T.M.Katz said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cBUrurenthusism said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Build The Wall. You'll see significant reductions in illegal border crossings, idiot parents who bring kids with them that get separated, and child sex trafficking.

---

They're not idiots. They're coming here out of utter desperation. They can stay in Guatemala, Honduras or Salvador and face the real prospect of having family members be killed (many of those who actually leave were facing a direct threat). Or they can take their chances by coming here. That's actually a pretty rational choice.

On top of that, they were making that choice based on what they had been told about US laws, which allow them to request asylum. Most of them do not know that the United States has essentially suspended that law and is routinely preventing people from exercising their right to request asylum.

For those who claim that the US has no choice but to enforce our existing laws to the T, then the question is why this administration is evading our laws that allow people to request asylum.

---

You're a sobbing *****

'utter desperation' is not a valid reason for the US granting asylum

3/4 of the world's population is in 'utter desperation'

---

I did not say the US was bound to grant them asylum.
What the US is legally bound to do is to give their requests for asylum individual consideration through an interview and a formal hearing. The Trump administration is not following the law, and, in fact, is unlawfully separating children who have come here requesting asylum without breaking any of our laws.

---

Mexico is such an important problem on our doorstep ... Mexican government's policies are pushing migration north across our border ...there isn't any sensible approach except to do what we need to do simultaneously: you know secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers if necessary.

---

The current tide of immigrants/refugees is not coming from Mexico. It is coming THROUGH Mexico.

---

But do you agree that we should secure our borders with technology, personnel and physical barriers?

---

I agree that we should secure our borders. I disagree that we need a $40 billion boondoggle of a wall.

We already have physical barriers. Even before Trump took office, we already had more Border Patrol agents than ever before. We don't need a new wall. We need to use technology for better surveillance, and we need to enhance the ability of the Border Patrol to respond rapidly to catch people more quickly once they cross. Trump is pushing his wall because it's more of a symbol than a practical solution.

---

Maybe this one? It should have been law in 2014 and we wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't for Ryan the Invertebrate

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s744es/pdf/BILLS-113s744es.pdf

---

You're either preaching to the choir or barking up the wrong tree presenting facts. A lot of posters here don't think anything's Trump's fault and blame everything on Dems or Obama. They don't remember that the GOP wouldnt meet with obama after the "shellacking". You cant have a real or rational discussion with people who make up facts to suit their political narrative, and thats what Trump's base does.

The Bible says thou shalt not steal, but McConnell stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama and they were fine with that but jesus god they would have howled bloody murder if the Dems had done such a thing during the last year of GWB's admin. Cuz abortion. So they think they have the moral high ground to hit below the belt, lie, cheat, steal and irgnore corruption like Scott pruitts because he's loyal to Trump. Which for Trump is the only thing that really matters.

Todays GOP operates with a real simple ethical system - everything they do is right (even when its wrong later--theyll figure out how to justify it or, like Trump is doing now with the kids in cages, say the Dems did it first or worst or that they're responsible even when he's doing it. And the base will believe that. it would be funny if it weren't scary.

---

Kind of like today's Democratic Party.

D. C. Bear said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cBUrurenthusism said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Build The Wall. You'll see significant reductions in illegal border crossings, idiot parents who bring kids with them that get separated, and child sex trafficking.

---

They're not idiots. They're coming here out of utter desperation. They can stay in Guatemala, Honduras or Salvador and face the real prospect of having family members be killed (many of those who actually leave were facing a direct threat). Or they can take their chances by coming here. That's actually a pretty rational choice.

On top of that, they were making that choice based on what they had been told about US laws, which allow them to request asylum. Most of them do not know that the United States has essentially suspended that law and is routinely preventing people from exercising their right to request asylum.

For those who claim that the US has no choice but to enforce our existing laws to the T, then the question is why this administration is evading our laws that allow people to request asylum.

---

You're a sobbing *****

'utter desperation' is not a valid reason for the US granting asylum

3/4 of the world's population is in 'utter desperation'

---

I did not say the US was bound to grant them asylum.
What the US is legally bound to do is to give their requests for asylum individual consideration through an interview and a formal hearing. The Trump administration is not following the law, and, in fact, is unlawfully separating children who have come here requesting asylum without breaking any of our laws.

---

Mexico is such an important problem on our doorstep ... Mexican government's policies are pushing migration north across our border ...there isn't any sensible approach except to do what we need to do simultaneously: you know secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers if necessary.

---

The current tide of immigrants/refugees is not coming from Mexico. It is coming THROUGH Mexico.

---

But do you agree that we should secure our borders with technology, personnel and physical barriers?

---

I agree that we should secure our borders. I disagree that we need a $40 billion boondoggle of a wall.

We already have physical barriers. Even before Trump took office, we already had more Border Patrol agents than ever before. We don't need a new wall. We need to use technology for better surveillance, and we need to enhance the ability of the Border Patrol to respond rapidly to catch people more quickly once they cross. Trump is pushing his wall because it's more of a symbol than a practical solution.

