LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

illegal entry = misdemeanor

illegal RE-ENTRY = Felony

---

Entry to request asylum = legal

We don't have to grant it. But they have the right to ask for it.

Booray said:

---

As I understand it, the current problems come from the administration's decision to end "catch and release." For decades we have released either arrestees or asylum seekers into the population. If those cases ended up with a deportation order, there was a good chance that parent and child would be separated at the time of the deportation. In addition, in the minority of cases where we did not release an arrestee or asylum seeker, the government entered into a consent decree to maintain the children of the incarcerated person in the "least restrictive" manner, also usually meaning separation from a parent or both parents. By ending catch and release (the Jeff Sessions' zero-tolerance policy) we have greatly multiplied the number of separations and almost infinitely multiplied the number of separations where there has been no finding of guilt. If I am wrong about any of that factually, I am sure someone will tell me.

Assuming I have the basic background right, there are a couple of points worth noting.

First, catch and release allowed us to largely avoid forced, no or little-notice separations, but at the cost of seeing the immigration laws were often not enforced. That was the "policy" under the past three presidents at least. The Trumpets' argument that family separation was existing law or policy and the President is just enforcing it is an intentional distortion of the truth, otherwise known as a lie. Almost universally the United States was avoiding forced separations, particularly before conviction or denial of asylum.

Second, ending catch and release is not by itself intellectually abhorrent. President Trump made the idea a centerpiece of his campaign and we elected him. When flight is an inherent part of a crime, "release" becomes more problematic. For asylum seekers, there is a great potential for abuse of the system by people who say they are seeking asylum when in reality they are just seeking a better life.

Third, the real problem in my mind is not what the administration has done, but how it has done it. If you are going to end catch and release, you build an infrastructure that allows families to be treated humanely while in custody and you get hundreds more immigration judges, support staff and appointed lawyers to move the court cases at a rate much faster than what happens now. As with the first travel ban, it seems like those in the administration just woke up one day and decided--today is the day we are going to do a 180 on established policy. Lets see what happens. And what happens is a whole bunch of awful crap.

Fourth, if a wall would fix all of this, why don't we just get on the phone and find out when those Mexican wall payments will be getting here?

---

pretty soon the Mexicans are going to build the wall and pay for it. to keep us out.

bubbadog said:

---

Canada2017 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.?

---

Have you traveled the Texas Border? Especially Big Bend

---

I have been to Big Ben.

My farm is 1 mile from the Mexican border.

The 64 mile long wall separating El Paso from Juarez has been a huge success .

But you and other nut cases keep choosing to ignore this massive example of the success of border walls.

---

Big Ben is in London, not on the Mexican border.

---

Bet your enormous layers of fat jiggled up and down at the thought correcting my spelling. Time to return to your couch with another well earned bowl of ice cream.

The zenith of your day has been reached .

Canada2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Canada2017 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.?

---

Have you traveled the Texas Border? Especially Big Bend

---

I have been to Big Ben.

My farm is 1 mile from the Mexican border.

The 64 mile long wall separating El Paso from Juarez has been a huge success .

But you and other nut cases keep choosing to ignore this massive example of the success of border walls.

---

Big Ben is in London, not on the Mexican border.

---

Bet your enormous layers of fat jiggled up and down at the thought correcting my spelling. Time to return to your couch with another well earned bowl of ice cream.

The zenith of your day has been reached .

---

Your spelling of Big Ben was correct.

Canada2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Canada2017 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.?

---

Have you traveled the Texas Border? Especially Big Bend

---

I have been to Big Ben.

My farm is 1 mile from the Mexican border.

The 64 mile long wall separating El Paso from Juarez has been a huge success .

But you and other nut cases keep choosing to ignore this massive example of the success of border walls.

---

Big Ben is in London, not on the Mexican border.

---

Bet your enormous layers of fat jiggled up and down at the thought correcting my spelling. Time to return to your couch with another well earned bowl of ice cream.

The zenith of your day has been reached .

---

personal insults? really, dude? where's your sense of humor?

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.

---

Building the wall involves quite a bit of "practical reality."

bubbadog said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Walls work

---

So do tunnels

---

And Mexicans.

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 ?

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.

Booray 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.

---

Building the wall involves quite a bit of "practical reality."

---

Look at the El Paso wall . Works great.

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 ?

