DACA, immigration reform whatever

[retread 2951]

 

[JBJ 3654]

23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Then why wasn't the previous administration doing what this one is doing?

It was.  The articles have been linked.

20 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Read my post above. If the administration chooses charge every adult crossing the border with a federal crime and therefore house that adult in federal prison awaiting their court appearance, then yes, the families will be separated as a result. The difference was that prior administrations dealt with the same offense as a civil matter before an immigration court, which allowed for families to stay together. This is an active choice by Sessions. 

So .... according to the law?

Edited June 19, 2018 by JBJ

[David Dennison 18849]

Just now, JBJ said:

It was.  The articles have been linked.

So according to the law?

No, it wasn't. Families were not separated at the border. This is a new policy.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, retread said:

 

That's the thing — this influx is about a real refugee crisis from gang violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.   These are desperate people fleeing for their lives.   It's not about the general illegal immigration revolving door of people trying to skirt the system, getting deported, and then crossing back over.   (Although those people too are impacted by the overload on the system by the refugees.) 

This is a humanitarian crisis that requires a humanitarian solution, not a criminal crisis that requires a criminal solution.  The law gives the president discretion to go the civil immigration route or criminal route.   Trump is choosing the criminal route, and even worse, for reasons born of pure cruelty. 

[David Dennison 18849]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

That's the thing — this influx is about a real refugee crisis from gang violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.   These are desperate people fleeing for their lives.   It's not about the general illegal immigration revolving door of people trying to skirt the system, getting deported, and then crossing back over.   (Although those people too are impacted by the overload on the system by the refugees.) 

This is a humanitarian crisis that requires a humanitarian solution, not a criminal crisis that requires a criminal solution.  The law gives the president discretion to go the civil immigration route or criminal route.   Trump is choosing the criminal route, and even worse, for reasons born of pure cruelty. 

He's fishing for votes by playing on the worst attribute of his base, its deep-seated racism.

[Brisketexan 105064]

That's the thing — this influx is about a real refugee crisis from gang violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.   These are desperate people fleeing for their lives.   It's not about the general illegal immigration revolving door of people trying to skirt the system, getting deported, and then crossing back over.   (Although those people too are impacted by the overload on the system by the refugees.) 
This is a humanitarian crisis that requires a humanitarian solution, not a criminal crisis that requires a criminal solution.  The law gives the president discretion to go the civil immigration route or criminal route.   Trump is choosing the criminal route, and even worse, for reasons born of pure cruelty. 

Cruelty is our brand, man.

Orange dude out front shoulda told ya.

[Brisketexan 105064]

He's fishing for votes by playing on the worst attribute of his base, its deep-seated racism.

And it’s working.

[JBJ 3654]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, it wasn't. Families were not separated at the border. This is a new policy.

There's been changes, but this isn't a new policy.  It's always existed as long as I've been alive.

Obama only criminally prosecuted 2nd time crossers.  Bush didn't criminally prosecute crossers with children under a certain age (12?).  Both brought civil charges which still could result in separations.

It's a volume change, brought both by zero-tolerence and  violence in Latin America.

Edited June 19, 2018 by JBJ

[Brisketexan 105064]

There's been changes, but this isn't a new policy.  It's always existed as long as I've been alive.
Obama only criminally prosecuted 2nd time crossers.  Bush didn't criminally prosecute crossers with children under a certain age (12?).  Both brought civil charges which still resulted in separations.
It's a volume change, brought both by zero-tolerence and  violence in Latin America.

Wow. So, the admin itself saying repeatedly that this is a new policy, including in writing...that doesn’t sway you at all, huh?

Not letting people apply for asylum at ports of entry. That’s new.

Which forces them into an illegal crossing to seek asylum. They are prosecuted for that instead of simply processed for asylum. That’s new.

Children are separated from heir parents, and are not in ANY contact with their parents. That’s new.

You can repeat a lie 1000 times, it still won’t make it true.

[FWD 297]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

That's the thing — this influx is about a real refugee crisis from gang violence in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.   These are desperate people fleeing for their lives.   It's not about the general illegal immigration revolving door of people trying to skirt the system, getting deported, and then crossing back over.   (Although those people too are impacted by the overload on the system by the refugees.) 

This is a humanitarian crisis that requires a humanitarian solution, not a criminal crisis that requires a criminal solution.  The law gives the president discretion to go the civil immigration route or criminal route.   Trump is choosing the criminal route, and even worse, for reasons born of pure cruelty. 

They knew how things would look under this new policy. It is provides Trump with red meat for the base to rev them up as the midterms approach, and he can use these kids as hostages to get his wall. At one point Kelly used the words "maximum cruelty" and "the nuclear option." 

[Dahobbs 17526]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

There's been changes, but this isn't a new policy.  It's always existed as long as I've been alive.

Obama only criminally prosecuted 2nd time crossers.  Bush didn't criminally prosecute crossers with children under a certain age (12?).  Both brought civil charges which still could result in separations.

It's a volume change, brought both by zero-tolerence and  violence in Latin America.

Still haven't had time to find anything in the Flores settlement supporting your bullshit?

[David Dennison 18849]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

There's been changes, but this isn't a new policy.  It's always existed as long as I've been alive.

Obama only criminally prosecuted 2nd time crossers.  Bush didn't criminally prosecute crossers with children under a certain age (12?).  Both brought civil charges which still could result in separations.

It's a volume change, brought both by zero-tolerence and  violence in Latin America.

You just described a change in policy. What this administration is doing is new. You are engaging in double-speak because your argument has failed.

[Guest]

Once this boondoggle of a distraction is over and some agreeable short term fix is implemented, maybe we can fix the immigration problems with a reasonable law, come up with some hard and fast rules and enforce them so there is no wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth that things aren't being enforced correctly or justly and people don't get hung out to dry.

One can dream, I guess. 

[Dahobbs 17526]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

You just described a change in policy. What this administration is doing is new. You are engaging in double-speak because your argument has failed.

You see, this new policy isn't a new policy because the law is the same and laws are policies, even though this policy is a completely different and optional method of enforcing the previous law. 

[scottsins 1966]

What, drinking or the sentiment? The answer is “both” either way. But, I’ve also said that I understand why it’s being implemented and people that violate the law, knowing the consequences, don’t get much empathy from me. It’s the latter portion that puts me at odds with the groupthink as a heartless bastard.

No empathy for people who are fleeing execution by MS13 because they can’t pay their “protection dues”, and other equally desperate scenarios?

[Brisketexan 105064]

Once this boondoggle of a distraction is over and some agreeable short term fix is implemented, maybe we can fix the immigration problems with a reasonable law, come up with some hard and fast rules and enforce them so there is no wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth that things aren't being enforced correctly or justly and people don't get hung out to dry.
One can dream, I guess. 

Your political masters have zero interest in doing that. They actually have negative interest in doing that.

The issue is too valuable a demagoguery point.

And, as we’ve seen, team Trump will just move the goalposts. He conversation used to be about illegal immigration. It’s already become about how to change legal immigration. And it will continue to progress. Having an “other” as a bogeyman is what’s important.

If you’re brown in this country, you are uncomfortable, and you should be.

[JBJ 3654]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Still haven't had time to find anything in the Flores settlement supporting your bullshit?

All Flores does is limit the time that children can be held, therefore that families can held together.  I would think most initial hearings fall within 20 days, but I could be wrong. Probably depends on case load.  I never cited it.  The legal requirements surrounding the handling of alien children are mostly in the TPVA/TVPRAs.

Edited June 19, 2018 by JBJ

[David Dennison 18849]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Your political masters have zero interest in doing that. They actually have negative interest in doing that.

The issue is too valuable a demagoguery point.

And, as we’ve seen, team Trump will just move the goalposts. He conversation used to be about illegal immigration. It’s already become about how to change legal immigration. And it will continue to progress. Having an “other” as a bogeyman is what’s important.

If you’re brown in this country, you are uncomfortable, and you should be.

What's odd is the amount of white Americans who are uncomfortable in light of the fact that we belong to the largest collective of coddled snowflakes on planet earth.

[Js1 85275]

6 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Once this boondoggle of a distraction is over and some agreeable short term fix is implemented, maybe we can fix the immigration problems with a reasonable law, come up with some hard and fast rules and enforce them so there is no wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth that things aren't being enforced correctly or justly and people don't get hung out to dry.

