Only on La La Land

[BmorePat87]

(11-08-2019, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It states because of the policy (which was directed at those that crossed illegally) folks should be entitled to treatment because they knowingly broke US Law and had to pay the consequences. 

Your article states it's because of “severe mental trauma to parents and their children" not because "they knowingly broke US Law and had to pay the consequences". 

I guess one could refer to separating toddlers from their mothers and putting them in cages with space blankets as "paying the consequences". Some people call that child abuse. If our government agents are engaging in child abuse, the government should absolutely pay for treatment. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-08-2019, 08:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your article states it's because of “severe mental trauma to parents and their children" not because "they knowingly broke US Law and had to pay the consequences". 

I guess one could refer to separating toddlers from their mothers and putting them in cages with space blankets as "paying the consequences". Some people call that child abuse. If our government agents are engaging in child abuse, the government should absolutely pay for treatment. 

Absolutely no evidence that the children were abused in any way. Matter of fact they may have been surrounded by better conditions than they have in their entire lives. "cages and space blankets" 2funny. 

I will add you to AU in those that feels we should flip the bill when folks cross into our country illegally. 

Remember when folks on the right used to claim they are not pro illegal immigration? That farce has been exposed. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-08-2019, 10:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Absolutely no evidence that the children were abused in any way.

This is patently false. The very conditions themselves amount to abuse. The hundreds of reports of abuse are evidence. It's been well documented in the media and by elected officials, the accounts and reports brought up here numerous times. 

Quote:Matter of fact they may have been surrounded by better conditions than they have in their entire lives. "cages and space blankets" 2funny. 

I don't find their imprisonment or poor conditions to be funny. It's really sad that you think this is a joke.

Quote:I will add you to AU in those that feels we should flip the bill when folks cross into our country illegally. 

I feel like we should foot the bill when we cause physical, emotional, and psychological harm.

Quote:Remember when folks on the right used to claim they are not pro illegal immigration? That farce has been exposed. 

I'm pro human. Thinking that children should not be separated from their parents and put into prison camps doesn't make me pro illegal immigration.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2019, 12:01 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 1. This is patently false. The very conditions themselves amount to abuse. The hundreds of reports of abuse are evidence. It's been well documented in the media and by elected officials, the accounts and reports brought up here numerous times. 



2. I don't find their imprisonment or poor conditions to be funny. It's really sad that you think this is a joke.




3. I feel like we should foot the bill when we cause physical, emotional, and psychological harm.




4. I'm pro human. Thinking that children should not be separated from their parents and put into prison camps doesn't make me pro illegal immigration.

1. And there's been 100s of reports that the conditions, faculty, and facilities, were very beneficial to the children

2. I don't think the facilities were/are a joke; we provide(d) for these children after their parent(s) used them in committing a crime. I found your obvious appeal to emotion fallacy to be a joke.

3. We caused nothing other than upholding our laws. I know the liberal option is catch and release, but it's not working. 

4. And thinking parents shouldn't break the law while accompanied by their children makes me pro child. And thinking these parents should try petition for asylum the legal way makes me anti- illegal immigration. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-11-2019, 11:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. And there's been 100s of reports that the conditions, faculty, and facilities, were very beneficial to the children

2. I don't think the facilities were/are a joke; we provide(d) for these children after their parent(s) used them in committing a crime. I found your obvious appeal to emotion fallacy to be a joke.

3. We caused nothing other than upholding our laws. I know the liberal option is catch and release, but it's not working. 

4. And thinking parents shouldn't break the law while accompanied by their children makes me pro child. And thinking these parents should try petition for asylum the legal way makes me anti- illegal immigration. 

Have there been reports that the conditions were beneficial? This topic has been rehashed many times, and this is the first time I've seen that claim. I didn't think "cages and space blankets" was a logical fallacy since it's the actual condition they were in.

I do not think you actually believe that these conditions were good or caused no harm. I don't think any person believes that separating children from parents for months and putting them in makeshift prisons would not cause any harm and would be beneficial to them. I think you do not like illegal immigration from Latinos and support any measure to stop it, even measures that harm legal asylum seekers and children. 

I think this is another in a long series of disingenuous posts from you. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2019, 12:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Have there been reports that the conditions were beneficial? This topic has been rehashed many times, and this is the first time I've seen that claim. I didn't think "cages and space blankets" was a logical fallacy since it's the actual condition they were in.

I do not think you actually believe that these conditions were good or caused no harm. I don't think any person believes that separating children from parents for months and putting them in makeshift prisons would not cause any harm and would be beneficial to them. I think you do not like illegal immigration from Latinos and support any measure to stop it, even measures that harm legal asylum seekers and children. 

I think this is another in a long series of disingenuous posts from you. 

Your assertion of my disingenuous posting history aside. I do not support illegal immigration from anyone and  I fully support lawful measures to stop it; so I suppose guilty as charged (although stating "any measures" my be.....what do you call it....disingenuous. This was not the first admin to put children in "cages with space blankets" and what legitimate (not staged or from a prior administration) there were was of children in holding facilities where they are to remain for less than 3 days until they can be transferred to a more long=term facility.