---

For someone who claims to know so much about the border, your command of the facts is startlingly abysmal. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

Booray said:

---

As I understand it, the current problems come from the administration's decision to end "catch and release." For decades we have released either arrestees or asylum seekers into the population. If those cases ended up with a deportation order, there was a good chance that parent and child would be separated at the time of the deportation. In addition, in the minority of cases where we did not release an arrestee or asylum seeker, the government entered into a consent decree to maintain the children of the incarcerated person in the "least restrictive" manner, also usually meaning separation from a parent or both parents. By ending catch and release (the Jeff Sessions' zero-tolerance policy) we have greatly multiplied the number of separations and almost infinitely multiplied the number of separations where there has been no finding of guilt. If I am wrong about any of that factually, I am sure someone will tell me.

Assuming I have the basic background right, there are a couple of points worth noting.

First, catch and release allowed us to largely avoid forced, no or little-notice separations, but at the cost of seeing the immigration laws were often not enforced. That was the "policy" under the past three presidents at least. The Trumpets' argument that family separation was existing law or policy and the President is just enforcing it is an intentional distortion of the truth, otherwise known as a lie. Almost universally the United States was avoiding forced separations, particularly before conviction or denial of asylum.

Second, ending catch and release is not by itself intellectually abhorrent. President Trump made the idea a centerpiece of his campaign and we elected him. When flight is an inherent part of a crime, "release" becomes more problematic. For asylum seekers, there is a great potential for abuse of the system by people who say they are seeking asylum when in reality they are just seeking a better life.

Third, the real problem in my mind is not what the administration has done, but how it has done it. If you are going to end catch and release, you build an infrastructure that allows families to be treated humanely while in custody and you get hundreds more immigration judges, support staff and appointed lawyers to move the court cases at a rate much faster than what happens now. As with the first travel ban, it seems like those in the administration just woke up one day and decided--today is the day we are going to do a 180 on established policy. Lets see what happens. And what happens is a whole bunch of awful crap.

Fourth, if a wall would fix all of this, why don't we just get on the phone and find out when those Mexican wall payments will be getting here?

---

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.

bubbadog said:

---

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 ?

---

For someone who claims to know so much about the border, your command of the facts is startlingly abysmal. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

---

Chubs.......if we don't get a handle on this growing crisis....and dummies like you, in reality, open the border....

there will be tens of millions coming in. Central and South America are THAT screwed up. I have been throughout the region many times.

The vast majority of illegals don't walk north ...there are various transportation enterprises/ networks already moving these people right to borders edge. It's a business .

So again.....El Paso shows even a mere 64 mile long wall helps dramatically.

So why keep saying....walls don't work?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

As I understand it, the current problems come from the administration's decision to end "catch and release." For decades we have released either arrestees or asylum seekers into the population. If those cases ended up with a deportation order, there was a good chance that parent and child would be separated at the time of the deportation. In addition, in the minority of cases where we did not release an arrestee or asylum seeker, the government entered into a consent decree to maintain the children of the incarcerated person in the "least restrictive" manner, also usually meaning separation from a parent or both parents. By ending catch and release (the Jeff Sessions' zero-tolerance policy) we have greatly multiplied the number of separations and almost infinitely multiplied the number of separations where there has been no finding of guilt. If I am wrong about any of that factually, I am sure someone will tell me.

Assuming I have the basic background right, there are a couple of points worth noting.

First, catch and release allowed us to largely avoid forced, no or little-notice separations, but at the cost of seeing the immigration laws were often not enforced. That was the "policy" under the past three presidents at least. The Trumpets' argument that family separation was existing law or policy and the President is just enforcing it is an intentional distortion of the truth, otherwise known as a lie. Almost universally the United States was avoiding forced separations, particularly before conviction or denial of asylum.

Second, ending catch and release is not by itself intellectually abhorrent. President Trump made the idea a centerpiece of his campaign and we elected him. When flight is an inherent part of a crime, "release" becomes more problematic. For asylum seekers, there is a great potential for abuse of the system by people who say they are seeking asylum when in reality they are just seeking a better life.

Third, the real problem in my mind is not what the administration has done, but how it has done it. If you are going to end catch and release, you build an infrastructure that allows families to be treated humanely while in custody and you get hundreds more immigration judges, support staff and appointed lawyers to move the court cases at a rate much faster than what happens now. As with the first travel ban, it seems like those in the administration just woke up one day and decided--today is the day we are going to do a 180 on established policy. Lets see what happens. And what happens is a whole bunch of awful crap.

Fourth, if a wall would fix all of this, why don't we just get on the phone and find out when those Mexican wall payments will be getting here?

