"Suffer The Little Children .."

[toucana]

For anyone who hasn't yet heard it, here is the link to the 7.47m audio recording of young children being forcibly separated from their parents at a US border crossing. It was sourced and released by independent news outlet Propublica.

https://www.propublica.org/article/children-separated-from-parents-border-patrol-cbp-trump-immigration-policy

For those still inclined to give the US government the benefit of the doubt as to whether these children are being appropriately and professionally cared for, here is a reminder of a recent story about another Federal agency called ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement) which candidly admitted it had "lost track of" nearly 1500 immigrant children it was supposed to be caring for in 2017.

http://abc7news.com/politics/feds-admit-they-lost-track-of-1475-migrant-children/3524980/

[RJG]

This "appeal-to-emotion" has strong propagandist value. ...maybe it will sway our leaders/lawmakers to do something? ...we can only hope.

It seems to me that:
1. The Dems want to do 'nothing', so as to claim how evil and mean this president is.
2. The Repubs don't know what to do.
3. The President is trying to force the lawmakers (particular the Dems) to sit down and fix the immigration mess once and for all (and maybe sneak in funding for the wall).

Currently there is a stalemate, nobody seems to be willing to move from their position. So the crying babies at the border continue, ...and continue. While the politicians continue their "no-action" bad-mouthing.

Wake up people! ...do your job!

[wolfhnd]

Why are we so focused on what appears to be a bureaucratic problem while not looking at the conditions that created the problem in the first place.

https://www.humanium.org/en/mexico/

Protest the Mexican government that caused it citizens to flee to the "racist" cruel U.S.A.

The vast majority of suffering children in Mexico will not be helped by anything the U.S. does.

[TheVat]

You're aware many of the refugees are not from Mexico, right? Political turmoil, gangs, cartels, in several C. American countries. I don't know if all those problems are solvable by us, but I am sure it will require a State department, for starters, that hasn't had 60% of its career diplomats and other consular officials quit in protest. What does seem important, in terms of our nation's tradition of humanitarian assistance, is that we do what we can for refugees from dire situations. That would restore some geopolitical confidence and in the long run help spread democracy.

Some of my immigrant ancestors were from a country with forms of slavery and indentured servitude. Letters they wrote home, telling about America's freedoms, had a useful effect on political movements back in the motherland. Ronald Reagan's speech about "the shining city on a hill" was not without some merit.

[Serpent]

It seems to me that:
3. The President is trying to force the lawmakers (particular the Dems) to sit down and fix the immigration mess once and for all (and maybe sneak in funding for the wall).

I'm not sure exactly what the immigration mess is and how it should be fixed.
Just out out curiosity, what is it you think the minority Democrats could do but refuse to?
Why cannot the administration change its own policy?

[TheVat]

This "appeal-to-emotion" has strong propagandist value. ...maybe it will sway our leaders/lawmakers to do something? ...we can only hope.

It seems to me that:
1. The Dems want to do 'nothing', so as to claim how evil and mean this president is.
2. The Repubs don't know what to do.
3. The President is trying to force the lawmakers (particular the Dems) to sit down and fix the immigration mess once and for all (and maybe sneak in funding for the wall).

Currently there is a stalemate, nobody seems to be willing to move from their position. So the crying babies at the border continue, ...and continue. While the politicians continue their "no-action" bad-mouthing.

Wake up people! ...do your job!

RJ, since you have complained about partisan attacks, and personal attacks lacking evidentIary basis, I would here have to request that you also follow those guidelines and refrain from statements like (1).

Many Democrats have supported a humanitarian course with respect to refugees, massively reported by news organizations around the globe, so (1) would be rather difficult to support in any case. Our news forum is not set up for waving a foam finger for one political party. There has been abundant reportage on bipartisan efforts to remedy such situations that has been thwarted by the Trump administration. (a good nonpartisan coverage may be found at sources like the Toronto Star, which is not owned by anyone connected to a USA political party). I would think you would support those bipartisan efforts rather than some of the negative and discriminatory comments from the extreme far Right, lumping terrified mothers in with gangsters, rapists, drug dealers, and so on. We should be supporting bipartisan coalitions that can bring common sense and compassion, rather than let partisans hold innocent people hostage.

