re: separating children from the parents at immigration detention centers.... For now, set aside the fact that separations were going on during the Obama Administration yet no one complained, set aside the fact that separations were not an issue 6 months ago, and set aside questions as to whether or not separations are ethical, moral, and/or legal. What solution to the problem exists?
Do we let the children stay in the adult detention center with the parents? How is that not psychologically scarring to the children, growing up in what is essentially jail? Should detention centers become more like secure college dormitories, with a cafeteria, in-house school, playground, etc.? How is that dissimilar from WWII-era internment camp, generally now thought of a "a bad idea"?
Do we shrug our shoulders and just let the families go free without penalty simply because they have a child with them? If they are simply let go, what guarantee do you have that they will show up to their scheduled hearing at immigration court? If they are released, what is to keep them from disappearing by moving from community to community under different names?
Just because a family shows up at the border with a child in tow, how do you *know* that that is actually their child? Surely you don't think that all immigrants automatically tell the truth all the time, do you?
Are all people who hold the opinion "let them all in" going to let an immigrant family move into their home? If not, why not?
There was no zero-tolerance policy of child separation during the Bush or Obama Administration. Unaccompanied minors were showing up at the border, and they were held in some of the same type of facilities. That is not the same thing. There was no blanket policy that said "you cross this line, we are taking your kid", which is what we have now. I have no doubt children became separated from their children before, but it was NOT a blanket policy specifically meant to do just that.
As for the "crime" portion of the debate, I have addressed this at least 3 or 4 times over the weekend. First time border crossing is a misdemeanor. The real question is what would you liken it to. Is it worse than speeding?? I would say obviously not because speeding could actually result in someone getting hurt or dying. Is it worse than running a stop sign?? Again, same criteria. Both misdemeanor offenses in some States, neither of which would EVER result in a child being taken away. And giving someone an option to show up or not show up for a court date is SURELY better than taking someone's child away without a court date, not even a cursory hearing.
And again, as has been mentioned in articles, border patrol seems to be NOT ALLOWING people to come across at ports of entry that allow claim of asylum, thus creating a Catch-22 where they find them somewhere else. The children are being taken before any hearings take place, before any judge has looked at the case. In many cases the parents are being deported and we are KEEPING their children. There seems to be no mechanism in place to reunite them, and indeed, because of the differences in how adult and child deportation hearings work, they chances of one not happening before the other are nil, as mentioned in the New York Times article I posted yesterday. A women was sent back home and we have her kid. That is kidnapping by the State. No judge signed off on that child being taken away, it was decreed by the Attorney General and executed on the ground by a individual law enforcement officer.
Are you really suggesting that these 2000 children who have been taken in the last 6 weeks are all being used by people PRETENDING to be parents?? Is there some sort of acting class going on in South America teaching all these people to PRETEND to be heartbroken and sad when their child is ripped away??
And for the record, yes, at this point I would let an immigrant family stay in my apartment, though I don't know that the space would be sufficient for more than two of them.
re: separating children from the parents at immigration detention centers.... For now, set aside the fact that separations were going on during the Obama Administration yet no one complained, set aside the fact that separations were not an issue 6 months ago, and set aside questions as to whether or not separations are ethical, moral, and/or legal. What solution to the problem exists?
@ammar has answered the bulk of your post. I'll just mention that separations were indeed an issue 6 months ago. I agree that it wasn't covered in mainstream media at that time, but it would have been around then that I first became aware of the policy change from October 2017. Prior to that separations happened in rare cases for specific reasons, e.g. due to concerns for the safety or welfare of the children or where the parents were being charged with serious crimes - I'm not aware of any cases prior to October 2017 where separations occurred just as a matter of policy.
From October that policy was only applied sparingly. Details about exactly what criteria were being used have not been released, but at least some of what was being done was in the nature of a trial implementation. Presumably someone decided that the trial had gone well and the policy should be applied universally - hence the acceleration of the numbers separated in the last couple of months.
For the record, the Administration is now flat-out using the defense that most of these people are "posing" as families as a get out of jail free card. Does that ever happen?? I suppose it does, but using this as a blanket excuse is one step away from calling the survivors of school shootings "crisis actors".
Edit: Nevermind, they are already there. Don Jr. has retweeted a Breitbart article that claims the children are being given "scripts to read by liberals".
Edit: Nevermind, they are already there. Don Jr. has retweeted a Breitbart article that claims the children are being given "scripts to read by liberals".
This is frustrating. Now the debate is going to shift from whether this policy is a good idea to whether liberals are secretly orchestrating bizarre plots? Do we have to spend time refuting every paranoid conspiracy theory just because some random person decides to make up a lie out of thin air?
I don't see how we can address these issues seriously if people throw around random accusations just to keep others from discussing the core topic.
The Supreme Court has apparently ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a-ok. This comes about a week after they said that purging voting roles is a-ok. Once again, screw you Mitch McConnell for stealing a Supreme Court seat, and the same to Neil Gorsuch and the Conservatives on the Supreme Court who do not like Democracy.
Republicans think it's totally fine if the will of actual voters don't matter, as long as they remain in power. Awful.
Edit: Nevermind, they are already there. Don Jr. has retweeted a Breitbart article that claims the children are being given "scripts to read by liberals".
This is frustrating. Now the debate is going to shift from whether this policy is a good idea to whether liberals are secretly orchestrating bizarre plots? Do we have to spend time refuting every paranoid conspiracy theory just because some random person decides to make up a lie out of thin air?
I don't see how we can address these issues seriously if people throw around random accusations just to keep others from discussing the core topic.
It's a pretty neat trick. Sadly, if you bathe yourself in right-wing media for 48 hours, you'll get a sense of how effective it is.
I was incredibly busy over the weekend--this is my attempt at catching up.
I concur--the "zero tolerance" policy is the central problem here, as most "zero tolerance" policies often are. No, I do not think that people are obtaining children in Mexico for the purpose of showing up at the border and pretending to be a family--although such a scenario is not impossible, it is not very likely and wouldn't maintain its illusion under scrutiny.
"Illegal entry" is about as "criminal" as jaywalking or operating a vehicle with expired registration. Although it is a technical infraction of the law there really is not a victim.
@Ammar It would be great if application status cases could be decided quickly. Unfortunately, with every passing day the system becomes more backlogged than it already was. Also, the "you aren't perfect" line of reasoning mentioned earlier is one I usually reserve for the subject of "redistribute the wealth" or taxation and it remains a valid argument--if a person is not willing to live by the principles they want everyone else to live by then they that person is being a hypocrite.
As distasteful as this may be to many people, it is becoming more apparent that the only real solution to the current immigration problem is one I have suggested before: amnesty. If you are in the country on a particular date (pick one at random or a more memorable one such as 31 December) then you become a citizen. This would clear the entire backlog of status cases *but* it would be a slap in the face to those who took the time and effort to go through the system the correct way. There would still be a lot of problems to handle--getting all those people put into various government systems (and not all of them would want that), trying to find them jbos, places to live, etc. In reality, although that solution sounds like a good one it really only trades one problem for another.
Are all people who hold the opinion "let them all in" going to let an immigrant family move into their home? If not, why not?
I don't hold that opinion. But it is not hypocrisy either.
There is a large difference between believing that we can tackle a problem as a society/state and believing you can have a real impact by yourself.
Yes, there is a large difference, the difference here is that pawning it off as "societies problem" allows people to preach from their high horse about what other people should do and the sacrifices they should make for other people, while being safely immune from having to make any personal sacrifices. All the negatives can be pushed onto others, most notably the poorest among us, while the holder of this ideology can reap all the virtue-signaling rewards by demonstrating what good people they are.
It's very easy to be generous with someone else's home and wallet.
As far as I can see the Breitbart story is indeed entirely made up. I think it stems from a single sentence in a New York Times article that officials had said children were being coached on how to make fraudulent asylum claims - which probably means the story was deliberately planted (and that's exactly the sort of doubling down behavior I would expect from Trump).
Even if the story were in fact true in some instances, that's of course irrelevant. The appropriate counter to concerns that young children are being coached on what to say to give a claim for asylum credibility is not to separate those children from the parents before a claim for asylum can even be made ...
The Supreme Court has apparently ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a-ok. This comes about a week after they said that purging voting roles is a-ok. Once again, screw you Mitch McConnell for stealing a Supreme Court seat, and the same to Neil Gorsuch and the Conservatives on the Supreme Court who do not like Democracy.
Republicans think it's totally fine if the will of actual voters don't matter, as long as they remain in power. Awful.
The Supreme Court did not rule on whether partisan gerrymandering was acceptable or not; they declined to make a ruling. The decision was 9-0, so McConnell and Gorsuch would not be responsible for the decision.
The Supreme Court has apparently ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a-ok. This comes about a week after they said that purging voting roles is a-ok. Once again, screw you Mitch McConnell for stealing a Supreme Court seat, and the same to Neil Gorsuch and the Conservatives on the Supreme Court who do not like Democracy.
Republicans think it's totally fine if the will of actual voters don't matter, as long as they remain in power. Awful.
The Supreme Court did not rule on whether partisan gerrymandering was acceptable or not; they declined to make a ruling. The decision was 9-0, so McConnell and Gorsuch would not be responsible for the decision.
The decision was just coming out earlier when I posted that.
Their decision to pass on it, twice, effectively leaves in place gerrymandered maps, no?
The line between "These aren't real families" and "These aren't real humans" is a very fine one. She and Trump have called them “aliens” and "animals" repeatedly which is an inhuman characterization.
---
"Some of these kids are hardened adults and I’m not going to say that that’s all of them, but look into it, peel the layers of the onion back a little bit and you’ll find out most of these stories are not true. They are exaggeration." - Chief Border Patrol Agent Rodney S. Scott
--- Conservative (Regressive) commentator Ann Coulter called children crying at the border after being separated from parents “child actors” during an appearance Sunday on Fox News.
The language the Administration is using is the most worrisome part after the actual separation. They are trying to create an existential crisis in the mind of the population to justify the actions, where none exists. We can have a reasonable debate about immigration, but, again, there is a NET NEGATIVE to the number of illegal immigrants coming in versus going out, and has been for years. Nothing that can possibly justify this kind of draconian action.
Trump wants to create a space force as a sixth branch of the military and have American dominance in space - sounds dangerous to me and destructive of international cooperation (which is probably one of the intended aims of course).
Trump wants to create a space force as a sixth branch of the military and have American dominance in space - sounds dangerous to me and destructive of international cooperation (which is probably one of the intended aims of course).
I just read that. Colossal waste of money IMO and almost mirrors Regan’s Star Wars dream that thankfully never got off the ground, except that Regans was more thought out than a 45 character tweet.
This is honestly attempt by Trump to change the coverage from the illegal immigration fiasco to something he can control.
Trump wants to create a space force as a sixth branch of the military and have American dominance in space - sounds dangerous to me and destructive of international cooperation (which is probably one of the intended aims of course).
I just read that. Colossal waste of money IMO and almost mirrors Regan’s Star Wars dream that thankfully never got off the ground, except that Regans was more thought out than a 45 character tweet.
This is honestly attempt by Trump to change the coverage from the illegal immigration fiasco to something he can control.
Trump wants to create a space force as a sixth branch of the military and have American dominance in space - sounds dangerous to me and destructive of international cooperation (which is probably one of the intended aims of course).
Trump said he wants to create a spare Space Force that is "separate but equal" to the Air Force.
That's a historically problematic phrase to use for a person with a racist history like Trump has.
Space force, huh. I guess it's time to break another treaty. If anything it would seem to push things into a worse state of affairs by ramping up nuclear competition on both offensive and defensive sides. I would not be a bad thing to be able to reliably tackle ICBM's while out of the atmosphere, but shooting at something going 13000mph aint gonna be easy, esp. from the ground systems used now. It's been done once I think on a test. But the more one has in space (nuclear that is), the harder it gets, especially with multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) flying off in all directions. It just seems like it could take the arms race to a whole new level.
Polarization within the US has really gotten completely out of control. It cuts both ways, to be sure. There are plenty of things that Democrats are against simply because Trump is for them. That said, I saw a poll that Republicans approve (somerthing like 60/40) the separation of kids from their parents at the border.
I dont get it. Look at the pictures. Read the stories. It's inhuman what we're doing right now, and plenty of people *approve* of it.
You can be for ultra-strict immigration reform all you want. Let's draw the line at terrorism, shall we?
Do we have some reliable numbers for a death count by the Che regime? I don't see one right off the bat.
I don't think Che's violence justifies Pinochet's or makes it any less despicable. Apparently Pinochet killed over 3,000 people and tortured about 29,000. So I think I'll go ahead and classify him as a dictator and a murderer just like Che, considering Pinochet overthrew a democratic government, ruled as a dictator, and has a higher death count than Osama bin Laden. It's theoretically possible for a revolutionary leader to qualify as both a hero and a murderer, but the murderer part is generally more important to me. Killing innocent civilians pretty much disqualifies you as a decent human being.
In general, I'd rate communist regimes as distinctly worse than fascist regimes, but being only partly as horrific as a bloody communist government is simply not worthy of praise.
Well, if wasn't by Pinochet, Chile probably will fall under a civil war or worse, a communist dictatorship. Only because a government was democratic elected, doesn't means that the government can do everything that he want. Hitler won democratically.
Polarization within the US has really gotten completely out of control. It cuts both ways, to be sure. There are plenty of things that Democrats are against simply because Trump is for them. That said, I saw a poll that Republicans approve (somerthing like 60/40) the separation of kids from their parents at the border.
I dont get it. Look at the pictures. Read the stories. It's inhuman what we're doing right now, and plenty of people *approve* of it.
You can be for ultra-strict immigration reform all you want. Let's draw the line at terrorism, shall we?
How should I put this without getting myself into trouble......I have alot of thoughts about WHY the majority of Republicans are quite obviously going to go along with Trump on anything. Without getting to deep into it I think it has alot to do with the investment in the total faceplant that was the Bush Administration, specifically Iraq and the economy falling apart. Deep down, every hardcore Republican knows Bush was a disaster. But admitting that is admitting your entire world-view was flawed. So, you double-down. You go with Trump, who promises you that (unlike how it ended up with Bush) we will "win". Winning is an amorphous concept, and appears to have alot to do with just how much you can make liberals cry, but I digress. That is just sociopolitical speculation on my part. It has nothing to do with individual conservative posters here (I haven't heard much of anyone defend Bush anyway), but I think there was a deep psychological wound that took place in the minds of many Republican base voters when Iraq turned out to be a disaster, and it was worse because the hated "liberals" had told them it would be from day one. And when the economy crashed to boot.....and then a BLACK guy become President.....well, you can see where I am going with this. They were also told in no uncertain terms by the media they most frequent (FOX, AM radio) that Romney was a shoe-in and that Obama was going to be beaten in 2012, and then Romney lost in a blow-out. Trump is about maintaining a certain social hierarchy. At this point, I don't see anything that won't be excused.
But enough of my personal musings on that front. Because what really scares me, what really hits home, is that what I am seeing is a complete breakdown in the capacity for empathy among certain segments of the population. You can see it in any Twitter or Youtube thread on this subject, and it frightens me. There are many, many people who just flat-out don't view these migrants as human beings. And that is the first step towards the darkest moments in history. Once you dehumanize a group of people (and Trump has irrefutably done this from the moment his campaign started), you can justify anything that is done to them. After all, one of those kids MIGHT one day grow up to be a gang member. They MIGHT one day take a job I should have had. The picture being painted is of foreign hordes crashing the gates of our golden city. The same was said of the Irish, and the Italians, and was the same reason given to argue that African-Americans shouldn't have equal rights. Deep down, some people are very afraid that if THEY become the minority, they will be treated as badly as they have treated others. But isn't that very thought a self-admission that those groups HAVE been treated unfairly??
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
It's not good for anybody when empathy is treated as an evil thing.
