Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration

$64 billion PER YEAR low ball estimated savings.

---

CIS is an advocacy group that pretends to be a think tank.

$64 billion. Conjob, please. You're going to need some critical thinking skills to survive in business school. Start working on them.

---

You have a personal vendetta towards conservatives and you want mass immigration to spite them because of some deep seeded hatred in your life.

---

Son, lies like this are like comfort food for you. It doesn't matter to you that they're not true, as long as they make you feel better.

When you get to a real school like Baylor, you're going to need to able to make a persuasive argument based on actual objective evidence, not just on what makes you feel better and junk food from the internet. It's not too early to start working on those skills.

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Build the wall and this won't happen.

It blows my mind how people don't (or refuse to) understand that this is really for the safety of the children in the grand scheme of things. You separate the children from where ALL the adults are being held. It's the same reason why we don't put juveniles into actual prisons. Would you want to keep your 5 year old daughter in the same locked room as 50+ potential rapists, child traffickers, murderers, abusers, etc.?

---

100% correct

Some folks get all wrapped up in a 'feel good' snap response without examine the practical realities.

---

The irony is rich on this as that is exactly what the wall is intended to be for you folks.

---

The irony is rich that the wall will save far more than it costs and is much more practical than mass immigration.

---

Canada inadvertently makes a point that you boys don't seem to grasp. We already have border walls and heavy fencing along parts of the border near population centers, where people have been most likely to cross. If the existing walls really work, as Canada claims, then the merits of the Trump wall come down to a cost-benefit analysis of (a) replacing the existing sections of walls and fences with a 40-foot wall and (b) building a 40-foot wall in sections where there are already severe natural barriers (mountains, desert, remoteness) to anyone trying to cross on foot.

Defenders of the Trump plan are trying to make a philosophical argument for a 40-foot wall (i.e., Wall vs. No Wall). The real argument is about whether there's $30 billion worth of benefit (realistically, you can double those costs by the time it's built) compared to the current border barriers or a less expensive augmentation to the current border barriers (e.g., an electronic security system or drone surveillance combined with rapid-response capabilities by the Border Patrol).

Of course, if we really need to build a new, 40-foot wall, then the premise that walls really work is undermined, given that we already have walls in urban areas like El Paso and Tijuana.

The reality underneath all of this is that the real justification for the 40-foot wall is that Trump wants to keep a campaign promise that is popular with his core supporters. And we have amply seen that Trump makes decisions and promises according to how well they will play with his base rather than on the policy merits. A prime example is the TPP. After we pulled out of the agreement, one of his adult babysitters explained to him that the TPP was actually our most effective long-term weapon in winning trade battles with China, and so he wanted to know if we could get back in.

The most realistic way to understand Trump is as a real estate developer/con man. He doesn't care about the facts around an issue, which is why he is uninterested in learning them. He doesn't care about the objective merits of his policies. From experience and inclination, he cares only about selling. And he doesn't even care about the potential customers who know he's selling scams. As long as he can find enough suckers out there to keep the scam going, his business model works. And he has found plenty of saps and easy marks for the scam that the Trump Wall is a cost-effective and realistic solution. As long as he can sell the wall's symbolic value, that's all that really counts. He even convinced his marks that the Mexicans were the true marks of the scam, and even after it was obvious that the Mexicans aren't going to pay for a wall, he has been able to keep the scam going. This is both an affirmation of Trump's skill as a con man and a testament to Mencken's claim that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

---

Good grief you are verbose. Make even quash appear succinct.

The biggest reason the wall hasn't been funded....is Democrats have prevented such funding .

The biggest reason Democrats are opposed to such funding....they feel it would cost them future voters .

It's sad and disappointing that politicians put their own desires ahead of the needs of the country. But it's hardly something new.

The Democratic Party has been 'buying' votes since LBJ's Great Society legislation of the the 1960's.

Canada2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Walls work

---

So do tunnels

---

Tunnels are easily found.

Walls work... the evidence is plain. Yet you ignore, deflect and fight against it. Why ?

There are tens of millions of barely literate illegals attempting to enter our country where they believe all their needs will be met. Their numbers are not going to shrink.....they will continue to come as their own countries continue to decay .

How can you ignore this ?

---

Why aren't you following you'd church's lead regarding the warehousing of children?

Canada2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Build the wall and this won't happen.

It blows my mind how people don't (or refuse to) understand that this is really for the safety of the children in the grand scheme of things. You separate the children from where ALL the adults are being held. It's the same reason why we don't put juveniles into actual prisons. Would you want to keep your 5 year old daughter in the same locked room as 50+ potential rapists, child traffickers, murderers, abusers, etc.?

---

100% correct

Some folks get all wrapped up in a 'feel good' snap response without examine the practical realities.

---

The irony is rich on this as that is exactly what the wall is intended to be for you folks.

---

The irony is rich that the wall will save far more than it costs and is much more practical than mass immigration.