We did not create this situation and the present administration did what it though was best to curb the epidemic. No amount of appeal to emotion or "fake news" changes that. If these parents cared so much for their children they would have sought asylum through legal means. But they didn't. they broke the law using their children as pawns and now la la land says US citizens must pay for them breaking the law.  

[BmorePat87]

(11-11-2019, 01:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your assertion of my disingenuous posting history aside. I do not support illegal immigration from anyone and  I fully support lawful measures to stop it; so I suppose guilty as charged (although stating "any measures" my be.....what do you call it....disingenuous. This was not the first admin to put children in "cages with space blankets" and what legitimate (not staged or from a prior administration) there were was of children in holding facilities where they are to remain for less than 3 days until they can be transferred to a more long=term facility.

We did not create this situation and the present administration did what it though was best to curb the epidemic. No amount of appeal to emotion or "fake news" changes that. If these parents cared so much for their children they would have sought asylum through legal means. But they didn't. they broke the law using their children as pawns and now la la land says US citizens must pay for them breaking the law.  

You claim to not be disingenuous and then follow it up with patently false claims that were disproven multiple times. Solid post. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2019, 03:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You claim to not be disingenuous and then follow it up with patently false claims that were disproven multiple times. Solid post. 

I claimed nothing of the sort. just said we could but your accusation aside and discuss the matter. Do you care to point out the "patently" false claims that were "disproven" multiple times or are you good with just going with the shotgun blast?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-08-2019, 01:00 PM)Au165 Wrote: You want to try again? Maybe those fine unbiased folks at Amnesty International were right, and you came in with a preconceived position that was false?

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/they-came-seeking-asylum-now-they-want-their-children-back-n886781

In the additional link you provided:

Mancia's son, Ederson, was taken from her son on his sixth birthday, one day after mother and son crossed the Rio Grande and entered the U.S. illegally.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/fed-failing-migrant-parents-n886701

I'll give you some other hints to. If it says they surrendered, then that means they were caught crossing illegally and surrendered to the CBP.

[Au165]

(11-11-2019, 04:25 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In the additional link you provided:

Mancia's son, Ederson, was taken from her son on his sixth birthday, one day after mother and son crossed the Rio Grande and entered the U.S. illegally.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/fed-failing-migrant-parents-n886701

I'll give you some other hints to. If it says they surrendered, then that means they were caught crossing illegally and surrendered to the CBP.

I didn't say everyone crossed legally, obviously tons of people do. The fact people in the article did cross illegally has nothing to do with the specific line of discussion you quote here. He claimed the process wasn't applied to ANYONE who did cross legally, which I replied with this article and "Jose" who did cross legally. Context of the discussion here is important because it's kind of gone all over the place.

Quote:After criminals killed his uncle and cousin and warned that he was next, José fled Honduras fearing for his life. He crossed Mexico with his 3-year-old son and arrived in mid-May at the Hidalgo Port of Entry on the U.S. border to claim asylum.

But even though he entered the U.S. legally at an official border crossing, where the Trump administration promised asylum-seekers would not be prosecuted or separated from their children, José was detained and had his son taken away, according to advocates who are helping with his case.

“When we went to the restroom, they separated me from my son. I asked them where they were going to take him, and they said they were going to take them to another place,” José, 27, said Tuesday through an interpreter in a phone interview. “I asked again, and they didn’t tell me — just that they were taking him to another location. I didn’t even get to say goodbye.”

[BmorePat87]

(11-11-2019, 03:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I claimed nothing of the sort. just said we could but your accusation aside and discuss the matter. Do you care to point out the "patently" false claims that were "disproven" multiple times or are you good with just going with the shotgun blast?

I know better than to waste my time with that fool’s errand. You’ve seen it. I’ve seen it. The whole board has seen it. There’s no use in quoting old posts that we’ve all seen.

Your original post was adequately responded to. If you want to now play games, look elsewhere. Take care.

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2019, 04:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: I didn't say everyone crossed legally, obviously tons of people do. The fact people in the article did cross illegally has nothing to do with the specific line of discussion you quote here. He claimed the process wasn't applied to ANYONE who did cross legally, which I replied with this article and "Jose" who did cross legally. Context of the discussion here is important because it's kind of gone all over the place.

Who the hell is he and when did he claim that?

I simply shared the "policy" (aka what the La La Land judge ruled against) to pertain to those that crossed illegally. You can up with an article or two from Vox, Southern Poverty Lawyers...that showed biased stories by folks one person to have crossed legally, but that doesn't change the admin's policy.

My stance is unchanged and has never changed. If anyone entered this country legally and out government separated that family while it incarcerated the parent then they deserve full compensation. Short of that...they deserve nothing but a one way bus ticket and told to get in the back of the line behind all the folks trying to do it the right way.  

