Former President Donald J. Trump

[Deebank]

Curtis Stigers on Twitter...

Did you ever imagine America could be degraded, defiled & dismantled so easily & so quickly, by so few?

Curtis Stigers!

Still, when you're right you're right.

[Jimbo]

All your snark aside, if I may get back to whataboutism, a new Jimmy Dore installment steered me to this 2016 New York Times editorial titled, Mr. Obama’s Dubious Detention Centers. Since it is behind a paywall and it is short I'll post what is a vindication for my original view that the pummeling of Trump over cruel immigration practices was because it was TRUMP!!! Did Rachael Maddow cry on the air when Obama was doing essentially the same thing as Trump, who, by the way, rescinded the order to separate kids from their parents.

The family detention centers the Obama administration has been operating in Texas and Pennsylvania have been an expedient way to handle the soaring numbers of Central Americans, many of them young children, who have arrived at the Southern border since 2014. They give a sense that Homeland Security has the border situation under control, and they supposedly send a message to other would-be refugees not to come.

But these privately run, unlicensed lockups are no place for children. Or mothers. Their existence belies President Obama’s oft-professed concern for the humane treatment of people fleeing crime and violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

And the centers stand on dubious legal ground. Last year, a district judge ruled that the administration was violating a 1997 court-ordered settlement, called the Flores agreement, that governs the treatment of underage migrants who seek asylum or enter the country illegally. The judge said the children were being held for too long, and ordered the administration to release them as quickly as possible to the care of relatives or other guardians as their cases move through the immigration courts.

The administration appealed, saying that the agreement applied only to children who had crossed the border alone, not those who were accompanied by parents or other adult relatives. On July 6, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed, upholding the district ruling that Flores covers all children, accompanied or not. But it said the administration could still detain their parents.

Which leaves things pretty much where they were — unsettled, unsatisfactory, unfit for a country that aspires (or once did, anyway) to be an example to the world in its welcome for desperate refugees. The administration hasn’t said whether it will appeal, but it’s hard to imagine that it will use the appeals court ruling to break up families — sending children to foster care, maybe, while continuing to hold their mothers behind bars. On a separate issue not addressed by the Ninth Circuit ruling, plaintiffs have accused the administration of subjecting children to miserable conditions at Border Patrol stations.

If the Obama administration took its principles to heart, it would be closing its family prisons and abandoning its emphasis on border crackdowns in favor of greater efforts to connect Central Americans with pro bono lawyers and to provide family- and community-based alternatives to detention. Much money and effort have been spent to deter and detain them, to speed them through court, to hunt down those who are later found to be deportable.

It would be far better to to score a humanitarian victory by reuniting children and families, especially since data show that Central Americans with asylum claims are far more likely to show up in court — and win their cases — when they have lawyers.

Legislation introduced this month in Congress seeks to attack the problem at its root, with funds for combating human trafficking and resettling refugees within Central America and Mexico. But Congress is unlikely to pass it, which leaves the crisis in the president’s hands. Donald Trump and his Republican Party minions have taken the immigration debate to sickening lows, with disgraceful animus toward Mexicans and Muslims. Mr. Obama has forcefully denounced such nativism. But he can add strength to his words by ensuring greater protection for those who arrived, defenseless, at the Southern border.

[BARON CORNY DOG]

So, let’s see if we have this straight then, Jimbo:

In the face of a cynical, willful attack on the very humanity of thousands of young families, who are some of the most defenseless, impoverished people in the world, perpetrated on the whim of one of the most powerful people in the world, you choose (and are apparently happy) to take the well-trod oath of authoritarian propagandists who would defend the needless and heedless action.

Therefore:
1. This is all a big game to you
2. You don’t really give a shit about other humans

[BARON CORNY DOG]

Also, and of arguably more relevance to you, by your rules of logic, citing a NYT editorial chastising Obama for his immigration policies kinda sorta (totally, actually) defeats your “point” that liberals showed insufficient outrage when Obama did vaguely similar things.

[Jimbo]

So, let’s see if we have this straight then, Jimbo:

In the face of a cynical, willful attack on the very humanity of thousands of young families, who are some of the most defenseless, impoverished people in the world, perpetrated on the whim of one of the most powerful people in the world, you choose (and are apparently happy) to take the well-trod oath of authoritarian propagandists who would defend the needless and heedless action.

Therefore:
1. This is all a big game to you
2. You don’t really give a shit about other humans

Pettifoggery!

I think you see my point and that is to show how hypocritical the left can be. Not that the right is right by any means but I expect more thought from the left. In the era of TRUMP!!! the left has left their senses. (Russia, anyone?) And you usually make sense Baron. Who are these "authoritarian propagandists?" And if this is a "willful attack on the very humanity of thousands" it's been going on a long time and if suddenly you are "woke" then where were you when this attack was news on Obama's watch?

Not a game but I do like arguing.

I do give a shit but only about as much shit as I can give, which sadly ain't shit. My hopes and prayers are with all the victims. Is that what you'd like to see me say?

On the other hand, you are in a much better position to help. Maybe you can join the pro bono lawyers who are helping, lawyers who apparently have great success when they can get asylum seekers before a judge.

[Jimbo]

Also, and of arguably more relevance to you, by your rules of logic, citing a NYT editorial chastising Obama for his immigration policies kinda sorta (totally, actually) defeats your “point” that liberals showed insufficient outrage when Obama did vaguely similar things.

No, the lefty Times showed sufficient outrage then but there was insufficient outrage from the people to move him. It was court decisions that forced Obama to make any modifications to the policy. But suddenly today the left are up in arms - and good for them - but the motivator is the hatred of Trump and not so much the plight of the immigrants as shown by how they let the issue slide back in the Obama days.

[Snarfyguy]

The Obama administration separated immigrant children from accompanying adults in two types of cases: (1) if the child was in danger or (2) if the accompanying adult was being prosecuted.

The Trump administration did not alter these guidelines. What did change, however, is that the Trump administration — unlike Obama's — is enforcing the law passed by Congress which makes it a crime to cross the border illegally.

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/ ... mmigration

Who are these "authoritarian propagandists?"

Stephen Miller and Kirstjen Nielsen, to name a couple. Not sure why the question needed to be asked.

On the other hand, you are in a much better position to help. Maybe you can join the pro bono lawyers who are helping, lawyers who apparently have great success when they can get asylum seekers before a judge.

This is a rhetorical fallacy I'm not sure I've seen before: "If you actually felt that way, you'd be doing something about it."

[Sneelock]

Straw Man, I'll miss YOU most of all.

Not a game but I do like arguing.

[Jimbo]

The Obama administration separated immigrant children from accompanying adults in two types of cases: (1) if the child was in danger or (2) if the accompanying adult was being prosecuted.

The Trump administration did not alter these guidelines. What did change, however, is that the Trump administration — unlike Obama's — is enforcing the law passed by Congress which makes it a crime to cross the border illegally.

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/ ... mmigration

Who are these "authoritarian propagandists?"

Stephen Miller and Kirstjen Nielsen, to name a couple. Not sure why the question needed to be asked.

On the other hand, you are in a much better position to help. Maybe you can join the pro bono lawyers who are helping, lawyers who apparently have great success when they can get asylum seekers before a judge.

This is a rhetorical fallacy I'm not sure I've seen before: "If you actually felt that way, you'd be doing something about it."

I fail to see the point of this post. The first part was a quote from the Hill but no quotes. Was the article supposed to represent a frothing Trump supporter because while the writer wasn't crying like Rachael Maddow it wasn't rah! rah! Trump! either.

And you assume I know Miller and Nielsen. Dude, look at your signature. But Robert Parry is gone sadly and the tone at CN isn't the same. Taking Robert's place in my political mind is Catlain Johnstone and she wrote something today that suit my thinking to a T!

Last night Rachel Maddow finally took a break from her relentless warmongering toward Russia, Syria and North Korea to have a pretend cry about the plight of immigrant children on her hit MSNBC show. It was arguably the climax of a loud nationwide outcry against a federal policy of separating parents from their children when they are arrested for illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the United States, and the following day President Trump signed an executive order suspending that policy while congress comes up with some less draconian legislation...

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/demo ... ecb466509d

[Snarfyguy]

The language from The Hill was an attempt to distinguish Trump's immigration policy from Obama's for you, since you seeemed to be looking at the two as only relatively different.

Miller and Nielsen are pretty high profile figures these days - that's why I wasn't sure why you were asking.

[sloopjohnc]

Miller and Nielsen are pretty high profile figures these days - that's why I wasn't sure why you were asking.

Jimbo asking who these two people are kinda discredits any comments he might have on the issue - for me anyway.

Jimbo, these two are Torquemada and the executioner as far as current immigration goes.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

The Obama administration separated immigrant children from accompanying adults in two types of cases: (1) if the child was in danger or (2) if the accompanying adult was being prosecuted.

The Trump administration did not alter these guidelines. What did change, however, is that the Trump administration — unlike Obama's — is enforcing the law passed by Congress which makes it a crime to cross the border illegally.

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/ ... mmigration

For the logic impaired...now every adult is under prosecution - so every child is subject to possible separation.

[Jimbo]

The Obama administration separated immigrant children from accompanying adults in two types of cases: (1) if the child was in danger or (2) if the accompanying adult was being prosecuted.