[toucana]

With impeccable timing, the United States has announced it is withdrawing from the United Nations Human Rights Council.

https://news.sky.com/story/us-pulls-out-of-un-human-rights-council-11410411

UN Ambassador Nikki Haley made the announcement in a speech on Tuesday, calling the body

"an organisation not worthy of its name" and a "cesspool of political bias".

Perhaps someone should hand her a mirror ?

[wolfhnd]

I'm very aware that many of the people illegally crossing the southern border are only transienting through Mexico. Most of them come from countries that have political systems as bad or worse than Mexico.

The U.S. is not the only country suffering from the dysfunctional socialist regimes south of us. Columbia has been inundated by people fleeing Venezuela. Many of the same people who praised Venezuela before it's socialist policies made it a hell hole are the same people obsessed with the comparatively minor human rights violations at the U.S. border.

The fact remains that political reform south of the U.S. border will help millions instead of the hundreds that the anti Trump people are obsessed with.

The fact that many people illegally crossing our border are uninterested in adopting traditionally western liberal democratic values means they will have little influence on reform in their home countries. For example only 30 percent of immigrants from Latin America favor the first amendment.

[RJG]

It seems to me that:
1. The Dems want to do 'nothing', so as to claim how evil and mean this president is.
2. The Repubs don't know what to do.
3. The President is trying to force the lawmakers (particular the Dems) to sit down and fix the immigration mess once and for all (and maybe sneak in funding for the wall).

RJ, since you have complained about partisan attacks, and personal attacks lacking evidentIary basis, I would here have to request that you also follow those guidelines and refrain from statements like (1).

Are you threatening to ban me again?

Should I also refrain from statements like 2, and 3? ...as they could also be interpreted as condescending by fans/supporters of the Repubs and fans/supporters of the Pres.

Are you a fan/supporter of the Dems? ...and therefore can't tolerate anti-Dem comments? ...but then have no problem with tolerating anti-Trump comments?

Many Democrats have supported a humanitarian course with respect to refugees, massively reported by news organizations around the globe, so (1) would be rather difficult to support in any case. Our news forum is not set up for waving a foam finger for one political party.

So then why are YOU doing so!?

I would think you would support those bipartisan efforts rather than some of the negative and discriminatory comments from the extreme far Right, lumping terrified mothers in with gangsters, rapists, drug dealers, and so on. We should be supporting bipartisan coalitions that can bring common sense and compassion, rather than let partisans hold innocent people hostage.

This seems to be a bit hypocritical. Shouldn't you REFRAIN from comments such as this? ...as this is an obvious personal attack against those on the extreme far right.


It seems that you cannot see your own bias/bigotry/discrimination. You allow trash talking against those groups that you don't agree with, while condemning (or threatening to ban, in my case) those that have a counter opinion. Hypocrisy at its finest!

[Serpent]

Again --
What is it you think the minority Democrats could do but refuse to?
Why cannot the administration change its own policy?

[RJG]

What is it you think the minority Democrats could do but refuse to?

I think the "minority" Democrats could help in solving all these immigration problems, ...don't you?

Just because they are a "minority", does not mean they cannot help, ...right?

But it seems (to me anyways) that Dems have no desire to work with (or help) the Republicans on any important issues.

Why cannot the administration change its own policy?

I think they could if they wanted to. Again, I can only speculate that Trump is trying to force the Dems and Repubs to do their job and put forth comprehensive immigration laws once and for all.

We have immigration laws now, but many seem to want to openly disobey them, hence the chaos we now have. Either respect and honor current law, or change the damn law. Ignoring and closing our eyes to those laws that we don't like is not a solution.