One can dream, I guess. 

1.  Trump said he isn't going to sign a short-term fix because WALL.

2. He's blown up both a DACA-wall funding deal proposed by Schumer and blown up a DACA-wall funding-family separation compromise bill from his own party in an impromptu Fox News interview that left House GOP scrambling, confused and irritated.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have no desire, incentive or motivation to bring up these bills. At all.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Js1

[David Dennison 18849]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

1.  Trump said he isn't going to sign a short-term fix because WALL.

2. He's blown up both a DACA-wall funding deal proposed by Schumer and blown up a DACA-wall funding-family separation compromise bill from his own party in an impromptu Fox News interview that left House GOP scrambling, confused and irritated.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have no desire, incentive or motivation to bring up these bills. At all.

November is going to be a bloodbath.

[Dahobbs 17526]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

All Flores does is limit the time that children can be held, therefore that families can held together.  I would think most initial hearings fall within 20 days, but I could be wrong. Probably depends on case load.  I never cited it.  The legal requirements surrounding the handling of alien children are mostly in the TPVA/TVPRA.

Again, you've never cited anything that supports your position that children must be separated from families. It simply isn't true. You've cited provisions related to unaccompanied children, which we aren't dealing with. This is a completely optional and reprehensible policy of this administration. There is no law that this be done. None. Period.  In fact, the only thing anyone has fucking cited to is (1) a law designed to protect children from human traffickers, and (2) a settlement designed to ensure humane conditions for detained children. Seriously, the irony of using either of those to justify this is maddening. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Your political masters have zero interest in doing that. They actually have negative interest in doing that.

The issue is too valuable a demagoguery point.

And, as we’ve seen, team Trump will just move the goalposts. He conversation used to be about illegal immigration. It’s already become about how to change legal immigration. And it will continue to progress. Having an “other” as a bogeyman is what’s important.

If you’re brown in this country, you are uncomfortable, and you should be.

That's an opinion and I don't begrudge you for it, especially having been informed you are a PoC and undoubtedly feel these issues in a deeper way than non-POC so I empathize with your last statement.

My opinion is that you make too large a display of the federal heads and statesman as if they are all master psychologist, brainwashers, and puppet masters for the helpless Appalachia coal miner folk and ign'nt poo' whites who have been sold a scary bogeyman of Messicans by the government so the government can create, consolidate and keep power and control. I think that is a conspiracy theory and the truth is closer to the fact that we are a broken nation full of disparate regions with different cultures and values and we genuinely don't identify as one and don't like each other that much... and our government is merely a reflection of that.

[JBJ 3654]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have no desire, incentive or motivation to bring up these bills. At all.

It is literally Ryan's bill under consideration.  It doesn't go as far as Feinstein bill, but Feinstein's bill feels like a partisan ploy and doesn't seem like it'll have much effect other than data collection.  The Goodlatte bill is too partisan the other direction and doesn't address separation.

[Brisketexan 105064]

That's an opinion and I don't begrudge you for it, especially having been informed you are a PoC and undoubtedly feel these issues in a deeper way than non-POC so I empathize with your last statement.
My opinion is that you make too large a display of the federal heads and statesman as if they are all master psychologist, brainwashers, and puppet masters for the helpless Appalachia coal miner folk and ign'nt poo' whites who have been sold a scary bogeyman of Messicans by the government so the government can create, consolidate and keep power and control. I think that is a conspiracy theory and the truth is closer to the fact that we are a broken nation full of disparate regions with different cultures and values and we genuinely don't identify as one and don't like each other that much... and our government is merely a reflection of that.

Or...could be both. It’s definitely both.

And as for uniting a base around contempt/hatred for the other, it’s literally one of the oldest plays in the book. And it’s being run in textbook fashion now. This isn’t a mystery, it’s right out there in plain sight.

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

 

[David Dennison 18849]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It is literally Ryan's bill under consideration.  It doesn't go as far as Feinstein bill, but Feinstein's bill feels like a partisan ploy and doesn't seem like it'll have much effect other than data collection.  The Goodlatte bill is too partisan the other direction and doesn't address separation.

