(June 21, 2018 at 9:32 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(June 21, 2018 at 8:13 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: You should know me well enough by now to know that I’m happy to be corrected on any factual errors that my positions are based upon.  Were they not implementing a “zero tolerance” policy on everyone crossing the border, including migrants with children in tow?  Were they not using cruelty as s deterrent?

I'm not convinced that "ALL cases" were a form of punishment and are more likely the result of bad application of a law/directive. I don't agree with the zero tolerance policy or it's apparent blanket application. Zero tolerance is stupid in almost any setting/condition/circumstance.  

From what I've read not everyone(ALL) was/were separated(one example): https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/c...ed-parents

As for cruelty as a deterrent, I'm not convinced that was the motive but a resulting outcome. And couldn't the "cruelty deterrent" point of view be applied to any illegal immigrant turned away, adult and child alike, claiming conditions of poverty, death threats, starvation, persecution............? I think there will always be some level of cruelty with regard to immigration. Most I will have sympathy for, some not.

My understanding, is that if they applied for asylum at the port of entry, then it was not the case, that they where separated and the adults arrested.  What the policy did was enforce existing laws (with zero tolerance however) which required up to 6 months jail time.  In which case it is reasonable to separate the children from their parents.  While I think that regardless, that the policy needed to be changed, they did really screw up, and promoting it as a deterrent, that kids would be separated.  They could have some argument for enforcing the law in matters of illegal activity. 

I believe that the new policy will allow for the parents/guardians to be held with the children.

(June 21, 2018 at 9:32 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(June 21, 2018 at 8:13 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: You should know me well enough by now to know that I’m happy to be corrected on any factual errors that my positions are based upon.  Were they not implementing a “zero tolerance” policy on everyone crossing the border, including migrants with children in tow?  Were they not using cruelty as s deterrent?

I'm not convinced that "ALL cases" were a form of punishment and are more likely the result of bad application of a law/directive. I don't agree with the zero tolerance policy or it's apparent blanket application. Zero tolerance is stupid in almost any setting/condition/circumstance.  

From what I've read not everyone(ALL) was/were separated(one example): https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/c...ed-parents

As for cruelty as a deterrent, I'm not convinced that was the motive but a resulting outcome. And couldn't the "cruelty deterrent" point of view be applied to any illegal immigrant turned away, adult and child alike, claiming conditions of poverty, death threats, starvation, persecution............? I think there will always be some level of cruelty with regard to immigration. Most I will have sympathy for, some not.

1. Whether it's all cases were punishment or not some is still unacceptable and bad application does not excuse that 

2. Whether all were or some were some still were 

3.Out come or intention the distinction does not mean much .And yes turning away immigrants is cruel but not to the same degree .

(June 21, 2018 at 11:36 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: My understanding, is that if they applied for asylum at the port of entry, then it was not the case, that they where separated and the adults arrested. 

Your guess is wrong..that;s -exactly- who got targeted by the policy.

Yet another layer in this onon of a fuckup.  Did it catch the "bad hombres" who were hiding out?  Nope.  Will it, and the new policy of jailing all immigrant families indefinitely (not a requirement of law..yet another misconception on your part) mean that more bad hombres do try to hide out..or that more mothers carrying children through the desert just don;t make uit here with -live- children as they atempt to evade authority rather than report and seek asylum?

Yup.

Trying to scare these people shitless doesn;t work to keep them out because they;re running for their lives already. It just makes it harder to enforce our laws..and, as it has for some time now..makes the victims of crimes afraid to report crimes for fear of being kicked back to the place they fled from. In sum..it makes the problem..however you conceive of it..worse.

Quote:It was tweeted by Mark Hamill of all people who took it down, but the original person who posted it (a 'journalist') in the first place still has it left up. I linked directly to his original tweet.

Which still is a weak point

At least 40% of Trump supporters polled held that blacks are lazier than whites, more criminal than whites, more violent than whites, more rude than whites; and over 30% held that blacks are less intelligent than whites. That's not half of his supporters, but it's over a third, and I think 'deplorable' is putting it mildly. It's not their skepticism that makes this portion of the electorate deplorable, it's their racism. And supporters of Democrats with the same attitude are also deplorable, and that's 20-30% of that group, way too high, and shameful.

They arent skeptical of shit, in any case.  These are people who mouth the word skepticism in order to advance the crisis actor conspiracy theory, lol. The level of orwellian doublespeak we;re growing accustomed to is breathtaking.

And to go back to my starting point there not using skepticism to find truth their using to as a dismissal tactic to try and get Dumpf off the hook . Same as the whole Obama thing is pure deflection .Truly deplorables .

(June 21, 2018 at 11:50 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: At least 40% of Trump supporters polled held that blacks are lazier than whites, more criminal than whites, more violent than whites, more rude than whites; and over 30% held that blacks are less intelligent than whites. That's not half of his supporters, but it's over a third, and I think 'deplorable' is putting it mildly. It's not their skepticism that makes this portion of the electorate deplorable, it's their racism. And supporters of Democrats with the same attitude are also deplorable, and that's 20-30% of that group, way too high, and shameful.

Source?

Quote:Source?

Which you will deny and scream FAKE NEWS

(June 21, 2018 at 12:37 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(June 21, 2018 at 11:50 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: At least 40% of Trump supporters polled held that blacks are lazier than whites, more criminal than whites, more violent than whites, more rude than whites; and over 30% held that blacks are less intelligent than whites. That's not half of his supporters, but it's over a third, and I think 'deplorable' is putting it mildly. It's not their skepticism that makes this portion of the electorate deplorable, it's their racism. And supporters of Democrats with the same attitude are also deplorable, and that's 20-30% of that group, way too high, and shameful.

Source?

http://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-trum...oll-475692

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/trump-supporte...ws-1567948

http://thesource.com/2016/06/30/new-poll...an-whites/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/...rters.html

http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/06/30/y...telligent/

https://newsone.com/3470218/roundup-trum...-and-more/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/poll...ly-n601221

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...iew-blacks

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nearly-half-tr...ccounter=1