• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats scream foul when an invader on the border dies.

Democrats scream foul when an invader on the border dies.

Especially if it's a little child … those damn Democrats always complaining about nothing.
 
Legal immigration and illegal immigration are very simple standards. One follows the law and the other just so happens to make you a criminal, save for being forced cross that border by your parents.

Read the law, the treaties that bind us, and history. Raul Wallenberg broke laws to save Jews. Central Americans break laws to save themselves. Aside from our president, we are a nation of grownups who can deal maturely with the complex problem of legal and illegal migration, asylum determinations, etc., without calling people rapists and criminals.
 
Read the law, the treaties that bind us, and history. Raul Wallenberg broke laws to save Jews. Central Americans break laws to save themselves. Aside from our president, we are a nation of grownups who can deal maturely with the complex problem of legal and illegal migration, asylum determinations, etc., without calling people rapists and criminals.

Yet you are forgetting that there are rapist and other criminals tied into the illegal immigration issue. I am going by the rule of law as it is and so is our president. Many of these people aren't even fleeing imminent danger and there are those that try to claim asylum, who aren't even eligible for it.

We're not a nation of grownups by the way. We've seen people crowd the streets in ***** hats to protest a democratically elected president. We've seen crowds of people who assault those who's only crime was possessing a different opinion. Not to mention the myriad of faked hate crimes that came out and continue to surface well after the election.

So no, we're not a nation of grownups. The few of us that are grownups, have the unenviable position of being 24/hr daycare guardians to the masses and that counts doubly so if you're a professor at nearly any college this day.
 
Yet you are forgetting that there are rapist and other criminals tied into the illegal immigration issue. I am going by the rule of law as it is and so is our president. Many of these people aren't even fleeing imminent danger and there are those that try to claim asylum, who aren't even eligible for it.

We're not a nation of grownups by the way. We've seen people crowd the streets in ***** hats to protest a democratically elected president. We've seen crowds of people who assault those who's only crime was possessing a different opinion. Not to mention the myriad of faked hate crimes that came out and continue to surface well after the election.

So no, we're not a nation of grownups. The few of us that are grownups, have the unenviable position of being 24/hr daycare guardians to the masses and that counts doubly so if you're a professor at nearly any college this day.

Was there at the ***** hats demo. Why do you think people were wearing them? Answer: Trump’s comments admitting to sexual assault.

The president was not going by the rule of law when he violated the Refugee Act of 1980 with respect to the migrants. He backed down when the public and the courts made it clear to him, tho he is still pushing practices that defy decades of precedent. Of course some migrants commit crimes. Duh. So did Gypsies and Jews in Germany. Big deal. Immigrant crime rates are lower. And Trump didnt care whether any asylum seekers had valid claims. He suggested not even considering them. He has been the lawless one on this issue.
 
Was there at the ***** hats demo. Why do you think people were wearing them? Answer: Trump’s comments admitting to sexual assault.

The president was not going by the rule of law when he violated the Refugee Act of 1980 with respect to the migrants. He backed down when the public and the courts made it clear to him, tho he is still pushing practices that defy decades of precedent. Of course some migrants commit crimes. Duh. So did Gypsies and Jews in Germany. Big deal. Immigrant crime rates are lower. And Trump didnt care whether any asylum seekers had valid claims. He suggested not even considering them. He has been the lawless one on this issue.

First: there was no such sexual assault admitted to and continuing to beat that dead horse serves you no more, than it failed to in the very beginning.

Secondly: There is no president who I can even remember that hasn't had issue with upholding one law and not upsetting another. The same things happned with Obama over his use of Drones and his operation of Guantánamo. All the way to how Trump's own policies highlighted Obama's own missteps in those exact same boarder violations.

Third: Gypsies and Jews are not the issue here and the attempt to somehow inch the conversation in that direction. To which I believe will eventually lead to a "Trump is like Hitler" argument, like I've seen so many times before. Is just idiotic.

I also don't think that you are skilled enough of a mind reader to actually know what Trump feels, or why he actually makes his choices.
 
First: there was no such sexual assault admitted to and continuing to beat that dead horse serves you no more, than it failed to in the very beginning.