I was just watching a video that quoted this stanza, but was also about interviews done with regular run-of-the-mill Germans after the war who were asked "how did this happen??" And....well, it's better to just post the video. It's from liberal radio host Thom Hartmann, but he has talked about this book many times before. On this one subject, this is worth watching even if overly partisan sources aren't your cup of tea:
Do we have some reliable numbers for a death count by the Che regime? I don't see one right off the bat.
I don't think Che's violence justifies Pinochet's or makes it any less despicable. Apparently Pinochet killed over 3,000 people and tortured about 29,000. So I think I'll go ahead and classify him as a dictator and a murderer just like Che, considering Pinochet overthrew a democratic government, ruled as a dictator, and has a higher death count than Osama bin Laden. It's theoretically possible for a revolutionary leader to qualify as both a hero and a murderer, but the murderer part is generally more important to me. Killing innocent civilians pretty much disqualifies you as a decent human being.
In general, I'd rate communist regimes as distinctly worse than fascist regimes, but being only partly as horrific as a bloody communist government is simply not worthy of praise.
Well, if wasn't by Pinochet, Chile probably will fall under a civil war or worse, a communist dictatorship. Only because a government was democratic elected, doesn't means that the government can do everything that he want. Hitler won democratically.
Indeed. The CIA and the copper mining industry were far better equipped to forecast what is best than the local population. Pinochet himself liked to talk about the purification of democracy... witness his saintly willingness to assume the burden of large quantities of money, the root of all evil.
Polarization within the US has really gotten completely out of control. It cuts both ways, to be sure. There are plenty of things that Democrats are against simply because Trump is for them. That said, I saw a poll that Republicans approve (somerthing like 60/40) the separation of kids from their parents at the border.
I dont get it. Look at the pictures. Read the stories. It's inhuman what we're doing right now, and plenty of people *approve* of it.
You can be for ultra-strict immigration reform all you want. Let's draw the line at terrorism, shall we?
"It cuts both ways, to be sure"
No it doesn't. Republicans are flat out lying, without conscience or consequence. Lying liars and the lies they are telling.
Hundreds of examples.
Trump tells whoppers daily. Sarah Sanders goes out and lies about his lies. Kellyanne and other right wing media lie about the lies. Ajit Pai lied and repealed net neutrality and he's working to give Sinclair Right Wing Media a 70% market share on local news through more lies. Alex Jones is out there lying about soybeans turning frogs gay. And on and on politicians and pundits.
You'd be hard pressed to find anything near the scale of just one of those individuals in the entire left. People are so used to Republicans and pundits lying that they hate them but vote for them anyway because they believe the lies a little, I guess. I don't know how people stand it.
Do we have some reliable numbers for a death count by the Che regime? I don't see one right off the bat.
I don't think Che's violence justifies Pinochet's or makes it any less despicable. Apparently Pinochet killed over 3,000 people and tortured about 29,000. So I think I'll go ahead and classify him as a dictator and a murderer just like Che, considering Pinochet overthrew a democratic government, ruled as a dictator, and has a higher death count than Osama bin Laden. It's theoretically possible for a revolutionary leader to qualify as both a hero and a murderer, but the murderer part is generally more important to me. Killing innocent civilians pretty much disqualifies you as a decent human being.
In general, I'd rate communist regimes as distinctly worse than fascist regimes, but being only partly as horrific as a bloody communist government is simply not worthy of praise.
Well, if wasn't by Pinochet, Chile probably will fall under a civil war or worse, a communist dictatorship. Only because a government was democratic elected, doesn't means that the government can do everything that he want. Hitler won democratically.
Pinochet's regime took its own citizens, some still children, electrocuted them, dunked their heads in pails of excrement, suffocated them, and raped them. Yeah, Pinochet was a saint.
I mentioned that Billy Caldwell had been given permission to use cannabis oil and he's now been released from hospital. The government has also now accepted this wasn't just a one-off mistake, but that the system for medical use exemptions needs changing.
I also noted that the arguments for medical use exemption are different from those for legalization. However, there are also plenty of people arguing for the latter. That now includes William Hague, who was the Conservative's leader between 1997 and 2001 - during which time he argued strongly for a hard-line approach.