[TheVat]

It seems to me that:
1. The Dems want to do 'nothing', so as to claim how evil and mean this president is.
2. The Repubs don't know what to do.
3. The President is trying to force the lawmakers (particular the Dems) to sit down and fix the immigration mess once and for all (and maybe sneak in funding for the wall).

RJ, since you have complained about partisan attacks, and personal attacks lacking evidentIary basis, I would here have to request that you also follow those guidelines and refrain from statements like (1).

Are you threatening to ban me again?

Should I also refrain from statements like 2, and 3? ...as they could also be interpreted as condescending by fans/supporters of the Repubs and fans/supporters of the Pres.

Are you a fan/supporter of the Dems? ...and therefore can't tolerate anti-Dem comments? ...but then have no problem with tolerating anti-Trump comments?

Many Democrats have supported a humanitarian course with respect to refugees, massively reported by news organizations around the globe, so (1) would be rather difficult to support in any case. Our news forum is not set up for waving a foam finger for one political party.

So then why are YOU doing so!?

I would think you would support those bipartisan efforts rather than some of the negative and discriminatory comments from the extreme far Right, lumping terrified mothers in with gangsters, rapists, drug dealers, and so on. We should be supporting bipartisan coalitions that can bring common sense and compassion, rather than let partisans hold innocent people hostage.

This seems to be a bit hypocritical. Shouldn't you REFRAIN from comments such as this? ...as this is an obvious personal attack against those on the extreme far right.


It seems that you cannot see your own bias/bigotry/discrimination. You allow trash talking against those groups that you don't agree with, while condemning (or threatening to ban, in my case) those that have a counter opinion. Hypocrisy at its finest!

How so? How is lamenting pure partisan politics a personal attack? What person was attacked, and what false statement was made? I was protesting an ideological problem. Let's talk facts: GOP Senators Orrin Hatch, Ted Cruz, and Lisa Murkowski all offered administrative remedies today that could effect change without waiting for legislative solutions. Your Mr. Cruz suggested an order for more immigration judges (from 350 to over 700) to rapidly adjudicate some of the most urgent separation cases. As an Independent I accept good ideas from both parties. I am not on either "team. " How did the White House respond to these GOP senators?. They were rejected. Because Trump wants a 2000 mile wall, 30 feet high. He is not really understanding why many experts at ICE and elsewhere who actually work on border enforcement problems, do not believe the Wall is a feasible solution. It is not partisan to form doubts about policy that is flawed.

Where were you threatened with a ban here? I asked you to comply, courteously, with forum rules that you want enforced. And I have not allowed trash talk. I asked Toucana, in another related thread, not to refer to another member as "lazy." I did temp ban a member who tried to intimidate a member by declaring their imposing IQ (and implying a lower figure for their adversary). You miss a lot that happens here. Stop telling me how to do my job and stop distorting my words. Thank you. Please see my feedback forum replies to you a couple days ago.

[TheVat]

The fact that many people illegally crossing our border are uninterested in adopting traditionally western liberal democratic values means they will have little influence on reform in their home countries. For example only 30 percent of immigrants from Latin America favor the first amendment.

I really must ask for evidence/data for that last figure. Any citation from a reputable source would be appreciated. I have wondered about this before, so some hard facts would be welcome.

Not sure how that relates to helping separated children, so let's move this part to a broader immigrant thread perhaps? We don't require refugees to adopt all our values but we do expect them to obey the law. And immigrants, as you know, have a lower crime rate than natural born citizens. This has been covered here before.

[Serpent]

Just because they are a "minority", does not mean they cannot help, ...right?

Whom can they help? How can they help?
What outcome needs to be achieved?
What needs to be done?
What legislative power do Democrats have?
(btw, minority status in Congress is a fact; that doesn't require quotation marks.)

But it seems (to me anyways) that Dems have no desire to work with (or help) the Republicans on any important issues.

On what basis have you formed this opinion? In what ways have the republicans of this present administration solicited the help of democrats to work on which important issues? Is there some common ground, or compromise from which such a collaboration can be based? What co-operative overtures have the republicans made up to this point?

[Why cannot the administration change its own policy?]
I think they could if they wanted to. Again, I can only speculate that Trump is trying to force the Dems and Repubs to do their job and put forth comprehensive immigration laws once and for all.

Do you think the issue can be solved once-for-all? Doesn't the situation change over time and require new strategies and responses?
Do you think that a comprehensive, for-all, solution that has eluded 114 past legislatures is likely to be found under the force of emotional pressure?

We have immigration laws now, but many seem to want to openly disobey them

Why? Has something happened? Do you know what events or circumstances have influenced the "many" (I'm guessing you mean people) to start disobeying laws which have prevailed in times past? Or did they just suddenly catch a whim?

, hence the chaos we now have.

It seems to me that, if there has been order previously, and now there is chaos, something changed. The most obvious change I see is the 2016 election result. Are there other major new factors of which I'm unaware?

Either respect and honor current law, or change the damn law. Ignoring and closing our eyes to those laws that we don't like is not a solution.

Indeed. Seeing is more convincing than second- or third-hand reportage. Are the Border Patrol separation and detention facilities open for inspection by legislators and non-partisan social organizations? Is the policy and practice transparent? Can child welfare agencies track the affected individuals? Are 1500 kids really unaccounted-for? Has any decision been made as to what will happen to them?
It does seem to me that a solution could be found, if everyone involved were able to get all the necessary information.

[RJG]

Just because they are a "minority", does not mean they cannot help, ...right?

Whom can they help? How can they help?

The Dems help is needed to pass laws that would fix this and other immigration messes (DACA, sanctuary cities, etc).

But it seems (to me anyways) that Dems have no desire to work with (or help) the Republicans on any important issues.

On what basis have you formed this opinion?

If Dems truly wanted to help solve the problems, then it would seem that they would rush back to work to make that which is currently illegal, to legal.

Everyone can bitch about the problems, but there are some that can actually do something and directly solve these problems.

Why cannot the administration change its own policy?

Again, changing policy to 'ignore' certain laws is not a real solution.

Do you think the issue can be solved once-for-all?

Absolutely.

Doesn't the situation change over time and require new strategies and responses?

Yes, hence the reasoning to update our laws.

We have immigration laws now, but many seem to want to openly disobey them

Why? Has something happened? Do you know what events or circumstances have influenced the "many" (I'm guessing you mean people) to start disobeying laws which have prevailed in times past?

I think society has become more compassionate towards "illegal" aliens.

Hence (and again) the need to change our laws. Pretending "illegal" is "legal", or disobeying current laws that we don't like, or having a policy that ignores certain laws is not a solution. It only kicks the problem down the road, and creates all the chaos that we now see.

Again, either respect and honor current law, or change the damn law. Openly disobeying, ignoring and closing our eyes to those laws that we don't like is NOT a solution.

So let me ask you Serpent, -- Why are the Dems reluctant to work with the Repubs to change these laws? ... seriously, what is the 'real' reason?

[TheVat]

The link has a full fact check on the current law, and how policy has altered in the past few months.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 130f56b915

The problem is not legislators but rather that DOJ has been ordered (see part on discretion as to how cases are prosecuted) to make criminal prosecutions of cases that were previously shunted through civil court, where separation is not mandatory. Please read the article.

The Central American refugee crisis developed during President Barack Obama’s administration and continues under Trump. The two administrations have taken different approaches. The Justice Department under Obama prioritized the deportation of dangerous people. Once he took office, Trump issued an executive order rolling back much of the Obama-era framework.

Obama’s guidelines prioritized the deportation of gang members, those who posed a national security risk and those who had committed felonies. Trump’s January 2017 executive order does not include a priority list for deportations and refers only to “criminal offenses,” which is broad enough to encompass serious felonies as well as misdemeanors.

Then, in April 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions rolled out the zero-tolerance policy.

When families or individuals are apprehended by the Border Patrol, they’re taken into DHS custody. Under the zero-tolerance policy, DHS officials refer any adult “believed to have committed any crime, including illegal entry,” to the Justice Department for prosecution. If they’re convicted, they’re usually sentenced to time served. The next step would be deportation proceedings.

