*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoVNLcXSQLw

This is the official white house channel clearly implying that illegal immigrants are more likely to murder your children than other people.
It's a nation of retards and cowards and I don't know why I was ever surprised. I feel like every country needs to experience totalitarianism at some point to get how it happens. Italians were like: lol sjw's are getting triggered by Mussolini - whoops dictatorship lulz, germans are like: look at them dumb italians, hitler would never... omegalulz didn't mean to! Russia is like: this Stalin guy sure will fix everything, NK is like... actually they thought it was a great idea from the get go.
Meanwhile you got almost verbatim nazi propaganda coming out of Trumps mouth and Banana posting cartoons that are stylistically indistinguishable from nazi propaganda cartoons. but: call me a racist and I'll knock your teeth out you low iq individual.

This is The Wave and you've been goose stepping from day one.

Ong, what the fuck is your image of the world? You want pakistani refugees to flee to india? You want turkish refugees to flee to greece? Have you ever been anywhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Banana posting cartoons that are stylistically indistinguishable from nazi propaganda cartoons

---

What happened where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Ong, what the fuck is your image of the world? You want pakistani refugees to flee to india? You want turkish refugees to flee to greece? Have you ever been anywhere?

---

Pakistani refusgees? Turkish refugees?

No, I don't expect economic migrants from Pakistan to seek better opportunities in India.

Even if neighbouring countries are friendly, why should they carry all the burden, especially since the economic or political situation of the country the people are fleeing from is more often than not, not the fault of its geographical neighbours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Pakistani refusgees? Turkish refugees?

No, I don't expect economic migrants from Pakistan to seek better opportunities in India.

---

Holy shit. Read a fucking book for once. OMG!

Pakistan and Turkey are not nations at war. There is no mass movement of people due to natural disaster. And persecution, well there's certainly a few from Turkey and Pakistan that would qualify for refugee status, but the vast majority are seeking a better life, not fleeing persecution. Their religion is what persecutes them, and they aren't fleeing Islam.

You're happy to use the word "refugee" to describe someone who wants to move from a poor country to a wealthy one. I call these people economic migrants, because it's accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What happened where?

---

How many cartoons depicting black people the exact same way nazi propaganda posters caricatured negroes have you posted lately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Pakistan and Turkey are not nations at war. There is no mass movement of people due to natural disaster. And persecution, well there's certainly a few from Turkey and Pakistan that would qualify for refugee status, but the vast majority are seeking a better life, not fleeing persecution. Their religion is what persecutes them, and they aren't fleeing Islam.

---

So turkey is a neighbouring country of pakistan? Can you fucking stop having strong opinions on things you know less than shit about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

So turkey is a neighbouring country of pakistan? Can you fucking stop having strong opinions on things you know less than shit about?

---

What? Do you think I didn't know Turkey and Pakistan share a border? I'm pretty hot with geography, I can even tell you the capitals of both, the largest city in Turkey, the second largest in Pakistan, and the languages they both speak.

My point is there aren't many refugees from either Turkey or Pakistan because a refugee is someone fleeing war, natural disaster or persecution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

What? Do you think I didn't know Turkey and Pakistan share a border? I'm pretty hot with geography, I can even tell you the capitals of both, the largest city in Turkey, the second largest in Pakistan, and the languages they both speak.

My point is there aren't many refugees from either Turkey or Pakistan because a refugee is someone fleeing war, natural disaster or persecution.

---

Did you just have a stroke?

Haha they don't share a border.

I'm smoking good weed.

We've successfully shifted from the point though. Refugees are not economic migrants.

And yes I'm an idiot. I don't pretend otherwise.

Crossing the border is not a crime.
Seeking asylum is not a crime.
Treating asylum seekers like criminals while their case is being reviewed is injustice.

Treating people whom have not yet been convicted of a crime as though they are already guilty is not what I was taught America is about.
People accused of crimes are not yet criminals. Something about "innocent until proven otherwise."

OK, so that applies to Americans under American laws. An asylum seeker is petitioning to be an American whom follows American laws.
While that process is underway, treating them as anything else is injustice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

That's not what I said. They want to go and work in America, because it's the best economic option in their region. But you're suggesting the taxpayer should foot the bill for their stay in hotels or whatever while they are processed having entered the country illegally. That's crazy.