He now says that we need to accept the reality that the war on drugs, at least as far as cannabis is concerned, has been lost - Home Office figures are that 6.6% of adults aged 16-59 used it in 2016-17, but 16.4% of those aged 16-24. That combination of illegality and wide availability creates a lot of problems - and Hague now accepts the argument that those problems are worse than the alternative of legalization.
I don't see a change in the near future, but my guess is that cannabis will be legalized in the UK 10-15 years from now.
Comments
As for the "crime" portion of the debate, I have addressed this at least 3 or 4 times over the weekend. First time border crossing is a misdemeanor. The real question is what would you liken it to. Is it worse than speeding?? I would say obviously not because speeding could actually result in someone getting hurt or dying. Is it worse than running a stop sign?? Again, same criteria. Both misdemeanor offenses in some States, neither of which would EVER result in a child being taken away. And giving someone an option to show up or not show up for a court date is SURELY better than taking someone's child away without a court date, not even a cursory hearing.
And again, as has been mentioned in articles, border patrol seems to be NOT ALLOWING people to come across at ports of entry that allow claim of asylum, thus creating a Catch-22 where they find them somewhere else. The children are being taken before any hearings take place, before any judge has looked at the case. In many cases the parents are being deported and we are KEEPING their children. There seems to be no mechanism in place to reunite them, and indeed, because of the differences in how adult and child deportation hearings work, they chances of one not happening before the other are nil, as mentioned in the New York Times article I posted yesterday. A women was sent back home and we have her kid. That is kidnapping by the State. No judge signed off on that child being taken away, it was decreed by the Attorney General and executed on the ground by a individual law enforcement officer.
Are you really suggesting that these 2000 children who have been taken in the last 6 weeks are all being used by people PRETENDING to be parents?? Is there some sort of acting class going on in South America teaching all these people to PRETEND to be heartbroken and sad when their child is ripped away??
And for the record, yes, at this point I would let an immigrant family stay in my apartment, though I don't know that the space would be sufficient for more than two of them.
From October that policy was only applied sparingly. Details about exactly what criteria were being used have not been released, but at least some of what was being done was in the nature of a trial implementation. Presumably someone decided that the trial had gone well and the policy should be applied universally - hence the acceleration of the numbers separated in the last couple of months.
Edit: Nevermind, they are already there. Don Jr. has retweeted a Breitbart article that claims the children are being given "scripts to read by liberals".
I don't see how we can address these issues seriously if people throw around random accusations just to keep others from discussing the core topic.
Republicans think it's totally fine if the will of actual voters don't matter, as long as they remain in power. Awful.
I concur--the "zero tolerance" policy is the central problem here, as most "zero tolerance" policies often are. No, I do not think that people are obtaining children in Mexico for the purpose of showing up at the border and pretending to be a family--although such a scenario is not impossible, it is not very likely and wouldn't maintain its illusion under scrutiny.
"Illegal entry" is about as "criminal" as jaywalking or operating a vehicle with expired registration. Although it is a technical infraction of the law there really is not a victim.
@Ammar It would be great if application status cases could be decided quickly. Unfortunately, with every passing day the system becomes more backlogged than it already was. Also, the "you aren't perfect" line of reasoning mentioned earlier is one I usually reserve for the subject of "redistribute the wealth" or taxation and it remains a valid argument--if a person is not willing to live by the principles they want everyone else to live by then they that person is being a hypocrite.
As distasteful as this may be to many people, it is becoming more apparent that the only real solution to the current immigration problem is one I have suggested before: amnesty. If you are in the country on a particular date (pick one at random or a more memorable one such as 31 December) then you become a citizen. This would clear the entire backlog of status cases *but* it would be a slap in the face to those who took the time and effort to go through the system the correct way. There would still be a lot of problems to handle--getting all those people put into various government systems (and not all of them would want that), trying to find them jbos, places to live, etc. In reality, although that solution sounds like a good one it really only trades one problem for another.
It's very easy to be generous with someone else's home and wallet.
Even if the story were in fact true in some instances, that's of course irrelevant. The appropriate counter to concerns that young children are being coached on what to say to give a claim for asylum credibility is not to separate those children from the parents before a claim for asylum can even be made ...
Secretary Nielsen today: "We do not apologize for family separations"
*throws up hands, gives up*
Is everyone clear about what Orwell was writing about in "1984" now?? God, I hope so.
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Their decision to pass on it, twice, effectively leaves in place gerrymandered maps, no?
The line between "These aren't real families" and "These aren't real humans" is a very fine one. She and Trump have called them “aliens” and "animals" repeatedly which is an inhuman characterization.
---
"Some of these kids are hardened adults and I’m not going to say that that’s all of them, but look into it, peel the layers of the onion back a little bit and you’ll find out most of these stories are not true. They are exaggeration." - Chief Border Patrol Agent Rodney S. Scott
---
Conservative (Regressive) commentator Ann Coulter called children crying at the border after being separated from parents “child actors” during an appearance Sunday on Fox News.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/392774-ann-coulter-calls-immigrant-children-child-actors
--
Look like people, kids to me
Trump wants to create a space force as a sixth branch of the military and have American dominance in space - sounds dangerous to me and destructive of international cooperation (which is probably one of the intended aims of course).
This is honestly attempt by Trump to change the coverage from the illegal immigration fiasco to something he can control.
That's a historically problematic phrase to use for a person with a racist history like Trump has.
It just seems like it could take the arms race to a whole new level.
Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies
The Outer Space Treaty at a Glance
Intercepting intercontinental missiles
I dont get it. Look at the pictures. Read the stories. It's inhuman what we're doing right now, and plenty of people *approve* of it.
You can be for ultra-strict immigration reform all you want. Let's draw the line at terrorism, shall we?
But enough of my personal musings on that front. Because what really scares me, what really hits home, is that what I am seeing is a complete breakdown in the capacity for empathy among certain segments of the population. You can see it in any Twitter or Youtube thread on this subject, and it frightens me. There are many, many people who just flat-out don't view these migrants as human beings. And that is the first step towards the darkest moments in history. Once you dehumanize a group of people (and Trump has irrefutably done this from the moment his campaign started), you can justify anything that is done to them. After all, one of those kids MIGHT one day grow up to be a gang member. They MIGHT one day take a job I should have had. The picture being painted is of foreign hordes crashing the gates of our golden city. The same was said of the Irish, and the Italians, and was the same reason given to argue that African-Americans shouldn't have equal rights. Deep down, some people are very afraid that if THEY become the minority, they will be treated as badly as they have treated others. But isn't that very thought a self-admission that those groups HAVE been treated unfairly??
No it doesn't. Republicans are flat out lying, without conscience or consequence. Lying liars and the lies they are telling.
Hundreds of examples.
Trump tells whoppers daily. Sarah Sanders goes out and lies about his lies. Kellyanne and other right wing media lie about the lies. Ajit Pai lied and repealed net neutrality and he's working to give Sinclair Right Wing Media a 70% market share on local news through more lies. Alex Jones is out there lying about soybeans turning frogs gay. And on and on politicians and pundits.
You'd be hard pressed to find anything near the scale of just one of those individuals in the entire left. People are so used to Republicans and pundits lying that they hate them but vote for them anyway because they believe the lies a little, I guess. I don't know how people stand it.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/09/life-under-pinochet-they-were-taking-turns-electrocute-us-one-after-other/
I also noted that the arguments for medical use exemption are different from those for legalization. However, there are also plenty of people arguing for the latter. That now includes William Hague, who was the Conservative's leader between 1997 and 2001 - during which time he argued strongly for a hard-line approach.
He now says that we need to accept the reality that the war on drugs, at least as far as cannabis is concerned, has been lost - Home Office figures are that 6.6% of adults aged 16-59 used it in 2016-17, but 16.4% of those aged 16-24. That combination of illegality and wide availability creates a lot of problems - and Hague now accepts the argument that those problems are worse than the alternative of legalization.
I don't see a change in the near future, but my guess is that cannabis will be legalized in the UK 10-15 years from now.