• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rapid DNA testing reveals a THIRD of migrants faked family relationship with children

A screening process with 70% false positives is pretty much useless.
 
Manc Skipper said:
A screening process with 70% false positives is pretty much useless.
Click to expand...

A screening process that finds any positives for child trafficing into the us is a problem and certainly not useless.

I can't figure out how anyone is ok with the incetiviIng of that, as even obama said, would happenfollowing flores
 
Sweden said:
Just another 'blame the source ' try on. Supported by nothing more than two stupid emojis. Anyway if you want to play that silly little game you must see that the DM story inks to the Washington Examiner - so try to trash that sort too.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. OK. You give ****ty sources, expect to get called on them. Media Bias / Fact Check, a non-partisan resource that checks for bias, said this about Daily Mail.

right06.jpg

They scored Washington Examiner as follows:

right091.jpg

So yeah - go find a site that is considered non-partisan (you can use Media Bias / Fact Check) and then come back and we will talk. Or not. Keep on using your ridiculous sources. Makes me no never mind.
 
Superfly said:
And they get pissed when we don't take their sources seriously. :lol:

I'd just as soon read the Weekly World News.

View attachment 67256914
Click to expand...
They scream about media bias, yet cite sources with the most laughable conspiracy theorists on the face of the Earth.
 
Superfly said:
Verified independently by whom? Daily Mail? Washington Examiner? :lol:

Donald J. Trump himself?
Click to expand...
The Daily Mail is to journalism, what Henry Kaiser is to guitar playing.
 
Years ago I worked as national refugee coordinator for Amnesty International USA. My job was to review and opine on asylum claims and investigate detention facilities. Lying, misrepresenting or otherwise shading the truth happened. A lot. Big deal. (Raoul Wallenberg, who helped Jews escape, committed fraud and used phony documents to make that possible.) I worked on a case of a small child "sold" and used repeatedly as a prop by migrants from SE Asia, so that the woman carrying her in her arms would not be detained. What kind of cynicism would make people do this? Simple. It's what happens when desperate people run from terror. Smugglers give them advice as to what to say and do. Whom are they to believe? There was a notary public in San Francisco who put together possibly hundreds of asylum claims with absurd sets of personal histories, all of them the same, giving their claims a terrible reputation among INS employees tasked with deciding their validity. Didn't make their real claim less valid. Anti-immigrant forces are shocked, I tell you, shocked, that people would hustle the authorities to make cases. Grow up and experience the real world, not your perfect world.
 
MovingPictures said:
They scream about media bias, yet cite sources with the most laughable conspiracy theorists on the face of the Earth.
Click to expand...

Right? I prefer reading sources with no bias. Find me good sources right in the middle, and I'm a happy girl. I don't read hard right sources any more than I read hard left sources.
 
buck said:
Piolt results show that 30% of those that were DNA tested are not related to the kids they claimed were theirs. Our immigration system is so broken that it actualyl encourages child trafficking. What are the chances democrats will want to fix any portion of it? zero.

Rapid DNA testing reveals a THIRD of migrants faked family relationship with kids | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

"ICE conducted the pilot " You mean the same agency that goes around 'arresting' people in courtrooms without obtaining judicial warrants? Think we can pretty much dismiss this story.
 
Superfly said:
Right? I prefer reading sources with no bias. Find me good sources right in the middle, and I'm a happy girl. I don't read hard right sources any more than I read hard left sources.
Click to expand...
81097401.jpg
 
Superfly said:
Verified independently by whom? Daily Mail? Washington Examiner? :lol:

Donald J. Trump himself?
Click to expand...

MovingPictures said:
The Daily Mail is to journalism, what Henry Kaiser is to guitar playing.
Click to expand...

Just in case you don't know him, I'll give you the pleasure.

 
Superfly said:
Verified independently by whom? Daily Mail? Washington Examiner? :lol:

Donald J. Trump himself?
Click to expand...

You do realize that statement applies only to the source of the article quoted being able to be verified by other media sources. What liberal media source would you approve for verification?
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Their asylum claim was invalid the minute they refused asylum by Mexico. Once they entered Mexico they were no longer being persecuted.
Click to expand...

An artifact created for purposes of people saying what you did. What if, say, the drug gangs they're fleeing from have an overwhelming presence in Mexico? Instead of this faux-principled argument, just say what you mean: you do not care whether or not they have a valid asylum claim (not that you have any training or experience that would tell you what such a thing looks like).

