Trump migrant separation policy: Children 'in cages' in Texas

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: interupt42

why is it that we all know that is the easiest and fastest fix to this, but it's the last thing that will be done?

Because the gov't is not in the "fixing the tax payers" issues business, its in the making money for the lobbyist business.

Agriculture,Hospitality,and construction insdustry lobbyist have pretty deep pockets and they make sure nobody including the DNC,GOP, nor the MSM focus on the REAL issue or the REAL fix.

Squirrel , hey lets get back to racism,sexism, Hollywood redoing movies with all female casts as some new breakthrough, and humans that associate as cats.

originally posted by: knoxie

BOSTON — Gov. Charlie Baker is reversing a decision to send a Massachusetts National Guard helicopter to the country’s southern border, citing the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents.

The Republican governor said Monday his decision to put the National Guard mission on hold was due to what he calls the “cruel and inhumane” policy of separating children from their parents as families arrive at the border.

The crew has been set to fly down later this month to work with federal officials to help track illegal activity along the border with Mexico.

Baker said Massachusetts won’t be participating until the family separation policy is changed.

President Donald Trump on Monday again falsely blamed Democrats for the policy and declared he would keep the U.S. from becoming “a migrant camp.”

LINK

This move is purely politically motivated. He fears for his job, in one of the most liberally biased states in the union.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: SlapMonkey

yes it is a new policy that stems from a misinterpretation of a scotus ruling.

will not stand long past the new vote

Hmmmm...I'd be interested in you specifying exactly where in the court's opinion on Flores v. Reno there have been misinterpretations.

Do you have any specifics? (I assume that this is the case to which you are referring)

a reply to: proximo

Being against this type of treatment of children does not mean you are necessarily in favor of open borders. I am not. But I am also not for the dehumanization of people who are for the most part simply trying to follow their most basic instinct of survival.

a reply to: knoxie

Well, since I linked to comments with direct links to the laws, and there is plenty of current stories on this issue that cite the actual laws, it's not a matter as to whether I think that it's law--I know that it is.

As far as your comment on Trump being a puss--since the law was passed (at least initially) when the Dems had control of the House and Senate, he's not lying. His point is that, with all of the outrage and bickering about DHS following the law as it pertains to handling children, both accompanied and unaccompanied, by separating them temporarily, you would think that the Dems would propose a new law to supersede the existing one with a better solution to the problem.

Have you seen such a bill?

I haven't.

And if you claim that it's a policy and not a law again, you are wasting away any credibility you might have by default in lieu of willful ignorance or outright lying.

I gave you the links to the law--care to provide proof to back your repeatedly incorrect claim that it's 'just policy that can be easily changed?'

originally posted by: howtonhawky

not everyone being detained is guilty of what you outline and imply.

first world view is nice

Do you understand the difference between detention and imprisonment?

You don't need to be found guilty of a crime to be detained.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: proximo

Being against this type of treatment of children does not mean you are necessarily in favor of open borders. I am not. But I am also not for the dehumanization of people who are for the most part simply trying to follow their most basic instinct of survival.

Then how do you recommend we vett each group to determine if the adults accompanying these minors truly are their parents? And if it takes weeks due to the numbers coming in, and the lack of real verifiable documentation, what happens with the children? Keep them with adults that may not be their parents but human traffiicers? Send them off into the desert alone?

Will you volunteer o take them into your home, clothe and feed them?

No?

Then, how shallow is your outrage?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: SlapMonkey

yes it is a new policy that stems from a misinterpretation of a scotus ruling.

will not stand long past the new vote

Hmmmm...I'd be interested in you specifying exactly where in the court's opinion on Flores v. Reno there have been misinterpretations.

Do you have any specifics? (I assume that this is the case to which you are referring)

there was never a ruling on how long we can hold accompanied minors.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

Closed.....


Feel free to check out these Mud Pit threads on this topic....some of which may end up being closed.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...