Separating immigrant families and imprisoning children

[Sparko]

I seriously think that your characterisation of the parents fleeing from a nightmarish situation is unworthy, undecent and unhuman. It reminds me a bit of Marie Antoinette's idea that the poor and starving people could just eat cake if they did not have bread to eat. That is how much of a misunderstanding I think it is.

I am also seriously wondering if you even understand what Christianity is about. It seems to me that you are rather contradicting Jesus' ideas and ideals than supporting them.

Your idea of them fleeing from some nightmarish situation is exaggeration. Most just want to move to the USA because they think it is the land of milk and honey. They have no idea that when they get here they will be just as poor and downtrodden as before.

Imagine all of the other people in those countries that are NOT fleeing toward the USA. Why isn't the entire population of central america invading the USA? Most people live just fine where they are.

Maybe they should do something about their own country instead of trying to run away?

If the conditions in Mexico are so horrible, why do many Americans and Canadians actually retire there?

[thewriteranon]

I It reminds me a bit of Marie Antoinette's idea that the poor and starving people could just eat cake if they did not have bread to eat.

That never happened. First of all, the quote is "let them eat brioche." Second of all, there is no evidence that Marie Antoinette ever said such a thing.

https://www.thoughtco.com/let-them-e...ermind-3299161

I'm not in this discussion. This myth is just one of my biggest pet peeves.

[Charles]

That never happened. First of all, the quote is "let them eat brioche." Second of all, there is no evidence that Marie Antoinette ever said such a thing.

https://www.thoughtco.com/let-them-e...ermind-3299161

I'm not in this discussion. This myth is just one of my biggest pet peeves.

First brioche is a form of cake. Second the quote is widely attributed to her while you are correct that strictly speaking there is no proof she actually said it. It is however often used to stress someone's complete misunderstanding of the situation. I wonder how you can say with certainty she never said it? Anyway the point I wanted to make remains the same.

[thewriteranon]

First brioche is a form of cake. Second the quote is widely attributed to her while you are correct that strictly speaking there is no proof she actually said it. It is however often used to stress someone's complete misunderstanding of the situation. I wonder how you can say with certainty she never said it? Anyway the point I wanted to make remains the same.

Brioche is not a form of cake. It's a very expensive type of eggy bread, yes, but it is not cake. Brioche is delicious and cake is disgusting.

The quote originates from before Marie Antoinette was old enough to spout such nonsense. It wasn't attributed to her until well after the first French Revolution, and no one during the first French Revolution even tried to use the quote or something similar as propaganda against her. It was allegedly in reference to famine... and yet there was no famine during the reign of her husband. Additionally, Marie Antionette's own letters do not provide evidence of a mindset that would lead her to say anything like that.

It is quite certain that in seeing the people who treat us so well despite their own misfortune, we are more obliged than ever to work hard for their happiness. The King seems to understand this truth.

Lettres De Marie-Antoinette

This is well known among historians.

[Littlejoe]

First brioche is a form of cake. Second the quote is widely attributed to her while you are correct that strictly speaking there is no proof she actually said it. It is however often used to stress someone's complete misunderstanding of the situation. I wonder how you can say with certainty she never said it? Anyway the point I wanted to make remains the same.

First, Brioche is NOT a form of cake. It's yeast based, all cakes are baking powder based, not in the same family. Brioche is much closer to bread or pastry than cake.

http://bakingbites.com/2010/07/what-is-brioche/

Second, Did you bother to read the link? It says that according to Lady Antonia Fraser most likely she didn't:

Say what you will about her, Marie Antoinette probably never actually uttered the words "Let them eat cake." We have that on the authority of biographer Lady Antonia Fraser, who spoke on the subject at the 2002 Edinburgh Book Fair.

Though historians have known better all along, it is still popularly believed that Marie Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI and Queen of France on the eve of the French Revolution, uttered the insensitive remark upon hearing peasants' complaints that there wasn't enough bread to go around.

[rogue06]

Charles has never much worried about pesky things like facts and truth when he pontificates.

[One Bad Pig]

Your idea of them fleeing from some nightmarish situation is exaggeration. Most just want to move to the USA because they think it is the land of milk and honey. They have no idea that when they get here they will be just as poor and downtrodden as before.

Imagine all of the other people in those countries that are NOT fleeing toward the USA. Why isn't the entire population of central america invading the USA? Most people live just fine where they are.

Maybe they should do something about their own country instead of trying to run away?

Some people ARE fleeing from a nightmarish situation. Some people stay behind because they're fine where they are. Some stay behind because they're too lazy to move. Many stay behind because they can't afford the trip. Your suggestion that they do something about their own country is hardly fair. How easy do you think that is?

[rogue06]

I seriously think that your characterisation of the parents fleeing from a nightmarish situation is unworthy, undecent and unhuman.

Nearly all those who say that they're escaping persecution are from Central America and achieved that the moment they set foot on Mexican soil yet they continued on for another 2000 miles in order to sneak into the U.S. It appears that another motivation is involved here.