---

Canada inadvertently makes a point that you boys don't seem to grasp. We already have border walls and heavy fencing along parts of the border near population centers, where people have been most likely to cross. If the existing walls really work, as Canada claims, then the merits of the Trump wall come down to a cost-benefit analysis of (a) replacing the existing sections of walls and fences with a 40-foot wall and (b) building a 40-foot wall in sections where there are already severe natural barriers (mountains, desert, remoteness) to anyone trying to cross on foot.

Defenders of the Trump plan are trying to make a philosophical argument for a 40-foot wall (i.e., Wall vs. No Wall). The real argument is about whether there's $30 billion worth of benefit (realistically, you can double those costs by the time it's built) compared to the current border barriers or a less expensive augmentation to the current border barriers (e.g., an electronic security system or drone surveillance combined with rapid-response capabilities by the Border Patrol).

Of course, if we really need to build a new, 40-foot wall, then the premise that walls really work is undermined, given that we already have walls in urban areas like El Paso and Tijuana.

The reality underneath all of this is that the real justification for the 40-foot wall is that Trump wants to keep a campaign promise that is popular with his core supporters. And we have amply seen that Trump makes decisions and promises according to how well they will play with his base rather than on the policy merits. A prime example is the TPP. After we pulled out of the agreement, one of his adult babysitters explained to him that the TPP was actually our most effective long-term weapon in winning trade battles with China, and so he wanted to know if we could get back in.

The most realistic way to understand Trump is as a real estate developer/con man. He doesn't care about the facts around an issue, which is why he is uninterested in learning them. He doesn't care about the objective merits of his policies. From experience and inclination, he cares only about selling. And he doesn't even care about the potential customers who know he's selling scams. As long as he can find enough suckers out there to keep the scam going, his business model works. And he has found plenty of saps and easy marks for the scam that the Trump Wall is a cost-effective and realistic solution. As long as he can sell the wall's symbolic value, that's all that really counts. He even convinced his marks that the Mexicans were the true marks of the scam, and even after it was obvious that the Mexicans aren't going to pay for a wall, he has been able to keep the scam going. This is both an affirmation of Trump's skill as a con man and a testament to Mencken's claim that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

---

Good grief you are verbose. Make even quash appear succinct.

---

Well, there's a rebuttal.

Canada2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Build the wall and this won't happen.

It blows my mind how people don't (or refuse to) understand that this is really for the safety of the children in the grand scheme of things. You separate the children from where ALL the adults are being held. It's the same reason why we don't put juveniles into actual prisons. Would you want to keep your 5 year old daughter in the same locked room as 50+ potential rapists, child traffickers, murderers, abusers, etc.?

---

100% correct

Some folks get all wrapped up in a 'feel good' snap response without examine the practical realities.

---

The irony is rich on this as that is exactly what the wall is intended to be for you folks.

---

The irony is rich that the wall will save far more than it costs and is much more practical than mass immigration.

---

Canada inadvertently makes a point that you boys don't seem to grasp. We already have border walls and heavy fencing along parts of the border near population centers, where people have been most likely to cross. If the existing walls really work, as Canada claims, then the merits of the Trump wall come down to a cost-benefit analysis of (a) replacing the existing sections of walls and fences with a 40-foot wall and (b) building a 40-foot wall in sections where there are already severe natural barriers (mountains, desert, remoteness) to anyone trying to cross on foot.

Defenders of the Trump plan are trying to make a philosophical argument for a 40-foot wall (i.e., Wall vs. No Wall). The real argument is about whether there's $30 billion worth of benefit (realistically, you can double those costs by the time it's built) compared to the current border barriers or a less expensive augmentation to the current border barriers (e.g., an electronic security system or drone surveillance combined with rapid-response capabilities by the Border Patrol).

Of course, if we really need to build a new, 40-foot wall, then the premise that walls really work is undermined, given that we already have walls in urban areas like El Paso and Tijuana.

The reality underneath all of this is that the real justification for the 40-foot wall is that Trump wants to keep a campaign promise that is popular with his core supporters. And we have amply seen that Trump makes decisions and promises according to how well they will play with his base rather than on the policy merits. A prime example is the TPP. After we pulled out of the agreement, one of his adult babysitters explained to him that the TPP was actually our most effective long-term weapon in winning trade battles with China, and so he wanted to know if we could get back in.

The most realistic way to understand Trump is as a real estate developer/con man. He doesn't care about the facts around an issue, which is why he is uninterested in learning them. He doesn't care about the objective merits of his policies. From experience and inclination, he cares only about selling. And he doesn't even care about the potential customers who know he's selling scams. As long as he can find enough suckers out there to keep the scam going, his business model works. And he has found plenty of saps and easy marks for the scam that the Trump Wall is a cost-effective and realistic solution. As long as he can sell the wall's symbolic value, that's all that really counts. He even convinced his marks that the Mexicans were the true marks of the scam, and even after it was obvious that the Mexicans aren't going to pay for a wall, he has been able to keep the scam going. This is both an affirmation of Trump's skill as a con man and a testament to Mencken's claim that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

---

Good grief you are verbose. Make even quash appear succinct.

The biggest reason the wall hasn't been funded....is Democrats have prevented such funding .

