Moderated Trump announces new concentration camps

Delphic Oracle said:
Giving one example of a law that has not been broken doesn't prove the administration is following the law.

TITLE 42, CHAPTER 21 has various requirements for care of detained persons that are being violated in too many clauses and instances to cite.
Click to expand...
The allegation was pretty clearly referring to the "concentration camps" as being outside the bounds of the law. Read the post I quoted for an idea of what the allegation is.

But congratulations on finally figuring out how to cite statutes, even if you carpet-bombed with a seventy-page chapter of the US Code instead of a specific provision, and even if it was ultimately irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Baby steps.

As for the particularities of the law: if the law says what we're doing is okay, then I say "**** the law."
Click to expand...
Say it all you want. That doesn't change it.
 
It's not really surprising that the only argument anyone can muster in support of the concentration camps is "well it's not illegal".
 
cmikes said:
What? Doing exactly what President Obama did doing the smaller immigration crisis in 2014? ICE ran out of room at that time, also.
Click to expand...
Man you are just sucking that koolaid down like it's going out of style.

Trump is trying to rewrite the history of his family separation policy before 2020
In two new interviews, Trump tries to pin blame on Obama. He has nobody to blame but himself...

In two new interviews this week, President Donald Trump made brazen attempts to rewrite history about his administration’s ill-fated child separation policy, trying to shunt the blame to his predecessor Barack Obama.

In both instances, Trump dodged dogged questions about the family separation policy his administration implemented last year by asserting, falsely, that he inherited it from Obama. Heading into the 2020 campaign, Trump’s deflections indicate he’ll use baseless whataboutism when pressed about one of the most inhumane things his administration has done so far.
Click to expand...

The dishonest details:
While it’s true that Obama did, during a 2014 surge in migration, implement wide-scale detention of families, Trump’s administration chose a much harsher path. As part of a broader border crackdown, Trump instituted a “zero tolerance” policy in April 2018 that called for every illegal entry case to be prosecuted. That policy resulted in thousands of children being separated from their parents before Trump walked it back two months later, amid international outcry, with an executive order. (The ACLU estimates over 700 families have been separated since then due to loopholes in a federal ruling that ordered the Trump administration to reunify separated families.)
Click to expand...
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Isn't obeying the law exactly what the administration is doing?

See:(emphasis added)

How are they in violation of the law?
Click to expand...
Well to start with, denying entry in the first place to asylum seekers.

Second, refusing to process those asylum seekers. Locking them up is one thing, but due process is also part of the procedure.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
Crossing at a place other than a designated port of entry (as thousands of "asylum seekers" are doing), however, is a criminal act.

Regardless, US law mandates that asylum seekers found to have a credible fear of persecution be placed in mandatory detention, as provided by 8 USC 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).
Click to expand...
Oh puhleese. Shut and lock the doors then blame desperate people climbing the fence. :rolleyes:
 
Grizzly Adams said:
The allegation was pretty clearly referring to the "concentration camps" as being outside the bounds of the law.
Click to expand...
I've now indicated how that is so. They subject persons to conditions that deny them their civil rights. To do so is a violation of the law.

*Useless backhanded comments and insults removed after thinking about it*

Say it all you want. That doesn't change it.
Click to expand...
Hide behind the law all you want.

It won't save you.
 
Last edited:
So why should immigration be unrestricted? I mean the "let them all in!" Mentality is only among American liberals who think that yummy immigrant food and more voters benefit them. In Europe, Japan and Australia, hell in South Africa there has been crackdowns on immigration with little protest. If anything, growing diversity is weakening the welfare state.
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
So why should immigration be unrestricted? I mean the "let them all in!" Mentality is only among American liberals who think that yummy immigrant food and more voters benefit them.
Click to expand...


No elected official I know of is calling for unrestricted immigration. American liberals don't think this either Why must you fabricate such nonsense?
 
thaiboxerken said:
No elected official I know of is calling for unrestricted immigration. American liberals don't think this either Why must you fabricate such nonsense?
Click to expand...

I presume you are unfamiliar with Rose Twitter, or the constant screaming that controlling immigration is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany. I guess Eisenhower must be a monster by that standard. Meanwhile, in the "civilised world" that American liberals exhorted, crackdowns on immigration are accelerating.
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
I presume you are unfamiliar with Rose Twitter, or the constant screaming that controlling immigration is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany. I guess Eisenhower must be a monster by that standard. Meanwhile, in the "civilised world" that American liberals exhorted, crackdowns on immigration are accelerating.
Click to expand...

It's interesting how you defend fabrications with more fabrications.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's interesting how you defend fabrications with more fabrications.
Click to expand...

I presume the constant hit pieces in slate the economist and the Atlantic about how open borders is necessary for human survival don't count? Google them. The main problem with that, as the vox article explains, is that immigration is incompatible with a robust welfare state. Or see how austerity ramped up in Australia after a spike in immigration.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Out of curiosity, do you remember anything negative regarding immigration under Obama? Deportation numbers? Tear gas? Cages? Or is all this news to you?

Chris B.
Click to expand...


I remember that deportations were up, numerically, and construction continued on the fence structure funded by the W administration which made it odd that Fox News constantly led with the idea that he was basically waving a matador flag for the entire world to enter.


ChrisBFRPKY said:
Almost forgot, you've left out an important qualifier in your OP. You should have used the word "illegal" in front of immigrants. As immigrants are not detained or captured etc. With the selective omission, you've incorrectly substituted someone who is not breaking the law for someone that is.

Chris B.
Click to expand...


Well applying for asylum is not illegal. But for me that is irrelevant because I don't give a ____ what the law says, I view them all the same. This is largely because I reject the idea of borders as a concept and wish for a world where no one ever identifies themselves as a person of any nation because nations aren't a thing. But that's just me. I have a minority opinion on this.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
I presume the constant hit pieces in slate the economist and the Atlantic about how open borders is necessary for human survival don't count?
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Even if I believed that they wrote such articles, those entities are not elected officials. Those articles, if they exist, also do not represent the democratic party majority.
 
Upchurch said:
A false dichotomy between two extremes and off topic. The real question is, why should a federal misdemeanor result in a lifetime of trauma for children and infants and sending them to concentration camps?
Click to expand...

Because those people are not white. Every once in a while, they slip up and actually voice this opinion of theirs.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
I presume you are unfamiliar with Rose Twitter, or the constant screaming that controlling immigration is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany. I guess Eisenhower must be a monster by that standard. Meanwhile, in the "civilised world" that American liberals exhorted, crackdowns on immigration are accelerating.
Click to expand...
Handling immigration has certainly been looked at more seriously all over the world. Only extreme right wing administrations like Hungary or Italy have actually gone as far as the USA in their actions against immigrants. Are you proud of that? The rest of us struggle with increased immigration yes, but so far we manage to stay within international and national law. Why are you so pleased that the Trump administration often fails to follow US and international law in this matter? I thought the USA was a nation of laws?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom