14 years and counting...

unsung

Ledbetterman10 said:

unsung said:

And most normal people would blame the parents for putting those kids in that situation.

The counter-argument to this though is that not all of these parents are trying to illegally immigrate. Many come seeking asylum from oppressive governments like Guatemala. Since Trump is obviously against that sort of thing, those people should just be turned away, not detained.

And those countries all have US embassies where asylum can be obtained.

Halifax2TheMax

unsung said:

Stop importing replacement votes.

Care to link to the millions of illegals that voted? It really is funny to see how paranoid you are to be a minority. Living in fear, what a life.

Spiritual_Chaos

unsung said:

And most normal people would blame the parents for putting those kids in that situation.

No. Racist bullshit spin would though.

Halifax2TheMax

I wonder if she’s a “responsible” gun owner and. Team Trump Treason voter/supporter?

Oregon DOT employee suspended after Facebook post calling on immigrants to be shot - Fox News https://apple.news/A2_jocJnnQeG_pt0GXXwn8Q

And it must be true as Faux is reporting it.

Ledbetterman10

unsung said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

unsung said:

And most normal people would blame the parents for putting those kids in that situation.

The counter-argument to this though is that not all of these parents are trying to illegally immigrate. Many come seeking asylum from oppressive governments like Guatemala. Since Trump is obviously against that sort of thing, those people should just be turned away, not detained.

And those countries all have US embassies where asylum can be obtained.

That's a good counter-counter argument.

mace1229

oftenreading said:

Interesting article refuting many of the claims made by today's anti-immigration Republicans.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stephen-miller-great-grandfather-naturalization_us_5b2ba35ae4b0040e27403e42

One example, for all of those who claim their own predecessors "came here legally" - for the first 300 years of the country, all immigration was legal, because there were no laws governing immigration.

For those whose forebears came more recently, a surprising number of Republican politicians and mouthpieces actually have relatives who would be considered to have immigrated illegally, or to have "not assimilated" by continuing to speak their native tongue, or to have benefited from chain migration. Tomi Lahren's great great grandfather forged his immigration papers, Tucker Carlson's great grandfather left behind the "failing country" of Italy, and Steven Miller's great grandfather's initial immigration application was denied due to "ignorance". 

Just curious, if all immigration was legal for the first 300 years, how does that make the claims false when they claim their ancestors did it legally? 

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

Interesting article refuting many of the claims made by today's anti-immigration Republicans.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stephen-miller-great-grandfather-naturalization_us_5b2ba35ae4b0040e27403e42

One example, for all of those who claim their own predecessors "came here legally" - for the first 300 years of the country, all immigration was legal, because there were no laws governing immigration.

For those whose forebears came more recently, a surprising number of Republican politicians and mouthpieces actually have relatives who would be considered to have immigrated illegally, or to have "not assimilated" by continuing to speak their native tongue, or to have benefited from chain migration. Tomi Lahren's great great grandfather forged his immigration papers, Tucker Carlson's great grandfather left behind the "failing country" of Italy, and Steven Miller's great grandfather's initial immigration application was denied due to "ignorance". 

Just curious, if all immigration was legal for the first 300 years, how does that make the claims false when they claim their ancestors did it legally? 

It doesn’t make it false, it makes it meaningless. 

josevolution

Just reunite the kids with their parents that’s all unless you believe our government is allowed to kidnap children that’s what this is they kidnapped these children , with no plan to reunite them ...

mace1229

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

Interesting article refuting many of the claims made by today's anti-immigration Republicans.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stephen-miller-great-grandfather-naturalization_us_5b2ba35ae4b0040e27403e42

One example, for all of those who claim their own predecessors "came here legally" - for the first 300 years of the country, all immigration was legal, because there were no laws governing immigration.