---

Maybe this one? It should have been law in 2014 and we wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't for Ryan the Invertebrate

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s744es/pdf/BILLS-113s744es.pdf

---

You're either preaching to the choir or barking up the wrong tree presenting facts. A lot of posters here don't think anything's Trump's fault and blame everything on Dems or Obama. They don't remember that the GOP wouldnt meet with obama after the "shellacking". You cant have a real or rational discussion with people who make up facts to suit their political narrative, and thats what Trump's base does.

The Bible says thou shalt not steal, but McConnell stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama and they were fine with that but jesus god they would have howled bloody murder if the Dems had done such a thing during the last year of GWB's admin. Cuz abortion. So they think they have the moral high ground to hit below the belt, lie, cheat, steal and irgnore corruption like Scott pruitts because he's loyal to Trump. Which for Trump is the only thing that really matters.

Todays GOP operates with a real simple ethical system - everything they do is right (even when its wrong later--theyll figure out how to justify it or, like Trump is doing now with the kids in cages, say the Dems did it first or worst or that they're responsible even when he's doing it. And the base will believe that. it would be funny if it weren't scary.

---

Kind of like today's Democratic Party.

---

One party supports the right to kill an unborn child. One party doesn't.
Both parties kept kids in cages when crossing illegally.
One party sold uranium illegally.
One party gave millions to Iran.
One party was careless with email and servers.
One party lied about Americans killed overseas.
One party supports police, while the other sided with criminals.

One party would "appear" more moral but in the end, they are both looking out for their own interests.

You cannot possibly be taken seriously talking about the separation of illegal immigrant families when you support abortion. It's hypocrisy at its finest. and I'm not really a big pro-lifer....

fadskier said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cBUrurenthusism said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Build The Wall. You'll see significant reductions in illegal border crossings, idiot parents who bring kids with them that get separated, and child sex trafficking.

---

They're not idiots. They're coming here out of utter desperation. They can stay in Guatemala, Honduras or Salvador and face the real prospect of having family members be killed (many of those who actually leave were facing a direct threat). Or they can take their chances by coming here. That's actually a pretty rational choice.

On top of that, they were making that choice based on what they had been told about US laws, which allow them to request asylum. Most of them do not know that the United States has essentially suspended that law and is routinely preventing people from exercising their right to request asylum.

For those who claim that the US has no choice but to enforce our existing laws to the T, then the question is why this administration is evading our laws that allow people to request asylum.

---

You're a sobbing *****

'utter desperation' is not a valid reason for the US granting asylum

3/4 of the world's population is in 'utter desperation'

---

I did not say the US was bound to grant them asylum.
What the US is legally bound to do is to give their requests for asylum individual consideration through an interview and a formal hearing. The Trump administration is not following the law, and, in fact, is unlawfully separating children who have come here requesting asylum without breaking any of our laws.

---

Mexico is such an important problem on our doorstep ... Mexican government's policies are pushing migration north across our border ...there isn't any sensible approach except to do what we need to do simultaneously: you know secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers if necessary.

---

The current tide of immigrants/refugees is not coming from Mexico. It is coming THROUGH Mexico.

---

But do you agree that we should secure our borders with technology, personnel and physical barriers?

---

I agree that we should secure our borders. I disagree that we need a $40 billion boondoggle of a wall.

We already have physical barriers. Even before Trump took office, we already had more Border Patrol agents than ever before. We don't need a new wall. We need to use technology for better surveillance, and we need to enhance the ability of the Border Patrol to respond rapidly to catch people more quickly once they cross. Trump is pushing his wall because it's more of a symbol than a practical solution.

---

Maybe this one? It should have been law in 2014 and we wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't for Ryan the Invertebrate

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s744es/pdf/BILLS-113s744es.pdf

---

You're either preaching to the choir or barking up the wrong tree presenting facts. A lot of posters here don't think anything's Trump's fault and blame everything on Dems or Obama. They don't remember that the GOP wouldnt meet with obama after the "shellacking". You cant have a real or rational discussion with people who make up facts to suit their political narrative, and thats what Trump's base does.

The Bible says thou shalt not steal, but McConnell stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama and they were fine with that but jesus god they would have howled bloody murder if the Dems had done such a thing during the last year of GWB's admin. Cuz abortion. So they think they have the moral high ground to hit below the belt, lie, cheat, steal and irgnore corruption like Scott pruitts because he's loyal to Trump. Which for Trump is the only thing that really matters.

Todays GOP operates with a real simple ethical system - everything they do is right (even when its wrong later--theyll figure out how to justify it or, like Trump is doing now with the kids in cages, say the Dems did it first or worst or that they're responsible even when he's doing it. And the base will believe that. it would be funny if it weren't scary.

---

Kind of like today's Democratic Party.

---

One party supports the right to kill an unborn child. One party doesn't.
Both parties kept kids in cages when crossing illegally.
One party sold uranium illegally.
One party gave millions to Iran.
One party was careless with email and servers.
One party lied about Americans killed overseas.
One party supports police, while the other sided with criminals.

One party would "appear" more moral but in the end, they are both looking out for their own interests.

You cannot possibly be taken seriously talking about the separation of illegal immigrant families when you support abortion. It's hypocrisy at its finest. and I'm not really a big pro-lifer....

