• 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!

Is there a law that requires families to be separated at the border?

How is it trolling for someone who has been reading the thread to ask you where someone else supposedly said something that they did not, in fact, say?

It's a way of calling you on a lie, see? As you see in the above quotes, Ikari did not say what you claimed. Ikari instead said that Trump is engaged in the separation policy until he "gets his way", and that is in fact exactly what Trump has said. His way, as Trump as said, is getting funding for his stupid ****ing wall. This is a bargaining chip. And what is currently being criticized is the moral bankruptcy of such a cynical and banally cruel action.

So it's not "I won't enforce the law until I get my wall", it's "I will carry out this banally cruel policy unless you give me my wall". (Nevermind that when he played similar games with the dreamers, he was repeatedly offered legislation that would fund his wall. But he rejected it because the Dems would also get something in that legislation and he couldn't have that, now could he?)

Capcisce, trouble? Or are you going to keep playing dishonest semantic games in order to defend Trump via the lie/deny/deflect route?






Sent from a keyboard that doesn't give a **** about your Tapatalk.
Im not being dishonest.

He was claiming that trump will stop seperating famalies if he gets funding for his wall. Trump has not said that, at least im not ware that he has

I requested a link quoting him that quotes trump saying if congress will fund his wall he will stop enforcing the law responsible for seperating children

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
how would that work? You suggesting border patrol invade Mexico? You don't care for the actual presented to you - that the President has a choice in matter and in a real chicken-**** manner is blaming Congress for his own policy decisions.
Of mexico wont let us take them home then he should just suspend asylum umtil law is passed and they can all stay in mexico

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Im not being dishonest.

He was claiming that trump will stop seperating famalies if he gets funding for his wall. Trump has not said that, at least im not ware that he has

I requested a link quoting him that quotes trump saying if congress will fund his wall he will stop enforcing the law responsible for seperating children

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

read post #64 where it is made abundantly clear
 
Im not being dishonest.

He was claiming that trump will stop seperating famalies if he gets funding for his wall. Trump has not said that, at least im not ware that he has

I requested a link quoting him that quotes trump saying if congress will fund his wall he will stop enforcing the law responsible for seperating children

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

You're being incredibly dishonest. You are lying about what another poster said, you are lying about what Trump said, and you are continuing to deny that he said it even after multiple citations were provided. For example:


Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday that if Congress passes legislation to build a wall on the Mexican border, the Trump administration wouldn't need its "zero tolerance" border policy that has resulted in the separation of parents from their children.

“President Trump has said this cannot continue. We do not want to separate parents from their children," Sessions told the National Sheriffs' Association annual conference on Monday.

Sessions on separating families: If we build a wall and pass legislation, we won't have these 'terrible choices' | TheHill

There we go. If we have the wall, we wouldn't need "zero tolerance" policies. He's using this shift in policy, this separation of thousands of children, to push for his wall.

The Trumpeteer Defense Syndrome is strong on this topic, people are purposefully not seeing the real reasons Trump has made this move. He wants his wall.

Plus



Democrats can fix their forced family breakup at the Border by working with Republicans on new legislation, for a change! This is why we need more Republicans elected in November. Democrats are good at only three things, High Taxes, High Crime and Obstruction. Sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2018


And


"I hate the children being taken away," Trump said Friday morning. But Trump suggested Friday in an interview on Fox News' "Fox and Friends" he would not reverse his administration's policy unless Democrats agreed to his longstanding immigration priorities.


https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/16/politics/trump-separation-families-negotiating-tool/index.html

And yet you still say otherwise. Are you playing that stupidly dishonest debate board game where you pretend that paraphrasing isn't a thing and you demand exact quotes despite the fact that the paraphrase carries the same meaning? Why yes, I think you are.

That or you're playing an even dumber debate board game: pretending that words people posted are not in fact posted in the thread.





Of course, it is fortunatley now very likely moot, as Trump has realized that enough people with basic human decency in them still exist that his policy is not the political winner he thought it was; rather than face a congressional rebuke tomorrow, he says he's going to end the policy via order:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...08400242c2e_story.html?utm_term=.df62c80be950

President Trump abruptly reversed course Wednesday, saying he would sign an executive order ending family separations at the U.S.-Mexico border after a public uproar over his administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy. The plan, as described by administration officials, would keep families together in federal custody while awaiting prosecution for illegal border crossings, potentially violating a 1997 court settlement limiting the duration of child detentions. “We have to be very strong on the border but at the same time we want to be very compassionate,” Trump said at the White House during a meeting with lawmakers that was opened to the media.

I have no doubt his minions will claim - falsely, as always - that this was his intent all along and had nothing to do with the bipartisan backlash.
 
You're being incredibly dishonest. You are lying about what another poster said, you are lying about what Trump said, and you are continuing to deny that he said it even after multiple citations were provided. For example:






And yet you still say otherwise. Are you playing that stupidly dishonest debate board game where you pretend that paraphrasing isn't a thing and you demand exact quotes despite the fact that the paraphrase carries the same meaning? Why yes, I think you are.

That or you're playing an even dumber debate board game: pretending that words people posted are not in fact posted in the thread.





Of course, it is fortunatley now very likely moot, as Trump has realized that enough people with basic human decency in them still exist that his policy is not the political winner he thought it was; rather than face a congressional rebuke tomorrow, he says he's going to end the policy via order:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...08400242c2e_story.html?utm_term=.df62c80be950



I have no doubt his minions will claim - falsely, as always - that this was his intent all along and had nothing to do with the bipartisan backlash.
Depends on what he orders to know if its him folding or not. We will have to wait and see. He is a fool if he caves on this.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
What do you think we should do with the children of the people who are detained from illegally entering the country?

Let them loose in some border town in the US?

Boot them to Mexico?

Or lock them up with the parents?



I'm sure they will find a solution, be patient. But the greater issue is avoidable trauma to children.

Doesn't change the fact that separating kids from families for first time misdemeanor crossing is cruel and inhumane because it is wholly necessary.

The news this morning is that Trump is going to issue an ED to stop this, noting that this counters the narrative he was promulgating that Dems had a law causing it, and that he had to wait for Dems to fix it, while it was Trump, all along, that brought the entire PR Flap on his administration. He finally is caving to pressure from his own caucus, resulting from all the images, videos and sound recordings of kids crying for their mothers and fathers at the border.

yes, he's finally doing something about it, but it's not due to compassion, it's due to GOP fear of being creamed at the midterms.
 
Last edited:
Maybe a reasonable compromise would be to detain asylum seekers while their asylum petitions are working through the system like we do now, children included and allowed to stay with the adults claiming to be their parents. Once the 20 day limit for detaining children is reached and if their petition isn't completed, send the family back across the border.
 
That has nothing to do with the decision of the parent(s) to violate the law with their kid(s) in tow I suppose. I guess we should simply change the law such that if the alleged perp has a kid with them then they cannot be arrested.

Yes, it's a separate issue, a general immigration issue.

The laws on this give the prez a lot of latitude for interpretation. The bottom line is that the prez and AG can choose to prosecute first time misdemeanor border crossers and take away their children, or not. They chose to do it, and it has caused a mammoth PR Flap on his administration.


But it doesn't change the fact that separating kids from families for first time misdemeanor crossing is cruel and inhumane because it is wholly necessary.

The news this morning is that Trump is going to issue an ED to stop this, noting that this counters the narrative he was promulgating that Dems had a law causing it, and that he had to wait for Dems to fix it, while it was Trump, all along, that brought the entire PR Flap on his administration. He finally is caving to pressure from his own caucus, resulting from all the images, videos and sound recordings of kids crying for their mothers and fathers at the border.

yes, he's finally doing something about it, but it's not due to compassion, it's due to GOP fear of being creamed at the midterms.
 
Chuck is that you?

Congress could stop it by changing the law.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

The news this morning is that Trump is going to issue an ED to stop this
 
Your lying he did not call them animals

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

"You're" You're welcome.

Not lying. Why does he used the word "infest"? People don't infest a place.
 
So...you would rather Trump not enforce a law than Congress change a law.

Trump's job is to enforce the law. The job of Congress is to write the laws.

Why are you giving Congress a pass for not doing their job?