They should be detained while they are processed, and any children they brought along with them should be put into appropriate care.

---

All i said was there's no reason to separate families. You took from that somehow that I want them all given the red carpet treatment while they're processed.

So I'll say it again for the last time: They shouldn't separate families.

Now explain to me why they should.

Quote:

---

Crossing the border is not a crime.

---

Really?

Quote:

---

All i said was there's no reason to separate families.

---

Of course there is. To detain the illegal immigrant whilst providing care for the infant. You can't have the infant in the cell with the illegal immigrant, can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Holy shit. Read a fucking book for once. OMG!

---

Go easy on him. He just learned yesterday that there are refugees coming from C. America. Before he thought it was all Mexican baby rapists.

Quote:

---

You took from that somehow that I want them all given the red carpet treatment while they're processed.

---

So what? Turn them onto the streets to fend for themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Go easy on him. He just learned yesterday that there are refugees coming from C. America. Before he thought it was all Mexican baby rapists.

---

Oh come on, I watch Breaking Bad, I know ABQ is full of Honduran laundry workers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Really?

---

I can cross American borders perfectly legally.
Is that in question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I can cross American borders perfectly legally.
Is that in question?

---

We're talking about national borders. Is it a crime to enter Canada without your passport? If not, is that because of a bilateral agreement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Of course there is. To detain the illegal immigrant whilst providing care for the infant. You can't have the infant in the cell with the illegal immigrant, can you?

---

I don't see why not.
They are accused of illegal activity, if at all, not convicted.

Separating children from their parents is a huge deal. It should never be done lightly. If a parent is a convicted criminal, then that opens the door to extreme measures, but merely being accused of a crime is far, far too low a bar for something with such deep impact.

I thought the Reps stood for family values, anyway. This is not what their party is about, let alone what America is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Is it a crime to enter Canada without your passport?

---

Sure, but the gov't there is all crybaby liberal snowflakes who won't separate you from your children if you lose your passport.

Pretty sure the US returns the favour to Canadians. It helps to not come from a shithole country I guess.

Quote:

---

They are accused of illegal activity, if at all, not convicted.

---

Ok, so do you
a) detain them,
b) turn them onto the streets,
c) put them up in hotels or housing,
d) other (please elaborate)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

How many cartoons depicting black people the exact same way nazi propaganda posters caricatured negroes have you posted lately?

---

Zero

Next question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Sure, but the gov't there is all crybaby liberal snowflakes who won't separate you from your children if you lose your passport.

Pretty sure the US returns the favour to Canadians. It helps to not come from a shithole country I guess.

---

I'm sorry I wasn't aware there was a problem with Americans fleeing to Canada with their children in tow. If that were actually happening, well I'd imagine the Canadians might bolster the border somewhat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

So what? Turn them onto the streets to fend for themselves?

---

Housing families together in the same facility, even if that is a guarded camp, is preferable to putting them in different facilities and not keeping track of which child belongs to which parent, so they might never see each other again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Housing families together in the same facility, even if that is a guarded camp, is preferable to putting them in different facilities and not keeping track of which child belongs to which parent, so they might never see each other again.

---

Right, so you're in favour of baby jails. Funny that it was oskar who insisted it was me who liked that idea.

The "not keeping track"... that's a different matter to "separating families". I am not against one but most certainly against the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Crossing the border is not a crime.

---

It is without a visa

Quote:

---

Seeking asylum is not a crime.
Treating asylum seekers like criminals while their case is being reviewed is injustice.

---

What would a person be suffering from in Northern Mexico, for which they would need asylum in the United States?

Quote:

---

Treating people whom have not yet been convicted of a crime as though they are already guilty is not what I was taught America is about.
People accused of crimes are not yet criminals. Something about "innocent until proven otherwise."

---

LOL luckily for civilization it's more nuanced than that. See, there's something called 'probable cause'. That says that if law enforcement catches you in the act, or suspects you of a crime, they can detain you pending an investigation. So...if the law I'm enforcing is the border, and I find you on my side of the border, and you don't have a visa, then I have probable cause to detain you and investigate.

If that investigation results in charges, I can further detain you until trial if you are believed to be a flight risk. And anyone jumping the border is probably a flight risk!