---

Nothing in your post was related to my point that the Democratic Party is not very different from in the Republican Party in their belief that "everything they do is right."

Maybe you were not intending to reply to my post.

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

OK I'm going to get real with you guys. Time to put your big boy pants on.

What do you not understand about America First? This is what Trump ran on and what we voted for.

I don't wish any ill to these Guatemalans, Hondurans, Mexicans etc....but I seriously do not give a flying F__K what their problems are and I DO NOT feel responsible for them. They're not my problem. They're not the U.S.'s problem, and I really just don't care. I hope the countries they come from can get their **** together, honestly. But to compel me to care for them and for our country to take on that burden is BS when we have our own problems.

Homeless
Veterans
Debt
Poor education

Fix your house before you invite people in. Take care of your family FIRST.

---

Government policy aside, do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

---

What does this have to do with anything?

---

Not giving a flying **** doesn't seem to fall in line with a Christian world view, so that is the basis for the question.

---

Maybe I don't have a Christian world view.

You have a problem with that?

---

Did I say I had a problem with it? I asked you a question you have, thus far, declined to answer. Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

---

Yes.

I am a Christian who puts family first.

Do you vote Democrat? You just endorsed murdering life in the womb...does that fall in line with a Christian world view?

I can play this game too. But you can't counter my America First argument other than essentially demonizing me as I have proven time and time again to be the Democrats preferred method.

---

I am not "demonizing" you. I asked you, given that you don't give a flying **** whether you consider yourself a Christian because it is pretty basic for a Christian to actually give a flying ****. This is independent of any particular government policy.

---

I also said I don't wish an ill on these people and hope they can fix their own governments.

---

A Christian is not compelled to merely "not wish them ill."

---

As a Christian are we required to help EVERYONE?

If you believe this then why do you not house every single homeless person you have ever seen?

Why is your bank account not overdrawn by donating and giving?

Why have you not given up your car? Your house?

---

Answer this question first and I will answer yours. Are Christians required to give a flying ****?

---

They literally can't give a flying **** about everything. It's impossible.

---

Can they give a **** about these people?

Also, I note that you are a Christian who "puts family first." What part of being a Christian do you sacrifice to put your family first?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

OK I'm going to get real with you guys. Time to put your big boy pants on.

What do you not understand about America First? This is what Trump ran on and what we voted for.

I don't wish any ill to these Guatemalans, Hondurans, Mexicans etc....but I seriously do not give a flying F__K what their problems are and I DO NOT feel responsible for them. They're not my problem. They're not the U.S.'s problem, and I really just don't care. I hope the countries they come from can get their **** together, honestly. But to compel me to care for them and for our country to take on that burden is BS when we have our own problems.

Homeless
Veterans
Debt
Poor education

Fix your house before you invite people in. Take care of your family FIRST.

---

Government policy aside, do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

---

What does this have to do with anything?

---

Not giving a flying **** doesn't seem to fall in line with a Christian world view, so that is the basis for the question.

---

Maybe I don't have a Christian world view.

You have a problem with that?

---

Did I say I had a problem with it? I asked you a question you have, thus far, declined to answer. Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

---

Yes.

I am a Christian who puts family first.

Do you vote Democrat? You just endorsed murdering life in the womb...does that fall in line with a Christian world view?

I can play this game too. But you can't counter my America First argument other than essentially demonizing me as I have proven time and time again to be the Democrats preferred method.

---

I am not "demonizing" you. I asked you, given that you don't give a flying **** whether you consider yourself a Christian because it is pretty basic for a Christian to actually give a flying ****. This is independent of any particular government policy.

---

I also said I don't wish an ill on these people and hope they can fix their own governments.

---

A Christian is not compelled to merely "not wish them ill."

---

As a Christian are we required to help EVERYONE?

If you believe this then why do you not house every single homeless person you have ever seen?

Why is your bank account not overdrawn by donating and giving?

Why have you not given up your car? Your house?

---

Answer this question first and I will answer yours. Are Christians required to give a flying ****?

---

They literally can't give a flying **** about everything. It's impossible.

---

Can they give a **** about these people?

Also, I note that you are a Christian who "puts family first." What part of being a Christian do you sacrifice to put your family first?

---

1 Timothy 5:8 "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Doc Holliday said:

---

Lets actually be clear. Like crystal. This is the law on the books. If you illegally cross the border they have to separate you from the kids.

If you claim asylum, they don't separate you.
Take a look at photos of these detainment centers in 2014. They looked the exact same.

The reason this is happening now, is because that BIPARTISAN law from 2008, was pointless because Obama was not prosecuting illegals (upholding the law) like Trump is now.

A change in enforcement policy repeatedly announced by Sessions in April and May 2018, under which adults (with or without children) are criminally prosecuted for attempting to enter the United States:

These are facts. The only way for the administration currently to avoid separation is to basically go back to Obama policy of letting illegals go. The "zero-tolerance" policy he announced [in May 2018] sees adults who try to cross the border, many planning to seek asylum, being placed in custody and facing criminal prosecution for illegal entry.

As a result, hundreds of minors are now being housed in detention centres, and kept away from their parents.

Trump did not make this law.

Obama did not make this law.

