(06-26-2018, 09:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Dill covered this to an extent, but I want to expand a little on policy specifically. Policies include laws, directives, executive orders, regulations, etc., etc. The executive branch enacts policies that help them enforce the laws passed by Congress. Policies can be very informal, as well. People would be surprised if they knew just how many people were making policy in our governmental system.

This has its pros and cons. It can be more responsive to issues that arise, but at the same time elected officials are the ones accountable to the people and should be the ones making the policy. As you can probably guess, this is a big topic of discussion in the realm of public policy and administration.

(06-26-2018, 10:36 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: What trump supporters are saying that..?

He didn't make a change to begin with.

But hes making a change now to end the practice or attempt to end it at least..

Why did it become a huge issue in the alst 2 weeks?   Left is grasping at straws.

(06-26-2018, 10:36 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: He didn't make a change to begin with.

(06-26-2018, 11:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Your comment to Sunset when he claimed "nothing had changed"



Why does it not make any sense to you when it is clear he changed the policy?  If you understood that he signed an order changing the policy then wouldn't it "make sense" to claim he changed the policy?

(06-26-2018, 10:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I know that you CAP LOCKED LEGALLY for effect, but I see no where in your link that the parent came here LEGALLY. Could you kindly point that part out to me.

Actually I clicked on the source document in your link (where do you guys find these sites?) and I read the following about the protagonist:

So it appears he came here ILLEGALLY as opposed to LEGALLY

As to the question you posed with the left leaning fabrication removed (do you work for Time?):

I have said all along I am against separating family that attempt to come here LEGALLY. I'm just of the opinion that I do not want to reward ILLEGAL behavior, at the cost of those trying to do it LEGALLY.

As to the rest of your post: Good interpretation, if you would have just left out (hey I gotta a new pun) the obvious biased conclusions.

(06-26-2018, 03:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Wow, sorry. THAT link used ONE example of someone who entered ILLEGALLY seeking asylum and was separated from his daughter and, like many others cruelly forced to choose between reuniting with her and giving up asylum.

Here is an example of a Congolese mother who did enter LEGALLY and found herself quickly separated from her daughter who, so far as I know, is still somewhere in limbo in our new child Gulag. WAPO has posted her asylum suit.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/asylum-lawsuit/2788/

But there are many others as well. Here are five more examples of parents who LEGALLY applied for asylum and were separated from their children. https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/asylum-seeking-families-too-are-being-separated

So my cap lock is still ON  regarding the ILLEGALITY and CRUELTY of this separation policy.

My question was not simply about separating children from parents, which you may be okay with if parents arrive ILLEGALLY.

My question was about the practice of separating asylum seekers--LEGAL OR ILLEGAL--from their children, and then forcing them to choose between reuniting with their children and dropping their petition for asylum--or not reuniting.


"Leftist" organizations like Lutheran, Methodist, Ba'hai and Catholic churches, not to mention Ba'hai and Synagogues, are publicly protesting this traumatic abuse of children for political purposes.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/bishops-across-us-condemn-separation-detention-migrant-children
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/06/19/from-pulpits-across-america-sermons-condemn-separation-of-immigrant-families/?utm_term=.35db1fbdc0ce

"Left leaning" now appears code for "ethical" behavior, in contrast to the rightist commentators/politicians, who  are never fooled by images of suffering children and speak of child actors coached to speak "liberal" to reporters. For them, its about biased "leftists" making Trump look bad for enforcing the rule of policy law and the parents are to blame. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/392774-ann-coulter-calls-immigrant-children-child-actors

Sessions says immigrant children are used to "smuggle drugs." No sympathy there.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigrant-children-ms-13-smuggle-drugs-sessions/story?id=56146381

And of course, right wing news forums are busy with rightist posters echoing these claims about children "coached by commie traitors" who should all be sent back. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/25/donald-trump-send-illegal-immigrant-children-back-to-their-home-countries/

(06-26-2018, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell you were the one that posted that ONE EXAMPLE, not me. It doesn't take all that typing to say "Yeah, that may not have been a good example to plant my, what about the legality of this case" flag.

But keep up the dissertations, link posting, and bold caps routine. It might impress some but most know it's just obfuscation. Who knows, I may take the time to click on your links and illustrate how you once again to make the point that was addressed, but I'm kinda into this WC game right now.

(06-26-2018, 04:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Ha ha, sure, you COULD take time to show I have failed "once again", but no need; now you are back to the faith-based approach.

The "dissertations" and link posting are now "obfuscation"--a good right wing term for reference to documentary evidence.  

So you don't have to say what you think about separating children from LEGAL asylum seekers--or the right wing politicians and media personalities who defend that and other unethical practices in the name of the current administration and rule of policy law.

(06-26-2018, 02:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: . But all that aside you have been asked to explain the policy he initiated at to date you have done deal in obfuscation, insult, and assert how other people are wrong.

(06-26-2018, 11:11 AM)fredtoast Wrote: From April

https://www.voanews.com/a/jeff-sessions-zero-tolerance-policy-illegal-entry-us/4336134.html

Late Friday, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum ordering an end to the policy known as “catch and release.” Under the policy, illegal immigrants are released from detention while awaiting a court hearing.

(06-26-2018, 04:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure the cases you provided may be examples of families separated while seeking asylum legally; must admit I glossed over them at halftime. But this has 0 to do with the topic at hand and you most likely know it; so there in lies the obfuscation. The subject at hand in about separating those that enter illegally from their parents.

You want to start a thread about legal asylum seekers being unjustly separated from their children and I'll be right there with you on the soapbox. But this is NOT what the current issue is about. I agree there's no need to take the time to show you have failed once again. Folks can take the time and read for themselves.

(06-26-2018, 07:21 PM)Dill Wrote: B-zona posted an article about a Trump order to end family separations. There are many legitimate digressions which can spin off from a topic like that, including legality, scope, media representation, and effects of the policy which are intended, unintended, and unknown.

Establishing that children are separated from parents legally applying for asylum clarifies how Trump's separation policy is playing out, an intended or unintended consequence.

OBFUSCATION is "the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible." 

You were happy to respond when you thought I could not provide legitimate examples of parents legally seeking asylum separated from children. Agreeing now that I have established examples which prove my point,  you insist, nevertheless, that I have "failed once again" though you don't have time to show how.  

If you can't/won't answer the question, just say so, rather than claiming a consequence of Trump's separation policy is "off topic" because you say so and needs another thread. That is simply deflection, a form of obfuscation.

(06-26-2018, 06:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Post #135

(06-26-2018, 10:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks, you posted evidence to support  exactly what I said. If you go back a read you'll realize that.

(06-26-2018, 11:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So what part of it "makes no sense" to you and Sunset?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

(06-26-2018, 11:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So what part of it "makes no sense" to you and Sunset?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

(06-26-2018, 11:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That his new policy was stopping a policy.

(06-26-2018, 08:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually I was happy to respond when you DID NOT provide legitimate examples of parents seeking asylum separated from children when you provided a link and asked folks what they thought of the legality. But instead of admitting you provided a poor example and were made to look foolish you hollered "Squirrel!" and said look at this.

Parents being separated from their children while trying to seek asylum in a legal fashion is a totally different dynamic than folks being separated because they committed a crime. These are different situations no matter how much you claim they are the same.

As I said folks can read the past exchange and see your failure. Also I didn't say it needed another thread; that's just you not failing again. I said if you want to create one feel free to.

You can also claim you understand the the use of obfuscation better than I, but you do not. But at least it is something you can cling to. Please continue down this road; it is quite entertaining.

(06-26-2018, 10:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: What a surprise:  People who say they aren't Trump supporters out here supporting Trump and ignoring the facts.

Anyway....anyone know if Flint has clean water or PR has electricity yet?

Quote:"Good fences make good neighbors. Or maybe not."

General Leonard Chapman guided the Marines Corp through some of the most difficult years in its history. He was brilliant, organized, decisive and indefatigable. Then he turned his attention to the America’s immigration crisis. You think you want effective leadership? Be careful what you wish for.