---

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.

T.M.Katz said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

illegal entry = misdemeanor

illegal RE-ENTRY = Felony

---

Entry to request asylum = legal

We don't have to grant it. But they have the right to ask for it.

---

Entry and asylum are two separate issues. Requesting asylum is legal. Entry may or may not be. If you enter illegally to request asylum, you've broken the law.

Canada2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

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 ?

---

For someone who claims to know so much about the border, your command of the facts is startlingly abysmal. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

---

there will be tens of millions coming in. Central and South America are THAT screwed up. I have been throughout the region many times.

---

You don't even seem to understand the difference between Central America and South America. C'mon, dude.

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.

bubbadog said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

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 ?

---

For someone who claims to know so much about the border, your command of the facts is startlingly abysmal. Come back when you know what you're talking about.

---

there will be tens of millions coming in. Central and South America are THAT screwed up. I have been throughout the region many times.

---

You don't even seem to understand the difference between Central America and South America. C'mon, dude.

---

Why the pointless deflection ? Of course I know the difference . Have been to almost every country involved....some several times.

So....3rd try...why are you against a border wall...when the El Paso one has been a success ?

Or are you merely pro illegal immigration ? That's fine...some folks are.

Most often though they are hundreds of miles away from the border . And they can't conceive the consequences.

If you decide to go rob a bank or convenience store, do you take your kids with you? It's the same difference. Take emotion out of it.

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."

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

$64 billion PER YEAR low ball estimated savings.

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."

---

Uh...ok. Proud of yourself now?

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

How many children did her husband separate from their parents in Iraq and Afghanistan?

And by separate I mean kill

I'm going to do a quick search on Laura Bush weighing in on the inhumanity of her husband's war in the ME.






Nothing

Doc Holliday said:

---

Where was the outrage in 2009? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? 2015? 2016? Because this is not new.

• 2009 CNN - Study: 4 million 'illegal' immigrant children are native-born citizens
• 2011 Huffington Post - Deportations Leave Behind Thousands Of Children In Foster Care
• 2012 New York Times - Deporting Parents Hurts Kids
• 2012 ColorLines - Nearly 205K Deportations of Parents of U.S. Citizens in Just Over Two Years (archive.is wouldn't work for this)
• 2012 Denver Post - U.S. immigration policy splits families when parents are deported
• 2014 San Diego Free Press - Immigration, Deportation, and Family Separation
• 2014 Vox - What happens when deportation separates parents from their kids?
• 2014 The Guardian - Orphaned by deportation: the crisis of American children left behind
• 2015 Humans Rights Watch - Border Enforcement Policies Ensnare Parents of US Citizen Children
• 2015 Vox - Why is the Obama administration still fighting to keep immigrant families behind bars? (archive.is wouldn't work for this)
• 2016 Al Jazeera - Separated: Deported mothers and their American children
• 2016 The Hill - Immigration: deporting parents negatively affects kids' health

---

So y'all like these Obama policies?

I'm with you that the outrage should be consistent, but these lines always crack me up. "But Obama did it!" Wait, thought Obama was soft on immigration?

Crash Davis said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Where was the outrage in 2009? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? 2015? 2016? Because this is not new.

• 2009 CNN - Study: 4 million 'illegal' immigrant children are native-born citizens
• 2011 Huffington Post - Deportations Leave Behind Thousands Of Children In Foster Care
• 2012 New York Times - Deporting Parents Hurts Kids
• 2012 ColorLines - Nearly 205K Deportations of Parents of U.S. Citizens in Just Over Two Years (archive.is wouldn't work for this)
• 2012 Denver Post - U.S. immigration policy splits families when parents are deported
• 2014 San Diego Free Press - Immigration, Deportation, and Family Separation
• 2014 Vox - What happens when deportation separates parents from their kids?
• 2014 The Guardian - Orphaned by deportation: the crisis of American children left behind
• 2015 Humans Rights Watch - Border Enforcement Policies Ensnare Parents of US Citizen Children
• 2015 Vox - Why is the Obama administration still fighting to keep immigrant families behind bars? (archive.is wouldn't work for this)
• 2016 Al Jazeera - Separated: Deported mothers and their American children
• 2016 The Hill - Immigration: deporting parents negatively affects kids' health

---

So y'all like these Obama policies?

I'm with you that the outrage should be consistent, but these lines always crack me up. "But Obama did it!" Wait, thought Obama was soft on immigration?