You really have a wrong understanding on this issue. First off, DOJ/FBI, cops, etc, do not enforce all laws. History is replete with evidence of this fact. For example, DOJ chose not to indict Trump for "persistent illegal activities' (per NY AG ) regarding Trump Foundation.

I'm all for congress putting forth a bill to stop it, and they are, but they are debating details, it's going through the process.

In the meantime....

The current laws on this give the prez a lot of latitude for interpretation. The bottom line is that the prez and AG can choose to prosecute first time misdemeanor border crossers and take away their children, or not. Historically, this was not done. They chose to do it, and it has caused a mammoth PR Flap on his administration.

But it doesn't change the fact that separating kids from families for first time misdemeanor crossing is cruel and inhumane because it is wholly necessary.

The news this morning is that Trump is going to issue an ED to stop this, noting that this counters the narrative he was promulgating that Dems had a law causing it, ( which is false ) and that he had to wait for Dems to fix it ( also false ) while it was Trump, all along, that brought the entire PR Flap on his own administration. He finally is caving to pressure from his own caucus, resulting from all the images, videos and sound recordings of kids crying for their mothers and fathers at the border.

yes, he's finally doing something about it, but it's not due to compassion, it's due to GOP fear of being creamed at the midterms.

I believe legislation is forthcoming.
 
Of course there is no law saying a law has to be prosecuted. I'm not even sure it's constitutional for the legislative branch to require that. Having said that, I have no problem prosecuting these people. They deserve to be prosecuted and prosecutions serve as a deterrent for others. No parent should put their child in harm's way like these parents put their children in harm's way. What anti-Trumpers have been doing is pretending like Trump is purposefully separating children from parents, and that's not the case. All his administration is doing is actually prosecuting people who broke the law. And because of that prosecution, the law requires that these children be removed from the parents while they await trial.


So he says, and I Trust Trump like I would trust the last huckster, years ago, who sold me a worthless $400 real estate course.

You appear to not be aware of realities concerning these undocs, who are parents merely trying to protect their children, who chose to journey over dangerous terrain for a long arduous month, which they percieved was a better choice that staying in their countries, as they are fleeing persecution, death, gang violence, etc, coming up from Hondoras, Gautemala, and El Salvador (all of which is well documented), and now being denied entry at ports of entry so that they can apply for asylum, being threatened with children being taken away, etc,.


You are wrong about Trump. As he did with DACA, he wanted to use children as pawns so he can get his wall, it's really all about the wall. Recently, he told his caucus he would only sign immigration legislation that would stop the separations, only if funding was provided for his wall.

However, ............

The news this morning is that Trump is going to issue an ED to stop this, noting that this counters the narrative he was promulgating that Dems had a law causing it, ( which is false ) and that he had to wait for Dems to fix it ( also false ) while it was Trump, all along, that brought the entire PR Flap on his own administration (so he could hold kids hostage for his wall, that's the bottom line here). Now He finally is caving to pressure from his own caucus, resulting from all the images, videos and sound recordings of kids crying for their mothers and fathers at the border.

yes, he's finally doing something about it, but it's not due to compassion, it's due to GOP fear of being creamed at the midterms pressuring him.

I believe legislation is forthcoming, nevertheless, as repub congresspersons and senators are pressuring him. There are a few republicans who are motivated for the right reason, who disagree with you that Zero Tolerance, given it's anathema treatment of children, is not in accordance with American core values, it's not who we are, as a nation, though you seem to think it is.

You really should be ashamed for holding this extreme right wing view, it's appalling as it is contemptable, and the majority, as you will soon see, disagree with you on this particular point. Issues of solving immigration etc, are a separate issue. The issue at hand here is what is best for these children, period.
 
So what are we going to do with them? Put them in cells with the parents?
Solutions are forthcoming, watch the news
President Trump is running for nothing in November.


DJT very much wants to keep the house under GOP control, so he's campaigning for that.
 
You really have a wrong understanding on this issue. First off, DOJ/FBI, cops, etc, do not enforce all laws. History is replete with evidence of this fact. For example, DOJ chose not to indict Trump for "persistent illegal activities' (per NY AG ) regarding Trump Foundation.

Yeah...let's believe the NY AG. Hey...is that the one who left in shame? Doesn't matter. They will say anything to get Trump.