The biggest reason Democrats are opposed to such funding....they feel it would cost them future voters .

It's sad and disappointing that politicians put their own desires ahead of the needs of the country. But it's hardly something new.

The Democratic Party has been 'buying' votes since LBJ's Great Society legislation of the the 1960's.

---

The House GOP can't agree among themselves what they want and Trump won't say what sort of bill he will sign. Hardly the Democrats fault.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You are correct about the policy part of it, but it's equally misleading to ignore the law part of it. The government isn't allowed to detain children long enough to process an asylum claim. That's why they're not building that infrastructure.

---

Then you change the law before you change the policy.

---

I don't think that's practical, and while I could change my mind, I'm far from convinced that justice requires it. There are realities that have to be addressed sooner rather than later:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-addresses-recent-criticisms-zero-tolerance-church-leaders

---

Well, the President has made immigration the centerpiece of his national policy since 2015. Yet he still won't say what needs to be in an immigration bill that he is willing to sign. This is what happens when we focus only on tearing things down.

---

House Republicans issued a proposal last Thursday that would end separation of families without returning to the catch and release policy. Nancy Pelosi called it "barbaric."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You are correct about the policy part of it, but it's equally misleading to ignore the law part of it. The government isn't allowed to detain children long enough to process an asylum claim. That's why they're not building that infrastructure.

---

Then you change the law before you change the policy.

---

I don't think that's practical, and while I could change my mind, I'm far from convinced that justice requires it. There are realities that have to be addressed sooner rather than later:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-addresses-recent-criticisms-zero-tolerance-church-leaders

---

Well, the President has made immigration the centerpiece of his national policy since 2015. Yet he still won't say what needs to be in an immigration bill that he is willing to sign. This is what happens when we focus only on tearing things down.

---

House Republicans issued a proposal last Thursday that would end separation of families without returning to the catch and release policy. Nancy Pelosi called it "barbaric."

---

She called it barbaric because it wouldn't end separation of families.

And not enough Repubs would vote for it anyway.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/despite-claims-gop-immigration-bill-would-not-end-family-separation-n883701

Oh, and the expert was from the Cato Inst.

But immigration lawyers, policy analysts and activists say that there's no language in the bill that overrules the Trump administration's decision to criminally prosecute parents, which places them in federal custody away from their children and is the direct cause of the current wave of family separation nearly 2,000 kids have been taken from their parents in recent months, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

"This bill would not end family separation," said David Bier an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, which broadly supports immigration. "As long as that administration policy continues, there will continue to be family separation at the border."

The experts reviewed the nearly 300-page draft of the legislation which was made public on Thursday.

Fienstien proposed legislation just last week to end it as soon as Trump claimed he would end this as soon as the Democrats (the current minority party) put a bill up to do so.

Why don't we place several billboards on Mexico's southern border in Spanish saying, "Welcome to Mexico. If you try to enter the USA, you will be apprehended and may be separated from your children. Fair warning."

fadskier said:

---

Why don't we place several billboards on Mexico's southern border in Spanish saying, "Welcome to Mexico. If you try to enter the USA, you will be apprehended and may be separated from your children. Fair warning."

---

Or we could just say: If you are fleeing your country because the govertment isn't subject to the rule of law, don't come to the U.S. Find a country where the rule of law still matters, and go there instead.

T.M.Katz said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Why don't we place several billboards on Mexico's southern border in Spanish saying, "Welcome to Mexico. If you try to enter the USA, you will be apprehended and may be separated from your children. Fair warning."

---

Or we could just say: If you are fleeing your country because the govertment isn't subject to the rule of law, don't come to the U.S. Find a country where the rule of law still matters, and go there instead.

---

Ok. Whatever keeps them out until we can help our own, I'm good with it.

fadskier said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Why don't we place several billboards on Mexico's southern border in Spanish saying, "Welcome to Mexico. If you try to enter the USA, you will be apprehended and may be separated from your children. Fair warning."

---

Or we could just say: If you are fleeing your country because the govertment isn't subject to the rule of law, don't come to the U.S. Find a country where the rule of law still matters, and go there instead.

---

Ok. Whatever keeps them out until we can help our own, I'm good with it.

---

Thoughts and prayers. Right?

Canada2017 said:

---

tommie said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Walls work

---

So do tunnels

---

And Mexicans.

---

Really ? You've hired some ? It's not exactly what you think.

---

Yes I have. And Indians (India), Europeans, Americans and all kinds of other people with amazing results.

cinque said:

---

fadskier said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Why don't we place several billboards on Mexico's southern border in Spanish saying, "Welcome to Mexico. If you try to enter the USA, you will be apprehended and may be separated from your children. Fair warning."

---

Or we could just say: If you are fleeing your country because the govertment isn't subject to the rule of law, don't come to the U.S. Find a country where the rule of law still matters, and go there instead.

---

Ok. Whatever keeps them out until we can help our own, I'm good with it.

---

Thoughts and prayers. Right?

---

Which is already more than you do.

T.M.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You are correct about the policy part of it, but it's equally misleading to ignore the law part of it. The government isn't allowed to detain children long enough to process an asylum claim. That's why they're not building that infrastructure.

---

Then you change the law before you change the policy.

---

I don't think that's practical, and while I could change my mind, I'm far from convinced that justice requires it. There are realities that have to be addressed sooner rather than later:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-addresses-recent-criticisms-zero-tolerance-church-leaders

---

Well, the President has made immigration the centerpiece of his national policy since 2015. Yet he still won't say what needs to be in an immigration bill that he is willing to sign. This is what happens when we focus only on tearing things down.

---

House Republicans issued a proposal last Thursday that would end separation of families without returning to the catch and release policy. Nancy Pelosi called it "barbaric."

---

She called it barbaric because it wouldn't end separation of families.

And not enough Repubs would vote for it anyway.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/despite-claims-gop-immigration-bill-would-not-end-family-separation-n883701

Oh, and the expert was from the Cato Inst.

But immigration lawyers, policy analysts and activists say that there's no language in the bill that overrules the Trump administration's decision to criminally prosecute parents, which places them in federal custody away from their children and is the direct cause of the current wave of family separation nearly 2,000 kids have been taken from their parents in recent months, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

"This bill would not end family separation," said David Bier an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, which broadly supports immigration. "As long as that administration policy continues, there will continue to be family separation at the border."

The experts reviewed the nearly 300-page draft of the legislation which was made public on Thursday.

---

Of course he was from Cato. Their philosophy is among the most liberal in the immigration debate. It's no surprise they would find fault here, but stripping the president of the discretion to prosecute parents is not a reasonable expectation. The bill would allow him to keep families together. This is what everyone claims to want. Now we're told it's not an acceptable alternative. The Democratic position is that Sessions should just end zero tolerance unilaterally, and come what may.

I don't have strong feelings about immigration one way or another, but it is important to be able to have a rational, honest debate. Pro-immigration advocates are constantly moving the goal. Keep pushing long enough, and their argument always comes to the same thing: enforcing the law is yucky. So what's the alternative?

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Build the wall and this won't happen.

It blows my mind how people don't (or refuse to) understand that this is really for the safety of the children in the grand scheme of things. You separate the children from where ALL the adults are being held. It's the same reason why we don't put juveniles into actual prisons. Would you want to keep your 5 year old daughter in the same locked room as 50+ potential rapists, child traffickers, murderers, abusers, etc.?

---

100% correct

Some folks get all wrapped up in a 'feel good' snap response without examine the practical realities.

---

The irony is rich on this as that is exactly what the wall is intended to be for you folks.

---

The irony is rich that the wall will save far more than it costs and is much more practical than mass immigration.

---

Canada inadvertently makes a point that you boys don't seem to grasp. We already have border walls and heavy fencing along parts of the border near population centers, where people have been most likely to cross. If the existing walls really work, as Canada claims, then the merits of the Trump wall come down to a cost-benefit analysis of (a) replacing the existing sections of walls and fences with a 40-foot wall and (b) building a 40-foot wall in sections where there are already severe natural barriers (mountains, desert, remoteness) to anyone trying to cross on foot.

Defenders of the Trump plan are trying to make a philosophical argument for a 40-foot wall (i.e., Wall vs. No Wall). The real argument is about whether there's $30 billion worth of benefit (realistically, you can double those costs by the time it's built) compared to the current border barriers or a less expensive augmentation to the current border barriers (e.g., an electronic security system or drone surveillance combined with rapid-response capabilities by the Border Patrol).

Of course, if we really need to build a new, 40-foot wall, then the premise that walls really work is undermined, given that we already have walls in urban areas like El Paso and Tijuana.

The reality underneath all of this is that the real justification for the 40-foot wall is that Trump wants to keep a campaign promise that is popular with his core supporters. And we have amply seen that Trump makes decisions and promises according to how well they will play with his base rather than on the policy merits. A prime example is the TPP. After we pulled out of the agreement, one of his adult babysitters explained to him that the TPP was actually our most effective long-term weapon in winning trade battles with China, and so he wanted to know if we could get back in.

The most realistic way to understand Trump is as a real estate developer/con man. He doesn't care about the facts around an issue, which is why he is uninterested in learning them. He doesn't care about the objective merits of his policies. From experience and inclination, he cares only about selling. And he doesn't even care about the potential customers who know he's selling scams. As long as he can find enough suckers out there to keep the scam going, his business model works. And he has found plenty of saps and easy marks for the scam that the Trump Wall is a cost-effective and realistic solution. As long as he can sell the wall's symbolic value, that's all that really counts. He even convinced his marks that the Mexicans were the true marks of the scam, and even after it was obvious that the Mexicans aren't going to pay for a wall, he has been able to keep the scam going. This is both an affirmation of Trump's skill as a con man and a testament to Mencken's claim that "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

---

Good grief you are verbose. Make even quash appear succinct.

The biggest reason the wall hasn't been funded....is Democrats have prevented such funding .

The biggest reason Democrats are opposed to such funding....they feel it would cost them future voters .

It's sad and disappointing that politicians put their own desires ahead of the needs of the country. But it's hardly something new.

The Democratic Party has been 'buying' votes since LBJ's Great Society legislation of the the 1960's.

---

The House GOP can't agree among themselves what they want and Trump won't say what sort of bill he will sign. Hardly the Democrats fault.

---

It is following the same standard 4 act sequence:
1. Identify a problem (whether real or perceived)
2. Muck up existing enforcement around laws pertaining to said problem
3. Blame the other side when public gets outraged.
4. Fix problem and claim victory.

President Obama deported a lot people and broke up a lot of families. He did so, however, after findings of guilt. Trump can do the same and more so. The question is whether releasing families before the trial/hearing means there won't be a trial or hearing? If so, what alternatives exist short of confinement and separation?

I don't see anyone really trying to address those issues.

Sam Lowry said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You are correct about the policy part of it, but it's equally misleading to ignore the law part of it. The government isn't allowed to detain children long enough to process an asylum claim. That's why they're not building that infrastructure.

---

Then you change the law before you change the policy.

---

I don't think that's practical, and while I could change my mind, I'm far from convinced that justice requires it. There are realities that have to be addressed sooner rather than later:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-addresses-recent-criticisms-zero-tolerance-church-leaders

---

Well, the President has made immigration the centerpiece of his national policy since 2015. Yet he still won't say what needs to be in an immigration bill that he is willing to sign. This is what happens when we focus only on tearing things down.

---

House Republicans issued a proposal last Thursday that would end separation of families without returning to the catch and release policy. Nancy Pelosi called it "barbaric."

---

She called it barbaric because it wouldn't end separation of families.

And not enough Repubs would vote for it anyway.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/despite-claims-gop-immigration-bill-would-not-end-family-separation-n883701

Oh, and the expert was from the Cato Inst.

But immigration lawyers, policy analysts and activists say that there's no language in the bill that overrules the Trump administration's decision to criminally prosecute parents, which places them in federal custody away from their children and is the direct cause of the current wave of family separation nearly 2,000 kids have been taken from their parents in recent months, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

"This bill would not end family separation," said David Bier an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, which broadly supports immigration. "As long as that administration policy continues, there will continue to be family separation at the border."

The experts reviewed the nearly 300-page draft of the legislation which was made public on Thursday.

---

Of course he was from Cato. Their philosophy is among the most liberal in the immigration debate. It's no surprise they would find fault here, but stripping the president of the discretion to prosecute parents is not a reasonable expectation. The bill would allow him to keep families together. This is what everyone claims to want. Now we're told it's not an acceptable alternative. The Democratic position is that Sessions should just end zero tolerance unilaterally, and come what may.

I don't have strong feelings about immigration one way or another, but it is important to be able to have a rational, honest debate. Pro-immigration advocates are constantly moving the goal. Keep pushing long enough, and their argument always comes to the same thing: enforcing the law is yucky. So what's the alternative?

---

Meanwhile all 49 Dem Senators have signed onto a bill that would allow families to be kept together while their parents await trial. Not a single Republican has yet to endorse it.

That's because they actually like the policy. Bannon on Meet the Press yesterday said that the white nationalist love these pictures and that this policy is good politics for the GOP. He is an idiot but this is actually the thinking. The GOP is now pretty much transformed into the resurgance of the old Dixiecrat party.

Booray said:

---

President Obama deported a lot people and broke up a lot of families. He did so, however, after findings of guilt. Trump can do the same and more so. The question is whether releasing families before the trial/hearing means there won't be a trial or hearing? If so, what alternatives exist short of confinement and separation?

I don't see anyone really trying to address those issues.

---

Obama broke up families before a finding of guilt on rare occasions. It didn't happen often, in part because of catch and release, and in part because there were not large numbers of families arriving together until recently.

BearinSoDak said:

---

Meanwhile all 49 Dem Senators have signed onto a bill that would allow families to be kept together while their parents await trial. Not a single Republican has yet to endorse it.

---

It would not allow them to be kept together in custody. The bill prohibits separation except in narrow circumstances, while still leaving law enforcement's hands tied by Flores and, for good measure, adding a presumption that detention is not in the best interest of families.

In other words it effectively codifies the catch and release policy.

How would Sarah Sanders and the Trumps react if their kids were separated from them and warehoused in a defunct walmart where nobody can touch them. the U.s. is going to see some lawsuits because of the damage we are doing to innocent kids with this policy.

T.M.Katz said:

---

How would Sarah Sanders and the Trumps react if their kids were separated from them and warehoused in a defunct walmart where nobody can touch them. the U.s. is going to see some lawsuits because of the damage we are doing to innocent kids with this policy.

---

Sanders and Trump aren't attempting immigration much less illegal immigration. Also, seems like both of them made the best of family situations and made choices in their life to ensure stability for their families.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearinSoDak said:

---

Meanwhile all 49 Dem Senators have signed onto a bill that would allow families to be kept together while their parents await trial. Not a single Republican has yet to endorse it.