Next time a cop tries to pull you over for speeding, just keep driving. Try that "innocent until proven guilty" line.

Quote:

---

OK, so that applies to Americans under American laws. An asylum seeker is petitioning to be an American whom follows American laws.
While that process is underway, treating them as anything else is injustice.

---

LOL, you've caught yourself in a logic trap there champ. If the Asylum seeker enters the US without a visa....are they following American laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Right, so you're in favour of baby jails. Funny that it was oskar who insisted it was me who liked that idea.

---

No, you're doing a reductio ad bananum here. "Baby jails" clearly refers to the fact that children are being kept in separate jails from their parents. That's why he said "baby jails" and not "family jails."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The "not keeping track"... that's a different matter to "separating families". I am not against one but most certainly against the other.

---

And so, using the appropriate definition, you are in favour of baby jails.

At least you're not completely against human rights for immigrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

LOL, you've caught yourself in a logic trap there champ. If the Asylum seeker enters the US without a visa....are they following American laws?

---

Do you understand what asylum seeking means? It's not about sneaking into a country and then, if you get caught, claiming asylum.

Asylum seekers present themselves to immigration at a border crossing and file a claim to asylum. They're then detained (previously as a family unit, but for a while not), while their case goes to proceedings. What law are they breaking by doing that? What possible justification is there for separating them from their children under these circumstances?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Do you understand what asylum seeking means? It's not about sneaking into a country and then, if you get caught, claiming asylum.

---

Hmmm, not so fast

Quote:

---

Asylum seekers present themselves to immigration at a border crossing and file a claim to asylum. They're then detained (previously as a family unit, but for a while not), while their case goes to proceedings. What law are they breaking by doing that? What possible justification is there for separating them from their children under these circumstances?

---

^ I believe these stories are either not true, or extremely rare.

The bulk of these "family separations" were plain old border jumpers who didn't effectively use their 20 day grace period to make arrangements for their kids.

Here's a good description of the issue.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...sual-explainer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Here's a good description of the issue.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...sual-explainer

---

Honestly, being from Vox, I expected this to be a demagogue-ish rant full of inaccuracies and anti-Trump rhetoric. Even if it can still be called, that, I actually have NO PROBLEM with this process as described. None.

It says right in there, all these folks had to do was get in line.

But they might be refused....so they cheat??!! WTF??

The line is too long, so they cheat??!! WTF??

If their asylum claim can't withstand regular vetting procedures, then it's probably bullshit anyway. If they need to cheat the system in order to get entry into the US, then I flat out do not give a fuck what ill befalls them. Follow the rules, or fuck off.

Right, so these people are supposed to present themselves at a border crossing, then wait for a long time in a prison for the chance to go stand in front of a judge and have a 25% chance of gaining legal entry. And you're surprised sneaking in seems like a better option to them, and if they do sneak in and get caught they should lose their children.

gg

Oh and this little bit of breaking international law on asylum seekers is OK if you're America and claim to be the moral authority of the world.

Quote:

---

Instead of first figuring out whether you should be granted asylum, the administration’s first step is now to deal with the other matter at hand: the misdemeanor for illegal entry.

---

"Zero tolerance" ftw

Quote:

---

3) After serving time in jail, parents try to reunite with their kids. But there is no process to make this happen.

And it could take time to see a judge because immigration courts are backlogged — and this would get worse since the Trump administration wants to prosecute all border crossers.

The maximum sentence for a first-time illegal entry conviction is six months. Usually judges just sentence immigrants to “time served.”

Once you’ve been convicted, you are returned to the custody of immigration officials to go through deportation proceedings. This is when you can theoretically reunite with your child at a civil detention center while you pursue your asylum case, according to the administration.

But that’s not what’s happening. The US has no procedure to reunite parents with children. In the detention centers, immigrants don’t have phone access. It’s taken some parents months to track down their kids. In addition, some parents are being deported without their children, and advocates say some small children are being deported without their parents.

---

yaya I know, what about Hillary's emails?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Right, so these people are supposed to present themselves at a border crossing...

---

Right, so let's say I want to move to USA. I just turn up at the border?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Right, so these people are supposed to present themselves at a border crossing, then wait for a long time in a prison for the chance to go stand in front of a judge and have a 25% chance of gaining legal entry.

---

YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD DO

Quote:

---

And you're surprised sneaking in seems like a better option to them

---

No, I'm not surprised at that. Robbing a bank sounds like a better option than starving to death, that's still not a good reason to do it.

Quote:

---

and if they do sneak in and get caught they should lose their children.

---

No, they should realize that they fucked up, and broke the rules. They should own their actions and accept responsibilities for the offenses they have made. They should take advantage of the 20 day waiting period and make arrangements for their child's safety. Then they should man-up and accept whatever consequences the US government has decided is appropriate for being a selfish rule-breaking ass hole.

Poop, your whole argument seems to be "getting arrested sucks, so we shouldn't make people endure that, unless they're american, then fuck 'em"

You seem to be advocating a policy that allows people to insulate themselves against prosecution by accompanying a child. Do you not see what a perverse incentive that creates? Do you not see how that puts MORE kids in danger!!??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Attachment 1052

---

Sorry I thought you read that Vox piece. They aren't given 20 days to find somewhere for their kids to go, they're separated immediately. Where do you get that from? And even if they did have 20 days, how are they going to contact anyone when they're not given access to a phone?

But ok, just keep making up your own facts if it makes you feel better.

Those kids are much better off now without their parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Right, so let's say I want to move to USA. I just turn up at the border?

---

Are you comparing your situation to that of an asylum seekier from C. America running for their lives? What are even getting at?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Those kids are much better off now without their parents.

---

Agreed. Problem solved

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Are you comparing your situation to that of an asylum seekier from C. America running for their lives? What are even getting at?

---

Running for their lives? All the way from El Salvador to USA? Running for their economic benefit, more like. Why did they travel through ALL of Mexico? Why do they fear for their lives there?

You seem to think that if you're running for your life, you can choose where you go.

What I was getting at is there is a proper way to apply for residency in another country. Getting to the border unannounced and then crossing illegally is not the way to do it. If you do, and if you get caught, then you bear the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

What I was getting at is there is a proper way to apply for residency in another country. Getting to the border unannounced and then crossing illegally is not the way to do it. If you do, and if you get caught, then you bear the consequences.

---

Really, the question isn't whether these asylum seekers chose their destination for reasons x, y, z or some other. They're there in the US, they have a valid claim to asylum, and international law says you have to take them. If that's inconvenient for your country, tough shit, ask another country for help if you need to. But as long as you're in the UN, you play by their rules.

Funny how people want to say the asylum seekers should play by the US's rules, but if they don't, then the US can ignore the UN's rules, and do whatever the fuck they want with them, and it's the asylum seekers' fault if their kids get lost in the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You seem to think that if you're running for your life, you can choose where you go.

---

It's not what I think, it's a fact. You're allowed to go to whatever country you can get to and claim asylum; you don't have to pick the nearest one to your hometown. Learn something every day.

To get to USA from either El Salvador or Honduras, you'll need to go through Guatemala and then Mexico. According to the Fragile States Index (http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/) Guatemala is less stable than both El Salvador and Honduras. So if they're running for their lives from an unstable country, why the fuck are they heading north?

If they head south, they will first get to Nicaragua, which is about as stable as Honduras, and then on to Costa Rica and then Panama, both very stable, comparable to USA. Further, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama all have something in common... language. These nations are also MUCH closer than USA.

So Costa Rica is closer, safer to get to, and culturally similar. Yet they still travel north.

Why? Economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

To get to USA from either El Salvador or Honduras, you'll need to go through Guatemala and then Mexico. According to the Fragile States Index (http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/) Guatemala is less stable than both El Salvador and Honduras. So if they're running for their lives from an unstable country, why the fuck are they heading north?

If they head south, they will first get to Nicaragua, which is about as stable as Honduras, and then on to Costa Rica and then Panama, both very stable, comparable to USA. Further, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama all have something in common... language. These nations are also MUCH closer than USA.

So Costa Rica is closer, safer to get to, and culturally similar. Yet they still travel north.

Why? Economics.

---

Again, it's irrelevant WHY they choose any particular country. Some probably do go to Costa Rica or Panama. The rules don't stipulate they have to go to the nearest stable country, so they don't really have to explain their choice. That's the beauty of being an asylum seeker running for your life.

