Separation of families at the border

[The Reverend Bob]

So, for them, they can just cross the border, and go wherever they want, since the have broken no laws, right ?

They crossed the border to ask for asylum and/or apply for refugee status just like The Law says they are to do. I don't have any chicken nuggets to spell this out in.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Ya know....sometimes posters mistakenly presume
it's the other guy who doesn't understand.
It's worth considering.
Being less abusive would also serve you.

Want to guess how many finger I am holding up right now?

 

[Revoltingest]

Want to guess how many finger I am holding up right now?

Nice tie you have there.

 

[Shad]

They crossed the border to ask for asylum and/or apply for refugee status just like The Law says they are to do. I don't have any chicken nuggets to spell this out in.

They can do that at any border crossing. They do not. They do it after they are caught in the US illegally. They are gaming the system.

 

[fantome profane]

They can do that at any border crossing. They do not. They do it after they are caught in the US illegally. They are gaming the system.

Maybe. But that still does not justify they way they are being treated.

 

[Shad]

Maybe. But that still does not justify they way they are being treated.

Oh course not. The agency and staff need a major review and overhaul. Congress still controls funding thus needs to get off it's *** instead of complaining all the time

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Maybe. But that still does not justify they way they are being treated.

They actually can't. In order to apply for asylum or refugee status you have to be on US soil proper. You actually have to be across the border and in the country, not at the at or across from the border but you have to cross over into it in order to apply.

 

[Father Heathen]

You haven't joined the religious left, have you?

Nah, Jesus and I are just drinking buddies. That's all.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Oh course not. The agency and staff need a major review and overhaul. Congress still controls funding thus needs to get off it's *** instead of complaining all the time

How about having refugee NGOs run the concentration camps and let the UN look into the matter? Since this an international issue

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Is a hungry person who breaks the law to eat commiting a crime?

Is a homeless person committing a crime by staying in an unrented house without permission?

I like your questions, and they've long been something I've thought about. But sadly, the answer has always been "Yes." In fiction, Victor Hugo asked the same question, as Jean Valjean was sentenced to penal servitude for stealing a single loaf of bread to feed a starving child. The "law," as represented by Inspector Javert, could allow no such excuse.

I've asked the same question myself. What if, during hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, a man with a diabetic child broke into a closed drug store to get only as much insulin as his diabetic daughter required to survive? Would he still be committing a crime? I think the answer is probably yes. Could the courts make an exception and excuse him? I don't know, but I'd like to see it tested.

Welcome to trying to be human. Welcome to philosophy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Trump ? The law that requires the separation came down under Obama, and he did it.

I repeat, this is a false claim, made by Trump. "President Obama separated children. They had child separation. I was the one who that changed it," Trump said.

This is false and requires context. Under Obama, children were separated from parents only when authorities had concerns for their well-being or could not confirm that the adult was in fact their legal guardian, but not as a blanket policy. Trump himself tweaked that to broaden it, and ramp up strict enforcement.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And how well did that work out for the Native Americans?

That's what I always find ironic about people trying to use those kind of arguments saying "well, your ancestors came here illegally".
Are you saying you want to end up like the Native Americans did?

They automatically end up proving that those who want strong borders are right because history shows they have good reason to say it's bad for the stability of the current order of society to let unchecked illegal immigration flow into your society - especially when those entering have no desire to assimilate but instead act more like colonizers coming to impose their way of life on the current inhabitants.

So you're saying, "we're not going to allow others to do as we did unto others?"

 

[shmogie]

They crossed the border to ask for asylum and/or apply for refugee status just like The Law says they are to do. I don't have any chicken nuggets to spell this out in.

You didn't answer the question, no surprise there.

Since they broke no law in crossing the border, they can go anywhere they choose.

You can answer true or false.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

More total BS. Wealthy people in one way or another generate jobs that no one else can. Further, the middle class benefited from the tax cut.

And future generations -- many who cannot yet vote (you know, "no taxation without representation!") -- are going to pay for much of it.

And if, as you say, the middle class benefitted, what about those who were more in need? How did they benefit?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you arguing that the existence of wasteful government
acts in one area justifies justify them in another?

Other philosophers have argued that one of the things most likely to happen in a democracy is voting yourselves the proceeds of other people's money...without their agreement. As your own Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You didn't answer the question, no surprise there.

Since they broke no law in crossing the border, they can go anywhere they choose.

You can answer true or false.

They can go with people and organizations that are willing to sponsor them as in concordance with the law you despise

 

[We Never Know]

In other countries, it's against the law for females to drive. Does it make it right?

Laws tend to be black and white, however, life isn't.

A dying person that is dying from hunger when caught stealing probably should be viewed differently. The person would value his life over a law. The question remains is if he would steal if his life was dependent on it.

Basing your argument purely on technical aspects is failing to see the ethical and moral perspective of the entire situation.

Is it ethical and moral to overlook the hungry person stealing food?
Should we just overlook the fact they broke the law?
What's next, only punish people who can afford it?

 

[We Never Know]

Asylum seekers and refugees are not coming here illegally. How many times does this have to be ****ing repeated before a bunch right-wing mental cripples get it? Do we have to translate it into i-tard for some to understand? Do we have to spell it out in chicken nuggets so the helmet-headed window lickers can learn a basic concept?

Tell me if they are not commiting a crime by crossing illegally, why are they going to build a wall?

In today's news....

Supreme Court clears way for Trump to use Pentagon funds for border wall
The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to tap Pentagon funds to build sections of a border wall with Mexico.

The Supreme Court said Friday that it would lift a freeze on the money put in place by a lower court. The Supreme Court’s action means the Trump administration can tap the funds and begin work on four contracts it has awarded. Four liberal justices wouldn’t have allowed construction to start.

High court allows use of Pentagon funds for border wall

 

[We Never Know]

I like your questions, and they've long been something I've thought about. But sadly, the answer has always been "Yes." In fiction, Victor Hugo asked the same question, as Jean Valjean was sentenced to penal servitude for stealing a single loaf of bread to feed a starving child. The "law," as represented by Inspector Javert, could allow no such excuse.

I've asked the same question myself. What if, during hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, a man with a diabetic child broke into a closed drug store to get only as much insulin as his diabetic daughter required to survive? Would he still be committing a crime? I think the answer is probably yes. Could the courts make an exception and excuse him? I don't know, but I'd like to see it tested.

Welcome to trying to be human. Welcome to philosophy.

It becomes a issue of who do we let slide by and who do we not.

 

[We Never Know]

Asylum seekers and refugees are not coming here illegally. How many times does this have to be ****ing repeated before a bunch right-wing mental cripples get it? Do we have to translate it into i-tard for some to understand? Do we have to spell it out in chicken nuggets so the helmet-headed window lickers can learn a basic concept?

The legal way to seek asylum is come and do it. Once granted then you can apply/send for your children.
Don't drag them 1000's of miles, endangering their lives when you don't even know if you will be granted asylum.