Illegal entry is a misdemeanor for first-time offenders and a conviction is grounds for deportation. Because of Trump’s executive order, DHS can deport people for misdemeanors more easily, because the government no longer prioritizes the removal of dangerous criminals, gang members or national-security threats. (A DHS fact sheet says, “Any individual processed for removal, including those who are criminally prosecuted for illegal entry, may seek asylum or other protection available under law.”)

Families essentially are put on two different tracks. One track ends with deportation. The other doesn’t.

After a holding period, DHS transfers children to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services. They spend an average 51 days at an ORR shelter before they’re placed with a sponsor in the United States, according to HHS. The government is required to place these children with family members whenever possible, even if those family members might be undocumented immigrants. “Approximately 85 percent of sponsors are parents” who were already in the country “or close family members,” according to HHS. Some children have no relatives available, and in those cases the government may keep them in shelters for longer periods of time while suitable sponsors are identified and vetted.

Adding it all up, this means the Trump administration is operating a system in which immigrant families that are apprehended at the border get split up, because children go into a process in which they eventually get placed with sponsors in the country while their parents are prosecuted and potentially deported.

So illegal entry is defined as a crime even when it is a central American seeking asylum. See previous link that was posted by Toucans to the statute on asylum seeking.

[toucana]

You see this is my life, it always will be. There’s nothing else - just us, and the cameras, and those wonderful people out there in the dark. Alright Mr. DeMille. I’m ready for my close up. (Gloria Swanson - Sunset Boulevard 1950)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44550252

[Serpent]

The Dems help is needed to pass laws that would fix this and other immigration messes (DACA, sanctuary cities, etc).

What laws need to be passed? Why can't the majority Republicans pass these unspecified laws without help? After all, they are able to take unilateral action on all other matters.

Everyone can bitch about the problems, but there are some that can actually do something and directly solve these problems.

Specific recommendations?
What should be done?
Who has the power to do it?

So let me ask you Serpent, -- Why are the Dems reluctant to work with the Repubs to change these laws? ... seriously, what is the 'real' reason?

How should I know? You are the informed American citizen casting your vote and letting your voice be heard by your government. I'm just an ignorant outsider.

[RJG]

What laws need to be passed?

The laws pertaining to the Immigration problem; Amnesty, DACA, Sanctuary Cities, Border Enforcement, Separating babies from mothers, or whatever all the bitching is about.

Why can't the majority Republicans pass these unspecified laws without help?

They don't have enough votes (especially in the Senate). Not all Republicans see eye-to-eye. With the help of the Dems, and a sufficient number of willing Republicans, they can pass whatever bills they want. But, the real question seems to be -- Do they really "want" to? ...or is there a political advantage to just "bitch" and "not solve"?

Everyone can bitch about the problems, but there are some that can actually do something and directly solve these problems.

Specific recommendations? What should be done? Who has the power to do it?

Congress has the power to write/change these new laws, but this requires the help of Dems, who seem (to me) to prefer to "bitch" about the problems, instead of helping to "solve" the problems.

At some point, the "bitching" phase needs to end, and the "solving" phase needs to begin.

Unfortunately, - All 'talk' (bitch) and 'no-action' seems to be the Modus Operandi of many of our elected officials.

[SciameriKen]

At some point, the "bitching" phase needs to end, and the "solving" phase needs to begin.

Unfortunately, - All 'talk' (bitch) and 'no-action' seems to be the Modus Operandi of many of our elected officials.

In my opinion this should not be a partisan issue. I don't want my country to be one that uses children as bargaining chips to achieve its aims. Its disgusting abhorrent behavior. Trump could direct the attorney general to stop enforcement of this law through executive action - second to that Congress needs to change the law. Ultimately Trump acts on what he thinks his core supporters want - so this change has to begin with Trump supporters.