Congress can and should fix this with a simple bill.

To blame Trump is complete bull**** as he's already stated he wants to fix this. If anything, Obama and both parties in the last 8 years for not fixing this is where your anger should be directed.

The only way for the administration currently to avoid separation is to basically go back to Obama policy of letting illegals go.

---

Yes, let's be clear. You've clearly been misled on the facts by people whose agenda is to mislead you and make you an apologist (perhaps an unwitting one) for what they're doing.

Let's go down the list.

1. "This is the law on the books. If you illegally cross the border they have to separate you from the kids." No they don't. That's bull***** Going back a long, long time, presidents prioritize some areas of the law for enforcement over others. George W. Bush and Obama both deported unprecedented numbers of people who crossed the border illegally. They were not bound to separate families. Neither was the Trump administration for most of Trump's first year in office. They changed their policy, and you can go to their own words for the reasons why they did it. They have publicly stated that they're being harsh and cruel to create a powerful deterrent. And then the president himself said he was separating children as a bargaining chip; essentially, he is using them as hostages in an attempt to bully Congress into fully funding his border boondoggle of a wall.

2. "If you claim asylum, they don't separate you." That's what the administration wants you to believe, but it doesn't square with the facts. There are widespread, eyewitness reports of people who have complied with our law and requested asylum at official points of entry in the US, only to be separated from their children. I understand why the administration would lie about that, because they don't want to admit that they themselves are not following the law. (And I understand why Fox News would fail to report the truth; they want to keep Trump watching and calling into their shows.)

In some places, Matamoros for one, the Border Patrol is not even allowing asylum seekers to get to the point of entry to make their request. In other words, they are doing exactly the opposite of what you and they claim they are bound to do -- uphold our existing laws.

3. "The reason this is happening now, is because that BIPARTISAN law from 2008, was pointless because Obama was not prosecuting illegals (upholding the law) like Trump is now." The law from 2008 was aimed at unaccompanied children, which was the bigger concern back then, and at human traffickers. Both W and Obama understood that and, therefore, did not make a practice of separating family members. The Trump administration broke with this precedent and willfully went against the intent of the law, using it as a fig leaf to cover their real agenda, which was to harshly traumatize innocent children in order to send a punitive message and to get a bargaining chip with Congress.

4. "The only way for the administration currently to avoid separation is to basically go back to Obama policy of letting illegals go." A binary argument that's bull**** serving as cover for what they're doing. Those aren't the only two alternatives, and they know it.

5. "The only way for the administration currently to avoid separation is to basically go back to Obama policy of letting illegals go." Again, work to free yourself from slavery to binary thought. You have nothing to lose but your mental chains.

This **** is on Trump, Sessions and Hitler Youth of Amerika president Steven Miller.

All of a sudden in the past couple of days, you're seeing a swell of Republican officeholders stepping up to say this policy is wrong. They're not doing it out of principle (for the most part). They're doing it because of the groundswell of public opinion and because they're afraid of being hung on a cross of TV ads with crying 4-year olds on the border.

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Lets actually be clear. Like crystal. This is the law on the books. If you illegally cross the border they have to separate you from the kids.

If you claim asylum, they don't separate you.
Take a look at photos of these detainment centers in 2014. They looked the exact same.

The reason this is happening now, is because that BIPARTISAN law from 2008, was pointless because Obama was not prosecuting illegals (upholding the law) like Trump is now.

A change in enforcement policy repeatedly announced by Sessions in April and May 2018, under which adults (with or without children) are criminally prosecuted for attempting to enter the United States:

These are facts. The only way for the administration currently to avoid separation is to basically go back to Obama policy of letting illegals go. The "zero-tolerance" policy he announced [in May 2018] sees adults who try to cross the border, many planning to seek asylum, being placed in custody and facing criminal prosecution for illegal entry.

As a result, hundreds of minors are now being housed in detention centres, and kept away from their parents.

Trump did not make this law.

Obama did not make this law.

Congress can and should fix this with a simple bill.

To blame Trump is complete bull**** as he's already stated he wants to fix this. If anything, Obama and both parties in the last 8 years for not fixing this is where your anger should be directed.

The only way for the administration currently to avoid separation is to basically go back to Obama policy of letting illegals go.

---

Yes, let's be clear. You've clearly been misled on the facts by people whose agenda is to mislead you and make you an apologist (perhaps an unwitting one) for what they're doing.

Let's go down the list.

1. "This is the law on the books. If you illegally cross the border they have to separate you from the kids." No they don't. That's bull***** Going back a long, long time, presidents prioritize some areas of the law for enforcement over others. George W. Bush and Obama both deported unprecedented numbers of people who crossed the border illegally. They were not bound to separate families. Neither was the Trump administration for most of Trump's first year in office. They changed their policy, and you can go to their own words for the reasons why they did it. They have publicly stated that they're being harsh and cruel to create a powerful deterrent. And then the president himself said he was separating children as a bargaining chip; essentially, he is using them as hostages in an attempt to bully Congress into fully funding his border boondoggle of a wall.

2. "If you claim asylum, they don't separate you." That's what the administration wants you to believe, but it doesn't square with the facts. There are widespread, eyewitness reports of people who have complied with our law and requested asylum at official points of entry in the US, only to be separated from their children. I understand why the administration would lie about that, because they don't want to admit that they themselves are not following the law. (And I understand why Fox News would fail to report the truth; they want to keep Trump watching and calling into their shows.)

In some places, Matamoros for one, the Border Patrol is not even allowing asylum seekers to get to the point of entry to make their request. In other words, they are doing exactly the opposite of what you and they claim they are bound to do -- uphold our existing laws.

3. "The reason this is happening now, is because that BIPARTISAN law from 2008, was pointless because Obama was not prosecuting illegals (upholding the law) like Trump is now." The law from 2008 was aimed at unaccompanied children, which was the bigger concern back then, and at human traffickers. Both W and Obama understood that and, therefore, did not make a practice of separating family members. The Trump administration broke with this precedent and willfully went against the intent of the law, using it as a fig leaf to cover their real agenda, which was to harshly traumatize innocent children in order to send a punitive message and to get a bargaining chip with Congress.

4. "The only way for the administration currently to avoid separation is to basically go back to Obama policy of letting illegals go." A binary argument that's bull**** serving as cover for what they're doing. Those aren't the only two alternatives, and they know it.

5. "The only way for the administration currently to avoid separation is to basically go back to Obama policy of letting illegals go." Again, work to free yourself from slavery to binary thought. You have nothing to lose but your mental chains.

This **** is on Trump, Sessions and Hitler Youth of Amerika president Steven Miller.

All of a sudden in the past couple of days, you're seeing a swell of Republican officeholders stepping up to say this policy is wrong. They're not doing it out of principle (for the most part). They're doing it because of the groundswell of public opinion and because they're afraid of being hung on a cross of TV ads with crying 4-year olds on the border.

---

1. Agreed.
2. False. While there are some eyewitnesses, it is not widespread. In fact, there have only been two documented instances where asylum seekers have been refused, both at Brownsville. The border crossing at Brownsville was shut down due to limited space to house immigrants coming in. Immigrants were told to wait on the Mexican side (where Mexico is doing very little for them BTW.) But the immigrants refused and then tried to cross illegally.
3. All previous administrations have participated in separating families to some extent. It is widely documented.
4. They could house them together like St. Obama did.
5. True. However, if we allow people in that have children...does this diminish the flow of immigrants wanting in? Do we have to let everyone in?

Yes, Trump et al is making a decision to have a zero-tolerance immigration policy which, despite what you say, IS on the books and just wasn't enforced.

Who's bringing those 4-year olds? Are they walking themselves? Could parents (and Dems) be capitalizing on our feelings in order to get into this country?

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Your what-about-ism leaves you as morally bankrupt as the people you accuse of moral bankruptcy. Congrats.

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Your what-about-ism leaves you as morally bankrupt as the people you accuse of moral bankruptcy. Congrats.

---

Murdering a fetus, for it or against it?

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Your what-about-ism leaves you as morally bankrupt as the people you accuse of moral bankruptcy. Congrats.

---

Seriously, you have got to find another cop-out answer. Are you pro abortion or not?

GolemIII said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

OK I'm going to get real with you guys. Time to put your big boy pants on.

What do you not understand about America First? This is what Trump ran on and what we voted for.

I don't wish any ill to these Guatemalans, Hondurans, Mexicans etc....but I seriously do not give a flying F__K what their problems are and I DO NOT feel responsible for them. They're not my problem. They're not the U.S.'s problem, and I really just don't care. I hope the countries they come from can get their **** together, honestly. But to compel me to care for them and for our country to take on that burden is BS when we have our own problems.

Homeless
Veterans
Debt
Poor education

Fix your house before you invite people in. Take care of your family FIRST.

---

Government policy aside, do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

---

What does this have to do with anything?

---

Not giving a flying **** doesn't seem to fall in line with a Christian world view, so that is the basis for the question.

---

Maybe I don't have a Christian world view.

You have a problem with that?

---

Did I say I had a problem with it? I asked you a question you have, thus far, declined to answer. Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

---

Yes.

I am a Christian who puts family first.

Do you vote Democrat? You just endorsed murdering life in the womb...does that fall in line with a Christian world view?

I can play this game too. But you can't counter my America First argument other than essentially demonizing me as I have proven time and time again to be the Democrats preferred method.

---

I am not "demonizing" you. I asked you, given that you don't give a flying **** whether you consider yourself a Christian because it is pretty basic for a Christian to actually give a flying ****. This is independent of any particular government policy.

---

I also said I don't wish an ill on these people and hope they can fix their own governments.

---

A Christian is not compelled to merely "not wish them ill."

---

As a Christian are we required to help EVERYONE?

If you believe this then why do you not house every single homeless person you have ever seen?

Why is your bank account not overdrawn by donating and giving?

Why have you not given up your car? Your house?

---

Answer this question first and I will answer yours. Are Christians required to give a flying ****?

---

They literally can't give a flying **** about everything. It's impossible.

---

Can they give a **** about these people?

Also, I note that you are a Christian who "puts family first." What part of being a Christian do you sacrifice to put your family first?