PIPEWRENCH said:
This whole thing has been nothing but a bunch of criminals trying to circumvent our laws. The sad part is they are stopping millions of law abiding people from all over the world from coming here legally while we spend billions dealing with these lawless losers instead of granting immigration to deserving people.
Click to expand...

Illegal immigration isn't stopping anyone from immigrating legally. What is stopping people from immigrating legally is/are things like the Trump administnration's reduction in maximum limits of various forms of legal 'immigration.'

They are simultaneously trying to slow legal immigration with arbitrary cutoffs and convincing you that there's some kind of crisis when it's been worse in the past.






PIPEWRENCH said:
Only an idiot can't see through this scam.
Click to expand...

Aw man, that's the Trump card of all, isn't it? I have to agree with everything you said or I'm an idiot.z Well, why'd I bother typing? Must be evidence of idiocy, right?







Very clever.

:applaud
 
Superfly said:
Well, yeah. OK. You give ****ty sources, expect to get called on them. Media Bias / Fact Check, a non-partisan resource that checks for bias, said this about Daily Mail.

View attachment 67256912

They scored Washington Examiner as follows:

View attachment 67256913

So yeah - go find a site that is considered non-partisan (you can use Media Bias / Fact Check) and then come back and we will talk. Or not. Keep on using your ridiculous sources. Makes me no never mind.
Click to expand...

They are ranked partisan only because of the topics they choose. However, their record of factual reporting and fact checking is high:

Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a relatively clean fact check record.
Click to expand...
 
uptower said:
Daily Mail?
Click to expand...

no, Washington Examiner was ranked high for accuracy and fact check history.


Dailymail was:

Overall, we rate Daily Mail Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor sourcing of information.
Click to expand...

I like Daily Mail, quite honestly. But obviously, it's questionable and I won't use a source in teh future.
 
buck said:
no, Washington Examiner was ranked high for accuracy and fact check history.


Dailymail was:



I like Daily Mail, quite honestly. But obviously, it's questionable and I won't use a source in teh future.
Click to expand...

That's cool. Bias is unavoidable on either side by I do likes me some fact checking.
 
MovingPictures said:
Just in case you don't know him, I'll give you the pleasure.

Click to expand...


I saw people in the audience. WHY?? Were they tricked?

I knew it was going to be bad from the moment I heard the drummer banging around like somebody who had just picked up sticks for the first time in his life. I still listened, though. Sorry I did. He seems to be covering his up glaring, rudimentary knowledge (?) of guitar with the overworkings of that whammy bar.

Ouch. And I've not even had coffee.
 
Sabre said:
You do realize that statement applies only to the source of the article quoted being able to be verified by other media sources. What liberal media source would you approve for verification?
Click to expand...

I don't need liberal sources. See, the way it works is - you give me a source, and if it's valid, I will read it. I don't read anything too far right (as I have already said) any more than I read anything too far left.
 
Superfly said:
First off - Daily Mail? :lol: :lol: It's not a very good source, and even if it were, it'd be pointless to try to read anything with all the ads on the page.

Secondly, just because they are not of the same DNA doesn't not automatically mean that the children are being trafficked.

That's quite a leap there, skippy. They could be adopted. They could be in the process of being transferred to the US to live with relatives. Their parents could have died on the way to the US. There are many reasons that these kids are not a perfect DNA match to their caregivers.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of woulda, coulda, mighta's there.

It's far easier to get in and stay if you are accompanied by a child. That's the bottom line.
 
Superfly said:
I saw people in the audience. WHY?? Were they tricked?

I knew it was going to be bad from the moment I heard the drummer banging around like somebody who had just picked up sticks for the first time in his life. I still listened, though. Sorry I did. He seems to be covering his up glaring, rudimentary knowledge (?) of guitar with the overworkings of that whammy bar.

Ouch. And I've not even had coffee.
Click to expand...
I can just imagine your face! :lamo

It's called 'free improvisation' and believe it or not, lots of wackos enjoy that garbage - more than you'd think. Derek Bailey is another example of someone that needed an ego adjustment many years ago.



I played it to my Dad not long back as a gag and he was like "WTF IS THAT BULL****?! ARE YOU ON SOMETHING?".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom