Kids In Cages...

[Sparko]

I couldn't agree more with Michael Gerson:

Living in poor conditions or in areas with high crime are not eligible reasons for asylum status, Chuck. Even Obama said it:

Under US law you know we admit a certain number of refugees from all around the world based on some fairly narrow criteria, and typically refugee status is not granted just based on economic need or because a family lives in a bad neighborhood or poverty.

It's typically defined fairly narrowly. You have a state, for example, that was targeting a political activist and we need to get out of the country for fear of prosecution or even death.

There may be some narrow circumstances in which there is a humanitarian or refugee status that a family might be elevated -- if that were the case would be better for them to be able to apply in country rather than take a very dangerous journey all the way up to Texas.

--President Obama

[Cow Poke]

Living in poor conditions or in areas with high crime are not eligible reasons for asylum status, Chuck. Even Obama said it:

Under US law you know we admit a certain number of refugees from all around the world based on some fairly narrow criteria, and typically refugee status is not granted just based on economic need or because a family lives in a bad neighborhood or poverty.

It's typically defined fairly narrowly. You have a state, for example, that was targeting a political activist and we need to get out of the country for fear of prosecution or even death.

There may be some narrow circumstances in which there is a humanitarian or refugee status that a family might be elevated -- if that were the case would be better for them to be able to apply in country rather than take a very dangerous journey all the way up to Texas.

--President Obama

In retrospect, I can't believe what a right-wing conservative nutjob Obama was! THAT is how far left the Democrat Party has lurched.

[Sparko]

In retrospect, I can't believe what a right-wing conservative nutjob Obama was! THAT is how far left the Democrat Party has lurched.

Not only him, but the entire democrat party. See the video here where it compares the Democrats then and now. They have completely flip-flopped on immigration just because of Trump.

And Pelosi and company (look at the background)

Obama's full speech on immigration:

[Charles]

In retrospect, I can't believe what a right-wing conservative nutjob Obama was! THAT is how far left the Democrat Party has lurched.

Are you and Sparko trying to make the point that it is alright if Obama said or did the same. If not, then what is the point with regard to Gerson's point?

[Sparko]

Are you and Sparko trying to make the point that it is alright if Obama said or did the same. If not, then what is the point with regard to Gerson's point?

We are making the point that the democrats are lying pieces of garbage that are only making up this crap because Trump is president and the actual laws in place were put there by THEM and they were once as against illegal immigration as Trump is today.

Other than that, we don't give a fart about what you think about anything at all Chuck. Your fake outrage out of complete ignorance is quite ridiculous.

[seer]

Your fake outrage out of complete ignorance is quite ridiculous.

oops...

[Cow Poke]

Are you and Sparko trying to make the point that it is alright if Obama said or did the same.

No, but thank you for making the point that you're an ignorant arrogant ass.

[Charles]

We are making the point that the democrats are lying pieces of garbage that are only making up this crap because Trump is president and the actual laws in place were put there by THEM and they were once as against illegal immigration as Trump is today.

Other than that, we don't give a fart about what you think about anything at all Chuck. Your fake outrage out of complete ignorance is quite ridiculous.

I note that this has, once again, started to be about something different. It is no longer about what we ought to do. It is about what others are doing or that others are ignorant, fake or whatever.

If you believed in absolute standards you would read your own posts and see that you have not pointed to anything at all that is relevant with regard to answering the question of what we ought to do.

[Charles]

oops...

Yes. Oops. An ad hominem once again.

[Sparko]

I note that this has, once again, started to be about something different. It is no longer about what we ought to do. It is about what others are doing or that others are ignorant, fake or whatever.

If you believed in absolute standards you would read your own posts and see that you have not pointed to anything at all that is relevant with regard to answering the question of what we ought to do.

You ought to mind your own business and worry about your own country. The people who live in these countries ought to fight for change. Their governments ought to protect them. We ought to respect the rule of law and defend our borders.

[Charles]

You ought to mind your own business and worry about your own country.

I am.

The people who live in these countries ought to fight for change. Their governments ought to protect them.

And if the government kills them when they fight for change or do not protect them? Should the jews have stayed in Germany and fought for change?

We ought to respect the rule of law and defend our borders.

Yes, but in doing so you ought to make sure you do not cross any moral barriers. Putting innocent children in cages is not "defending borders".

[Cow Poke]

Yes. Oops. An ad hominem once again.

Ah, more whining about ad hominems.... again.

[Charles]

Ah, more whining about ad hominems.... again.

I am not whining, I just point it out when posters are unanble to adress the point.

[Cow Poke]

I am not whining....

Now you're whining about being accused of whining!




(Kidding, Charles, I don't like those "you're whining" accusations. Except, of course, when you are!)

[carpedm9587]

They are beginning to do DNA testing on immigrants with children. I posted this in this thread before. Amazing how you and others just ignore such facts and repeat the same nonsense.

Or I didn't see the post...

And exactly what "nonsense" do you think I've repeated?

DNA tests reveal 30% of suspected fraudulent migrant families were unrelated

Some of the migrant families arrested at the southern border weren't actually families.

In a pilot program, approximately 30% of rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who were suspected of arriving at the southern border with children who weren't theirs revealed the adults were not related to the children, an official involved in the system's temporary rollout who asked to be anonymous in order to speak freely told the Washington Examiner Friday.

"There’s been some concern about, 'Are they stepfathers or adopted fathers?'" the official said. "Those were not the case. In these cases, they are misrepresented as family members."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...were-unrelated

Well, that helps a little. At least we know 30% of "families" weren't actually families. Now we know (presumably) that 70% were, and those should never be separated, IMO. As for the 30%, there is no difficulty separating here since we are not separating a family unit. IMO, these children should be treated as unaccompanied minors. It would be nice to know how many are children traveling with friends/neighbors/other family as opposed to those traveling with someone using them as "shields," but I doubt we will find an easy way to deal with that. Meanwhile, the adults traveling with them should be treated as asylum seekers if they request asylum, and send back otherwise.

I would also caution against too much emphasis of 30%. The test lasted a few days in three places. It says nothing about distribution between legal ports of entry and other crossing points. It says nothing about other ports. The report also says nothing of the sample size, so we have no idea if the number is broadly representative. What we do know is, it happens (which I think any of us could have guessed before).

Oh and just as an aside, it is amusing to look back at the democrats before and after Trump became President regarding their stances on immigration reform.

I don't waste a great deal of time on such things. Talking out of both sides of one's mouth is a common trait in both parties and not worth the effort, except when a single person can be highlighted doing exactly that, and the person holds (or wishes to hold) a position of political power or influence (e.g., Congress person, Senator, media figure, etc.). Those (IMO) should be highlighted until the person in question is discredited - as they should be. The sole exception is when there has been a genuine change of position and acknowledgement that the old position was in error. People do have changes of heart, and there should be room for that.