That's right, but it seems there are plenty that do not think it is morally right. Enough that it is not some extreme position to hold. There are levels of criminality. Treating illegal immigrants the same as robbers or killers is a bit much for me. If we are going to make this argument then we must realize not all 'criminals' are separated from their children, correct? As @fchowd0311 mentions, it's about resources.
You've narrowed that down to a relatively small number. Most of the time when a criminal with children is arrested there are relatives that are family that can step in and provides guardianship and/or support. Those rare times when there isn't a spouse, co-parent, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, adult brother, adult sister, an adult cousin etc. then the children are separated but not locked up without being able to visit their parents. So discussing something that is the standard operating procedure for all detainees at the border and something that happens only in a small percentage of cases for US citizens isn't really a similar comparison.
I believe he has me blocked. I reply to him for others to see his stupidity. If you want him to read what I posted, I guess you would have to copy and paste it .
Sure, it may be a relatively small number, but it happens and that's my point. When there is a US citizen in a comparable situation they are separated from their children and no one thinks it is "cruelty"....though I suppose if there was a DNC propaganda push on that subject maybe that would change for some. When children are separated from their parents in that situation, what exactly happens with them depends on a lot of factors but most of them would not involve being able to see their parents while they deal with the criminal justice system and in some of those situations the child would be in a locked facility so that they couldn't run away. Again, the fact that it only happens to a relatively few number of US citizens does not change the fact that we don't find it "cruel" when it happens, we accept that it is the thing to do....and that kills any credibility of those suggesting that when it happens to illegal immigrants it becomes "immoral" or "cruel" Yeah but I argue the people who hold that position aren't really thinking about it very well given that they likely don't think it's morally wrong when it happens to US citizens. For the most part they are just caught up by propaganda telling them that it is "cruel" or "immoral" and they don't question the propaganda. No one is suggesting treating them like robbers or killers, when you get locked up for ANY crime and you have your kid with you, you get separated from the kid while you are detained. Don't know who that is, and I'm not sure what you mean by "it's all about resources". Is it suggesting that it's just too much work enforcing the law? Sorry but that's not a valid excuse and it certainly wouldn't be the case long term if the law was enforced more regularly. If a border wall was built and an e-verify type system was put in place, the problem would largely take care of itself and you'd find that ICE would have to do less and less. Unfortunately we have politicians in this country dedicated to making the problem worse with sanctuary and non-enforcement policies.
But you don't get locked up for every crime especially for first time offenders of non-violent misdemeanors. Judges also consider the lifestyle of the defendant to see if their non violent offense warrents jail until their court appearance. For example, judges will allow a defendant for a non-violent offense to be released till their court date if they are the sole bread earners for a household or if they are the sole guardian of a child ... Judges use discretion all the ****ing time for citizens.
Again, cops are not separating families for traffic violations. Detained? ICE also deports... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-choice/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.815c6c5f8d5e https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...zen-children-impacted-immigration-enforcement I mean, there's ton of stuff on this. Well, I'll just copy his post then...
Here is the pilot program I was referring to btw:https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/i...lum-seeking-migrant-families-together-n885896 It seems as if people of the mindset of Trump and bobby care more about treating illegal immigrants harshly rather than a pragmatic solution to one of the major claims to illegal immigration(they take away money from American tax payers) as the pilot program saved money and 99% of the families had their day in court without them being separated. Bobby would rather have inhumane and not cost effective than humane and cost effective essentially.
Traffic violations aren't a comparable violation of the law though, how many traffic violations can get you 6 months in jail? Well yeah, you detain then you deport. There's some instances where you could do something where you give electronic monitoring until the court date, but for some just crossing, do you really throw them to the wolves without any place to go or any support system? That's a bit ridiculous. The better course of action is to solve the problem by building a physical border to drastically reduce the flow into the country and then implement an e-verify system to take away the incentive and ability to support themselves in this country. If you took those steps, the problem ceases to be a problem.
Abolish it and replace it with something that work better matches your first statement, which is what is being called for. It is incorrect to assume that the idea is to simply abolish it with no replacement. Secondly, to take a page out of Trump playbook, you start at one extreme and compromise to a middle. You can do that if and only if you have enough power in the legislative branch to do so. This tweet gives you an idea of her thinking for example... she is not dumb enough to tell all DEM to take these "extreme" positions, just to do so in the safer districts, which as I said before, provide a better chance to balance out the extreme on the other side.
That was a whole....what....36 hours ago. You can't expect the leftist syncophants to catch up that quickly....amirite all you "OG's" out there?!?!?
I'm sorry, but this is categorically false and offensive, and frankly completely full of ****ing ****.
It's really funny to me that, prior to 9/11, the idea of ICE would have mortified most right-wingers. They're the ones who are constantly worried about jack-booted government thugs running roughshod. ICE is about as close as you can get to that, really. Drastically reshaping that organization is not a bad idea, and there's a reason it is gaining ground among moderates. The only thing keeping that organization afloat right now is rampant xenophobic nonsense from the Trump wing of the Republican party.
ICE is one of the many knee jerk reactions from 9/11 like the Patriot Act and Iraq War. We made some horrible decisions right after 9/11. Terrorists won in a way didn't they?
This is not a practice exclusively owned by the Democratic party. Let's name off the list of overblown or invented non-issues Republicans have come up with to push their agenda. 1) border security/illegal immigration 2) crime levels 3) abortion 4) international terrorism 5) corporate taxes 6) the "homosexual agenda" (i.e. queer fear) 7) mar1juana boogieman 8) christian persecution (i.e. the separation of church and state) 9) welfare queens The left is the "change it" party. Temperamentally they are wired for solutions and innovation. It's not always good change/solutions, but by design the left mind is designed for sniffing out problems and formulating solutions. They are so wired for this that they will sometimes invent problems by sheer need to meddle with things. The right is the "don't mess with it" or "change it back" party. Temperamentally they are adverse to change and seek minimal disruption to established norms. The right, by and large, is not a "fix it" party because they view most of the established order as OK as is. That doesn't prevent them from inventing their own crises should it suit their policy agenda.
I never thought I'd say this, but they should bring back the INS The deportation emphasis, they should go back to focusing on criminals versus children.
I think the terrorist won. Lets look at the results of 9/11: Patriot Act Increased Airport security Trillions of dollars spent on wars neither of which had any positive outcome. Homeland security and Ice - Two departments that do nothing and are money pits . The terrorist might have spent a few million dollar. We wasted trillions and eroded freedoms for a 300 million Americans. We would have been better of just doing nothing.
Which are reasons why we hurt ourselves more than they did. Al qaeda has been decimated. Their political goal failed and instead has caused much more hatred and harm toward the Muslim world. No one won. We all lost.