[Charles]

First, Brioche is NOT a form of cake. It's yeast based, all cakes are baking powder based, not in the same family. Brioche is much closer to bread or pastry than cake.

http://bakingbites.com/2010/07/what-is-brioche/

Here is Britannica's words on this part: "Of course, since brioche is a rich bread made with eggs and butter, almost as luxurious as cake, it doesn’t really change the point of the story." https://www.britannica.com/story/did...-them-eat-cake There are sources describing it as a sort of cake. It depends on the definition which, basically makes no difference to the point made.

Second, Did you bother to read the link? It says that according to Lady Antonia Fraser most likely she didn't:

Say what you will about her, Marie Antoinette probably never actually uttered the words "Let them eat cake." We have that on the authority of biographer Lady Antonia Fraser, who spoke on the subject at the 2002 Edinburgh Book Fair.

Though historians have known better all along, it is still popularly believed that Marie Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI and Queen of France on the eve of the French Revolution, uttered the insensitive remark upon hearing peasants' complaints that there wasn't enough bread to go around.

Yep. Now I already acknowledged that stricly speaking there is no evidence she said it though it is widely attributed to her. What I was asking about was how it could be said with certainty she never said it. There is a difference between saying something never happened and saying it probably never happened.

[One Bad Pig]

Nearly all those who say that they're escaping persecution are from Central America and achieved that the moment they set foot on Mexican soil yet they continued on for another 2000 miles in order to sneak into the U.S. It appears that another motivation is involved here.

It's not easy being an immigrant in Mexico:

In Mexico, police have been adapting to a different reality, resulting from a 2008 rewrite of its immigration law. "[It] decriminalized migration, so in theory it's no longer a crime to be an illegal immigrant in Mexico," says Jaime Arredondo Sanchez Lira, a former government official and currently resident fellow, at the Center for US-Mexican Studies at the University of California, San Diego.

"That was a consequences of violence ... tied to human trafficking," Arredondo says. By making illegal immigration punishable only by a civil fine, the hope was that migrants moving through Mexico would be less vulnerable to abuse and extortion. Unfortunately, Arredondo says migrants are still often targeted by corrupt police and military.

"Many of the police forces are associated with drug dealers or smugglers, and in many cases they will hand you over [to smugglers] or extort money, or in some sad cases, kill you if you refuse to take part in their activities."

Officially, local police in Mexico aren't supposed to go around asking people about their immigration status, says Alejandro Lares, former chief of municipal police in Tijuana. But things change once they have probable cause of an immigration violation, or the person commits another crime.

"We are able to detain them, and once they're detained, we can actually call Mexican immigration, and they can find out if they're legal or illegal in our country," Lares says.

The American "sanctuary city" concept is largely foreign to Mexico; Lares says local jurisdictions don't prohibit their police from working with national immigration officials.

"I don't think [police] would ever consider not to voluntarily cooperate with an immigration authority," he says, "if things are being done by the book."

Note that this is from NPR, not exactly a conservative right-wing source.

[Charles]

Charles has never much worried about pesky things like facts and truth when he pontificates.

Well, in general speaking terms, the quote I used is often used in that way to stress a particular point. I have no problem admitting that the historical accurancy is debatable since it makes no difference to the point. In fact I already did that. How that allows you to genrally conclude I don't worry much about facts is another question.

If one follows your logic then based on your following statement you don't care much about facts:

The fact still remains that he was only with the campaign for 49 days and that these charges are for activities that pre-date the Trump campaign by a couple years. You cannot spin that away.

We all know the above is not correct since Manafort was with Trump for 144 days. What would you like us to conclude? That you made an error or that you don't care about facts in general?

[Sparko]

Some people ARE fleeing from a nightmarish situation. Some people stay behind because they're fine where they are. Some stay behind because they're too lazy to move. Many stay behind because they can't afford the trip. Your suggestion that they do something about their own country is hardly fair. How easy do you think that is?

There are places in Mexico that are not hell holes. Why don't they go there? Most of the ones coming here end up in just as bad of a situation as they were in Mexico. They have no skills so they end up standing on the street corner waiting for some farmer to pick them up for a day of picking crops for pennies. They live on the street or in shacks. They don't know the language, they have no papers, they can't get a legitimate job. It's not like they pop across the border and become rich.

As far as changing their country, they have a better chance then they do of changing ours. They seem to be able to protest in our streets and demand we change. Why not do that in their own country?

[Charles]

As far as changing their country, they have a better chance then they do of changing ours. They seem to be able to protest in our streets and demand we change. Why not do that in their own country?

I can easily answer that in one sentence and in the same context prove that I have learned a thing or two from people with better skills regarding the history of the French revolution than I have: "let them eat brioche." (I assume you know difference between protesting in a free country and protesting in countries that are not free?)

[Sparko]

I can easily answer that in one sentence and in the same context prove that I have learned a thing or two from people with better skills regarding the history of the French revolution than I have: "let them eat brioche." (I assume you know difference between protesting in a free country and protesting in countries that are not free?)

Mexico is a free country.

And if the country is not free, that is what revolutions are for. Ask the French.

[Charles]

There are places in Mexico that are not hell holes. Why don't they go there? Most of the ones coming here end up in just as bad of a situation as they were in Mexico. They have no skills so they end up standing on the street corner waiting for some farmer to pick them up for a day of picking crops for pennies. They live on the street or in shacks. They don't know the language, they have no papers, they can't get a legitimate job. It's not like they pop across the border and become rich.

Why is it so bad to be given the chance to help?