The only reason I posted in the Trump Presidency thread is that we have such a polarization of political and ideological thought in this country.
And yet your PragerU tries to lump conservatives and liberals together. "We" have the same values but "they" (the Left) don't. He as much as says that "they" don't love their children the way "we" do. He might as well say that "they" don't feel pain the way "we" do or that "they" enjoy slavery. He's dehumanizing "The Left". That's step one in being able to do anything "we" want to "them".
Bloomberg reports on the mess, over a massively subsidised factory that looks like never coming close to the original promises. And of course the deal was Trumpeted to the skies....
At least parts of the deal are dependent on Foxconn living up to it. But that seems to be the only good thing about it.
At the time of Trump’s visit
The Wisconsin plant was only handling the last steps of assembly, and some TV displays were still labeled “Made in Mexico.” Pay at the factory started at about $14 an hour with no benefits, much less than the $23 average Foxconn promised.
Under the terms Walker negotiated, each job at the Mount Pleasant factory is projected to cost the state at least $219,000 in tax breaks and other incentives. The good or extra-bad news, depending on your perspective, is that there probably won’t be 13,000 of them.
(Walker being the Republican Governor of Wisconsin - since ousted)
Walker should have been more careful:
Foxconn has a history of overpromising and underdelivering on major deals. In Brazil in 2011 and India in 2015, it pledged to invest billions of dollars and create tens of thousands of jobs after Gou courted each country’s leaders, but each project fell far short. In 2013, Foxconn said it would invest $30 million and employ as many as 500 people at a Pennsylvania factory that also never fully materialized.
A report from the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, a nonpartisan government agency, estimated the state would be in the red on the deal until at least 2042, and even that projection didn’t account for the kinds of increased public-services costs associated with population growth. It also based income tax revenue projections on the implausible assumption that every employee would live in Wisconsin, whereas some would almost certainly commute from nearby Illinois
On Jan. 18, Foxconn announced that at the end of 2018 it had 178 full-time employees in Wisconsin, missing its maximum first-year hiring target by 82 percent and costing it that year’s tax credits.
Goodness gracious me. It sounds so much like a platinum mine in my country where poor people were solemny promised jobs and gathered around a hill. Lots of them were shot by the police. Marikana.
Members of Trump’s Transition Team tried to push a deal to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia - even though it would almost certainly be illegal (Saudi Arabia would have to sign an agreement not to use the technology to produce weapons-grade material - and they have refused to do so in the past and showed no sign of changing their minds)
Flynn was up to his neck in it - having signed on with the company behind the scheme before he was invited into the Transition Team.
It hasn’t happened - yet - but it looks as if the deal is still not dead.
Getting visas to visit the U.S. is harder than ever.
Adi Shamir was unable to get a visa to particpate at the RSA conference - a major event in the computer security calendar, which has been running since 1991
To appreciate just how bad this is, you have to know that the ”S’ in “RSA” stands for “Shamir”
Jorge Ramos asked Sanders & Hillary if EVERY child has the right to cross the border.
2016 (or 2015?) UNIVISION DEBATE
Sanders said "I think I can agree to that", then Hillary Clinton said "yes".
That question was asked in the light of the Trump campaign (plus the Central American child migration crisis of 2013- present).
Now, Democrats say Trump is evil for putting children migrants behind bars.
HOLD FUTURE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS AND THE DEMOCRATIC RANK-AND-FILE TO A CONSISTENT STANDARD.
Nothing less than the highest standard for children migrants is acceptable.
(Be advised that the only new thing under Trump is PARENTS AND CHILDREN BEING SEPARATED. The detention of children is standard fare. Hillary Clinton supported the detention of children back in the 2013-2014 period, just after she left her Secretary of State job. To his credit, Sanders spoke, on the floor of the Senate, in opposition of the detentions. He was somewhat consistent from 2013 to 2016.)
Today's Democrats say that the issue of children being put behind bars is extreme but will they be consistent when there is a Democratic administration?
MY FEAR:
Democrats (during a future Democratic administration) will say, "We opposed the 'excesses' of the Trump administration, which especially included the separation of migrant children from their parents BUT WE CANNOT ALLOW EVERY CHILD IN THE WORLD TO IMMIGRATE TO THIS COUNTRY".
MY HOPE:
Democratic administrations (and the Democratic party as a whole) will admit that they fired severe attacks on Trump for stopping child-migrants at the border (and irrespective of the separate issue of separating a few thousand parents from children), and the accordant policy of the post-Trump Democratic party will be to honor the spirit, of the Trump-era opposition-party position, that the party of Thomas Jefferson presented then.
Re: Jorge Ramos asked Sanders & Hillary if EVERY child has the right to cross the border.
LamarkNewAge writes:
2016 (or 2015?) UNIVISION DEBATE Sanders said "I think I can agree to that", then Hillary Clinton said "yes".
That question was asked in the light of the Trump campaign (plus the Central American child migration crisis of 2013- present).
You are a complete mess when it comes to saying anything clear and coherent. What were Sanders and Clinton replying to? Here is a YouTube video of the 2016 Univision debate between Sanders and Clinton. Find the spot where the exchange happens and then repost the video queued up to the correct time:
Now, Democrats say Trump is evil for putting children migrants behind bars.
How would you describe the incarceration of innocent children?
HOLD FUTURE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS AND THE DEMOCRATIC RANK-AND-FILE TO A CONSISTENT STANDARD.
Consistency would be nice, but you do realize that there are a wide variety of opinions across any major party, Democrats and Republicans included.
Nothing less than the highest standard for children migrants is acceptable.
Well, welcome to the Democratic position. So given that you're holding those responsible for upholding the highest standards for child migrants, how would you characterize Trump's approach?
(Be advised that the only new thing under Trump is PARENTS AND CHILDREN BEING SEPARATED. The detention of children is standard fare.
Federal law places a limit on the incarceration of children, 20 days or something like that. After that they have to be released to relatives or to child services for placement in foster homes.
Hillary Clinton supported the detention of children back in the 2013-2014 period, just after she left her Secretary of State job.
So little of what you say is true that I won't comment on this claim of what Clinton supported, but needless to say I think most people are against the incarceration of children.
To his credit, Sanders spoke, on the floor of the Senate, in opposition of the detentions. He was somewhat consistent from 2013 to 2016.)
If true, good for him.
Today's Democrats say that the issue of children being put behind bars is extreme but will they be consistent when there is a Democratic administration?
Who cares if the Democrats are consistent. Anyone, Democrats or Republicans or Independents or Green Party or whatever, who are in favor of the incarceration of children (beyond that 20 day period or whatever it is) should be opposed.
MY FEAR:
Democrats (during a future Democratic administration) will say, "We opposed the 'excesses' of the Trump administration, which especially included the separation of migrant children from their parents BUT WE CANNOT ALLOW EVERY CHILD IN THE WORLD TO IMMIGRATE TO THIS COUNTRY".
There are five ways a child might emigrate to the US:
Legally by visa.
Legally by asylum application.
Legally by applying from oversees for refugee status.
Illegally by overstaying a visa.
Illegally by crossing the border.
Most people on both sides of the aisle probably oppose illegal immigration. But one side of the aisle wishes to treat illegal immigrants with dignity and compassion and due process. The other side of the aisle wants to deport them as quickly and expeditiously and cruelly as possible, often giving short shrift to due process.
MY HOPE:
Democratic administrations (and the Democratic party as a whole) will admit that they fired severe attacks on Trump for stopping child-migrants at the border (and irrespective of the separate issue of separating a few thousand parents from children), and the accordant policy of the post-Trump Democratic party will be to honor the spirit, of the Trump-era opposition-party position, that the party of Thomas Jefferson presented then.
What do you think is the proper response to a humanitarian crisis on the border involving children? One idea would be to take Trump's wall money and put it into facilities and staff and courts for humanely handling the large influx of children and families. It would cost far less than the wall.
Re: Jorge Ramos asked Sanders & Hillary if EVERY child has the right to cross the border.
The issue is about giving the undocumented/illegal immigrants the right to avoid deportation and to stay.
(children seem to be the group Democrats show willingness to defend to various degrees)
( The right to NOT be walled off by a border check is another issue. Democrats are on the record calling walls "racist", and we all know walls are just a symbol of borders)
This March 2016 Univision debate was in the shadow of Hillary Clinton's 2014 comments (the quotes are easy to find) supporting swift deportation of children.
quote:
Search only for hillar clinto said deport children
Hillary Clinton Defends Call To Deport Child Migrants | HuffPost HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost... Hillary Clinton this week defended her call to deport children from the U.S. who are fleeing violence in Central America. ... Clinton also said the U.S. should do more to deal with the violence in ...
Clinton, Sanders won't deport children - Business Insider static3.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-bernie... Univision debate moderator Jorge Ramos asked Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders about deportation at the Wednesday-night Democratic debate. Ramos pressed Clinton repeatedly on the issue of child deportation until she said, plainly, "I will not deport children." "I will not deport children.
Hillary: I Will Not Deport Illegal Children, Family Members ... http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hillary-clinton-wont... Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she would not deport illegal children or aliens that do not have criminal records ” and "I do not want to deport family members, either." "I want to prioritize who would be deported," Clinton told Univision co-moderator Jorge Ramos in Miami.
Hillary Clinton’s Child-Deportation Flip-Flop - The Daily Beast The Daily Beast... Hillary Clinton’s Child-Deportation Flip-Flop. ... Hillary Clinton swore up and down that she does not want to deport kids, no way, no how. ... “I will not deport children,” she said after ...
Clinton, Sanders won't deport children - Business Insider Insider... Hillary Clinton. Univision/Washington Post Both candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president said definitively on Wednesday that they will not deport children if elected.
Hillary Clinton: Deport The Illegal Children Back To Central ... news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-deport-illegal... Hillary Clinton: Deport The Illegal Children Back To Central America More For years, parents in crime-ridden Central American nations have been sending their children up through Mexico alone to cross the American border.
Hillary Clinton: Deport The Illegal Children Back To Central ... dailycaller.com/2014/06/17/hillary-clinton... Probable Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton broke with President Obama on a key policy issue Tuesday, claiming the unprecedented number of illegal children flooding into the United States must be deported and returned to their families in Central America.
Hillary Clinton: Unaccompanied Minors 'Should Be Sent Back' HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost... Cristina Jimenez, managing director for United We Dream, said in a statement. "If separating children from families is not who we are as Americans, then Hillary Clinton should join other ...
Hillary Clinton Said Children of Illegal Immigrants Should Be ... http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-immigration... Hillary Clinton Said Children of Illegal Immigrants Should Be Sent Back in 2014 CNN Interview ... And the report notes that while on the campaign trail Clinton said she wanted “comprehensive ...
Back to the March 9, 2016 debate
Sanders said he would not deport children.
(Hillary largely agreed)
quote:
Hillary Clinton: Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country; I do not want to see them deported. I want to see them on a path to citizenship. That is exactly what I will do.
Jorge Ramos: Senator Sanders, can you promise us tonight that you won’t deport children?
Bernie Sanders: Let me just say this. I don’t think that the Secretary fully answered your question, and I think the proof may be in the pudding. Honduras and that region of the world may be the most violent region in our hemisphere; gang lords, vicious people, torturing people, doing horrible things to families. Children fled that part of the world to try, try, try maybe to meet up with their family members in this country, taking a route that was horrific, trying to start a new life. Secretary Clinton did not support those children coming into this country. I did. Now, I happen to agree with President Obama on many, many issues. I think he’s done a great job as President of the United States. He is wrong on this issue of deportation. I disagree with him on that. So to answer your question; no, I will not deport children from the United States of America.
But where are we now?
We are at a situation where illegal immigrants are being protected in "sanctuary cities".
Put "Obama deported Children" into google and see lots of mainstream media articles enlightening the evidence of large numbers of deportations and comparisons to Trump.
quote:
Politics & Policy Why Trump Deports Fewer Immigrants Than Obama Sanctuary states and cities are slowing the expulsions.
By Francis Wilkinson May 15, 2018, 10:12 AM CDT
It's a testament to President Donald Trump's capacity for malice that his deportation policy has terrified more while deporting less. Arrests by his administration's Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2017 were about half what they were during President Barack Obama's peak years, 2010 and 2011, according to a new report by the Migration Policy Institute.
During Obama's first term, when he was laying the groundwork for what he hoped would be a comprehensive bargain on immigration, his administration aggressively enforced immigration law. ICE arrests peaked at more than 300,000 annually in 2010 and 2011. Deportations from the American interior -- in other words, not of people apprehended near the border ” surpassed 200,000 in both those years, also about twice the number reached in 2017. Pro-immigrant groups took to calling Obama the "deporter in chief."
....
I asked Leopold why Obama's peak years of enforcement hadn't spread as much fear or more ” given the higher rates of arrest and deportation.
"Even during the worst days of the Obama crackdown," he said, "ICE used its discretion and applied common sense." Today, he said, the agency refuses to use either, while seeming to revel in "tearing apart families."
Why are Trump's deportation numbers so far below Obama's peak? Credit resistance at the state and local level. California saw its share of total ICE arrests drop from 23 percent in 2013 to 14 percent in 2017. Local jurisdictions were more inclined to reject ICE requests for detainers, which seek to hold a particular subject for up to 48 hours, enabling ICE to take custody. Nationwide, detainer requests in 2017 were rejected at four times the rate of 2016.
The Migration Policy Institute report stated:
Across the study sites, state and local governments, attorneys, advocates, community leaders and Mexican and other consulates have been engaged in increased activism and mobilization to monitor ICE activities, develop response plans to protect immigrants during ICE operations and provide legal defense to those in deportation hearings. California, New York, Chicago and the Mexican consulates provided significant new funding to support immigration legal services and representation.
Close to 300 states and localities have sanctuary policies of varying force. About 200 of them do not honor ICE detainers. "ICE has responded by doing what it can ” making more arrests in the community, which it can do on its own without local cooperation," said Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications and public affairs at the institute, a leading immigration think tank and research organization.
While sanctuaries resist, red states are stepping up. Texas's share of total ICE arrests increased from 25 percent to 28 percent as California's share declined. Given a free hand by Washington, ICE has grown much less discriminating in its targets. While arrests of noncitizens with convictions rose 7 percent from 2016 to 2017, arrests of noncitizens without criminal convictions increased 147 percent.
Employers are being targeted as well. ICE said this week that it had opened nearly 2,300 employer audits between Oct. 1 and May 4. There were 1,360 such audits between October 2016 and September 2017.
The Migration Policy Institute report, the product of a yearlong study informed by numerous interviews, stated:
Amid growing pushback in some locations, ICE has adjusted some of its enforcement activities, conducting more operations in limited-cooperation jurisdictions, arresting people in courthouses and near sensitive locations such as schools, carrying out more arrests in the community and bringing in immigrants who were not targets, and taking in a growing share of non-criminals.
In effect, Trump's policies are achieving his goals, frightening undocumented immigrants and heightening risks of deportation -- even if he can't match Obama's peak. Fear of arrest and deportation also appears to be discouraging some immigrants from reporting crime.
Meanwhile, local and state officials who resist federal immigration policy are having success blunting Trump's attack on undocumented residents. Immigration policy in the U.S. is heading in two diametrically opposed directions, with different outcomes in different geographies.
Democrats will be in power again, and we will see if "walls are racist" (or "The Wall is racist") will be matched with sincerity in policymaking. Walls are just a symbol of borders. Will Democrats seriously challenge borders?
Is a fence less racist than a wall (Google: "wall verses a fence")?
Then, will Democrats backtrack on the rights of children? (will there be "open borders" of sorts for children?)
Democrats need to be trapped on a wall verse fence debate.
I put "The wall vs no wall" into google.
I found a Texas newspaper state that Democrats are falling into a "trap" by these debates.
The implication is that Democrats somehow need to play political games and to defeat Republicans.
I see the "trap", regardless of Republican motivations, as one that forces Democrats to actually challenge the wisdom of borders and to defend immigrant-rights.
"Abolitionism" was seen as extreme as late as the 1850s, so why not see the current Democratic border policy as a parallel to the "Missouri Compromise" fight of the 1840s and 1850s? (Abolitionists were shut out of the debate, and seen as crazy folks while the mainstream debated whether the Missouri Compromise should be scrapped or upheld. It was extremely unpopular - in Missouri for example - to oppose the expansion of slavery.)
Re: Jorge Ramos asked Sanders & Hillary if EVERY child has the right to cross the border.
My comment about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders making ( sort of) "Open Borders" arguments (essentially when it comes to children) was attacked by Percy right away.
He then questioned my history.
I was accurately quoted by Percy:
quote:
Hillary Clinton supported the detention of children back in the 2013-2014 period, just after she left her Secretary of State job.
I did say that.
Here was the Percy reply:
quote:
So little of what you say is true that I won't comment on this claim of what Clinton supported, but needless to say I think most people are against the incarceration of children.
I must hold you accountable Percy.
quote:
NEWS Immigration experts have no idea what Hillary is talking about By Marisa Schultz March 11, 2016 | 12:31am
WASHINGTON ” Hillary Clinton made what sounded like a definitive statement at Wednesday’s Democratic debate: “I will not deport children.”
But immigration advocates interviewed by The Post took away different meanings from Clinton’s declaration as to which children she would protect from deportation ” undocumented kids living in the United States, unaccompanied migrant children fleeing Central America, or both.
“It’s frankly hard to be absolutely clear as to what categories of kids she was talking about,” said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute’s office at New York University School of Law.