---

1 Timothy 5:8 "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

---

Matthew 10:37-39 "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Your what-about-ism leaves you as morally bankrupt as the people you accuse of moral bankruptcy. Congrats.

---

Murdering a fetus, for it or against it?

---

I oppose abortion.

I also think that simply outlawing all abortion will not stop abortion. The solution needs to involve a combination of restrictions on "casual abortions," social pressure to carry unborn babies to term and let them be adopted, removal of the stigma against unwed mothers who carry their babies to term, and easier access to low-cost contraceptives.

And contraception is not abortion.

Your belief that it is OK to separate innocent children from their families, which goes against our prohibition of cruel punishment in the Constitution, will no doubt reinforce the perception among some of your opponents that people like you only give a **** about children up until the moment they're born.

fadskier said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

T.M.Katz said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

cBUrurenthusism said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

Build The Wall. You'll see significant reductions in illegal border crossings, idiot parents who bring kids with them that get separated, and child sex trafficking.

---

They're not idiots. They're coming here out of utter desperation. They can stay in Guatemala, Honduras or Salvador and face the real prospect of having family members be killed (many of those who actually leave were facing a direct threat). Or they can take their chances by coming here. That's actually a pretty rational choice.

On top of that, they were making that choice based on what they had been told about US laws, which allow them to request asylum. Most of them do not know that the United States has essentially suspended that law and is routinely preventing people from exercising their right to request asylum.

For those who claim that the US has no choice but to enforce our existing laws to the T, then the question is why this administration is evading our laws that allow people to request asylum.

---

You're a sobbing *****

'utter desperation' is not a valid reason for the US granting asylum

3/4 of the world's population is in 'utter desperation'

---

I did not say the US was bound to grant them asylum.
What the US is legally bound to do is to give their requests for asylum individual consideration through an interview and a formal hearing. The Trump administration is not following the law, and, in fact, is unlawfully separating children who have come here requesting asylum without breaking any of our laws.

---

Mexico is such an important problem on our doorstep ... Mexican government's policies are pushing migration north across our border ...there isn't any sensible approach except to do what we need to do simultaneously: you know secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers if necessary.

---

The current tide of immigrants/refugees is not coming from Mexico. It is coming THROUGH Mexico.

---

But do you agree that we should secure our borders with technology, personnel and physical barriers?

---

I agree that we should secure our borders. I disagree that we need a $40 billion boondoggle of a wall.

We already have physical barriers. Even before Trump took office, we already had more Border Patrol agents than ever before. We don't need a new wall. We need to use technology for better surveillance, and we need to enhance the ability of the Border Patrol to respond rapidly to catch people more quickly once they cross. Trump is pushing his wall because it's more of a symbol than a practical solution.

---

Maybe this one? It should have been law in 2014 and we wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't for Ryan the Invertebrate

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s744es/pdf/BILLS-113s744es.pdf

---

You're either preaching to the choir or barking up the wrong tree presenting facts. A lot of posters here don't think anything's Trump's fault and blame everything on Dems or Obama. They don't remember that the GOP wouldnt meet with obama after the "shellacking". You cant have a real or rational discussion with people who make up facts to suit their political narrative, and thats what Trump's base does.

The Bible says thou shalt not steal, but McConnell stole a SCOTUS seat from Obama and they were fine with that but jesus god they would have howled bloody murder if the Dems had done such a thing during the last year of GWB's admin. Cuz abortion. So they think they have the moral high ground to hit below the belt, lie, cheat, steal and irgnore corruption like Scott pruitts because he's loyal to Trump. Which for Trump is the only thing that really matters.

Todays GOP operates with a real simple ethical system - everything they do is right (even when its wrong later--theyll figure out how to justify it or, like Trump is doing now with the kids in cages, say the Dems did it first or worst or that they're responsible even when he's doing it. And the base will believe that. it would be funny if it weren't scary.

---

Kind of like today's Democratic Party.

---

One party supports the right to kill an unborn child. One party doesn't.
Both parties kept kids in cages when crossing illegally.
One party sold uranium illegally.
One party gave millions to Iran.
One party was careless with email and servers.
One party lied about Americans killed overseas.
One party supports police, while the other sided with criminals.

One party would "appear" more moral but in the end, they are both looking out for their own interests.

You cannot possibly be taken seriously talking about the separation of illegal immigrant families when you support abortion. It's hypocrisy at its finest. and I'm not really a big pro-lifer....

---

Operatives from Trump's campaign may have colluded with the Russians to affect the result of the 2016 election and one party doesn't want to know what really happened.

One party won't do anything about a corrupt EPA head because he's loyal to Trump

One party voted to lower taxes for the wealthy but didnt cut spending so we're running a deficit

Medicare will run out of money in 8 years because of the tax plan

one party is dismantling env regs that assure clean air and water. this aint china. people will be mad. that part will probably not be in control with the shlt hits the air

one party denies climate change making us look stupid to the rest of the planet

one party lied about wmds to get us into a war and didnt pay for it and left the country in an economic downturn and blamed obama for a deficit

one party couldn't pass health reform even with both chambers

guys from one party are dropping like flies, including Paul Ryan

one party lied about torture and then called it enhanced interrogation

one party is letting Trump start trade wars and cant stop him from shooting off his twitter

one party is using little kids as a bargaining chip to try to get a stupid wall built cuz Trump

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Your what-about-ism leaves you as morally bankrupt as the people you accuse of moral bankruptcy. Congrats.