Quote:

---

Again, it's irrelevant WHY they choose any particular country.

---

Only if you don't want to distinguish between a refugee and an economic migrant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Again, it's irrelevant WHY they choose any particular country. Some probably do go to Costa Rica or Panama. The rules don't stipulate they have to go to the nearest stable country, so they don't really have to explain their choice. That's the beauty of being an asylum seeker running for your life.

---

Dude...just stop. If their claims to asylum were so rock-solid and bound by international law....they would just wait in line like everyone else. They try to go around the system for a reason. Stop acting like these are oppressed people deserving of sympathy. They're opportunistic criminals supported by opportunistic partisan demagogues.

Quote:

---

That's the beauty of being an asylum seeker running for your life.

---

They're not running for their life. If you're being chased by a wolf, do you run towards lions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Only if you don't want to distinguish between a refugee and an economic migrant.

---

The UN sets the rules, not me or you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The UN sets the rules, not me or you.

---

Indeed. The UN distinguish between refugee and economic migrant, and the rules are different. If you're an economic migrant, you don't enjoy the same rights as refugees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

blah blah blah

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

demagogues.

---

lol, it's real cute how you keep using this word when you clearly have no idea what it means. Kinda like Trump trying to explain what a hurricane is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

lol, it's real cute how you keep using this word when you clearly have no idea what it means. Kinda like Trump trying to explain what a hurricane is.

---

My use of the word was wholly apt. You're running our arguments and falling back on insults.

Why don't you just save yourself the trouble and say "Banana, you win, I'm retarded"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Indeed. The UN distinguish between refugee and economic migrant, and the rules are different. If you're an economic migrant, you don't enjoy the same rights as refugees.

---

Maybe try to read something and then you can actually talk sense once in a while instead of just talking out of your ass all the time.

https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/definitions

Isn't a demagogue someone who appeals to prejudice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

My use of the word was wholly apt. You're running our arguments and falling back on insults.

Why don't you just save yourself the trouble and say "Banana, you win, I'm retarded"

---

Actually I'm just getting bored of trying to talk sense to you and Ong when you're both more interested in talking any shit you can to defend separating children from their parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Isn't a demagogue someone who appeals to prejudice?

---

It's more about elevating popular emotion-based opinions over rational factual analysis.

Like some people don't like Trump. A demagogue will manipulate that by appealing to that person's worst fears and saying stuff like "Trump is a fascist nazi!".

Lol, you call everyone here a demagogue on an almost daily basis. I guess it's supposed to be funny, which it is. But just not in the way you think it is.

Quote:

---

a person, especially a political leader, who wins support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas

---

How about 'Trump is a human rights abuser for enacting the separation policy.' Is that demagoguery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Actually I'm just getting bored of trying to talk sense to you and Ong when you're both more interested in talking any shit you can to defend separating children from their parents.

---

no one is defending that. But to put all the blame on Trump's administration is not acknowledging the whole problem at all.

First of all, if you made it all the way to northern mexico, your *need* for asylum is pretty fucking dubious in the first place.

Second, if you have a legit asylum claim....then just wait in line. What imminent threat exists in Northern Mexico that makes you above the rules??

Breaking the rules has consequences. Whether you're an asylum seeker with a legitimate claim, or whether you're a criminal smuggler with MS-13 tattoos on your forehead....the law applies the same. You can't cross the border in between checkpoints. period. Don't do it, or you will be charged. What's wrong with that?

Poop - you refuse to acknowledge that a 'catch and release' policy only incentivizes people to take children on dangerous journeys.

Should there be a better process for reuniting people with minor children....probably. If that's the worst thing Trump does in his presidency, he's one of the all-time greats. The problem got fixed pretty shortly after it was publicized, and it would have been fixed sooner if congressional democrats weren't cocksucking pricks. So sorry that Trump isn't batting 1.000. What do you want him to do about it now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Lol, you call everyone here a demagogue on an almost daily basis. I guess it's supposed to be funny, which it is. But just not in the way you think it is.

---

It's such an apt word! I wish it had synonyms, but it doesn't. You engage in demagoguery on an almost daily basis. What else would I call it?