Did you read the Feinstein bill? It specifically prohibits family separation at the border except in certain circumstances. It's right there on page one.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

23 minutes ago, JBJ said:

There's been changes, but this isn't a new policy.  It's always existed as long as I've been alive.

Obama only criminally prosecuted 2nd time crossers.  Bush didn't criminally prosecute crossers with children under a certain age (12?).  Both brought civil charges which still could result in separations.

It's a volume change, brought both by zero-tolerence and  violence in Latin America.

The volume change started under Obama in 2014, and he had a different policy response to the volume change.  Trump has changed that policy response.   The volume change is directly relevant because it is what prevents the government from processing these immigrants quickly enough to keep the families together, and from processing many asylum seekers altogether.

That there has long been a superficially similar process in response to a different situation with different results doesn't mean the policy is the same.   

[Dahobbs 17526]

5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

That's an opinion and I don't begrudge you for it, especially having been informed you are a PoC and undoubtedly feel these issues in a deeper way than non-POC so I empathize with your last statement.

My opinion is that you make too large a display of the federal heads and statesman as if they are all master psychologist, brainwashers, and puppet masters for the helpless Appalachia coal miner folk and ign'nt poo' whites who have been sold a scary bogeyman of Messicans by the government so the government can create, consolidate and keep power and control. I think that is a conspiracy theory and the truth is closer to the fact that we are a broken nation full of disparate regions with different cultures and values and we genuinely don't identify as one and don't like each other that much... and our government is merely a reflection of that.

How is this even a conspiracy theory? It is fucking fact. It is what Trump has done, publicly and openly.  

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

35 minutes ago, JBJ said:

So .... according to the law?

Where you out yourself as a troll bc you intentionally ignore the point of my post about prosecutorial discretion. Cool post though supporting vicious psychological damage to children to own the libs. 

[David Dennison 18849]

1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Where you out yourself as a troll bc you intentionally ignore the point of my post about prosecutorial discretion. Cool post though supporting vicious psychological damage to children to own the libs. 

I believe the word is deplorable.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

How is this even a conspiracy theory? It is fucking fact. It is what Trump has done, publicly and openly.  

The conspiracy theory I mean is that Trump is some master psychologist manipulating people to do his will when in reality, it is the racist poor whites who have gassed Trump up enough, along with Trump's own inherent values/beliefs that align give-or-take, to do their will. The racists among us, inside us, etc. are the ones dictating this stuff, is my point, not the singularity that is elected every 4 years.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

A  viable solution as I see it is to immediately send resources to the border to staff up ports of entry for processing asylum applications. Trump gets to keep his zero tolerance policy. No separations are required because families who use the port of entry should not be subject to prosecution. And we process people in an orderly fashion through the existing legal framework. I won't hold my breath on #2, but staffing the ports has zero negative impact unless your objective is just being an asshole.  

We should and could do that immediately, but the guy in charge of making the decision to send more resources doesnt want to.

Your last sentence is the biggest problem. Trumps objective is being an asshole. Hell, even Dennis Rodman, who loves Trump, said that Trump enjoys being an asshole on his nutso interview on Megan Kelly today.

This is different from W, Obama, and pretty much every other President who feel empathy and anguish when they make hard necessary decisions which have bad consequences for some people. Trump relishes the bad consequences because it makes him feel big to make people suffer, so he goes out of his way to include bad consequences in every policy decision even when it is unnecessary. 

[RandomIdoit 655]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Then why wasn't the previous administration doing what this one is doing?

Because of catch and release?

[JBJ 3654]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Did you read the Feinstein bill? It specifically prohibits family separation at the border except in certain circumstances. It's right there on page one.

It's legal double-speak.  It still allows unaccompanied children to be placed without their parents knowledge or consent, so I'm not sure what the practical effect would be.  It'd probably just giving more legal wiggle room for executive discretion (not like they need it).

It does collect data on how the children became unaccompanied, which may be useful for real legislation.

[Spankytoes 1739]

41 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 

No empathy for people who are fleeing execution by MS13 because they can’t pay their “protection dues”, and other equally desperate scenarios?

