior to April when the Trump administration enacted a Zero tolerance policy families were housed together unless it was believed the child was in danger.

Many of these people did not in fact break any law and are seeking asylum.


If the actions are so justifiable why do you insist on lying to make it easier to swallow?

 

[Hijinx]

I borrowed this from a FB friend:
In March of 1993, The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Flores vs Reno. (Yes, “That” Reno. Janet Reno, Bill Clinton’s first Attorney General who ordered that young Elian Gonzalez be torn from his parents arms while hiding in a Miami closet. You might remember the iconic photograph.)

The Court decided that minors could not be incarcerated with the adults accompanying them across the United States border illegally. The decision was the result of a long dispute in how to best care for these children while the adults were detained for criminal proceedings.

You see, when aliens cross the border illegally, they are incarcerated until their criminal case is decided. The understandable argument at the time was “why should children be incarcerated while their parents are in jail?” It seemed a fundamental violation of international human rights. Makes sense, right?

As a result, The Flores case drew a line in the sand. Children could not be incarcerated with their parents or accompanying adult while being held for illegal immigration violations. And a subsequent 1997 agreement stipulated that children must be placed in a safer environment where they could enjoy certain privileges, including education, a clean, safe environment and other normal life cycle amenities that incarcerated individuals do not enjoy.

It was considered a “victory” for human rights. By separating adult and child, we protected the children, reducing any harm done to them for their parent’s or accompanying adult’s decisions.

A lot has happened since then. However, bottom line, these juvenile shelters have been operating in accordance with the law, and overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services to protect those children from the hazards of parental incarceration since 1997.

So, since Donald Trump was running his real estate empire, selling wine and casinos in 1993, we are left to determine just how he managed to orchestrate this cruel “separation of immigrant parent and child” 25 years BEFORE he was President of the United States. The obvious answer is, he didn’t. He had nothing to do with establishing this United States immigration policy. Today, he simply enforces it.

This one story illustrates how important it is for us to do our research regarding today’s headlines.

The problem is that a solution no matter whether good or bad is not in a class to compete with a media, and the leftist's war on Donald Trump.
That is the basis for all of this BS.
They stir up the Goody two shoes who are not well informed and "It's for the kids".
All of a sudden a solution that has been working for years is a human rights crime.

As for Trump it doesn't matter what he does. The TDS leftist's hate it.
He has perhaps stopped nuclear proliferation in N. Korea. ( We will have to wait and see) but the leftists would rather be vaporized in a nuclear explosion than admit he did something right.

 

[This_person]

When the woman changes her story daily its easy to see she is lying.

Fair enough. Please provide us with the correct numbers and your infallible source.

Sap? Accurate numbers from the infallible source?

 

[Kyle]

Sap? Accurate numbers from the infallible source?

You'll never get answers.

 

[This_person]

Jesus are you delusional.

They didnt allow in anyone the land was taken by force.

Have you ever heard of the trail of tears? How about a reservation?

I have heard of those things. I have also heard of Thanksgiving, which happened long before that, and Erik the Red, which happened long before that. The American Indians have a history which is a bit longer than agreeing to be put on a reservation.

Wait, you know they agreed to that, right? You know that was a treaty, an agreement? Because, that pretty much proves my point accurate and yours false. See, they had to sign a treaty to stop being killed by aliens. They let all those aliens in, who took over what could be argued was their country (though "they" would be a disparate bunch of people enslaving and killing one another over land disputes long before Erik the Red got here, let alone before Columbus or the Puritans got here). So, by letting all those people in, they gave up their country.

Why do you think your stupid version of revisionist history is going to fool anyone ? Does it make you feel better to believe that crap?

The truth? Yeah, it does.

Does it make you feel better to tell yourself these people deserve to be separated from their children because they did something wrong?

