America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,026 comments
  • 1,698,544 views
UKMikey
The difference is supposed to be that all those other countries sent "their best people" while the Mexicans only sent rapists. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Murderers too. You can't forget the murderers.

Touring Mars
Trump has just announced that he will sign an executive order to end the family separation policy...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44552852
Click to expand...
Shame it wasn't done from the beginning--much of the kerfuffle could have been avoided. Then again, the initial confusion presented an opportunity to get a few extra beaners out of the country. "You win some, you lose some."
 
Obama had kids in "cages", too.
Really, these are just detention facilities, air conditioned to 72F, with men separated from women, and children with mothers separated from children with fathers. Children without parents have their own facility.

RTR3UJAE.jpg

REUTERS/Ross D. Franklin/PooL

RTR3UIYE.jpg

REUTERS/Ross D. Franklin/Pool/Files

RTR3UJ9V.jpg


http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/photos-obama-immigration-detention-facilities

My family's founding ancestor immigrated here to America - confined in the nasty little brig of little ship, the Mayflower, apparently for fighting and drunkeness. But you won't hear me whinging about it. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
baldgye
No details of any kind, while thousands of children are left without parents.
I wonder how many more are going to be orphaned before he solves the problem he created...
Click to expand...

You mean the government (ie, Trump) is actually killing the parents? If not, just how are they becoming orphaned?
 
BobK
You mean the government (ie, Trump) is actually killing the parents? If not, just how are they becoming orphaned?
Click to expand...

Because there is no way for the children to be reunited with the parents. I read a story that one parent had been holding onto a slip of paper with a number that they could use to contact their child with that was given to them by an ICE agent, only to find out it was the immigration help line number.

Like all of Trumps policies, it was badly thought out (or not thought out at all) and rushed in.


Via
 
Some useful information regarding Obama-era detention facilities that, curiously, is being left out by those indicating that "Obama did it too."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ily-detention-centers-target-rumors-of-laxity

Citing a rise in the number of children and families attempting to immigrate into the Southwestern U.S. illegally, the Obama administration says it will use new detention facilities to house the families.

The administration says it will boost enforcement efforts and speed up removal proceedings. And it will try to dispel a notion among some migrants that current U.S. policies allow them to enter the country illegally.

That belief was mentioned in a recent Los Angeles Times story that cited an internal Border Patrol study.

After speaking with hundreds of migrants, officials wrote, "A high percentage of the subjects interviewed stated their family members in the U.S. urged them to travel immediately, because the United States government was only issuing immigration 'permisos' until the end of June 2014."

Earlier this week, reports of an influx of migrants from Central America led officials in Texas to launch a surge in enforcement to secure its border with Mexico.

Specifics about the White House's new plan — including the facilities' locations and the number of families allowed to enter the U.S. — aren't yet public. We'll update our reporting when that information is available.

The New York Times that they're using more electronic monitoring devices, such as ankle bracelets, to track migrants who are released. The newspaper reports that most of the cases are centered in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

To target rumors of a newly lax enforcement policy, the White House says it will "reinforce that recently arriving children and individuals are not eligible for programs like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, commonly called DACA, and earned citizenship provisions in comprehensive immigration reform currently under consideration in the Congress."

Announcing its new approach early Friday afternoon, the White House said:

"Our first priority is to manage the urgent humanitarian situation by making sure these children are housed, fed, and receive any necessary medical treatment. We also are taking steps to improve enforcement and partnering with our Central American counterparts in three key areas: combating gang violence and strengthening citizen security, spurring economic development, and improving capacity to receive and reintegrate returned families and children."
Click to expand...

In the interest of full disclosure, the execution of those policies also suffered appropriate criticism.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/6210...y-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border

What was the policy under President Obama?
The Obama administration established family detention centers that kept families together while their cases were processed.

However, those centers were sharply criticized for keeping children detained even if they were still with their parents. A court ruled that those detention centers violated the Flores agreementand that families should be released together.

The Obama White House also had a policy of releasing families through a program called Alternatives to Detention that still allowed them to be closely supervised — for instance, by giving mothers ankle monitors before releasing them.