[TheVat]

Congress has the power to write/change these new laws, but this requires the help of Dems, who seem (to me) to prefer to "bitch" about the problems, instead of helping to "solve" the problems.

I am never quite sure who is informed on the facts of an issue. That's why I posted the fact-checking piece above. If you did not read it, then you may continue to lack certain key facts that are prerequisite for an intelligent discussion here.

Obama era legislation, passed by Democrats and GOP working together, had a fast-track for those pinpointed as having criminal records or other background issues that are grounds for refused entry and deportation. The Justice department was given broad discretion on determining criminality, and could shunt genuine asylum seekers through the CIVIL courts, where a separation is not required. The present crisis arose, when an EXECUTIVE ORDER dismantled this relatively efficient system and required that every single case be treated as a criminal one. That unfortunate change in policy is why your Senator, Mr. Cruz asked for a doubling of judges to adjusticate these cases. His intentions are honorable. Many Republicans backed the Obama era system, as it prevented the tragic separations of families, and maintained an accessible list of people earmarked as potential threats, i.e. criminals.

I would appreciate your response to these facts, and also ask that you support assertions like "Dems (seem to me) to prefer to bitch about the problem...." What Democrats? What constitutes bitching? What about Tea Party and other Right Wing GOP members who keep demanding a 2000 mile wall that the majority of American do not want? Would it be fair, using your definition, to also call that "bitching?" Or, third possbility, is it possible that the majority of Congress is supportive of bipartisan effort which is presently stymied by an executive order? (SEE above)

[Serpent]

[What laws need to be passed?]
The laws pertaining to the Immigration problem; Amnesty, DACA, Sanctuary Cities, Border Enforcement, Separating babies from mothers, or whatever all the bitching is about.

What laws? Do you have a synopsis or a link to the actual text of a proposed law?

They don't have enough votes (especially in the Senate).

And yet the administration was able to quit the UN Human Rights council with no votes at all. They've been able to solve all kinds of international problems by executive order and cabinet replacements.

Not all Republicans see eye-to-eye. With the help of the Dems, and a sufficient number of willing Republicans, they can pass whatever bills they want. But, the real question seems to be -- Do they really "want" to?

Maybe they don't agree with the proposed legislation. If even some republicans oppose a Republican bill, there may be something wrong with that bill, and if that's the case, why would you expect any Democrats to vote for it?
Passing a law that's unworkable or bad, just for the sake of being seen to have "done something" has never actually solved a problem.

[Specific recommendations?]
Congress has the power to write/change these new laws, but this requires the help of Dems, who seem (to me) to prefer to "bitch" about the problems, instead of helping to "solve" the problems.

That's not quite as specific as I was hoping for.
Can you explain what legislation and government action would "solve" the "problems"? (I don't even understand the full nature and source of the problems, but, presumably, you do.)
Do you know what's in the proposed legislation that's being held up by... I gather, primarily Democrats, but apparently also some recalcitrant republicans? Do you have any quotes of the "bitching"? Maybe these representatives have reasons for their reluctance to endorse a new law. Maybe they are acting on the mandate from their constituents. At least, I believe they're supposed to.

[TheVat]

At some point, the "bitching" phase needs to end, and the "solving" phase needs to begin.

Unfortunately, - All 'talk' (bitch) and 'no-action' seems to be the Modus Operandi of many of our elected officials.

In my opinion this should not be a partisan issue. I don't want my country to be one that uses children as bargaining chips to achieve its aims. Its disgusting abhorrent behavior. Trump could direct the attorney general to stop enforcement of this law through executive action - second to that Congress needs to change the law. Ultimately Trump acts on what he thinks his core supporters want - so this change has to begin with Trump supporters.

His supporters would need solid info on how illegal immigrants get across our border. This mainly involves smuggling in vehicles through checkpoints, and also boat passage, and also people staying after temporary pass cards expire. A Wall would change none of these methods, and only increase traffic through these alternative routes. ICE experts have pointed this out. They have also pointed out that Mexico, to everyone's surprise, has developed an advanced society that can manufacture ropes and ladders. If the goal is really to stop the flow of immigrants, then (ask the ICE experts) what is needed is more guards and patrols. If Trump and his base were to acknowledge this reality, then no group of asylum seekers would have to be held hostage with a "zero tolerance" executive order. Rational bipartisan measures could then be developed.