For those whose forebears came more recently, a surprising number of Republican politicians and mouthpieces actually have relatives who would be considered to have immigrated illegally, or to have "not assimilated" by continuing to speak their native tongue, or to have benefited from chain migration. Tomi Lahren's great great grandfather forged his immigration papers, Tucker Carlson's great grandfather left behind the "failing country" of Italy, and Steven Miller's great grandfather's initial immigration application was denied due to "ignorance". 

Just curious, if all immigration was legal for the first 300 years, how does that make the claims false when they claim their ancestors did it legally? 

It doesn’t make it false, it makes it meaningless. 

I’ll agree it’s meaningless. But that’s because it’s a meaningless response to a meaningless counterpoint made every day. The counterpoint of “well your ancestors immigrated here too” is also completely meaningless, which is the only time anyone ever says “well my ancestors did it legally.” How this country ran 300 years ago isn’t that relevant to policies we should be making today. It was an entirely different country that was constantly at war and expanding and constantly abusing many different peoples. So bringing up what someone’s ancestors did from 300 years ago is irrelevant when it comes to policies of today. So not surprising that it is answered with an equally meaningless response.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

Interesting article refuting many of the claims made by today's anti-immigration Republicans.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stephen-miller-great-grandfather-naturalization_us_5b2ba35ae4b0040e27403e42

One example, for all of those who claim their own predecessors "came here legally" - for the first 300 years of the country, all immigration was legal, because there were no laws governing immigration.

For those whose forebears came more recently, a surprising number of Republican politicians and mouthpieces actually have relatives who would be considered to have immigrated illegally, or to have "not assimilated" by continuing to speak their native tongue, or to have benefited from chain migration. Tomi Lahren's great great grandfather forged his immigration papers, Tucker Carlson's great grandfather left behind the "failing country" of Italy, and Steven Miller's great grandfather's initial immigration application was denied due to "ignorance". 

Just curious, if all immigration was legal for the first 300 years, how does that make the claims false when they claim their ancestors did it legally? 

It doesn’t make it false, it makes it meaningless. 

I’ll agree it’s meaningless. But that’s because it’s a meaningless response to a meaningless counterpoint made every day. The counterpoint of “well your ancestors immigrated here too” is also completely meaningless, which is the only time anyone ever says “well my ancestors did it legally.” How this country ran 300 years ago isn’t that relevant to policies we should be making today. It was an entirely different country that was constantly at war and expanding and constantly abusing many different peoples. So bringing up what someone’s ancestors did from 300 years ago is irrelevant when it comes to policies of today. So not surprising that it is answered with an equally meaningless response.

Try telling that to a 2A fanatic. A whole nother thread was just started.

oftenreading

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

Interesting article refuting many of the claims made by today's anti-immigration Republicans.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stephen-miller-great-grandfather-naturalization_us_5b2ba35ae4b0040e27403e42

One example, for all of those who claim their own predecessors "came here legally" - for the first 300 years of the country, all immigration was legal, because there were no laws governing immigration.

For those whose forebears came more recently, a surprising number of Republican politicians and mouthpieces actually have relatives who would be considered to have immigrated illegally, or to have "not assimilated" by continuing to speak their native tongue, or to have benefited from chain migration. Tomi Lahren's great great grandfather forged his immigration papers, Tucker Carlson's great grandfather left behind the "failing country" of Italy, and Steven Miller's great grandfather's initial immigration application was denied due to "ignorance". 

Just curious, if all immigration was legal for the first 300 years, how does that make the claims false when they claim their ancestors did it legally? 

It doesn’t make it false, it makes it meaningless. 

I’ll agree it’s meaningless. But that’s because it’s a meaningless response to a meaningless counterpoint made every day. The counterpoint of “well your ancestors immigrated here too” is also completely meaningless, which is the only time anyone ever says “well my ancestors did it legally.” How this country ran 300 years ago isn’t that relevant to policies we should be making today. It was an entirely different country that was constantly at war and expanding and constantly abusing many different peoples. So bringing up what someone’s ancestors did from 300 years ago is irrelevant when it comes to policies of today. So not surprising that it is answered with an equally meaningless response.

It doesn’t say 300 years ago; it said the first 300 years. This includes the early 20th century. Some of the people complaining the hardest about immigrants are within two or three generations away from this within their own families. 
 

Meltdown99

Almost all these politicians are descendent of immigrants.  Yet the real owners of the US and Canada our First Nations people continue to have very little voice in this matter...

HughFreakingDillon

Meltdown99 said:

Almost all these politicians are descendent of immigrants.  Yet the real owners of the US and Canada our First Nations people continue to have very little voice in this matter...

the answer to this is always "get over it". 

oftenreading

HughFreakingDillon said:

Meltdown99 said:

Almost all these politicians are descendent of immigrants.  Yet the real owners of the US and Canada our First Nations people continue to have very little voice in this matter...

the answer to this is always "get over it". 

Also “that was a long time ago and things are different now”. 

unsung

The victors re-write history, right Emancipation Park?

mrussel1

unsung said:

The victors re-write history, right Emancipation Park?

They write history, not re-write it.  And that is about a time where the defeated people were wiped out.  Not so accurate these days.  

Meltdown99

We'd be a better continent if we just owned up to our poor track record of treating First Nation peoples and moved to immediately rectify the problems.  Talk is cheap and thats all any of the politicians do.

Halifax2TheMax

unsung said:

elvistheking44 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The father of this girl says her and her mother were never separated and it "broke his heart" to see the images of her crying....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/exclusive-theyre-together-and-theyre-safe-father-of-honduran-two-year-old-who-became-the-face-of-the-family-separation-crisis-when-she-was-photographed-in-tears-as-her-mother-was-searched-by-us-border-control-speaks-out/ar-AAyYopn?ocid=spartanntp

So he doesn’t really know if his wife and daughter were separated? He “heard” from family members? Where? Texas? Did they get visitation? Maybe someone should go and see and report back? Oh yea, access is denied. Maybe Sarah Huckabee can fill us in? Something smells and it ain’t my feet.

Please also note he said he was not in favor of his wife going to the US. He couldn’t understand why she’d put her daughter through this.  Sounds like the mom put her child in danger and knew it against the fathers wishes.  Who’s at fault here?

Where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah, Bill Clinton's Administration where Janet Reno ordered a kid to be deported to Cuba.

No, Janet Reno enforced an order of the court after it was litigated. You really don’t understand our concept of government, do you?

Bentleyspop

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Stop importing replacement votes.

Care to link to the millions of illegals that voted? It really is funny to see how paranoid you are to be a minority. Living in fear, what a life.

People who live a life of fear, hate, ignorance, and paranoia live a very sad life.

brianlux

unsung said:

And most normal people would blame the parents for putting those kids in that situation.

unsung said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

unsung said:

And most normal people would blame the parents for putting those kids in that situation.

The counter-argument to this though is that not all of these parents are trying to illegally immigrate. Many come seeking asylum from oppressive governments like Guatemala. Since Trump is obviously against that sort of thing, those people should just be turned away, not detained.

And those countries all have US embassies where asylum can be obtained.

Heather Cox Richardson, a professor at Boston University, posted an article of Face book that addresses these issue.  Keys points in bold:

Trump began his presidential campaign by calling Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said that the new policy of separating children from their parents will deter illegal immigrants. Then, today Trump tweeted that our immigration problems come from Democrats, who "don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country." Trump is tangling up our long history of Mexican immigration with a new, startling trend of refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and then blaming Democrats for coddling criminals.

Let's untangle this mess:

First, problems with Mexican immigration stem not from Democratic softness on crime, but from a bipartisan 1965 law that reworked America's immigration laws. The story behind the 1965 law is this: Congress had passed the nation's first comprehensive immigration law in 1924. That law limited immigration according to quotas assigned to each country. Those countries were heavily weighted toward western Europe, virtually prohibiting immigration from Asia and Africa, and dramatically curtailing it from southern Europe.

That law did not monitor immigration from Latin America at all, for the simple reason that from the time the current border was set in 1848 until the 1930s, people moved back and forth across it without restrictions. Laborers, especially, came from Mexico to work on the huge American farms that dominate our agricultural sector, especially after 1907, when the Japanese workers who had been taking over those jobs were (unofficially) kept out of the country. Then the government encouraged immigration during WWI, to help increase production.

The Depression, when the bottom fell out of the economy, coupled with the Dust Bowl, when the bottom fell out of the western plains, made destitute westerners turn on Mexican migrants, (as well as on their poor white neighbors, as John Steinbeck wrote about in The Grapes of Wrath). The government rounded up Mexicans and shipped them back over the border.

World War II made migrant laborers vital again, and to regularize the system, the US government in 1942 started a guest worker policy called the "Bracero" Program. It was supposed to guarantee that migrant workers were well treated, paid, and housed adequately. But employers happily hired illegal as well as legal workers, and American workers complained. President Eisenhower returned about a million illegal workers in 1954 under "Operation Wetback," only to have officials readmit most of them as braceros. Under pressure both from labor and from reformers who recognized that the system was exploitive, President Kennedy initiated the process that ended the Bracero program in 1964.

The end of that system coincided with congressional reworking of the 1924 immigration act. In the midst of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement, Congress wanted to end the racial quota system of immigration and replace it with one that did not so obviously discriminate against Asia and Africa. The 1965 Hart-Celler Act opened immigration to all nations, setting a general cap on total immigration levels. But southern congressmen, appalled at the idea of black immigration, introduced a provision that privileged family migration, arguing that "family unification" should be the nation's top priority. They expected that old-stock immigrants from western Europe would use the provision to bring over their relatives, which would keep the effect of the 1924 law without the statute. But, of course, their provision had the opposite effect. It was new immigrants who wanted to bring their families; not old ones. So immigration began to skew heavily toward Asia and Latin America.

At the same time, Hart-Celler put a cap on Latin American immigration for the first time, just as the guest worker program ended. The cap was low: 20,000, although 50,000 workers were coming annually at that point. And American agribusiness depended on migrant labor. Workers continued to come as they always had, and to be employed, as always. But now their presence was illegal. In 1986, Congress tried to fix the problem by offering amnesty to 2.3 million Mexicans who were living in the United States and by cracking down on employers who hired undocumented workers. But rather than ending the problem of undocumented workers, the new law exacerbated it by beginning the process of guarding and militarizing the border. Until then, migrants into the United States had been offset by an equal number leaving at the end of the season. Once the border became heavily guarded, Mexican migrants refused to take the chance of leaving.

Since 1986, US politicians have refused to deal with this disconnect, which grew in the 1990s when NAFTA flooded Mexico with US corn and drove Mexican farmers to find work, largely in the American Southeast. But this "problem" is hardly either new nor suddenly catastrophic. While about 6 million undocumented Mexicans currently live in the United States, most of them- 78%- are long-term residents, here more than ten years. Only 7% have lived here less than five years. (This is a much more stable ratio than undocumented immigrants from any other country.) And since 2007, the number of Mexicans living illegally in the United States has declined by more than a million. The Mexican economy is good enough that more Mexicans are leaving America these days than coming.

So undocumented Mexican "criminals and rapists" are not really the issue at hand.

What is happening right now at America's southern border is not really about Mexicans at all. It is a relatively new issue, which began around 2014. The people now arriving at our border, where children are separated from their parents, are generally from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, where "warlike levels of violence" are creating refugees. They are not sneaking over the border, they are refugees applying for asylum, which is legal in the United States. And while we are trying to stop them by taking their children, researchers say that, while it is possible to discourage economic migrants-- like most Mexicans-- no deterrent will stop migrant refugees, for they are fleeing death.