The ACLU welcomed the Alternatives to Detention program, but other immigrant-rights groups had reservations.

As Burnett reported, one for-profit prison company that was making money off immigrant detention was also profiting off those ankle monitor systems.

ICE tells NPR that the Alternatives to Detention program is still active under the Trump administration, but Trump has repeatedly said he opposes what he denounces as "catch and release."
Click to expand...
 
Touring Mars
Although that article really supports the argument that migrants ought to be documented...


Clearly, people who are desperate to work are going to be pretty good employees and hence good for the economy - but at what cost? Clearly it is not a great deal for them, plus it also lowers the employment prospects and bargaining power of documented migrants in the process.
Click to expand...
It's unfortunately not a new phenomenon either.

 
TexRex
Some useful information regarding Obama-era detention facilities that, curiously, is being left out by those indicating that "Obama did it too."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ily-detention-centers-target-rumors-of-laxity



In the interest of full disclosure, the execution of those policies also suffered appropriate criticism.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/6210...y-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border
Click to expand...
That’s fine and justified, my point is geared toward more why the national media didn’t advertise it so heavily to the point people are getting upset over photos from that point in time but placing the blame for them on someone else. If they’re that mad over that photo, surely they can direct that anger back at whoever was responsible for it.

Just this morning, Kevin Hart shared a photo of children in prison jumpers sobbing about how he can’t believe he has to explain the picture. Except he didn’t bother to include or research a tiny detail: the picture is a from 2014 documentary by Russell Simmons about prisons.

I’m completely against any sort of child separation, but Trump will stick his foot in his mouth enough where we don’t need media members or celebrities going online spreading false information and blaming Trump for images he has no relation to.
UKMikey
My bad. Were those kids separated from their parents by Obama or did they just turn up unaccompanied?
Click to expand...
I don’t know.

But it doesn’t stop people from blaming Trump for photos during a time he had no control over. Which makes me wonder if they’re truly mad over what some photos imply or if they’re just mad bc someone falsely associated them with Trump.
 
McLaren
I don’t know.
Click to expand...
I see. They look like two separate situations that when mixed together make Trump protesters look like hypocrites. In one photo a girl's mom has been deported far away from the border. Presumably she's accompanied by adults at the Washington protest at which it was taken.

In the other photos unaccompanied kids have turned up at the border and there are no parents to split them up from like Trump did.

McLaren
But it doesn’t stop people from blaming Trump for photos during a time he had no control over. Which makes me wonder if they’re truly mad over what some photos imply or if they’re just mad bc someone falsely associated them with Trump.
Click to expand...
So are all the photos that people are protesting over from the Obama era or was it just a mistaken tweet that the guy later deleted? Because Trump must also be blaming himself if he's U-turned on the "let's split up families at the border" policy.
 
huskeR32
The exact same report that told us all about the texts between them also concluded that they didn't act on the biases reflected in those texts. In other words, they still did their jobs correctly.

There's nothing here, unless you want to cherry-pick which parts of the report you believe, and which you don't. Which is actually doing more with your bias than they did with theirs.
Click to expand...
Whatever. I'm glad to see y'all SO concerned...:rolleyes:
I honestly find it stupid y'all don't care cause "they are in a relationship" and "it was a private conversation". Cause the IG said so. Read the thing there is more corruption than them 2...
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
I see. They look like two separate situations that when mixed together make Trump protesters look like hypocrites. In one photo a girl's mom has been deported far away from the border. Presumably she's accompanied by adults at the Washington protest at which it was taken.

In the other photos unaccompanied kids have turned up at the border and there are no parents to split them up from like Trump did.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case then, that’s part of the problem with the anger; if the photos are justified, then how can they be mad at “Trump”?
So are all the photos that people are protesting over from the Obama era or was it just a mistaken tweet that the guy later deleted? Because Trump must also be blaming himself if he's U-turned on the "let's split up families at the border" policy.
Click to expand...
Most of the photos seem to coming from that era. A couple of Obama’s officials retweeted it and then quickly deleted when people pointed out who was in charge.

There was a photo a young child crying that appeared to be in a cage, but it was from a protest here in Dallas.

Trump flip flopping isn’t surprising. So Sessions is getting canned next, then? Bc most people are more upset with him about this issue.
 
McLaren
That’s fine and justified, my point is geared toward more why the national media didn’t advertise it so heavily to the point people are getting upset over photos from that point in time but placing the blame for them on someone else. If they’re that mad over that photo, surely they can direct that anger back at whoever was responsible for it.
Click to expand...
"Blah blah blah biased media blah blah blah." I know what your point was, but your point wasn't what I was addressing. I was addressing your willful omission of important information that differentiates the two situations, presumably because it would only serve to detract from the point you were making. Now it's the omission of information AND the information itself detracting from the point you were making.

But, with regards to your point, it's likely the current policies would suffer criticism just as the previous policies did, but I suspect it was met with such a public response because it's being pushed by someone with a propensity to say hateful and stupid things--and how dare the biased media show people what he's actually saying in order to paint him as a horrible person, right?

What was the last President to not suffer criticisms for policy decisions? It kind of comes with the job. He'd face far less indignation over the 🤬 he's peddling if he'd just wave the spoon around and make airplane sounds before cramming it down our gullets. I know, I know..."he speaks his mind."
 
TexRex
But, with regards to your point, it's likely the current policies would suffer criticism just as the previous policies did, but I suspect it was met with such a public response because it's being pushed by someone with a propensity to say hateful and stupid things--and how dare the biased media show people what he's actually saying in order to paint him as a horrible person, right?
Click to expand...
And that justifies people all the way up to those from Obama’s own administration for sharing photos and blaming Trump for them? Because he’s a mean old dummy?

I didn’t omit anything either. My point was that the headline news of “Children separated from families” is not new, and my picture was to demonstrate that even Obama faced protest from it. But the media didn’t cover such things as heavily as they are now.

You however, as you often do, want to argue something else and just attribute it to whoever you’re responding to. You are free to spend your own time doing that; I’m simply not going to respond to it unless you want “blah blah blah blah blah” in return as well.
 
Illegal immigrants have been coming to America since Columbus or the Mayflower, your choice.
 
ryzno
Whatever. I'm glad to see y'all SO concerned...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just taking a sensible perspective.

ryzno
I honestly find it stupid y'all don't care cause "they are in a relationship"
Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone giving that as a reason for anything?

ryzno
"it was a private conversation"
Click to expand...

They were having a conversation as normal citizens (which all police are), the report seems to show that none of that natural personal bias (I say natural because they're persons) made it into their professional actions. You haven't answered the post which points out that not only did Strzok fail to topple Trump but he was implicit in actions that did quite the opposite.

ryzno
Read the thing there is more corruption than them 2...
Click to expand...

So y'all should make that point then ;)
 
McLaren
And that justifies people all the way up to those from Obama’s own administration for sharing photos and blaming Trump for them?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you believe this to be the case, but do you have anything substantive to support the belief that this was done knowingly and with the intent to deceive? You yourself noted that a member of Obama's administration tweeted picture(s) but later removed them upon being informed that they were the result of executing Obama-era policy.

McLaren
I didn’t omit anything either. My point was that the headline news of “Children separated from families” is not new, and my picture was to demonstrate that even Obama faced protest from it.
Click to expand...
In posting those images as if to say the two events are the same, leaving out facts to illustrate that the two events were indeed not the same constitutes omission.

McLaren
The point was nailed; media bias. That same media bias and heavy reporting led many to begin sharing old photos and claiming, “Trump’s America”.
Click to expand...
See response to first quote.

McLaren
You however, as you often do, want to argue something else and just attribute it to whoever you’re responding to. You are free to spend your own time doing that; I’m simply not going to respond to it unless you want “blah blah blah blah blah” in return as well.
Click to expand...
What "something else" am I arguing? You indicated that I inferred your point correctly, and it's that point that I was addressing/arguing.

For what it's worth, I didn't post those articles prefaced by the comments I made solely in response to your post (though it was indeed triggered by it) but in response to recent widespread comments-without-context. Had I been addressing you specifically, I would have quoted you.

