Don't overlook the obvious lie. No liberals credited Melania or Ivanka with changing Trump's mind. The only reason Trump flipped is because his poll numbers were plunging again and all the Republicans were just flat freaking the fuck out.

 

the raincoat was worn in response of Peter Fonda's stupid remarks about her son .
You people take everything out of context
If those pictures are of her the first lady God bless our finest looking first lady in any country ever . only wish the Liberals had 1/10 her intelligence. What you people should really worry about is the children who live in this country and who were born in this country who have it really bad . probably much worse than the immigrants crossing the border now

 

That's incorrect. She wore the coat as a statement against the fake media. Trump said so, therefore it's the truth. He never lies. He sometimes speaks in a different vernacular. So let's talk about your intelligence and speaking out of context, okay?

 

Ah that's not what Melania said.
Fake news . don't question my intelligence I read all the liberal bullshit you put out there . didn't realize you were a one of. I have to start reading your crap

 

My crap? Because I'm not a Trump supporter I speak crap? My goodness, isn't that respectful of a fellow American citizen, one who grew up and was educated in the mid-west, whose parents are hardworking blue collar people. You joined when? Just over 2 months ago? You know, you can go elsewhere if you don't want to read crap. And as far as intelligence, you might come across a little smarter if you consider capitalizing the first letter of the first word in your sentences and maybe remember punctuation.

 

Listen I don't wanna argue with you but the children of this country come first that's it and end of conversation

 

Punctuation spelling that's all you liberals have . Big deal you know how to use spellcheck .

 

Why are the liberals, you know them, they are the ones who insist that we accept all people as equals, regardless of their: race, color, creed, lifestyle, vocation, sexual preference or orientation, now attacking people because of their: looks, sexual preference, vocation, creed, etc.?

 

What policy did Trump enact on Wednesday?
On Wednesday, Trump ended the policy of family separation and replaced it with a policy of family detention.


Did the Trump administration have a policy of separating families at the border?
Yes.

In April, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered prosecutors along the border to "adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy" for illegal border crossings. That included prosecuting parents traveling with their children as well as people who subsequently attempted to request asylum.


Children are likely to be separated from parents illegally crossing the border under new Trump administration policy

May 07, 2018

It also could put thousands more immigrants in detention facilities and children in shelters, and is likely to strain an immigration system that has struggled to keep up with a surge in enforcement under President Trump.

Until now, individuals apprehended while crossing illegally were often simply bused back over the border without charges.

That was especially common for people without criminal records or previous immigration violations.

"This border is not open. Don't come unlawfully…. Make your claim. Wait your turn," Sessions said.

 

Trump ended the practice that his administration was using. He claimed it was the Democratic law that caused the separation. Of course, we all found out there was no law and that the policy was rarely enforced in previous administrations, as it was deemed inhumane.

Traveling with children is not against the law. Coming to this country and seeking asylum from violence and persecution is not against the law. There is due process and that practice is not being followed. Instead, this administration changed the rules and chose to throw people in jail, after separating them from their children.

This practice of separation and imprisonment is costing the taxpayers millions of dollars. It's now said that children are being moved to northern states because the drain on resources in Texas. How they're going to keep track of which children went where, is beyond me. We barely have enough room in jails and prisons for our convicted citizens. If they were simply bused back over the border without charges, wouldn't that be less expensive as well as less traumatic for the families, in general?

 

I don't believe that anyone really thinks this is the best practice for the children. It's not summer camp and it's not foster care. I hope they reunite the families soon.

 

This is not best for the children.
That is not the question.
The question is what's best for the USA.

 

I believe you're stereotyping when you say the liberals. Liberals, conservatives, people in general attack others. All you have to do is read any of the threads in this forum.

However, I will agree that to not accept someone because of their race, color, creed, lifestyle (not sure what you mean by that) vacation, sexual preference or orientation is ridiculous. Who of us is so perfect that we should judge someone based on any of those things? I know adults who were complete homophobes when I was growing up, just to find that their own child was gay. Those same people, who would have been the first to slam the door on someone because of the sexual preference, are now staunch supporters of their son and his husband. Tell me which of the characteristics you listed, is a legitimate reason to not accept someone? Shouldn't the decision be based on whether someone is a good, law-abiding person?