He said he thought Clinton was referring to Central American minors.
In the past, Clinton has defended President Obama’s plans to deport migrant children who were fleeing Central America.
But since launching her presidential bid, she has shifted left of Obama, pledging to go further on his executive actions to curb deportations.
Pressed by debate moderator Jorge Ramos on who should deported, Clinton said: “I will not deport children. I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members, either.”
“Asylum is a particular legal process. I’d like to see it changed. I’d like to see us give more support to people who come fleeing the terrible violence that they do. But under our law, we have a process we have to go through which is different.”
Clinton and Bernie Sanders both said they won’t deport adults without criminal records.
Thanu Yakupitiyage, from the New York Immigration Coalition, took Clinton’s comments to mean she would not deport “unaccompanied minor children from Central America” ” a departure from Obama’s policies.
“It was good to hear that they would make that commitment, and we are going to hold them to that,” Yakupitiyage said.
But Cristobal Alex, president of the Latino Victory Project, thought Clinton meant the opposite: She won’t deport children already here among the 11 million undocumented immigrants but did not make the same pledge for migrant children from Central America because they are adjudicated under a different process of asylum laws.
“What she said is children who are here should not be deported. She secondly said that the asylum law needs to be improved . to better handle and contemplate the plight of these unaccompanied minors who are fleeing violence,” Alex told The Post. “They are really two different issues.”
You just want to attack my generally accurate accounting of Democratic party evolution.
QUESTION!
Beto of El Paso says "walls are racist", right?
(nevermind the fact that he has not said he will take down the El Paso fence)
So will he apply that worldview to borders and border checks generally?
(I hope Democrats do)
Immigration is not a "problem" that needs a solution, IN MY OPINION. But Democrats keep using the loaded comment that "We have other ways to solve the problem" or "Walls don't solve the problem". They use anti-immigration setups by referring to immigration as a problem.
I recent watched "The Caine Mutiny" again. In it, CAPT Queeg earns the nickname, "Old Yellow Stain".
We should refer to Trump as "Old Orange Stain". He and his administration is most certain a horrible stain on the office and on the country.
Honor, Courage, Commitment (US Navy)
A Christian once asked what I as an atheist believed in. My spontaneous and totally honest answer was sounded corny, but it was true: "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." That's still my answer today.
GOP Values: Hypocrisy, Corruption, Greed, Lying, Cheating, Voter Suppression, Election Fraud, Conspiring with the Enemy
" ... how hard can that be, to say that Nazis are bad?!" (Barack Obama)
"How are we still fighting Nazis today?" (Daisy Johnson, S5E15)
"Nance's Law: Coincidence takes a lot of planning." (Malcolm Nance)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias. (Steven Colbert on NPR)
Re: Jorge Ramos asked Sanders & Hillary if EVERY child has the right to cross the border.
LamarkNewAge writes:
The issue is about giving the undocumented/illegal immigrants the right to avoid deportation and to stay.
That's just an issue you made up. The actual issue is that we should provide legal constitutional due process to those applying for asylum or refugee status, or to those who are in the country illegally.
(children seem to be the group Democrats show willingness to defend to various degrees)
I'll ignore the things you make up. What people should care about regardless of party affiliation is treating people properly and decently and with due process, no matter where they are from throughout the world. My political support will in part depend upon the degree to which these beliefs are shared.
( The right to NOT be walled off by a border check is another issue. Democrats are on the record calling walls "racist", and we all know walls are just a symbol of borders)
Pelosi called Trump's wall racist, because Trump's racism toward non-whites from south of the border is why he wants to build it.
This March 2016 Univision debate was in the shadow of Hillary Clinton's 2014 comments (the quotes are easy to find) supporting swift deportation of children.
If the quotes are easy to find then go find them. Supporting what you say with evidence doesn't mean saying, "The evidence is easy to find, go find it." It means finding the evidence and presenting it.
But why do you and Trump and so many Republicans have this obsession with Clinton, and with Obama, too? It's like you need some kind of bogeyman to rile up the base. "Lock...her...up." "Build...the...wall."
quote:
Search only for hillary clinton said deport children
<...useless search results full of dead links...>
First, your links are useless because they're just plain text, and they are all incorrect because they end with "..."
Second, it's not our job to follow your links and dig out the parts that support your claims. That's your job.
Third, when I do the identical search as you I do not get the same results. Searches are colored by your search history, and we have different search histories. Even if you do the identical search today that you did yesterday you won't necessarily get the same list of links, because your search history is different, and because the Internet landscape is constantly changing.
