The facts about Trump’s policy of separating families at the border

[Al Swearegen]

The pictures and the audio being leaked from this are gut-wrenching.


Then you have his supporters yelling..."if they didn't want their children taken away they shouldn't have entered the country."

While they cozy up on the sofa watching Fox News while shoveling in their snacks.

I hate what this world is becoming.

Yes it is TERRIBLE advice NOT to enter the country illegally and put your children through that. If you stole a car and were arrested you should try manufacturing outrage on social media about being separated from your children. It is such a reasonable argument that you should stay with your children after willingly and deliberately breaking the law.

While cozying up on your couch, what do YOU okay?



Kids sent unaccompanied with their parents number written on their shirt?
12 year old girls sent with the pill because they know that they will get raped during the journey

Kids drowning and needing to be fished out of the river
Kids dying of dehydration

Yes very moral of you to fake outrage.

You want the poor children to be returned to the adults their their "care"? The Coyote rapists? The 12 year old to be returned to that middle aged man leering at her calling her "my daughter?
What about that adults that standing next to the kid with the number of his parents written on his shirt?
Which of these adults ARE their parents and which are dangerous human traffickers or children smugglers just need a kid to accompany them for this part of the trip? Which of the children will be allowed to stay with these people and what amount of these people are the parents as they claim? Do you have figures? numbers? Percentages?

No? So basically these adults broke the law and put their lives at risk and allowed children in their vicinity to be at perhaps greater risk and you want to keep them with the children if they say that they are the parents even though they broke the law AND may pose extreme risk to the children?

Pretty fucking immoral.

[Icequeen]

Many of them are fleeing because they were at risk of being killed, or having their kids end up dead where they were.

[odeon]

Didn't the US sign a treaty about this sort of thing, once upon a time? I forget.

[Al Swearegen]

Many of them are fleeing because they were at risk of being killed, or having their kids end up dead where they were.

Many, most, some? Do you know what percentage of the people that choose to cross into areas that are not the legal ports of entry are parents that care for their children as to opposed to human traffickers or people with no real claim to asylum?

No? To busy cozying up on your couch being offended and turning a blind eye to the very real harm real children are exposed to with a porous border?

[Icequeen]

[Al Swearegen]

Yes it is horrible when you stake your moral superiority on a position only to.find that position was not morally strong.

Best thing to do.in that instance is name call, not self-reflect

[odeon]

Whatever gave you the idea that her position wasn't morally strong? I think she's simply done trying to talk sense into you.

[Al Swearegen]

Whatever gave you the idea that her position wasn't morally strong? I think she's simply done trying to talk sense into you.

The hypocrisy mainly.

Then you have his supporters yelling..."if they didn't want their children taken away they shouldn't have entered the country."

While they cozy up on the sofa watching Fox News while shoveling in their snacks.

It is essentially her saying "Trump supporters are immoral for saying that the illegal immigrants choosing to cross outside of the allowed points of entry is a consequence of the illegal immigrants own bad choices and choice to break the law." all whilst doing so in the comfort of their own homes whilst the poor illegal immigrant children are separated from their "parents" (ie adults who may or may not be custodians who happen to be in their immediate vicinity).

However SHE is making these proclamations whilst from the comfort of her home and without conceding that this IS a consequence of poor choices and the illegal immigrants are acting outside the law and have chosen to put these children in this predicament. The poor moral position is on the illegal immigrants and on the people supporting the open borders or porous border policies that bring this trouble and suffering. IF you have a porous borders then you are greenlighting this kind of thing as a natural consequence.
https://tucson.com/news/local/border-patrol-agents-rescue-boy-abandoned-by-smuggler-southwest-of/article_03710cca-74dd-11e8-89f4-673513280ce2.html
You are also greenlighting the 80% of Central American illegal immigrants getting raped on the crossing and everything that comes with that.

All from the middle class comfort of your home.

there is the weakness of the moral position and the hypocrisy.

[Icequeen]

Bugger off Al.

I really don't know why you keep trying to engage me. I have my thoughts, I state them, you don't agree with them...we seldom agree on anything...and that's fine.

I'm not wasting my time with you. Nothing I really have to say at this point will change your view...nor will any of your arguments be likely to change my point of view, "if" I can be even arsed to read two sentences into them at this point.

But if you really want to continue this I literally have a 1/4 of a TB hard drive full of memes that take me maybe 5 seconds tops to upload in between doing the things I need to do elsewhere...so at least you won't have to look like your arguing with yourself.   

[Al Swearegen]

Bugger off Al.

I really don't know why you keep trying to engage me. I have my thoughts, I state them, you don't agree with them...we seldom agree on anything...and that's fine.

I'm not wasting my time with you. Nothing I really have to say at this point will change your view...nor will any of your arguments be likely to change my point of view, "if" I can be even arsed to read two sentences into them at this point.

But if you really want to continue this I literally have a 1/4 of a TB hard drive full of memes that take me maybe 5 seconds tops to upload in between doing the things I need to do elsewhere...so at least you won't have to look like your arguing with yourself. 

What ever blows your hair back. Immoral hypocritical regurgitation or memes is all a much of a muchness to me.

[El]

The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.

I cited more sources than just the ACLU.

Which non-Left sources have you used to fact check? No honestly. Washington Post is clearly Leftist. Snopes and Politifact is Left and whilst claiming to be neutral, has been anything but. I believe Snopes is at least partially funded by George Soros. ACLU has been the bastion of impartiality and whilst similar organisations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have pretended impartiality, ACLU has been pretty consistent....until recently. Now they too have recently caved to the Progressive line about hate speech and no longer are they of the view that I hate what you say but I will defend your right to say things i disagree with. They were always Classically Liberal which I always applauded. Now they are moderate Progressives. Better than some and not frothing at the mouth Progressive ideologues like SPLC but hardly unbiased and neutral.

So....you cited a lot of source which of these were not Left leaning?

The last two articles I posted.  But, is there anything but breitart or fox that you wouldn't call leftist?

[rock hound]

Al, you lost me....good bye!

[Al Swearegen]

The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.

I cited more sources than just the ACLU.

Which non-Left sources have you used to fact check? No honestly. Washington Post is clearly Leftist. Snopes and Politifact is Left and whilst claiming to be neutral, has been anything but. I believe Snopes is at least partially funded by George Soros. ACLU has been the bastion of impartiality and whilst similar organisations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have pretended impartiality, ACLU has been pretty consistent....until recently. Now they too have recently caved to the Progressive line about hate speech and no longer are they of the view that I hate what you say but I will defend your right to say things i disagree with. They were always Classically Liberal which I always applauded. Now they are moderate Progressives. Better than some and not frothing at the mouth Progressive ideologues like SPLC but hardly unbiased and neutral.

So....you cited a lot of source which of these were not Left leaning?

You got a problem with factcheck.org too?  Is there anything but breitart or fox that you wouldn't call leftist?

I am happy to look into any organisation. Am I incorrect in anything I have said? By what measure do you you proclaim it so?

The problem with saying you have listened and citing many sources and then citing Left leaning sources is the quantity may be there but the balance isn't. Effectively all you have done is state "There are a lot of Left leaning sources with left leaning views and I can cite all of them".

You ABSOLUTELY should aim for balance. If you have looked up and cited a dozen Left leaning sources for example, you do not get one neutral source and say "Okay there is your balance". that would be dishonest.

An example of balance may be 3 left leaning sources and 3 right leaning sources. Or perhaps 4 neutral sources and 1 left leaning and 1 right leaning. What you do not do is call left leaning neutral or neutral right leaning.

So have you sought out and cited balanced sources or are you seeking politically agreeable left leaning sources to give you a confirmation bias? Be honest.

[Al Swearegen]

Personally, I come from Australia and we have some of the strongest border protection in the world. Refugees and illegal immigrants have a Hell of a time getting into Australia. We have detention centres located off shore. We have pathways into Australia and very strong enforcement.

I do not see it much as a Left and Right issue. It is about Border protection and protecting your home. allowing anyone to come in and attach themselves to any available minor is terrible policy.

If there is a set pathway in and people want to come in how THEY want and in disregard of your laws, then sorry they forfeit the right to complain about the consequences of the actions that they chose. The children are a terrible consequence of that.

This should be not encouraged. If they have escaped from say Guatemala and passed through many countries and reached America...I am sorry but the moment they were out of the threat in their country and are now Mexico and safely away from the horror they were facing then they should apply for asylum as they are now out of danger. They can then plan for legal immigration to America.

[El]

The ACLU is hit or miss when it comes to issues like this.

I cited more sources than just the ACLU.

Which non-Left sources have you used to fact check? No honestly. Washington Post is clearly Leftist. Snopes and Politifact is Left and whilst claiming to be neutral, has been anything but. I believe Snopes is at least partially funded by George Soros. ACLU has been the bastion of impartiality and whilst similar organisations like Southern Poverty Law Centre have pretended impartiality, ACLU has been pretty consistent....until recently. Now they too have recently caved to the Progressive line about hate speech and no longer are they of the view that I hate what you say but I will defend your right to say things i disagree with. They were always Classically Liberal which I always applauded. Now they are moderate Progressives. Better than some and not frothing at the mouth Progressive ideologues like SPLC but hardly unbiased and neutral.

So....you cited a lot of source which of these were not Left leaning?

You got a problem with factcheck.org too?  Is there anything but breitart or fox that you wouldn't call leftist?

I am happy to look into any organisation. Am I incorrect in anything I have said? By what measure do you you proclaim it so?

The problem with saying you have listened and citing many sources and then citing Left leaning sources is the quantity may be there but the balance isn't. Effectively all you have done is state "There are a lot of Left leaning sources with left leaning views and I can cite all of them".

You ABSOLUTELY should aim for balance. If you have looked up and cited a dozen Left leaning sources for example, you do not get one neutral source and say "Okay there is your balance". that would be dishonest.

An example of balance may be 3 left leaning sources and 3 right leaning sources. Or perhaps 4 neutral sources and 1 left leaning and 1 right leaning. What you do not do is call left leaning neutral or neutral right leaning.

So have you sought out and cited balanced sources or are you seeking politically agreeable left leaning sources to give you a confirmation bias? Be honest.

I'm sorry you don't want to give me an A on my research paper, but I do feel it's unfair that you stopped about 3/4 of the way through the works cited.