I get that it is harsh to separate families, but I put the blame on the parents who are doing 83% of the separation before ever giving their kids up to be raped as payment for coming to the United States, and the other 17% who are trying to violate our laws and thus necessitating the separation. I get you put the blame on Clinton and Bush and Obama and Trump for upholding the law, and the Democrat-controlled Congress and Clinton for making the law....but, all they were trying to do is stop the influx of illegal aliens. It clearly didn't work out the way they wanted, but that was a fairly good attempt at it.

it is patently obvious you will sue any excuse to justify inhumane behavior.

Not so much. If it were inhumane, you certainly see it as inhumane that every person incarcerated today is separated from their child(ren) for committing their crimes. I have never once heard that argument made from you, but if you are morally consistent you would believe that. Which is it, you really don't believe it, or you're not morally consistent? that's a real question, by the way.

There was no need for this change in policy yet you continue to defend the in humane treatment of people because their skin tone is darker than yours.

The change in policy was to uphold and enforce the law. Yes, after many years of that not being done there is a need to do that. It has nothing to do with skin tone, but with actions. That's what non-racists like me and MLK use to consider our opinions of other people - we look at the content of their character as demonstrated by actions, not skin color.

You should join the unite the right march coming up.

I certainly support their right to be stupid, but not so much that I would join them. I'd fight to the death their right to be stupid, but that doesn't mean that I have to be stupid, too.

 

[This_person]

You'll never get answers.

Because the numbers given are accurate. Do you know how I know that? The government gave them to us, and Sap will tell you the government knows better than we do about most everything which is why they should be in control of most everything.

 

[Sapidus]

I have heard of those things. I have also heard of Thanksgiving, which happened long before that, and Erik the Red, which happened long before that. The American Indians have a history which is a bit longer than agreeing to be put on a reservation.

Wait, you know they agreed to that, right? You know that was a treaty, an agreement? Because, that pretty much proves my point accurate and yours false. See, they had to sign a treaty to stop being killed by aliens. They let all those aliens in, who took over what could be argued was their country (though "they" would be a disparate bunch of people enslaving and killing one another over land disputes long before Erik the Red got here, let alone before Columbus or the Puritans got here). So, by letting all those people in, they gave up their country.



The truth? Yeah, it does.



I get that it is harsh to separate families, but I put the blame on the parents who are doing 83% of the separation before ever giving their kids up to be raped as payment for coming to the United States, and the other 17% who are trying to violate our laws and thus necessitating the separation. I get you put the blame on Clinton and Bush and Obama and Trump for upholding the law, and the Democrat-controlled Congress and Clinton for making the law....but, all they were trying to do is stop the influx of illegal aliens. It clearly didn't work out the way they wanted, but that was a fairly good attempt at it.



Not so much. If it were inhumane, you certainly see it as inhumane that every person incarcerated today is separated from their child(ren) for committing their crimes. I have never once heard that argument made from you, but if you are morally consistent you would believe that. Which is it, you really don't believe it, or you're not morally consistent? that's a real question, by the way.



The change in policy was to uphold and enforce the law. Yes, after many years of that not being done there is a need to do that. It has nothing to do with skin tone, but with actions. That's what non-racists like me and MLK use to consider our opinions of other people - we look at the content of their character as demonstrated by actions, not skin color.



I certainly support their right to be stupid, but not so much that I would join them. I'd fight to the death their right to be stupid, but that doesn't mean that I have to be stupid, too.

Seeking asylum is not illegal so no laws were broken in many cases. In other cases crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.

Next to you fail to stop at a stop sign hopefully an minors in the car will be taken from you, numbered and jailed.


Why was the change in policy necessary? Illegal immigration is at a low. Why now do families need to be hosed separately while waiting to find out if they will be granted asylum or made to leave?

And if it was necessary why did Trump back down so quickly and stop enforcing it?

 

[GURPS]

Seeking asylum is not illegal so no laws were broken in many cases.

entering the country at an place OTHER than a port of entry is ILLEGAL

 

[Sapidus]

entering the country at an place OTHER than a port of entry is ILLEGAL

Wrong again as usual. Don't you learn anything?

The proof was shown to yo less then 24 horus ago.

 

[Kyle]

In other cases crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.

2nd time is a felony.

 

[Kyle]

Wrong again as usual. Don't you learn anything?

The proof was shown to yo less then 24 horus ago.

His statement is correct and you contradicted your own previous post

In other cases crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.

 

[Sapidus]

History has a habit of repeating itself. The taking of land is nothing new. Europeans weren't the first to take land from natives or current occupiers of the time, and it won't be the last. Europeans came here stole this land from the natives and established a nation. We now live in a sovereign nation. We live in the greatest, freest, most powerful and influential nation that has ever existed on this earth. Are you willing to be the first to leave and give it back to the natives?

Once this nation became sovereign, we established laws to govern us. Several of those laws dealt with how people can cross our borders. Every country has such laws. In simple, you cannot just cross our borders freely. That is the law. If you cross our borders in violation of our laws, you have committed a criminal act. That's the part gets left out of this - these adults have committed crimes against this country. If I - as an American - commit a crime, I will be arrested, charged, and tried.

Now I'm not questioning the fact that most of these illegals are either looking for better opportunities for their families or seeking asylum. I really have compassion for them. But they are cutting the line and committing crimes. "Deserving" to be separated from their kids is moot. They deserve to be separated from their kids as much as any American that has to pay for crimes they commit. Please explain to me why these illegals deserve different treatment than an American parent that commits a crime and gets separated from their children?

The other factor that doesn't get talked about is the danger these 'parents' have put their own kids in to get them in this country. That is a form of child endangerment or even abuse, which I think should be an additional criminal charge.

We're already bending over backwards by exercising leniency for these people. None of this is Trump's fault. We have laws that congress must deal with. The president's job is to, through his DOJ, enforce our laws not make or change them. He may have done the compassionate thing with his EO - which you should be reminded is what you people on the left wanted and now complaining about doing it. But he did what Obama did over and over... rewrite existing law.

This is absolutely Trumps fault as his orders caused this policy to go into effect where before families were kept together. If it is so necessary then why has it now been rescinded?


You can call it whatever you want but you are still making excuses as to why it is ok to seperate families and jail children.

No parent would put their child in a boat if the land was safer.

 

[Sapidus]

2nd time is a felony.

What's your point? Does that refute what i said?

 

[This_person]

Seeking asylum is not illegal so no laws were broken in many cases.

And, the families that do it legally are not being separated.

In other cases crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor.

And? In AZ, you can go to jail for 6 months for failing to stop your dog from biting someone else (misdemeanor). In CT you can go to jail for a year for altering your ID fraudulently (misdemeanor). In IL, if you knowingly get on someone else's snowmobile you can go to jail for a year (misdemeanor - note, you do not have to steal it, it is considered trespassing just by getting on it knowing it is not yours). In Minnesota you can go to jail for a year if you take your child where you know there are drugs, or let anyone bring drugs around your child (misdemeanor).

Shall I go on?

Next to you fail to stop at a stop sign hopefully an minors in the car will be taken from you, numbered and jailed.

Well, no. But, let's say you drive drunk and are taken to jail, convicted, and kept in jail or prison for weeks to years. You have no immediate family available. Do we leave your 6 month old child at home, or put it in foster care?

Why was the change in policy necessary? Illegal immigration is at a low. Please provide source of the underlined portion Why now do families need to be hosed separately while waiting to find out if they will be granted asylum or made to leave?

Because the law says it is a reasonable thing to do. The Democrat-controlled Congress and Bill Clinton made that so. Would you rather the kids be locked up in a jail with their parents instead of a safe detention center?

And if it was necessary why did Trump back down so quickly and stop enforcing it?

What in the EO said he was stopping doing it? READ the EO - it says, "our agencies are hereby ordered to follow the law, and we'll work on ways to make it different". Show me what else it says, and I will tell you I am wrong.