Fourth, the comments you're talking about are from 2015, not 2014.
Fifth, nobody cares what Clinton said four years ago.
Put "Obama deported Children" into google and see lots of mainstream media articles enlightening the evidence of large numbers of deportations and comparisons to Trump.
I was against Obama's deportation policies then, and I'm still against them. I think many people feel the same way.
quote:
Politics & Policy Why Trump Deports Fewer Immigrants Than Obama Sanctuary states and cities are slowing the expulsions.
By Francis Wilkinson May 15, 2018, 10:12 AM CDT
It's a testament to President Donald Trump's capacity for malice that his deportation policy has terrified more while...
Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
I'm not reading your incredibly long excerpt. Please make your point and provide a link to your reference as supporting evidence.
But everybody already knows deportations were higher under Obama than Trump. So what? A great many people are opposed to harsh or uncompassionate or non-due-process detentions and deportations, no matter who is responsible. This country's principles define it as a beacon of freedom and a refuge for the world's downtrodden. Slamming shut the doors while mistreating those who slip through is not who we are.
Democrats will be in power again, and we will see if "walls are racist" (or "The Wall is racist") will be matched with sincerity in policymaking. Walls are just a symbol of borders. Will Democrats seriously challenge borders?
Again, no one meant all walls are racist. It's Trump's walls that are racist because he wants to build them not because they're the best border security solution but because they're a symbol of that racism for his base.
Is a fence less racist than a wall (Google: "wall verses a fence")?
You're obviously getting your statements of what Democrats believe from Republicans. What Democrats want, what most reasonable people want, is appropriate border security for each stretch of border. Wherever we need walls we should build walls. We do not need walls along the Rio Grande because the river is already a barrier. Trump won't say that's where he's building his wall, but it's about the only place he can build it because the rest of the border where there's no river already mostly has wall or fence. When congresspeople visit the border to investigate where the wall will go for themselves do you know where they mostly go? Texas, because that's where the Rio Grande is. The river does kind of peter out in far western Texas where a wall is probably necessary.
Think this through for yourself. Do we really need a wall in addition to a river? Does it make any sense to wall ourselves off from our own river?
Then, will Democrats backtrack on the rights of children? (will there be "open borders" of sorts for children?)
I, and I hope many others, will oppose all inhumane and antihumanitarian treatment of people at the border, including children.
Re: Jorge Ramos asked Sanders & Hillary if EVERY child has the right to cross the border.
You are as confused as ever.
LamarkNewAge writes:
I was accurately quoted by Percy:
quote:
Hillary Clinton supported the detention of children back in the 2013-2014 period, just after she left her Secretary of State job.
I did say that.
Here was the Percy reply:
quote:
So little of what you say is true that I won't comment on this claim of what Clinton supported, but needless to say I think most people are against the incarceration of children.
<...extremely long excerpt from that link not included here...>
You are a mess. You claim that "Clinton supported the detention of children back in the 2013-2014 period," then you support that with a quote from an article two years later in 2016 about deportation that doesn't mention detention once.
You have no real policy Percy.
I'm for the same things I stated in my previous post: I'm for compassionate humanitarian treatment of all immigrants that follows due process.
You just want to attack my generally accurate accounting of Democratic party evolution.
I don't know if it's accurate or not, just that you're unable to support what you say. You just completely bollocks up your claim that Clinton favored detention by excerpting from an article that never mentioned detention.
Why are you trying to provide an accounting of the Democratic party evolution on immigration in the The Trump Presidency thread? Are you going someplace relevant with this? Maybe you need to find a different thread to do this.
Beto of El Paso says "walls are racist", right?
I don't know - does he? You provide no support for your claim.
(nevermind the fact that he has not said he will take down the El Paso fence)
El Paso is in far western Texas where the Rio Grande peters out. I would think they'd need a wall or fence or some kind of border security strategy there.
So will he apply that worldview to borders and border checks generally?
How would I know?
(I hope Democrats do)
I hope everyone's in favor of border security.
Immigration is not a "problem" that needs a solution, IN MY OPINION.
The country is sorely in need of immigration reform, but I have a feeling that you really meant border security, not immigration.
But Democrats keep using the loaded comment that "We have other ways to solve the problem" or "Walls don't solve the problem". They use anti-immigration setups by referring to immigration as a problem.
When you quote somebody actually saying something in an actual context instead of making up quotes out of the blue, then I'll comment.
™ Version 4.2
