Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

US and human rights

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Not to be misunderstood : Beeing hawkish on immigration is a completely letigimate and acceptable position, regardless wether one agrees or not.
    The issue here though is not simply about beeing hawkish and about enforcing the law, it is about deterrence, and one should call it like that. Because noone needs to rip families apart to deport people not found eligible for asylum and noone needs children as demonstration objects for a "zero-tolerance" strategy. No other ( western) country does that, and obviously these images are produced on purpose.
    Yet public demonstrations of cruelty for the purpose of deterrence are nothing new, and also not in western countries. Who looks at old paintings, like from the european Renaissance or Baroque periods, will discover that even idyllic landscapes are often sprinkled with gallows. For the simple reason that these sights were normal for people back then. Well into the 19th century it was nothing unusual at all to witness public executions, in some countries also public torture, every now and then, Hanging, decapitation, burning, but also more brutal methods, such as quartering someone or breaking someones bones on a wheel. The executed bodies were often left rotting for weeks and months, in public and in well visible spots---to obviously deter from following their example.
    Public demonstrations of cruelty were pushed back when administrations and law enforcement got more professional and capable to enforce the states monopoly on violence on all levels of society. Based on it beeing credible, without needing to demonstrate it. And emerging civic societies did their part, like with independent institutions, with debates about sense and nonsense of certain punishments, of societal justice or crime prevention instead of deterrence.
    The migration crisis ( or what we call that), appears to bring back some of this oldnew deterrence strategies--when it comes to migrants.
    Since obviously the guys who ordered the family separations know that the images of small children crying for their parents will go viral. And they are supposed to. Obviously the new italian interior minister who closed his countrys ports to boat refugees from Libya ( which is a breach of the international law of the seas by the way), knows that the images of despaired people on overcrowded rescue ships ( one from the US Navy by the way) pushed back from the nearest port are cruel. And might send a message to others planning to cross over.
    To just mention the two most recent examples.
    The choice that the US ( and Europe) now have is to either accept cruelty like that as a means of policy ( and stop hiding behind fake legalistic excuses. No, noone HAS to do that, not even to enforce the law), or to get rational and honest about managing global migration movements. That we sometimes share responsibility for by the way (Syria, Libya, Iraq ?). Rationally that requires strategies on multiple levels, working with countries of origin, working on multilateral conflict resolution, and honestly that requires equipping law enforcement with the tools needed to combat illegal immigration AND cracking down on vested interests profitting from illegal immigration ( and not just on the migrants). At least.
    Rational and honest is not the same as dovish and compassionate, but cruelty is ultimately counterproductive, moral questions aside. Some leader might be getting tough guy coverage, but you dont solve underlying problems and these pictures are also something that you will stand for in the world. Wether you like that or not.
    Last edited by Voland; 06-20-2018, 02:13 AM.

    ?


    • #32
      Originally posted by Voland View Post
      Not to be misunderstood : Beeing hawkish on immigration is a completely letigimate and acceptable position, regardless wether one agrees or not.
      The issue here though is not simply about beeing hawkish and about enforcing the law, it is about deterrence, and one should call it like that. Because noone needs to rip families apart to deport people not found eligible for asylum and noone needs children as demonstration objects for a "zero-tolerance" strategy. No other ( western) country does that, and obviously these images are produced on purpose.
      Yet public demonstrations of cruelty for the purpose of deterrence are nothing new, and also not in western countries. Who looks at old paintings, like from the european Renaissance or Baroque periods, will discover that even idyllic landscapes are often sprinkled with gallows. For the simple reason that these sights were normal for people back then. Well into the 19th century it was nothing unusual at all to witness public executions, in some countries also public torture, every now and then, Hanging, decapitation, burning, but also more brutal methods, such as quartering someone or breaking someones bones on a wheel. The executed bodies were often left rotting for weeks and months, in public and in well visible spots---to obviously deter from following their example.
      Public demonstrations of cruelty were pushed back when administrations and law enforcement got more professional and capable to enforce the states monopoly on violence on all levels of society. Based on it beeing credible, without needing to demonstrate it. And emerging civic societies did their part, like with independent institutions, with debates about sense and nonsense of certain punishments, of societal justice or crime prevention instead of deterrence.
      The migration crisis ( or what we call that), appears to bring back some of this oldnew deterrence strategies--when it comes to migrants.
      Since obviously the guys who ordered the family separations know that the images of small children crying for their parents will go viral. And they are supposed to. Obviously the new italian interior minister who closed his countrys ports to boat refugees from Libya ( which is a breach of the international law of the seas by the way), knows that the images of despaired people on overcrowded rescue ships ( one from the US Navy by the way) pushed back from the nearest port are cruel. And might send a message to others planning to cross over.
      To just mention the two most recent examples.
      The choice that the US ( and Europe) now have is to either accept cruelty like that as a means of policy ( and stop hiding behind fake legalistic excuses. No, noone HAS to do that, not even to enforce the law), or to get rational and honest about managing global migration movements. That we sometimes share responsibility for by the way (Syria, Libya, Iraq ?). Rationally that requires strategies on multiple levels, working with countries of origin, working on multilateral conflict resolution, and honestly that requires equipping law enforcement with the tools needed to combat illegal immigration AND cracking down on vested interests profitting from illegal immigration ( and not just on the migrants). At least.
      Rational and honest is not the same as dovish and compassionate, but cruelty is ultimately counterproductive, moral questions aside. Some leader might be getting tough guy coverage, but you dont solve underlying problems and these pictures are also something that you will stand for in the world. Wether you like that or not.
      I agree no none needs to "rip" families apart (emotionalism noted) to deport people not found eligible for asylum.

