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

[Al Swearegen]

It rather seems to me a case of if you can seperate children from adults AND children only are able to be detained for 20 days.
Then essentially they are saying if the government can't put the claim through in 20 days, you and any child you claim as yours is able to cross into the US regardless of the merits of their claim or whether the kids they vouch as theirs are actually theirs

[odeon]

To suggest that her choice of clothing that day was unintentional, an accident, is naive in the extreme. The only question I had was whose idea it was.

Certainly not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting it was aimed at the News that treats every effort she makes and every activity she publicly engages in as ill-intentioned. Her husband says so and I have no reason to disbelieve it having seen how they have treated her up to now.

Here is the thing:

1) If she does not wear said hoody, the press will rip into her, misrepresent and lie about her efforts and smear her

OR

2) If she does wear said hoody, the press will rip into her, misrepresent and lie about her efforts and smear her

Why is this a lesson she needs to learn and what on Earth does she get out of not wearing the hoody and from whom.

PS - Don't say American public because half love her and half hate her regardless and that will not change and don't say press because she is clearly saying that she does not care there either.

Still naive. I love it how you choose to trust her husband, though.

[odeon]

My boyfriend posited the theory that Melania wore the jacket to garner bad press in order to fuck with her husband because she's so done with him.  It's my favorite theory yet.

It's a fun one.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I am guessing that the team that Trump has gathered around him are not the sort of slick political unit that Obama obviously had.

I dare say that some have been chosen because they remind Trump of his own values and ideals. Which may not make them the most competent people to be guiding the world's most powerful politician and his wife on cultivating the sort of public image expected of them.

Of course Chomsky could be correct, and this could all be a convenient sideshow to divert attention away from what should be the real news. While the press is focusing on Trump's latest outrageous statement, Trump's latest gaffe, or Melania's plagiarised speeches and inappropriate jacket, nobody is paying attention to what is really going on.

[Al Swearegen]

I am guessing that the team that Trump has gathered around him are not the sort of slick political unit that Obama obviously had.

I dare say that some have been chosen because they remind Trump of his own values and ideals. Which may not make them the most competent people to be guiding the world's most powerful politician and his wife on cultivating the sort of public image expected of them.

Of course Chomsky could be correct, and this could all be a convenient sideshow to divert attention away from what should be the real news. While the press is focusing on Trump's latest outrageous statement, Trump's latest gaffe, or Melania's plagiarised speeches and inappropriate jacket, nobody is paying attention to what is really going on.

......Or de-escalation and nuclear disarmament of North Korea (vs I guess "Slick" Obama giving pallets of cash to Iran)

I mean sure. I agree that much of any import is being ignored in a mad attempt to make the President look as bad as possible.

But let's be real. Trump is a braggart. Trump is inarticulate, full of bluster and bullshit and lacks any grace, poise or finesse.
Surely concentrating on dumb shit and worse still deliberately misrepresenting and using selective outrage and the like is not entirely playing into anyone's hands but Trump.

The truth is that the people that are going to vote in the mid terms are likely to be around around 40-45% Trump Supporters and about 40-45% Democrat Supporters with the 10-20% left being independent. Trump does not have to be popular. He does not need to increase his base.
Democrats have to win back a shit load of seats. In order to impeach him they need 66% majority and they do not even have 50% at the moment. The blue wave they were counting on seems to be drying up.

But worse still Trump solidifies his position with his hard on immigration policies that match what he campaigned on. His base will see this as him doing what he said, independents are likely to be too swayed by him doing what he says (there may be a tiny amount of movement) HOWEVER on the other side, the Democrats and Liberals calling for harassment of his staff and making threats to his family and the like is NOT a winner. This will distance the independent vote and may even cause a few in the Democrat camp to distance themselves from the ballot.

I do think the big things like the tax cuts and the Nuclear treaty and the like will be a matter of "what have you done for me lately?". So he will need a few big things and he has a bit of time. But in all honesty if the Mueller thing is a bust, and I think it is, and the liberals and Democrats keep doing dumb shit, and he drops a few things to make people feel good and happy about him JUST before the Midterms, things are going to be very bad for the next two years for the Democrats.

They need to fight better, get a proper plan and platform and a couple of decent leaders and then they may  be able to get some momentum before November. They have to stop being reactive and petty.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

They need to fight better, get a proper plan and platform and a couple of decent leaders and then they may  be able to get some momentum before November. They have to stop being reactive and petty.

I don't see this happening. Liberals, not just here in the US, but in most of western civilization, are still going through a moral panic and are just too whipped up to come to their senses and engage in any organized strategic plan beyond basic witch hunting tactics.

I'm pretty sure Trump is aware of this and just keeps throwing them bait to keep them diverted. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Jack]

It rather seems to me a case of if you can seperate children from adults AND children only are able to be detained for 20 days.
Then essentially they are saying if the government can't put the claim through in 20 days, you and any child you claim as yours is able to cross into the US regardless of the merits of their claim or whether the kids they vouch as theirs are actually theirs

Would have to look it up but thinking adults are 30 days. The government can't detain people for long periods of time with no due process. It's not unheard of for potential deportees to be released into the US because there's too many of them for the system to process them all in a timely manner. Improving the efficiency of the existing deportation process makes more sense than adding the complication of seeking trials and convictions for every single illegal entry.

[Al Swearegen]

It rather seems to me a case of if you can seperate children from adults AND children only are able to be detained for 20 days.
Then essentially they are saying if the government can't put the claim through in 20 days, you and any child you claim as yours is able to cross into the US regardless of the merits of their claim or whether the kids they vouch as theirs are actually theirs

Would have to look it up but thinking adults are 30 days. The government can't detain people for long periods of time with no due process. It's not unheard of for potential deportees to be released into the US because there's too many of them for the system to process them all in a timely manner. Improving the efficiency of the existing deportation process makes more sense than adding the complication of seeking trials and convictions for every single illegal entry.