The Trump administration did not alter these guidelines. What did change, however, is that the Trump administration — unlike Obama's — is enforcing the law passed by Congress which makes it a crime to cross the border illegally.

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/ ... mmigration

For the logic impaired...now every adult is under prosecution - so every child is subject to possible separation.

Not anymore, Einstein. Trump rescinded the separation rule.

Besides, the legal minutia are hard for me to fathom but what I do get is that the rules under Obama were only marginally more humane than Trump's. Trump is only adding on to what Obama and his predecessors wrought, like each new guy getting his licks in on the hazing, getting blooded. And remember, whoever was in power all this strictness was enacted as a deterrent to discourage these wretched and downtrodden families and, yes, gangsters, from coming to the US in the first place. There is video of Obama and candidate Clinton speaking of how these harsh rules should deter them from coming in the first place. Obama: Don't come or we will imprison your entire family. Trump: Don't come or we will imprison your family and remove your children. If either of those threats didn't deter them can you imagine how harsh life was in those countries? Both are a far cry from the welcoming words on the Statue of Liberty.

[toomanyhatz]

The Obama administration separated immigrant children from accompanying adults in two types of cases: (1) if the child was in danger or (2) if the accompanying adult was being prosecuted.

The Trump administration did not alter these guidelines. What did change, however, is that the Trump administration — unlike Obama's — is enforcing the law passed by Congress which makes it a crime to cross the border illegally.

http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/ ... mmigration

For the logic impaired...now every adult is under prosecution - so every child is subject to possible separation.

Not anymore, Einstein. Trump rescinded the separation rule...Trump is only adding on to what Obama and his predecessors wrought..

Not so fast, Socrates. He rescinded that one part of the order - after saying he couldn't - but did absolutely nothing for the children already separated, and still maintained that asylum seekers must still be considered criminals - he's just detaining families together. It's not some magnanimous gesture on his part. It basically improves the "optics" without making any meaningful change to the part of the policy that he (no, not Obama - not on any level) instituted. Here's a 'common sense' rundown from Rolling Stone (an opinion piece, yes, but a lot more backed up by facts than anything the administration has offered up):

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/n ... er-w521783

[Jimbo]

For the logic impaired...now every adult is under prosecution - so every child is subject to possible separation.

Not anymore, Einstein. Trump rescinded the separation rule...Trump is only adding on to what Obama and his predecessors wrought..

Not so fast, Socrates. He rescinded that one part of the order - after saying he couldn't - but did absolutely nothing for the children already separated, and still maintained that asylum seekers must still be considered criminals - he's just detaining families together. It's not some magnanimous gesture on his part. It basically improves the "optics" without making any meaningful change to the part of the policy that he (no, not Obama - not on any level) instituted. Here's a 'common sense' rundown from Rolling Stone (an opinion piece, yes, but a lot more backed up by facts than anything the administration has offered up):

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/n ... er-w521783

Thanks for that Hatz. Not only you but the RS article misses my point and does not mention how the Obama admin policy was nearly as heartless. The article does however give Trump an out with this sentence.

Trump and his administration have absolutely no idea what they’re doing.

Obama's did.

[naughty boy]

Ooooohh he's got you there!!

[Goat Boy]

Of course they know what they are doing. They are saying to people if you want to come to our country without documentation this is what we are going to do to your kids and your family.

[toomanyhatz]

[ the Obama admin policy was nearly as heartless.

Not interested in arguing this point, as it's irrelevant to the point you keep missing - that the prosecution of asylum seekers is the new part - and completely the current administration's doing.

I think the "don't know what they're doing" part isn't referring to that - as GB says, they know exactly what they're doing. I think it's referring to the constant improvisation of how they manage to throw chum to their base while deflecting as much criticism as possible on to the democrats. The "it's important to me to keep families together" line is particularly high on the bullshit meter - and I suspect most people, even his supporters, can see through it.

[Jimbo]

You know, to be honest, from where I sit and what I have experienced, no matter how the US government handles those people, in the end they'll be all right. Even with Trump in charge. They won't be killed like the Jews in Europe or like in any other infamous mass round up and killing. They will be treated roughly and they deserve to be treated much better but in the end they will survive, unlike how they may have fared in their home countries. The US immigration policy is a horror show but not a death squad.

That said, how about focusing on where US policy - Trumps and Obama's - are actually killing people, children, torturing them, droning them, driving them out of their homes, making them into refugees - - who then have to contend with our disgraceful ICE. I'm talking about Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. I'd like to see Rachael shed some tears for what we have done to those people.

[Sneelock]

I’d like to see Kanye play the bagpipes. Nothing he does is worth my regarding until he does.