---

Murdering a fetus, for it or against it?

---

I oppose abortion.

I also think that simply outlawing all abortion will not stop abortion. The solution needs to involve a combination of restrictions on "casual abortions," social pressure to carry unborn babies to term and let them be adopted, removal of the stigma against unwed mothers who carry their babies to term, and easier access to low-cost contraceptives.

And contraception is not abortion.

Your belief that it is OK to separate innocent children from their families, which goes against our prohibition of cruel punishment in the Constitution, will no doubt reinforce the perception among some of your opponents that people like you only give a **** about children up until the moment they're born.

---

I agree...contraception is not abortion. We should provide it free as a country. Separating families is not in the constitution, despite your assertion. People commit crimes everyday and thus are separated from their families. If that stops, we're going to either have some larger prisons or alot of criminals not arrested.

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Your what-about-ism leaves you as morally bankrupt as the people you accuse of moral bankruptcy. Congrats.

---

Murdering a fetus, for it or against it?

---

I oppose abortion.

I also think that simply outlawing all abortion will not stop abortion. The solution needs to involve a combination of restrictions on "casual abortions," social pressure to carry unborn babies to term and let them be adopted, removal of the stigma against unwed mothers who carry their babies to term, and easier access to low-cost contraceptives.

And contraception is not abortion.

Your belief that it is OK to separate innocent children from their families, which goes against our prohibition of cruel punishment in the Constitution, will no doubt reinforce the perception among some of your opponents that people like you only give a **** about children up until the moment they're born.

---

I've already told you I don't like this problem. I don't like to see children separated because their parents commit crimes.

Shame on the parents for bringing their children along with them to commit a crime.

Double standard? If you commit a crime with your child you get them taken away, why is it OK for an illegal to do it and not you?

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Your what-about-ism leaves you as morally bankrupt as the people you accuse of moral bankruptcy. Congrats.

---

Murdering a fetus, for it or against it?

---

I oppose abortion.

I also think that simply outlawing all abortion will not stop abortion. The solution needs to involve a combination of restrictions on "casual abortions," social pressure to carry unborn babies to term and let them be adopted, removal of the stigma against unwed mothers who carry their babies to term, and easier access to low-cost contraceptives.

And contraception is not abortion.

Your belief that it is OK to separate innocent children from their families, which goes against our prohibition of cruel punishment in the Constitution, will no doubt reinforce the perception among some of your opponents that people like you only give a **** about children up until the moment they're born.

---

I've already told you I don't like this problem. I don't like to see children separated because their parents commit crimes.

Shame on the parents for bringing their children along with them to commit a crime.

Double standard? If you commit a crime with your child you get them taken away, why is it OK for an illegal to do it and not you?

---

Shame on the parents? For desperately trying to save their kids by bringing them to a place where their lives aren't threatened by gangs and drug lords? Are you ****ing serious? My god, son, you really can't put yourself in someone else's shoes even for a minute. Shame on YOUR parents for not teaching you better.

You don't like this problem? Then don't support the policy. If you support the policy, then you support the separation of little children from their parents.

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Your what-about-ism leaves you as morally bankrupt as the people you accuse of moral bankruptcy. Congrats.

---

Murdering a fetus, for it or against it?

---

I oppose abortion.

I also think that simply outlawing all abortion will not stop abortion. The solution needs to involve a combination of restrictions on "casual abortions," social pressure to carry unborn babies to term and let them be adopted, removal of the stigma against unwed mothers who carry their babies to term, and easier access to low-cost contraceptives.

And contraception is not abortion.

Your belief that it is OK to separate innocent children from their families, which goes against our prohibition of cruel punishment in the Constitution, will no doubt reinforce the perception among some of your opponents that people like you only give a **** about children up until the moment they're born.

---

I've already told you I don't like this problem. I don't like to see children separated because their parents commit crimes.

Shame on the parents for bringing their children along with them to commit a crime.

Double standard? If you commit a crime with your child you get them taken away, why is it OK for an illegal to do it and not you?

---

Shame on the parents? For desperately trying to save their kids by bringing them to a place where their lives aren't threatened by gangs and drug lords? Are you ****ing serious? My god, son, you really can't put yourself in someone else's shoes even for a minute. Shame on YOUR parents for not teaching you better.

You don't like this problem? Then don't support the policy. If you support the policy, then you support the separation of little children from their parents.

---

Yes shame on the parents for not DOING IT LEGALLY. Cmon man.

You're trying so hard to add feels to this argument and twist it.

I would love to have these people in our country LEGALLY. Documented, paying taxes and spending money, its great! But that's not what is happening here. We are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants.

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Your what-about-ism leaves you as morally bankrupt as the people you accuse of moral bankruptcy. Congrats.

---

Murdering a fetus, for it or against it?

---

I oppose abortion.