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2019, 06:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I know better than to waste my time with that fool’s errand. You’ve seen it. I’ve seen it. The whole board has seen it. There’s no use in quoting old posts that we’ve all seen.

Your original post was adequately responded to. If you want to now play games, look elsewhere. Take care.

As I thought. 

[*michaelsean*]

(11-08-2019, 03:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: You would be wrong again. By being locked up illegally they were separated from their kids who were sent to be housed in other facilities.

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/09/05/judge-blocks-ice-denying-parole-asylum-seekers



Yes, we should pay for treatment for people who were convicted of misdemeanors but then subjected to borderline torture practices. We don't separate kids from parents who get misdemeanor speeding tickets in this country, we did not apply an appropriate level of response based on the level of the offense. Similarly to how we occasionally have to pay prisoners who were tortured or mistreated in our prison system, doing something illegal does not absolve us of treating them with basic human decency.

EDIT: MS. L V. ICE is a case that the ACLU has filed specifically over a LEGAL asylum seeking families being separated.

There is no such thing as a misdemeanor speeding ticket, but if a person is convicted of a misdemeanor and given jail time, their kids aren't allowed to go with them.

[BmorePat87]

(11-11-2019, 06:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: There is no such thing as a misdemeanor speeding ticket, but if a person is convicted of a misdemeanor and given jail time, their kids aren't allowed to go with them.

Which is why the zero tolerance policy was enacted, to cause that separation and make it act as a deterrent.

A better analogy would be suddenly arresting people who drove 15 over and putting their kids in separate prison camps.

Then to compare it to legal asylum seekers who were treated the same way, you also start arresting people driving the speed limit and telling them that you lowered the speed limit without telling anyone.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-11-2019, 04:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: I didn't say everyone crossed legally, obviously tons of people do. The fact people in the article did cross illegally has nothing to do with the specific line of discussion you quote here. He claimed the process wasn't applied to ANYONE who did cross legally, which I replied with this article and "Jose" who did cross legally. Context of the discussion here is important because it's kind of gone all over the place.

Well I'm still trying to find out of he crossed legally or not.

He was re-united within two months, so that's a plus.

But you also have to understand that if he has a criminal record or an adult in his family does, they will also remove the children as well for fear of their safety, and if they think they are not really related.  Because they see that everyday, people bringing kids for slave trafficking.

So it's not a slam dunk that they won't removed kids from people who cross legally.

It's not like all of them have proper paperwork and all their ducks in a row. It takes a bit of time to confirm who they are as well. These are the risks of what they are doing. If you come here legally via apply and pay, there isn't all these problems.

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2019, 06:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: There is no such thing as a misdemeanor speeding ticket, but if a person is convicted of a misdemeanor and given jail time, their kids aren't allowed to go with them.

The obvious difference and I don't know why we continue to ignore it is that the person that gets the speeding ticket in this example is in this country legally with a history that can be vetted. He/she hasn't entered this country illegally with no vetting. 

As mad and irrational as it makes the liberal; there's quite the difference. 

If the liberal made the rules:

Border Patrol: "Hey you stop and show me some ID"

Person: "I don't have any ID and I just crossed into your country illegally"

Border Patrol: "Well I'm going to have to take you into custody"

Person: "But I've got this kid with me and I'm his parent"

Border Patrol "Ok, you're free to go, but you must show up at court on this date"

Person: "sure thing"

[*michaelsean*]

(11-11-2019, 07:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Which is why the zero tolerance policy was enacted, to cause that separation and make it act as a deterrent.

A better analogy would be suddenly arresting people who drove 15 over and putting their kids in separate prison camps.

Then to compare it to legal asylum seekers who were treated the same way, you also start arresting people driving the speed limit and telling them that you lowered the speed limit without telling anyone.

The analogy still doesn’t hold up because speeding still isn’t a misdemeanor. You need at least a misdemeanor to make an analogy.

I don’t have any problem with talking about the excesses, but we separate families all of the time when we send people to jail or prison.

[BmorePat87]

(11-11-2019, 10:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The analogy still doesn’t hold up because speeding still isn’t a misdemeanor.  You need at least a misdemeanor to make an analogy.

I don’t have any problem with talking about the excesses, but we separate families all of the time when we send people to jail or prison.

In half of the US it is a misdemeanor. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2019, 07:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Which is why the zero tolerance policy was enacted, to cause that separation and make it act as a deterrent.

A better analogy would be suddenly arresting people who drove 15 over and putting their kids in separate prison camps.

Then to compare it to legal asylum seekers who were treated the same way, you also start arresting people driving the speed limit and telling them that you lowered the speed limit without telling anyone.

The law addressed in the OP does not pertain to legal asylum seekers; it pertains to those that broke the law and crossed our border illegally. But don't let that fact stop you in calling others disingenuous or trolls. 

If this forum was unbiased in the least; they's expose the true trolls in this forum.