Quote:

---

How about 'Trump is a human rights abuser for enacting the separation policy.' Is that demagoguery?

---

Yeah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Maybe try to read something and then you can actually talk sense once in a while instead of just talking out of your ass all the time.

https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/definitions

---

So you're sticking with the idea they are fleeing for their lives? From one unstable country to an even more unstable country?

You just proved my point... that the UN distinguish between the two. See "labour migration" on the same site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

no one is defending that.

---

Then you're obviously missing the entire point I made, or ignoring it just for the sake of arguing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

[an essay about why he's right and everyone else is wrong]

---

Can you make a point without it being an entire page long? There's no way I'm ever going to read all that.

Here's an idea: cut out all the insults and hyperbole and "demagoguery" and just make the argument you want to make as plainly and succinctly as you can. It's not a contest to see who can type the most words.

The weren't "fleeing for their lives" when they decided to get from northern mexico to southern USA by sneaking between border checkpoints.

That's not fleeing.

That's a calculated decision to skip the line, ignore due process, and circumvent screening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Yeah

---

lol, so any criticism of Trump, valid or not, is demagoguery in your mind. No wonder you use the word so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

just make the argument you want to make as plainly and succinctly as you can.

---

ugh ooga booga man break law gug buga he go cage room durka booga ugh family no go too

Any surrounding circumstances of what he may have fled and left behind 3000 miles south are irrelevant to the crime at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The weren't "fleeing for their lives" when they decided to get from northern mexico to southern USA by sneaking between border checkpoints.

That's not fleeing.

That's a calculated decision to skip the line, ignore due process, and circumvent screening.

---

See how easy that was?

They weren't fleeing Mexico though, they were fleeing their own country and using Mexico as a transit point on their way to the country to which they were fleeing to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

lol, so any criticism of Trump, valid or not, is demagoguery in your mind. No wonder you use the word so much.

---

no, sensational baseless claims like "human rights abuser" that have no basis in fact or legal definitions, and that are only mean to illicit negative emotional responses, qualify as demagoguery.

That's EXACTLY the kind of bullshit the word was made for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

See how easy that was?

They weren't fleeing Mexico though, they were fleeing their own country and using Mexico as a transit point on their way to the country to which they were fleeing to.

---

But you still agree, if they had just got in line, the legal way, like everyone else, the would not have been separated

You agree that any separations are the result of a calculated decision to commit a misdemeanor with no mitigating circumstances other than being selfish and lazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

ugh ooga booga man break law gug buga he go cage room durka booga ugh family no go too

---

I guess you can't make a succinct argument. Sorry for pushing you into the deep end there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Any surrounding circumstances of what he may have fled and left behind 3000 miles south are irrelevant to the crime at hand.

---

I understand the gov't policy. I just don't think that makes it ok to separate families. Either don't enact the policy or if you must enact it, find a way to keep the families together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

But you still agree, if they had just got in line, the legal way, like everyone else, the would not have been separated

---

I agree they would have avoided the cruel and inhumane treatment by following the rules yes. Maybe they didn't know that though, as it wasn't the policy before. Have you thought of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You agree that any separations are the result of a calculated decision to commit a misdemeanor with no mitigating circumstances other than being selfish and lazy.

---

Sure, just like you agree that any separations are the result of a calculated decision to deter immigrants and asylum seekers by separating them from their children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I understand the gov't policy. I just don't think that makes it ok to separate families. Either don't enact the policy or if you must enact it, find a way to keep the families together.

---

I dont' get what your problem is.......

It's the exact same separation policy that applies to single-moms busted for shoplifting at wal-mart. You commit a crime, you get arrested, you go to jail, and your kid doesn't get to come with you.

If you need asylum, there are ways to get it. If you get rejected...that's on you. Apparently shit wasn't as bad as you thought. If it takes a long time...tough shit. The border patrol isn't interested in intentionally slow-walking anything. They're trying to keep america safe by vetting everybody and that takes time.

if you CHEAT, then you face the consequences. And if htat means you go to jail without your kids....so be it.

The only thing I will acknowledge is that there could have been a better way to reunite folks after all this was done. But on the list of things that tilt me in politics, this is probably number 10,847. I'm not really sad if criminals are having a hard time.