Wolfhound - I still need those citations on your 30 percent figure. See my previous reply to you, if that's not clear.

This is an old article, but it explains clearly (from a Border Patrol agent's perspective) what works better than a 2000 mile Wall.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-pat ... rder-wall/

[RJG]

In my opinion this should not be a partisan issue.

Agreed. It's time to stop all the "bitching" and start the "solving".

I don't want my country to be one that uses children as bargaining chips to achieve its aims. Its disgusting abhorrent behavior.

Yes, agreed. This seems a bit "hard ball'ish".

Trump could direct the attorney general to stop enforcement of this law through executive action…

No, disagree. The power of "executive action" should not be encouraged, and in my opinion, should be outright illegal. This power opens a can-of-worms, allowing a president to enact further capricious laws/actions at his whim. Dangerous, and should be discouraged (imo).

...second to that Congress needs to change the law.

I would suggest that this be the 'first' recourse, not the "second".

Ultimately Trump acts on what he thinks his core supporters want - so this change has to begin with Trump supporters.

This seems to be flawed logic. It sounds like you want to blame (or hold responsible) Trump supporters for what's happening at the border. But if you poll Trump supporters, most would probably agree with you (including his own wife and daughter) that this is not acceptable.

Like I stated earlier, I suspect he is playing hardball, with the intent of bringing this country together on "solving" our immigration problems. We can't keep kicking the can down the road. We need to solve this once and for all.

What is stopping the Dems and Repubs from working together to "solve" some of these problems? ...pride/ego? ...political posturing?, …what??

How about doing it for the good of our country!

[Serpent]

[SciameriKen -- Trump acts on what he thinks his core supporters want ]
This seems to be flawed logic. It sounds like you want to blame (or hold responsible) Trump supporters for what's happening at the border. But if you poll Trump supporters, most would probably agree with you (including his own wife and daughter) that this is not acceptable.

Then why is he doing it? It's being done on his direct order.

Like I stated earlier, I suspect he is playing hardball, with the intent of bringing this country together on "solving" our immigration problems.

How well is that going, so far?

What is stopping the Dems and Repubs from working together to "solve" some of these problems?

As Braininvat has pointed out - twice - they have worked together in the past.
What has changed since 2016?

[TheVat]

No, disagree. The power of "executive action" should not be encouraged, and in my opinion, should be outright illegal. This power opens a can-of-worms, allowing a president to enact further capricious laws/actions at his whim. Dangerous, and should be discouraged (imo).

- RJG


RJ - I might be inclined to agree that the Executive Order is overused. Do you acknowledge the factual base for pointing out that Trump has used this method of governance extensively? And arguably, quite capriciously. The child separation problem (as pointed out to you twice) resulted from an EO several months ago. Before that EO, the dual-track method of handling undocumented arrivals was allowing a path through civil courts for asylum seekers, and the use of a list of criminals and high-risk individuals to be prosecuted and deported. Please read prior posts, especially when the author takes time to provide factual citations. Responding to those facts assure other chat participants that you have at hand the facts that they do.

BTW, the AP reports a few minutes ago that Trump will be signing an EO today, to end the child separation situation, allowing parents and children to be detained together. IOW, he will undo the adverse effects of his previous EO. What is your take on this reversal?

[RJG]

Then why is he doing it?

Like I stated earlier, I suspect he is playing hardball, with the intent of bringing this country together on "solving" our immigration problems.

How well is that going, so far?

Patience my young Canadian padawan. :-) All good things take time. (example: North Korean peace talks).

What is stopping the Dems and Repubs from working together to "solve" some of these problems?

As Braininvat has pointed out - twice - they have worked together in the past.

But did they "solve" these problems? ...or just kick them down the road?