 

Absolutely I do. But that has nothing to do with the law. I’ve used this example several times, but I don’t feel that a father should be prosecuted if he takes vigilante justice again the person that raped his daughter either. It doesn’t mean that the father won’t be rightly prosecuted for his actions. We have a procedure in democracy to handle these things. If the law is bad, people should change it or vote out those that have the ability and won’t. 

[JBJ 3654]

20 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Where you out yourself as a troll bc you intentionally ignore the point of my post about prosecutorial discretion. Cool post though supporting vicious psychological damage to children to own the libs. 

What about any of my posts has ignored this?  I've given several manners where Bush and Obama handled it differently.  We have people claiming that this is a new phenomena when it isn't.  Only the volume has changed.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

A  viable solution as I see it is to immediately send resources to the border to staff up ports of entry for processing asylum applications. Trump gets to keep his zero tolerance policy. No separations are required because families who use the port of entry should not be subject to prosecution. And we process people in an orderly fashion through the existing legal framework. I won't hold my breath on #2, but staffing the ports has zero negative impact unless your objective is just being an asshole.  

Trump two seconds ago: "I don't want more judges, I want border security.  I don't want to try people, I don't want them coming in." 

[LongestHorn 759]

"we don't need judges.  we need border security". - POTUS today

[Js1 85275]

*boarder security

[David Dennison 18849]

12 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Absolutely I do. But that has nothing to do with the law. I’ve used this example several times, but I don’t feel that a father should be prosecuted if he takes vigilante justice again the person that raped his daughter either. It doesn’t mean that the father won’t be rightly prosecuted for his actions. We have a procedure in democracy to handle these things. If the law is bad, people should change it or vote out those that have the ability and won’t. 

Wow.

[LongestHorn 759]

POTUS just said that he will cut aid to countries that are sending immigrants to our border.  

The U.S. 2018 budget cut aid to Guatemala by almost 40 percent compared with 2016, and by nearly a third to Honduras and El Salvador - the most murderous nations in the world.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45089.pdf

Edited June 19, 2018 by LongestHorn
For fuck's sake

[EMAWesome 101]

4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

I like how Trump squeals with glee over repudiating everything Obama did with executive orders, etc. but is powerless to toss this "law" aside.  

The executive branch doesn't make laws, the legislative branch does.  The executive branch enforces the laws that are made.  If you think the law needs to be changed you bitch to Congress, not the president.  Executive orders are not laws any future president can do whatever they want with them.  The president can't disenact actual legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous president unless Congress first votes to repeal or amend that legislation and then the president can only sign into law what Congress has approved.  He can't fine tune it himself.  High school civics class out front should have told you this.

[David Dennison 18849]

More voices on the left need to start calling this what it is.

This is evil and it should be treated as such. 

 

[David Dennison 18849]

1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

The executive branch doesn't make laws, the legislative branch does.  The executive branch enforces the laws that are made.  If you think the law needs to be changed you bitch to Congress, not the president.  Executive orders are not laws any future president can do whatever they want with them.  The president can't disenact actual legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by a previous president unless Congress first votes to repeal or amend that legislation and then the president can only sign into law what Congress has approved.  He can't fine tune it himself.  High school civics class out front should have told you this.

He's not enforcing any law. He is implementing policy. There is no law compelling the executive branch to do what this president is doing.

[JukeJointJunkie 43]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He's not enforcing any law. He is implementing policy. There is no law compelling the executive branch to do what this president is doing.

Keep saying it over and over. It still won't be true.

[JukeJointJunkie 43]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

More voices on the left need to start calling this what it is.

This is evil and it should be treated as such. 

 

With Robert De Niro leading the charge.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Same goes for you, but he's the one who is correct. 

[David Dennison 18849]

Just now, JukeJointJunkie said:

Keep saying it over and over. It still won't be true.

It is true. You can't cite a single law that requires family separation at the border. Not one.

[EMAWesome 101]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Nice thought, but shorting congress finding its balls is a winning trade.  If there is one outcome that I hope for in 2019, its congress taking some steps to permanently neuter certain excesses of the executive branch.  

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/family-separation-immigration-congress-end-it/

It’s time for legislative impotence to end. One presidential administration enters into a consent decree that creates a “nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody” of federal immigration authorities and makes it binding on future administrations. Another administration unilaterally implements a “catch and release” policy for illegal immigrants that works to incentivize additional  illegal immigration — including illegal immigration by families with kids. The next administration reverses course, adopting a so-called zero-tolerance policy that effectively combines with the consent decree to create a new punishment for the misdemeanor offense of illegal entry into the United States: family separation, including the separation of very young children from their parents.

Think about the chain of events. A consent decree creates new law without a statute and without even regulatory rulemaking. Massive exercises of “prosecutorial discretion” can either effectively write a statute out of the U.S. Code or enhance its penalties well beyond the legislative intent. At each turn, the president doesn’t just enforce the law, he makes the law — with Americans increasingly dependent on the character and wisdom of the man in the Oval Office to prevent abuse.

The Founders shudder.

No matter where you stand on the merits of Trump’s border crackdown, it simply strains credulity to believe that Congress intended family separation to be a natural and inevitable consequence of prosecuting unlawful entry. Nowhere is there evidence that Congress has intended family separation as a deterrent against illegal immigration. Yet, here we are. A president has acted, the public is reacting, and the confidence in Congress to assert reasonable control is so low that it can’t be located with an electron microscope.

It’s time, Congress. It’s time to start the process of taking back your constitutional authority. If you can’t do it by taking the baby step of prohibiting draconian family separations in the routine enforcement of immigration law, one wonders if you’ll ever be able to do it. If you can’t pass legislation permitting families to be held together, then you’re a servant of the executive branch. You’re bonded to settlement agreements executed without your consent.

Yes, activists are right when they say that Trump could stop family separations tomorrow, if he wished. But the best check on the president isn’t hashtags or press releases or think pieces. It’s the check the Founders designed: an active Congress exercising its lawful authority over immigration in America.

It’s a sad sign of the times that a piece like this will likely be viewed by some (most?) readers as naïve — as not proposing “real solutions,” because “everyone knows” Congress has its head so far up its partisan arse that it has forgotten the art of political compromise and largely abandoned reasoned debate. And those readers will probably be right. After all, Congress has happily delegated vast amounts of its constitutional power to the president, and shown no sign that it intends to take it back.

Is anyone furious that President Trump is risking a booming economy and vital allied relationships with potentially harmful tariffs? Ask why Congress has delegated so much trade authority to the White House. Are you uncomfortable that presidents seem to launch military strikes at will? Ask multiple Congresses what they’ve done to preserve the exclusive legislative power to declare war. Congress is now passing bills filled with huge, intentional gaps — with the full knowledge that the executive will eagerly promulgate new regulations to fill them in. Then it watches presidents rule with “pen and phone” and evaluates unilateral action based on the outcome, rather than on the fatally flawed process that led to it.

If you wonder why Americans feel increasingly disconnected from the federal government and impotent in the face of its awesome power, well, how should they feel when their one vote out of 130 million for president seems like the only chance they have to be heard, and like even that matters so darn little?

Yes, I want the president to end his administration’s family-separation policy. He doesn’t need Congress to do the right thing. America can secure its border without taking a child from his mother’s arms to prosecute a misdemeanor. And if Trump ceases the practice tomorrow, then I’ll be grateful that he relented. But the health of our constitutional republic shouldn’t depend so much on presidential wisdom. Today there’s a sense of urgency. There’s a bipartisan cry to “do something.” And there is, in fact, “something” to do. Congress can pass a law, and if it’s focused, open to compromise, and creative, it can do so by such a margin as to override the will of the president. It should do so, and there’s no better time than now.

 

Do you actually think one Democrat in Congress is going to vote yes on any legislation that actually solves this?  The Democrats don't give one shit about these children.  This policy has been in effect since the Clinton administration and not one Democrat said a peep about it until Trump came along and it took over a year after his inauguration for them to raise their voice at that.  The Democrats only want to use this as propaganda for the midterm elections and will not vote for anything that will take away the opportunity for them to use this.  The only thing the Democrats care about on this issue is whether or not they can use it to tar Trump with. 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

2 minutes ago, JukeJointJunkie said:

Keep saying it over and over. It still won't be true.

I was wondering how that Equinox douche had to many rep points yesterday.  Turns out that this is one of his socks, and he spent a good portion of yesterday +repping all of Equinox's posts.