---

It would not allow them to be kept together in custody. The bill prohibits separation except in narrow circumstances, while still leaving law enforcement's hands tied by Flores and, for good measure, adding a presumption that detention is not in the best interest of families.

In other words it effectively codifies the catch and release policy.

---

Several stories say the Dems bill would halt family separations within 100 miles of the border unless there's abuse, neglect or trafficking.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/18/all-senate-democrats-now-support-bill-would-prohibit-border-separations/710803002/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-give-trump-a-bill-to-outlaw-family-separation-w521650

Here's the text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3036

Introduced in Senate (06/07/2018)
Keep Families Together Act
This bill prohibits an agent or contractor of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Health and Human Services from removing a child who is under the age of 18 and has no permanent immigration status from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the U.S. border unless:

• an authorized state court determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed;
• a state or county child welfare official with expertise in child trauma and development determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed because of abuse or neglect; or
• the Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director authorizes separation based on a documented finding that the child is a trafficking victim or is at significant risk of becoming a victim, a strong likelihood exists that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian, or the child is in danger of abuse or neglect.

An agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goals of deterring migration to the United States or of promoting immigration law compliance.

Here's what the Rolling stone says:

New photos of separated migrant children in border patrol custody show them in oversize kennels, sleeping on mats on a bare concrete floor with only foil blankets for comfort.

T.M.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearinSoDak said:

---

Meanwhile all 49 Dem Senators have signed onto a bill that would allow families to be kept together while their parents await trial. Not a single Republican has yet to endorse it.

---

It would not allow them to be kept together in custody. The bill prohibits separation except in narrow circumstances, while still leaving law enforcement's hands tied by Flores and, for good measure, adding a presumption that detention is not in the best interest of families.

In other words it effectively codifies the catch and release policy.

---

Several stories say the Dems bill would halt family separations within 100 miles of the border unless there's abuse, neglect or trafficking.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/18/all-senate-democrats-now-support-bill-would-prohibit-border-separations/710803002/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-give-trump-a-bill-to-outlaw-family-separation-w521650

Here's the text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3036

Introduced in Senate (06/07/2018)
Keep Families Together Act
This bill prohibits an agent or contractor of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Health and Human Services from removing a child who is under the age of 18 and has no permanent immigration status from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the U.S. border unless:

• an authorized state court determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed;
• a state or county child welfare official with expertise in child trauma and development determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed because of abuse or neglect; or
• the Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director authorizes separation based on a documented finding that the child is a trafficking victim or is at significant risk of becoming a victim, a strong likelihood exists that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian, or the child is in danger of abuse or neglect.

An agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goals of deterring migration to the United States or of promoting immigration law compliance.

Here's what the Rolling stone says:

New photos of separated migrant children in border patrol custody show them in oversize kennels, sleeping on mats on a bare concrete floor with only foil blankets for comfort.

---

I've read it. As you say, it would halt family separations. It wouldn't lift the current ban on long term detentions. So it leaves Trump (and future presidents) with all the same problems and even fewer options to deal with them.

fadskier said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

How would Sarah Sanders and the Trumps react if their kids were separated from them and warehoused in a defunct walmart where nobody can touch them. the U.s. is going to see some lawsuits because of the damage we are doing to innocent kids with this policy.

---

Sanders and Trump aren't attempting immigration much less illegal immigration. Also, seems like both of them made the best of family situations and made choices in their life to ensure stability for their families.

---

My irony meter just went off that Melania's an immigrant. And didnt she bring her family here? https://people.com/politics/melania-trump-parents-immigration-office-lawyer/

Was Barron an anchor baby

Sam Lowry said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearinSoDak said:

---

Meanwhile all 49 Dem Senators have signed onto a bill that would allow families to be kept together while their parents await trial. Not a single Republican has yet to endorse it.

---

It would not allow them to be kept together in custody. The bill prohibits separation except in narrow circumstances, while still leaving law enforcement's hands tied by Flores and, for good measure, adding a presumption that detention is not in the best interest of families.

In other words it effectively codifies the catch and release policy.

---

Several stories say the Dems bill would halt family separations within 100 miles of the border unless there's abuse, neglect or trafficking.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/18/all-senate-democrats-now-support-bill-would-prohibit-border-separations/710803002/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-give-trump-a-bill-to-outlaw-family-separation-w521650

Here's the text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3036

Introduced in Senate (06/07/2018)
Keep Families Together Act
This bill prohibits an agent or contractor of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Health and Human Services from removing a child who is under the age of 18 and has no permanent immigration status from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the U.S. border unless:

• an authorized state court determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed;
• a state or county child welfare official with expertise in child trauma and development determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed because of abuse or neglect; or
• the Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director authorizes separation based on a documented finding that the child is a trafficking victim or is at significant risk of becoming a victim, a strong likelihood exists that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian, or the child is in danger of abuse or neglect.

An agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goals of deterring migration to the United States or of promoting immigration law compliance.

Here's what the Rolling stone says:

New photos of separated migrant children in border patrol custody show them in oversize kennels, sleeping on mats on a bare concrete floor with only foil blankets for comfort.