---

I don't like these policies. I'm in favor of quick deporting and building the wall.

The outrage is selective so the point I am making is those concerned about it are not actually concerned at all.

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.

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.

---

There could be an actual government report on money spent/saved and you wouldn't agree with it, so let's stop pretending like you're actually going to consider any argument.

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

Doc Holliday said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Where was the outrage in 2009? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? 2015? 2016? Because this is not new.

• 2009 CNN - Study: 4 million 'illegal' immigrant children are native-born citizens
• 2011 Huffington Post - Deportations Leave Behind Thousands Of Children In Foster Care
• 2012 New York Times - Deporting Parents Hurts Kids
• 2012 ColorLines - Nearly 205K Deportations of Parents of U.S. Citizens in Just Over Two Years (archive.is wouldn't work for this)
• 2012 Denver Post - U.S. immigration policy splits families when parents are deported
• 2014 San Diego Free Press - Immigration, Deportation, and Family Separation
• 2014 Vox - What happens when deportation separates parents from their kids?
• 2014 The Guardian - Orphaned by deportation: the crisis of American children left behind
• 2015 Humans Rights Watch - Border Enforcement Policies Ensnare Parents of US Citizen Children
• 2015 Vox - Why is the Obama administration still fighting to keep immigrant families behind bars? (archive.is wouldn't work for this)
• 2016 Al Jazeera - Separated: Deported mothers and their American children
• 2016 The Hill - Immigration: deporting parents negatively affects kids' health

---

So y'all like these Obama policies?

I'm with you that the outrage should be consistent, but these lines always crack me up. "But Obama did it!" Wait, thought Obama was soft on immigration?

---

I don't like these policies. I'm in favor of quick deporting and building the wall.

The outrage is selective so the point I am making is those concerned about it are not actually concerned at all.

---

I wasn't necessarily being specific towards you, I just always think it is funny when Trump policies/rhetoric are criticized and people defend them by saying politicians that they absolutely hate did they same thing. Similarly, it was hilarious when Obama supporters would defend some of his ridiculous foreign policy actions by saying Bush did the same thing...wait, thought Bush was an evil war criminal?

I agree with you the outrage should be consistent. I just always think the "[insert politician I've bashed for years] did it too" defense is an interesting tactic.

Crash Davis said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Where was the outrage in 2009? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? 2015? 2016? Because this is not new.

• 2009 CNN - Study: 4 million 'illegal' immigrant children are native-born citizens
• 2011 Huffington Post - Deportations Leave Behind Thousands Of Children In Foster Care
• 2012 New York Times - Deporting Parents Hurts Kids
• 2012 ColorLines - Nearly 205K Deportations of Parents of U.S. Citizens in Just Over Two Years (archive.is wouldn't work for this)
• 2012 Denver Post - U.S. immigration policy splits families when parents are deported
• 2014 San Diego Free Press - Immigration, Deportation, and Family Separation
• 2014 Vox - What happens when deportation separates parents from their kids?
• 2014 The Guardian - Orphaned by deportation: the crisis of American children left behind
• 2015 Humans Rights Watch - Border Enforcement Policies Ensnare Parents of US Citizen Children
• 2015 Vox - Why is the Obama administration still fighting to keep immigrant families behind bars? (archive.is wouldn't work for this)
• 2016 Al Jazeera - Separated: Deported mothers and their American children
• 2016 The Hill - Immigration: deporting parents negatively affects kids' health

---

So y'all like these Obama policies?

I'm with you that the outrage should be consistent, but these lines always crack me up. "But Obama did it!" Wait, thought Obama was soft on immigration?

---

I don't like these policies. I'm in favor of quick deporting and building the wall.

The outrage is selective so the point I am making is those concerned about it are not actually concerned at all.

---

I wasn't necessarily being specific towards you, I just always think it is funny when a Trump policies/rhetoric are criticized and people defend them by saying politicians that they absolutely hate. Same thing when Obama supporters would defend some of his ridiculous foreign policy actions by saying Bush did the same thing...wait, thought Bush was an evil war criminal?

I agree with you the outrage should be consistent. I just always think the "[insert politician I've bashed for years] did it too" defense is an interesting tactic.

---

It is interesting.

Too many people in politics don't want to talk about uncomfortable truths and things we might have to do that we wish we didn't. Breaking down endorsements that contradict finger pointing logically should point people to the truth, but it usually embarrasses people.

The charge of hypocrisy is almost always true and almost never relevant.

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.