I also think that simply outlawing all abortion will not stop abortion. The solution needs to involve a combination of restrictions on "casual abortions," social pressure to carry unborn babies to term and let them be adopted, removal of the stigma against unwed mothers who carry their babies to term, and easier access to low-cost contraceptives.

And contraception is not abortion.

Your belief that it is OK to separate innocent children from their families, which goes against our prohibition of cruel punishment in the Constitution, will no doubt reinforce the perception among some of your opponents that people like you only give a **** about children up until the moment they're born.

---

I've already told you I don't like this problem. I don't like to see children separated because their parents commit crimes.

Shame on the parents for bringing their children along with them to commit a crime.

Double standard? If you commit a crime with your child you get them taken away, why is it OK for an illegal to do it and not you?

---

Shame on the parents? For desperately trying to save their kids by bringing them to a place where their lives aren't threatened by gangs and drug lords? Are you ****ing serious? My god, son, you really can't put yourself in someone else's shoes even for a minute. Shame on YOUR parents for not teaching you better.

You don't like this problem? Then don't support the policy. If you support the policy, then you support the separation of little children from their parents.

---

"For desperately trying to save their kids by bringing them to a place where their lives aren't threatened by gangs and drug lords?"

Evidence? I know they say that, but....we've allowed many people in this country who have turned out to do us harm.

and yes, I would escape such a country (if true) but I certainly wouldn't fault that country for being careful. I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

If you've read what MS13 does, "infest" may be too mild a word.

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

Kristol picked Palin to run with McCain. he'll never make up for that.

the US Government knew these people were coming and then intentionally understaffed the legal ports of entry.... also, even though the money has been appropriated for Asylum Judges, but DOJ hasn't hired them. By effectively blocking every legal port of entry they left only the illegal paths into the country....

This has all happened exactly the way Miller, Sessions, and Trump wanted it to....

the only negative comment from the Administration was from Steve Miller who said, "I'm just sad that the tape of crying children wasn't longer"

D. C. Bear said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

If you've read what MS13 does, "infest" may be too mild a word.

---

which one of those 5 year olds do you think is MS-13?

sometimes in your zeal to attack both sides equally you say some really stupid stuff

D. C. Bear said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

If you've read what MS13 does, "infest" may be too mild a word.

---

True enough. The problem is that he implies that all illegal immigrants are like MS-13, and he's been doing it for quite a while. If you don't think his border wall is a good idea, you're for MS-13. If you think there should be a pathway to either citizenship or permanent residency status for illegals who have been here for years and stayed out of trouble, then you're for MS-13. He likes to paint Mexicans and Central Americans broadly, with an ugly criminal brush. And he does it because he recognizes there is a market for it.

T.M.Katz said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

Kristol picked Palin to run with McCain. he'll never make up for that.

---

He'll also never live down (or shouldn't, anyway) being one of the drum-beaters for the invasion of Iraq as an act that would transform the region into an oasis of freedom.

I saw MS-13 written all over the little Guatemalan boy who promised to be good if he could be taken to his dad.

This is a seriously dark moment for our country.

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

If you've read what MS13 does, "infest" may be too mild a word.

---

which one of those 5 year olds do you think is MS-13?

sometimes in your zeal to attack both sides equally you say some really stupid stuff

---

Where in that tweet was the reference to 5-year-olds?

D. C. Bear said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

If you've read what MS13 does, "infest" may be too mild a word.

---

which one of those 5 year olds do you think is MS-13?

sometimes in your zeal to attack both sides equally you say some really stupid stuff

---

Where in that tweet was the reference to 5-year-olds?

---

is your position that no 5 year olds have been taken?

If you aren't paying attention to this then I can see how you would feel that way.... the Government controls what the reporters get to see and so far all they have gotten to see are Teenage boys....

they have seen no girls of any age and they have seen no boys under 13..... The entire narrative that Rump is trying to drive is that these brown people are scary... they're bringing drugs... they're rapists... and now they are all MS-13.

I might also ask you, when did anyone say that MS-13 doesn't suck and needs to be gotten rid of?

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

JusHappy2BeHere said:

---

---

If you've read what MS13 does, "infest" may be too mild a word.

---

which one of those 5 year olds do you think is MS-13?

sometimes in your zeal to attack both sides equally you say some really stupid stuff

---

Where in that tweet was the reference to 5-year-olds?

---

is your position that no 5 year olds have been taken?

If you aren't paying attention to this then I can see how you would feel that way.... the Government controls what the reporters get to see and so far all they have gotten to see are Teenage boys....

they have seen no girls of any age and they have seen no boys under 13..... The entire narrative that Rump is trying to drive is that these brown people are scary... they're bringing drugs... they're rapists... and now they are all MS-13.

I might also ask you, when did anyone say that MS-13 doesn't suck and needs to be gotten rid of?

---

No, it is my position that the tweet quoted above did not have a reference in it to 5-year-olds.

Alotta mental gymnastics on this immigration shell game

Democrats just want uneducated needy unemployable people for votes

Republicans trying to fight it with logic and security issues etc

Vicious cycle that keeps on spinning

Here's all it's about ...... VOTES VOTES VOTES VOTES!

VOTES .........

VOTES .........