I suppose I may have gone beyond what was needed in the address, but I'm often compelled to vent frustration over people decrying "liberal media" for certain tactics when their own precious Fox News [and the like] pulls the exact same 🤬.

TenEightyOne
I don't recall anyone giving that as a reason for anything?
Click to expand...
I mean... I cited it as a rationalization for making comments one might not otherwise make in just any company.

However, the conservative media engine is demonizing them for their sin of adultery as if to suggest a slippery slope from extramarital copulation to criminal subterfuge.
 
ryzno
Whatever. I'm glad to see y'all SO concerned...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The report found no evidence at all that any agents' biases had actually impacted the investigation. What is it that I should be concerned about?

ryzno
I honestly find it stupid y'all don't care cause "they are in a relationship"
Click to expand...

Why should I care who smashes their privates together?

ryzno
and "it was a private conversation"
Click to expand...

The key here is that that's all that it was.

ryzno
Read the thing there is more corruption than them 2...
Click to expand...

I did. Including the part where they found no evidence at all that any agents' biases had actually impacted the investigation.

Think about this for a second; if they didn't act on their biases, then punishing them amounts to punishing people for their thoughts. Are you really okay with that notion?

Oh, and Ten isn't the only one waiting to hear your thoughts on this:

TenEightyOne
You haven't answered the post which points out that not only did Strzok fail to topple Trump but he was implicit in actions that did quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
 
McLaren
What were the laws stating such back then?
Click to expand...
Columbus had a royal charter to explore, discover, openly proclaim* and ultimately colonize.
The Mayflower did not have a charter - to land exactly where they did.

*An interesting side note: Pre-Columbian voyages to the New World from Europe were technically illegal, and even if accidental, were kept as secret as possible.
 
Dotini
Columbus had a royal charter to explore, discover, openly proclaim* and ultimately colonize.
The Mayflower did not have a charter - to land exactly where they did.

*An interesting side note: Pre-Columbian voyages to the New World from Europe were technically illegal, and even if accidental, were kept as secret as possible.
Click to expand...

Unless you were a Viking, then you could pretty much do whatever.
 
baldgye
Because there is no way for the children to be reunited with the parents.
Click to expand...

So what should we do, should we kill the kids? Because that's the only way to unite the orphaned kids with their (dead) parents? If the parents aren't dead then the kids are not the orphans you're claiming the government is making them.

That's a pretty bloodthirsty solution, don't you think? Isn't it bad enough that we're (as you seem to be claiming) killing the parents?
 
BobK
So what should we do, should we kill the kids? Because that's the only way to unite the orphaned kids with their (dead) parents? If the parents aren't dead then the kids are not the orphans you're claiming the government is making them.

That's a pretty bloodthirsty solution, don't you think? Isn't it bad enough that we're (as you seem to be claiming) killing the parents?
Click to expand...
Yeeeeeaaaaahhhhh...

https://definitions.uslegal.com/o/orphan/

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides the following definition of an orphan for the purposes of immigration to the United States.

A child may be considered an orphan because of the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents. The child of an unwed mother or surviving parent may be considered an orphan if that parent is unable to care for the child properly and has, in writing, irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption. The child of an unwed mother may be considered an orphan, as long as the mother does not marry (which would result in the child’s having a stepfather) and as long as the child’s biological father has not legitimated the child. If the father legitimates the child or the mother marries, the mother is no longer considered a sole parent. The child of a surviving parent may also be an orphan if the surviving parent has not married since the death of the other parent (which would result in the child’s having a stepfather or stepmother).
Click to expand...
 
ryzno
I'm still waiting to hear why he was escorted by the FBI out of his office the other day.
Click to expand...

Well, nobody here can provide that for you, since the FBI hasn't said why publicly.

You can, however, answer the questions posed to you.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
440 441 442
Replies
13K
Views
585K
Scaff
Scaff
Dylan
2025 NASCAR Discussion Thread
Replies
4
Views
380
Blitz24
Blitz24
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
438 439 440
Replies
13K
Views
696K
Eggstor
Eggstor
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
673
Dotini
Dotini

Latest Posts

Back