Due process takes longer than a month and not only do the Liberals and Democrats not like adults seperated from children, they don't want them detained at all.

So no, quicker and more simple expedited process is not the answer because to be "due" process and quick process is mutually exclusive.

So that won't work. Releasing illegal immigrants who are an unknown quality, potentially cartel or gang members and potentially with a trafficked child or children (that they were helpfully not separated from) that they claim as their on child/ren, into the US is not a solution either.

Allowing illegal immigrants to claim and stay with children that may have no family connection is also dangerous and a very bad idea.

What are reasonable outcomes Trump should be doing faced with the above?

[Jack]

It rather seems to me a case of if you can seperate children from adults AND children only are able to be detained for 20 days.
Then essentially they are saying if the government can't put the claim through in 20 days, you and any child you claim as yours is able to cross into the US regardless of the merits of their claim or whether the kids they vouch as theirs are actually theirs

Would have to look it up but thinking adults are 30 days. The government can't detain people for long periods of time with no due process. It's not unheard of for potential deportees to be released into the US because there's too many of them for the system to process them all in a timely manner. Improving the efficiency of the existing deportation process makes more sense than adding the complication of seeking trials and convictions for every single illegal entry.

Due process takes longer than a month and not only do the Liberals and Democrats not like adults seperated from children, they don't want them detained at all.

So no, quicker and more simple expedited process is not the answer because to be "due" process and quick process is mutually exclusive.

So that won't work. Releasing illegal immigrants who are an unknown quality, potentially cartel or gang members and potentially with a trafficked child or children (that they were helpfully not separated from) that they claim as their on child/ren, into the US is not a solution either.

Allowing illegal immigrants to claim and stay with children that may have no family connection is also dangerous and a very bad idea.

What are reasonable outcomes Trump should be doing faced with the above?

Due process for deportation doesn't take longer than a month when there is no criminal trial. The US deports hundreds of thousands of illegals every year. Already said what should be done. The money it will take to prosecute and jail all of them could be spent on better funding the existing system for processing them and sending them back. The current system doesn't always have the manpower or finances to keep up with deportation in timely manner; bogging down our courts, jails, and tax dollars by convicting all of these people isn't going to fix that.

[Al Swearegen]

So given that kids cannot be detained for more than 20 days and the "parents" can't be separated from the children AND it takes AT LEAST 30 days to process the claims for asylum (BUT they cannot seem to do this):

* How do you prevent adults who claim to be the parents but aren't from claiming and being with the children they may be trafficking and or using?

* How do you prevent the kids from being realised into the US with non-vetted adults who may or may not be their parents and may in fact pose a huge risk to the US?

* If they go in AND as they quite often "disappear" and do not show up to court, once released, how do you prevent them from disappearing?

* If they are bad people (gang members, child traffickers, pimps, drug runners, pedophiles and the like) how do you prevent them from carrying out their crimes that come from a result of not being properly processed.

* what do you do about the people affected by such crime?

* what do you do if they become tax burdens and give no value to the society (except as a Democrat vote)?
 

[Jack]

Not sure what you want me to say. Prosecute them for crossing the border, throw them in jail, and then worry about deporting them later? It's not a good answer. Have already answered the question. Better fund the existing process of sending them back.

[Al Swearegen]

Not sure what you want me to say. Prosecute them for crossing the border, throw them in jail, and then worry about deporting them later? It's not a good answer. Have already answered the question. Better fund the existing process of sending them back.

The truth is that there are no good answers.
The Democrats will not give any solutions. The reason is because each is imperfect and they can in each instance point to its shortcomings, without offering solutions or alternatives.
Even your solution will not work, Jack.

[Jack]

Not sure what you want me to say. Prosecute them for crossing the border, throw them in jail, and then worry about deporting them later? It's not a good answer. Have already answered the question. Better fund the existing process of sending them back.

The truth is that there are no good answers.
The Democrats will not give any solutions. The reason is because each is imperfect and they can in each instance point to its shortcomings, without offering solutions or alternatives.
Even your solution will not work, Jack.

Of course my solution will work, maybe not perfectly, but really no solution or change will also work. The current process already works, and it works to the tune of a quarter million illegals deported every year. Am assuming Trump thought his new policy would make it work better. My suggestion to making it work better, is to look at what already works and simply do more of that. There may be no perfect solution but complicating the issue by further overtaxing the judicial and penal systems and social services isn't a smart solution, especially since those systems are already overloaded. Don't think this is the last reality check these new policies will encounter.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

+1 in spirit to Jack.

Trump's policy is about appearing to be tough on immigration, it has nothing to do with building on what works already. It's about appealing to a segment of the population that is fearful of foreigners taking their jobs, when the real issues are much more difficult to solve and are not being addressed by either party.

[Al Swearegen]

+1 in spirit to Jack.

Trump's policy is about appearing to be tough on immigration, it has nothing to do with building on what works already. It's about appealing to a segment of the population that is fearful of foreigners taking their jobs, when the real issues are much more difficult to solve and are not being addressed by either party.

Of course what works already doesn't really work already.
That is to say of course every option and solution is flawed.

There are absolutely flaws with Trump's system and with Obamas. When you let illegal immigrants into US and send them court dates to turn up to that they ignore and you lose track of where they are, when you keep adults with children who may have no family ties because they claim it, and when you allow fear of being called racist/Nazi/xenophobe from protecting your border, you are failing.

Trump hasn't a problem as far as I can see with immigrants. Seems to me it is only illegal immigrants he has issue with. Rightly so.