Secondly: There is no president who I can even remember that hasn't had issue with upholding one law and not upsetting another. The same things happned with Obama over his use of Drones and his operation of Guantánamo. All the way to how Trump's own policies highlighted Obama's own missteps in those exact same boarder violations.

Third: Gypsies and Jews are not the issue here and the attempt to somehow inch the conversation in that direction. To which I believe will eventually lead to a "Trump is like Hitler" argument, like I've seen so many times before. Is just idiotic.

I also don't think that you are skilled enough of a mind reader to actually know what Trump feels, or why he actually makes his choices.

I don’t read Trump’s mind. I listen to his words and observe his actions, and judge him by those. He admitted to sexual assault on tape. “You can do anything. Grab them by the *****.” “I moved on her like a bitch.” Sounds like an admission of sexual assault to me. Perhaps he was lying. Wouldn’t be the first time. And you are right, it is always bad to “go Hitler” on anyone. But Trump’s style is unmistakably fascist, more Mussolini (with a touch of Foghorn Leghorn) than Adolf, though his listing of specific crimes by illegals was right out of Goebbels playbook. (At least he didn’t mention the Reichstag fire.)

Trump is not upholding one law and ignoring another as you suggest is common among presidents. He was obviously breaking the law with respect to asylum seekers, for example, and got slapped down for it. He suggested not even considering their claims, which would have violated both the Refugee Act of 1980 and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which the US ratified.
 
Not exactly sure how you can call that an attack if it's technically true. But okay...
No, it isn’t technically (or any other way) true.

The little boy who was brought here by his father was a most unfortunate victim of poverty in his home country and a broken immigration system in the United States.


Repeating Trump’s dog whistle, calling illegal immigrants “invaders” is a deliberate gross exaggeration meant to dehumanize and vilify people attempting to make a better life for themselves and their families, and those escaping brutal conditions in their homelands.
 
No, it isn’t technically (or any other way) true.

The little boy who was brought here by his father was a most unfortunate victim of poverty in his home country and a broken immigration system in the United States.


Repeating Trump’s dog whistle, calling illegal immigrants “invaders” is a deliberate gross exaggeration meant to dehumanize and vilify people attempting to make a better life for themselves and their families, and those escaping brutal conditions in their homelands.

That (bolded above) sounds wonderfully humanitarian until you must acknowledge that over a billion foreign national people in the world could be better off if they were inside the US rather than remaining in their impoverished homelands. Are all such folks stupid and lazy if they apply for legal us immigration and get placed on an (endless?) waiting list instead of simply entering the US "by any means necessary"?

How would you suggest that we fix our "broken" immigration system other than by letting any and all impoverished people in the world enter the US if they simply showed up at US ports of entry or, as this father and child did, crossed the border without permission?
 
That (bolded above) sounds wonderfully humanitarian until you must acknowledge that over a billion foreign national people in the world could be better off if they were inside the US rather than remaining in their impoverished homelands. Are all such folks stupid and lazy if they apply for legal us immigration and get placed on an (endless?) waiting list instead of simply entering the US "by any means necessary"?

How would you suggest that we fix our "broken" immigration system other than by letting any and all impoverished people in the world enter the US if they simply showed up at US ports of entry or, as this father and child did, crossed the border without permission?
It wasn’t meant to “sound wonderfully humanitarian”, just factual, and I’m fully aware that there are a great many more people around the world, living impoverished lives, often under brutal conditions, who would love to come to America. However, I wasn’t addressing them.

Your calling those who endure the arduous journey from their homelands to America lazy is plain stupid. Lazy people would stay where they are instead of risking their own, and their families lives walking hundreds of miles, suffering exhaustion, terrible heat, victimization by “coyotes”, and other things. Also stupid, or at least ignorant, is implying that those who cross the border at other than designated areas don’t legally apply for asylum/legal resident status. The law does not require immigrants to enter only through designated entry points. Trump recently tried to change that and was promptly and appropriately shut down.

I’m not an expert on immigration, so I don’t know the best possible way/s to deal with all those coming to our borders wanting to come in and become citizens, but I know what Trump has done certainly hasn’t made things any better. What would you do?
 
It wasn’t meant to “sound wonderfully humanitarian”, just factual, and I’m fully aware that there are a great many more people around the world, living impoverished lives, often under brutal conditions, who would love to come to America. However, I wasn’t addressing them.

Your calling those who endure the arduous journey from their homelands to America lazy is plain stupid. Lazy people would stay where they are instead of risking their own, and their families lives walking hundreds of miles, suffering exhaustion, terrible heat, victimization by “coyotes”, and other things. Also stupid, or at least ignorant, is implying that those who cross the border at other than designated areas don’t legally apply for asylum/legal resident status. The law does not require immigrants to enter only through designated entry points. Trump recently tried to change that and was promptly and appropriately shut down.

I’m not an expert on immigration, so I don’t know the best possible way/s to deal with all those coming to our borders wanting to come in and become citizens, but I know what Trump has done certainly hasn’t made things any better. What would you do?

Establish an annual limit on total immigration, by category is OK, and once that total (or category subtotal) is reached then that is it - no more immigration for that year. I would recommend that total limit be expressed as a percentage of the current total US population and count all foreign nationals currently present inside the US (legal or not) toward that total limit.
 
Establish an annual limit on total immigration, by category is OK, and once that total (or category subtotal) is reached then that is it - no more immigration for that year. I would recommend that total limit be expressed as a percentage of the current total US population and count all foreign nationals currently present inside the US (legal or not) toward that total limit.
You’ve basically just described the current failed system. We already have a quota based system, broken down into numerous groupings with a total “allowed” limit. And how do you suggest accounting for every foreign national living in the United States illegally? Have Trump stand on the White House lawn and yell olly olly oxen free?
 
I don’t read Trump’s mind. I listen to his words and observe his actions, and judge him by those. He admitted to sexual assault on tape. “You can do anything. Grab them by the *****.” “I moved on her like a bitch.” Sounds like an admission of sexual assault to me. Perhaps he was lying. Wouldn’t be the first time. And you are right, it is always bad to “go Hitler” on anyone. But Trump’s style is unmistakably fascist, more Mussolini (with a touch of Foghorn Leghorn) than Adolf, though his listing of specific crimes by illegals was right out of Goebbels playbook. (At least he didn’t mention the Reichstag fire.)

Trump is not upholding one law and ignoring another as you suggest is common among presidents. He was obviously breaking the law with respect to asylum seekers, for example, and got slapped down for it. He suggested not even considering their claims, which would have violated both the Refugee Act of 1980 and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which the US ratified.

No assault was admitted, not even remotely a fascist and it was only a suggestion.

Are you really going to act this desperate the whole time?
 
No assault was admitted, not even remotely a fascist and it was only a suggestion.

Are you really going to act this desperate the whole time?

Didn't say Trump was a fascist. He probably doesn't even know enough history to claim that. I said his style has many fascist elements: the strong man, i.e., "only I can solve this," American carnage, false info on crime rates, listing crimes by a group he scapegoats and we are supposed to fear, Muslims among the migrants, suggestion police not be so nice, disregard for the law on asylum, lack of respect for the judiciary, etc. The Reichstag fire analogy is an appropriate analogy: one commie sets a fire and it's used as an excuse to round up party members. Trump could have just as easily also listed heroic actions by illegals and called for understanding as well as stronger border enforcement. Tell me, why do you think he didn't balance his speech?

As to admission of assault, you must have seen a different tape.
 
Didn't say Trump was a fascist. He probably doesn't even know enough history to claim that. I said his style has many fascist elements: the strong man, i.e., "only I can solve this," American carnage, false info on crime rates, listing crimes by a group he scapegoats and we are supposed to fear, Muslims among the migrants, suggestion police not be so nice, disregard for the law on asylum, lack of respect for the judiciary, etc. The Reichstag fire analogy is an appropriate analogy: one commie sets a fire and it's used as an excuse to round up party members. Trump could have just as easily also listed heroic actions by illegals and called for understanding as well as stronger border enforcement. Tell me, why do you think he didn't balance his speech?

As to admission of assault, you must have seen a different tape.

Not even remotely fascist, still covers your poor attempts at pointing said finger.

Yes, the tape in which he was filmed without his knowledge, still proves that no assault (if anything) was committed.

Funny enough, it seems more likely that you don't believe women have the right to consent. Given the information you've provided.
 
Back
Top Bottom