---

I've read it. As you say, it would halt family separations. It wouldn't lift the current ban on long term detentions. So it leaves Trump (and future presidents) with all the same problems and even fewer options to deal with them.

---

Which is why we need to reform our immigration system instead of persecuting kids whose parents come here seeking asylum.

Plus baby steps. If we can stop Sessions from sticking kids in detention right now, that's a good days work

T.M.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearinSoDak said:

---

Meanwhile all 49 Dem Senators have signed onto a bill that would allow families to be kept together while their parents await trial. Not a single Republican has yet to endorse it.

---

It would not allow them to be kept together in custody. The bill prohibits separation except in narrow circumstances, while still leaving law enforcement's hands tied by Flores and, for good measure, adding a presumption that detention is not in the best interest of families.

In other words it effectively codifies the catch and release policy.

---

Several stories say the Dems bill would halt family separations within 100 miles of the border unless there's abuse, neglect or trafficking.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/18/all-senate-democrats-now-support-bill-would-prohibit-border-separations/710803002/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-give-trump-a-bill-to-outlaw-family-separation-w521650

Here's the text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3036

Introduced in Senate (06/07/2018)
Keep Families Together Act
This bill prohibits an agent or contractor of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Health and Human Services from removing a child who is under the age of 18 and has no permanent immigration status from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the U.S. border unless:

• an authorized state court determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed;
• a state or county child welfare official with expertise in child trauma and development determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed because of abuse or neglect; or
• the Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director authorizes separation based on a documented finding that the child is a trafficking victim or is at significant risk of becoming a victim, a strong likelihood exists that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian, or the child is in danger of abuse or neglect.

An agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goals of deterring migration to the United States or of promoting immigration law compliance.

Here's what the Rolling stone says:

New photos of separated migrant children in border patrol custody show them in oversize kennels, sleeping on mats on a bare concrete floor with only foil blankets for comfort.

---

The twitter posts saying nothing about them separated from their parents. And the foil is space blankets....good grief...they'll say anything to trigger liberals.

fadskier said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearinSoDak said:

---

Meanwhile all 49 Dem Senators have signed onto a bill that would allow families to be kept together while their parents await trial. Not a single Republican has yet to endorse it.

---

It would not allow them to be kept together in custody. The bill prohibits separation except in narrow circumstances, while still leaving law enforcement's hands tied by Flores and, for good measure, adding a presumption that detention is not in the best interest of families.

In other words it effectively codifies the catch and release policy.

---

Several stories say the Dems bill would halt family separations within 100 miles of the border unless there's abuse, neglect or trafficking.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/18/all-senate-democrats-now-support-bill-would-prohibit-border-separations/710803002/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-give-trump-a-bill-to-outlaw-family-separation-w521650

Here's the text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3036

Introduced in Senate (06/07/2018)
Keep Families Together Act
This bill prohibits an agent or contractor of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Health and Human Services from removing a child who is under the age of 18 and has no permanent immigration status from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the U.S. border unless:

• an authorized state court determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed;
• a state or county child welfare official with expertise in child trauma and development determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed because of abuse or neglect; or
• the Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director authorizes separation based on a documented finding that the child is a trafficking victim or is at significant risk of becoming a victim, a strong likelihood exists that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian, or the child is in danger of abuse or neglect.

An agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goals of deterring migration to the United States or of promoting immigration law compliance.

Here's what the Rolling stone says:

New photos of separated migrant children in border patrol custody show them in oversize kennels, sleeping on mats on a bare concrete floor with only foil blankets for comfort.

---

The twitter posts saying nothing about them separated from their parents. And the foil is space blankets....good grief...they'll say anything to trigger liberals.

---

Trump supporters = people who think its OK to put kids in cages in a warehouse cuz the kids are brown and the blankets are mylar

T.M.Katz said:

---

fadskier said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearinSoDak said:

---

Meanwhile all 49 Dem Senators have signed onto a bill that would allow families to be kept together while their parents await trial. Not a single Republican has yet to endorse it.

---

It would not allow them to be kept together in custody. The bill prohibits separation except in narrow circumstances, while still leaving law enforcement's hands tied by Flores and, for good measure, adding a presumption that detention is not in the best interest of families.

In other words it effectively codifies the catch and release policy.

---

Several stories say the Dems bill would halt family separations within 100 miles of the border unless there's abuse, neglect or trafficking.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/18/all-senate-democrats-now-support-bill-would-prohibit-border-separations/710803002/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-give-trump-a-bill-to-outlaw-family-separation-w521650

Here's the text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3036

Introduced in Senate (06/07/2018)
Keep Families Together Act
This bill prohibits an agent or contractor of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Health and Human Services from removing a child who is under the age of 18 and has no permanent immigration status from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the U.S. border unless:

• an authorized state court determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed;
• a state or county child welfare official with expertise in child trauma and development determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed because of abuse or neglect; or
• the Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director authorizes separation based on a documented finding that the child is a trafficking victim or is at significant risk of becoming a victim, a strong likelihood exists that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian, or the child is in danger of abuse or neglect.

An agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goals of deterring migration to the United States or of promoting immigration law compliance.

Here's what the Rolling stone says:

New photos of separated migrant children in border patrol custody show them in oversize kennels, sleeping on mats on a bare concrete floor with only foil blankets for comfort.

---

The twitter posts saying nothing about them separated from their parents. And the foil is space blankets....good grief...they'll say anything to trigger liberals.

---

Trump supporters = people who think its OK to put kids in cages in a warehouse cuz the kids are brown and the blankets are mylar

---

Being "half brown" should I be offended?

And why do you seem to bring up race all the time? It shouldn't matter where illegal immigrants come from ,but you sure seem to bring it up a lot.

"Doc Holliday said:
Build the wall and this won't happen.

It blows my mind how people don't (or refuse to) understand that this is really for the safety of the children in the grand scheme of things. You separate the children from where ALL the adults are being held. It's the same reason why we don't put juveniles into actual prisons. Would you want to keep your 5 year old daughter in the same locked room as 50+ potential rapists, child traffickers, murderers, abusers, etc.?"
Would keep your 5 yr daughter locked with a rapist? Would you let your adult daughter locked in a room with Trump pre-election?

Waco1947 said:

---

"Doc Holliday said:
Build the wall and this won't happen.

It blows my mind how people don't (or refuse to) understand that this is really for the safety of the children in the grand scheme of things. You separate the children from where ALL the adults are being held. It's the same reason why we don't put juveniles into actual prisons. Would you want to keep your 5 year old daughter in the same locked room as 50+ potential rapists, child traffickers, murderers, abusers, etc.?"
Would keep your 5 yr daughter locked with a rapist? Would you let your adult daughter locked in a room with Trump pre-election?

---

I would.

I'll just go ahead and say it.

Trump will agree to fix this issue (brought to you by the last administration). Democrats will not agree because they want to use it as a talking point for midterms and lie about Republicans causing this.

George Soros' MoveOn.org Is Rallying Dem. Members of Congress and MSM Friends For Nationwide "Major Protest Against Family Separation".

They're putting on a show and building a hate narrative against Republicans and conservatives.

That's how this game is played...so many of you are naive and elementary.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Doc Holliday said:
Build the wall and this won't happen.

It blows my mind how people don't (or refuse to) understand that this is really for the safety of the children in the grand scheme of things. You separate the children from where ALL the adults are being held. It's the same reason why we don't put juveniles into actual prisons. Would you want to keep your 5 year old daughter in the same locked room as 50+ potential rapists, child traffickers, murderers, abusers, etc.?"
Would keep your 5 yr daughter locked with a rapist? Would you let your adult daughter locked in a room with Trump pre-election?

---

I would.

---

Me also. Conversely, my daughter would not be allowed Waco as she would be convinced to move to South America and drink the Kool-Aid.

T.M.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearinSoDak said:

---

Meanwhile all 49 Dem Senators have signed onto a bill that would allow families to be kept together while their parents await trial. Not a single Republican has yet to endorse it.

---

It would not allow them to be kept together in custody. The bill prohibits separation except in narrow circumstances, while still leaving law enforcement's hands tied by Flores and, for good measure, adding a presumption that detention is not in the best interest of families.

In other words it effectively codifies the catch and release policy.

---

Several stories say the Dems bill would halt family separations within 100 miles of the border unless there's abuse, neglect or trafficking.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/06/18/all-senate-democrats-now-support-bill-would-prohibit-border-separations/710803002/

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/democrats-give-trump-a-bill-to-outlaw-family-separation-w521650

Here's the text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/3036

Introduced in Senate (06/07/2018)
Keep Families Together Act
This bill prohibits an agent or contractor of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or the Department of Health and Human Services from removing a child who is under the age of 18 and has no permanent immigration status from his or her parent or legal guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the U.S. border unless:

• an authorized state court determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed;
• a state or county child welfare official with expertise in child trauma and development determines that it is in the child's best interests to be removed because of abuse or neglect; or
• the Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director authorizes separation based on a documented finding that the child is a trafficking victim or is at significant risk of becoming a victim, a strong likelihood exists that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian, or the child is in danger of abuse or neglect.

An agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goals of deterring migration to the United States or of promoting immigration law compliance.

Here's what the Rolling stone says:

New photos of separated migrant children in border patrol custody show them in oversize kennels, sleeping on mats on a bare concrete floor with only foil blankets for comfort.

---

I've read it. As you say, it would halt family separations. It wouldn't lift the current ban on long term detentions. So it leaves Trump (and future presidents) with all the same problems and even fewer options to deal with them.

---

Which is why we need to reform our immigration system instead of persecuting kids whose parents come here seeking asylum.

Plus baby steps. If we can stop Sessions from sticking kids in detention right now, that's a good days work

---

He's already been stopped from putting kids in detention. Now they're trying to stop him from putting kids in foster homes. The remaining alternatives are 1) give a free pass to parents who break the law, or 2) release them with their families and never hear from 40% of them again. Either way, you encourage more people to cross illegally and to bring kids with them.