I can't find an article, but I seem to remember Trump's prerequisites for immigration. My parents went down the checklist which included college educated, profession and I believe monetary worth. They would not have been allowed entry. Now, my family has owned their land since my great, great grandparents, but if his ideals had been put into place, they wouldn't be here today. Hard-working, law-abiding, tax paying, church-going people would not have been allowed. Why is that fair?

So, I'm asking you @tenguy, which of the criteria that you listed, is a legitimate reason to exclude? I'm not saying you would, but you brought it up the subject.

 

Time’s crying girl photo controversy, explained


The crying girl on the magazine’s cover wasn’t separated from her mom at the border. But 2,300 other children were. [Gee, almost half as many as were separated during the Obama scandal in 2014 which we never heard about.]

It became the viral symbol of Trump’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy: a toddler from Honduras in a pink sweatshirt, just taller than the knees of her mother, who’s being searched by border patrol agents. The girl’s face is frozen between a cry and scream, so intense you can almost hear it through the still photograph.

To many, the picture of the 2-year-old Honduran girl and her mother — taken by award-winning Getty photographer John Moore, who’s followed the border crisis for years — embodied the horror of Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy to prosecute all people crossing the border illegally, leading to the separation of families. It helped fuel the public outrage that forced Trump to backtrack by issuing an executive order to end the practice.

An interpretation of that photo made it on the cover of Time magazine, depicting the wailing girl looking up at Donald Trump, who loomed above her against a red backdrop. A caption read: “Welcome to America.”

Except it turned out that the original photo wasn’t depicting a family separation at all. The mother, Sandra Sanchez, and the 2-year-old girl, Yanela, were never separated, something the girl’s father and Honduran and US officials confirmed Friday.

Time stood by its decision to use the photo on its controversial cover, but the White House and other critics seized on this as an example of “fake news,” a photo deliberately used to mislead the public about Trump’s policy.

Time also published an article about the image, which said the girl was taken away, screaming, by border patrol agents. That never happened: The toddler’s mother picked her up and they were both taken away together, according to correction posted in Time.

A border patrol agent first told CBS News on Thursday that the two were never split up. The girl’s father, who is still in Honduras, later said that mom and daughter stayed together, which Honduran and US officials confirmed.

Time defended the cover, even after the retraction on the article. Time editor-in-chief Edward Felsenthal said in a statement:

The June 12 photograph of the 2-year-old Honduran girl became the most visible symbol of the ongoing immigration debate in America for a reason: Under the policy enforced by the administration, prior to its reversal this week, those who crossed the border illegally were criminally prosecuted, which in turn resulted in the separation of children and parents. Our cover and our reporting capture the stakes of this moment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fake news? What fake news?

 

Spoiler: This'll make you cry

https://www.theonion.com/ice-agents-hurl-pregnant-immigrant-over-mexican-border-1822307567

Onions! Onions make you cry.

 

Well, but as Shooter has said before, never let it be said that when the issue is political agenda, facts should not be allowed to get in the way of advancing the agenda.

The media is beginning to catch onto the fact that Obama also used harsh measures to deter illegal immigration. He didn't separate parents from children, but according to law suits filed against detention centers allege that under the Obama administration kids were drugged and physically and mentally abused. The law suits also allege that the Obama administration intentionally put detention centers in remote areas to confound attempts by lawyers to represent them. Obama's famous "rocket docket" violated ILLEGAL immigrant rights and deported thousands without due process.

So here's the thing. It appears that everyone can agree; to immigrate to the United States one must do so illegally. Coming here illegally is not acceptable.

The question is, what to do about it? Well, Shooter for one is all for expedited hearings to sort out the bad actors from the acceptable ones. We need to understand that as heart breaking as it is to turn away people fleeing violence in their own home lands, we simply cannot be expected to allow free access.

There has to be a process. It needs to start with insisting that applications for immigration and/or sanctuary has to start in the foreign embassies we have in just about every country. The process has to be efficient, clear as to the requirements, and abuse minimized.

Making the long, dangerous trek to America must be discouraged. It is dangerous for them, and creates unwanted liabilities for us. It does not speed the process of immigration, it slows it to a crawl.

Now, if we can stop playing the emotion cards and get on with a reasoned discussion of the issues, just maybe we can come to some sort of consensus.