Anyway, "history" is irrelevant. There's a new Sheriff in town and this one WILL enforce laws. You don't like it...change the law. It's as simple as that.

I'm all for congress putting forth a bill to stop it, and they are, but they are debating details, it's going through the process.

They are dishonestly going through the motions for their own political reasons. Schumer has already said he's not going to support a new law. He wants to "keep the focus on Trump". McConnell has already said there'll be no consideration of immigration bills this session. It's a dead deal.

In the meantime....(blah, blah, blah)

They won't like what the President does...no matter what he does. This isn't about "the children". It's about "get Trump".
 
I'm sure they will find a solution, be patient. But the greater issue is avoidable trauma to children.

Doesn't change the fact that separating kids from families for first time misdemeanor crossing is cruel and inhumane because it is wholly necessary.

The news this morning is that Trump is going to issue an ED to stop this, noting that this counters the narrative he was promulgating that Dems had a law causing it, and that he had to wait for Dems to fix it, while it was Trump, all along, that brought the entire PR Flap on his administration. He finally is caving to pressure from his own caucus, resulting from all the images, videos and sound recordings of kids crying for their mothers and fathers at the border.

yes, he's finally doing something about it, but it's not due to compassion, it's due to GOP fear of being creamed at the midterms.

You avoided my question by way of gish.

What do you think should be done with the children of people detained because they were caught illegally entering the country?
 
Depends on what he orders to know if its him folding or not. We will have to wait and see. He is a fool if he caves on this.

It isn't foolish for someone to admit when they are wrong.



Speaking of which, have anything to say about your claims that the separation policy wasn't put in place just to create a bargaining chip in light of the multiple citations to you in which Trump or Trump admin people indicated just that?
 
Is there a law that requires families to be separated at the border? | Fact Checker
The simple answer is no there is not..

[video]https://wapo.st/2ljDjbl[/video]

Crossing the border without authorization for the first time is a misdemeanor so what is happening is the Trump Administration has chosen to prosecute misdemeanors and separate children from their parents on a misdemeanor and this is unprecedented cruel and inhumane.

A PR flap of astronomical proportions is unfolding and is swelling to even greater heights and we should see where it leads. I sincerely doubt it will be good news for the Trump Administration. The truth is the Trump Administration could stop his with a stroke of a pen-- it's that simple folks. This policy is entirely his doing and in my view amounts to child abuse.

It seems to me there could be a law that has an option that an anchor baby can stay here, but the parents must go back.
 
It isn't foolish for someone to admit when they are wrong.



Speaking of which, have anything to say about your claims that the separation policy wasn't put in place just to create a bargaining chip in light of the multiple citations to you in which Trump or Trump admin people indicated just that?
Nope, nothing to say about it at all. Trump did not say what you all seem to think he said but there's no point in arguing about it. Your minds seen made up.

The only thing I can tell you is that Trump did not say or imply that he would stop his zero tolerance policy if he got his wall funding. Even this executive order does not stop zero tolerance. He is still insisting on charing people who enter illegaly.

What he did now is request the judge to relax the 20 day limit on holding minors. When the judge says no it will be interesting to see how the left trys to put all the blame back on trump and none on this judge when this judge could fix the problem by relaxing the law that Trump is obligated to follow. It will be equally interesting to see who the undecideds hold at fault politically. I don't think the trumps little big horn like the media and the dnc are hoping.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
"You're" You're welcome.

Not lying. Why does he used the word "infest"? People don't infest a place.
I can't comment on him using infest, I'm not familiar with that one. If you got a link of it in full context I will look but for now I have no opinion

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
The news this morning is that Trump is going to issue an ED to stop this
Yup thats sort of what he did. Now it's up to the judge to relax the 29 day limit which is the source of the problem to begin with. What happens is the judge refuses. Are you still gonna blame trump?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Yup thats sort of what he did. Now it's up to the judge to relax the 29 day limit which is the source of the problem to begin with. What happens is the judge refuses. Are you still gonna blame trump?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

He started it, he can unstart it.
 
"Why did he use" You're welcome.

Yep, he likley meant invade or infiltrate.



No, he meant 'infest', he's equating undocs to vermin, it's how is bigoted mind works.
 
Back
Top Bottom