BTW, the AP reports a few minutes ago that Trump will be signing an EO today, to end the child separation situation, allowing parents and children to be detained together. IOW, he will undo the adverse effects of his previous EO. What is your take on this reversal?

Welp, then maybe 2 wrongs do make a right, ...in this case.

[TheVat]

This seems to be flawed logic. It sounds like you want to blame (or hold responsible) Trump supporters for what's happening at the border. But if you poll Trump supporters, most would probably agree with you (including his own wife and daughter) that this is not acceptable.

- RJG

RJ, I have no reason to think that Trump's supporters, as individuals, are not appalled by what has happened in the detention camps. But the logic is this: Trump's supporters want a 2000 mile Great Wall of America. Trump is determined to implement this (though his support is from a minority of Americans, who are his constituents that he serves) and therefore, issued an EO that would create a crisis to spur legislative action for the Great Wall. Trump's supporters, therefore, play a key role in what choices the POTUS makes in regards to their hot-button issues. Therefore, they are not completely blameless and disconnected from whatever actions he takes. They also insist on no amnesty for the Dreamers, which again leads to a hardball position that cannot get sufficient votes in Congress. Again, this is a motivator for Trump to use the extreme option of an EO.

If Trump reverses the EO today, with a new one, then should we presume that he now feels his base will erode unless he concedes that this is a dire humanitarian crisis and fixes it?

Of course, I have to ask, what about other extreme measures that only a minority of Americans support and which do not involve heart-rending photo ops of terrified weeping children? In my plains state, we have many people angry about Trump's trade war proposals, which actually hurt the massive agribusiness here and threaten exports, supply chains for agricultural machinery and other supplies. But we don't have heart-rending pictures of tariffs and soybeans that rot in their bins. We have to wait for farmers to go broke, and towns collapsing economically, for that.

[SciameriKen]

<quote - sciameriken>Trump could direct the attorney general to stop enforcement of this law through executive action…<end>
No, disagree. The power of "executive action" should not be encouraged, and in my opinion, should be outright illegal. This power opens a can-of-worms, allowing a president to enact further capricious laws/actions at his whim. Dangerous, and should be discouraged (imo).

First -- scoreboard "Donald Trump to end his family separation policy – live updates" -- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... dates-live

Though your point is valid, I'd prefer things to not go through executive orders... though it is also nice when things need to move quickly, like this...

Ultimately Trump acts on what he thinks his core supporters want - so this change has to begin with Trump supporters.

This seems to be flawed logic. It sounds like you want to blame (or hold responsible) Trump supporters for what's happening at the border. But if you poll Trump supporters, most would probably agree with you (including his own wife and daughter) that this is not acceptable.

Like I stated earlier, I suspect he is playing hardball, with the intent of bringing this country together on "solving" our immigration problems. We can't keep kicking the can down the road. We need to solve this once and for all.

What is stopping the Dems and Repubs from working together to "solve" some of these problems? ...pride/ego? ...political posturing?, …what??

How about doing it for the good of our country!

I doubt it -- I'd say this is the Trump supporters fault to the extent that they have created an environment where Trump felt this action was a good idea. His base needs to be vocal when it's not or else things can spiral quickly.

[Serpent]

[Then why is he doing it?]
[ the intent of bringing this country together on "solving" our immigration problems]
All good things take time.

So, you consider national unity through hostage-taking a "good thing"...

(example: North Korean peace talks).

.... like abandoning South Korea after 60+ years of de facto military occupation?

[bipartisan legislation]
But did they "solve" these problems? ...or just kick them down the road?

You do seem fond of that metaphor! What does it mean to you? In light of
- your previous agreement that problems presented by and for immigration are ever changing and need adaptable strategy and new responses to new situations,
alongside
- your insistence that there should be a once-for-all solution,
and
- that such a solution can be forced out of legislators by threat of harm to more innocent parties
I can't figure out what's being kicked where and by whom and why that's worse than dealing with the current situation in the most humane and cost-effective way available at this time.