      Of course that is not what is happening, notwithstanding what one might read in the New York Times or similar periodical committed to the disparagement of this president.

      Children are removed from those claiming to be their parents if those adults are to be held for more than (whatever the law prescribes ... I believe it is currently 20 days). They are removed because the Adult detention centers are not equipped to handle children AND there are predators around the adult detention centers looking for children. The children are placed with family members already in the country if possible or they are placed in Foster Care.

      Children are also removed if their relationship to the adult in whose custody they are cannot be established. There are significant numbers of adults "renting" children and claiming to be their parent JUST to support their "need" for asylum (every one of these people have also been coached on how to claim asylum).

      Children are NOT removed simply because their parent demands asylum. Children are also not removed if they are caught on their first illegal attempt at entry (only a misdemeanor). IF the "parent" was caught and deported ... and this is their SECOND attempt at illegal entry, it is a felony and, yes, the child is removed from felons ... JUST as if they robbed a bank.

      And finally, please stop conflating "migrants" with "ILLEGAL immigrants." Migrants come here legally, illegal immigrants (by definition) do not). This is not a migration crisis. It is an attempt by ILLEGAL immigrants to overwhelm our system. I do not believe most of them ARE trying to escape persecution or violence (else why didn't they seek asylum in Mexico? and why don't they NOW seek asylum in Mexico once they are rejected by the U.S.)... Trump (neither Sessions) invented this process. IT was codified by president Bill Clinton in 1997 with the signing of the Flores Consent Decree (which Congress then amended). I find it compelling that no one complained when presidents Clinton, Bush, or Obama invoked the same rules. Only when president TRUMP'S justice department does it is everyone choking on their own bile.

      ?


      • #33
        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
        I agree no none needs to "rip" families apart (emotionalism noted) to deport people not found eligible for asylum.

        Of course that is not what is happening, notwithstanding what one might read in the New York Times or similar periodical committed to the disparagement of this president.

        Children are removed from those claiming to be their parents if those adults are to be held for more than (whatever the law prescribes ... I believe it is currently 20 days). They are removed because the Adult detention centers are not equipped to handle children AND there are predators around the adult detention centers looking for children. The children are placed with family members already in the country if possible or they are placed in Foster Care.

        Children are also removed if their relationship to the adult in whose custody they are cannot be established. There are significant numbers of adults "renting" children and claiming to be their parent JUST to support their "need" for asylum (every one of these people have also been coached on how to claim asylum).

        Children are NOT removed simply because their parent demands asylum. Children are also not removed if they are caught on their first illegal attempt at entry (only a misdemeanor). IF the "parent" was caught and deported ... and this is their SECOND attempt at illegal entry, it is a felony and, yes, the child is removed from felons ... JUST as if they robbed a bank.

        And finally, please stop conflating "migrants" with "ILLEGAL immigrants." Migrants come here legally, illegal immigrants (by definition) do not). This is not a migration crisis. It is an attempt by ILLEGAL immigrants to overwhelm our system. I do not believe most of them ARE trying to escape persecution or violence (else why didn't they seek asylum in Mexico? and why don't they NOW seek asylum in Mexico once they are rejected by the U.S.)... Trump (neither Sessions) invented this process. IT was codified by president Bill Clinton in 1997 with the signing of the Flores Consent Decree (which Congress then amended). I find it compelling that no one complained when presidents Clinton, Bush, or Obama invoked the same rules. Only when president TRUMP'S justice department does it is everyone choking on their own bile.
        A simple fact check shows you are trying to mislead once again. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...-families-was/

        ?


        • #34
          Originally posted by redrover View Post
          A simple fact check shows you are trying to mislead once again. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...-families-was/
          A simple fact check MIGHT show I'm wrong ... but you can't do that on politifact.

          ?


          • #35
            Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

            A simple fact check MIGHT show I'm wrong ... but you can't do that on politifact.
            I thought facts were facts. Try these facts. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/im...milies-n884856

            ?


            • #36
              Originally posted by redrover View Post

              I thought facts were facts. Try these facts. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/im...milies-n884856
              You keep gleaning the libtard fields for your "facts." You'll NEVER fact check anything that way.

              ?


              • #37
                Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                You keep gleaning the libtard fields for your "facts." You'll NEVER fact check anything that way.
                I know you use the alternative facts check.The truth is whatever Donald Trump says it is.

                ?


                • #38
                  Originally posted by redrover View Post

                  I know you use the alternative facts check.The truth is whatever Donald Trump says it is.
                  more non-response.

                  Sigh ... you will never learn.

                  ?


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                    more non-response.

                    Sigh ... you will never learn.
                    Here's a fact you won't like A Trump administration report shows that refugees rather than costing us actually are making us about 63 billion. Trump didn't like the report so he continues to do what he always does Lies,Lies. http://www.newsweek.com/trump-refugees-economy-667565

                    ?


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by redrover View Post

                      Here's a fact you won't like A Trump administration report shows that refugees rather than costing us actually are making us about 63 billion. Trump didn't like the report so he continues to do what he always does Lies,Lies. http://www.newsweek.com/trump-refugees-economy-667565
                      Foolish dissemination.

                      No one is criticizing real refugees. It's illegals and those lying in their attempt to get across our border.

                      Sheesh, you make being a patriot meaningful.

                      ?


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                        Foolish dissemination.

                        No one is criticizing real refugees. It's illegals and those lying in their attempt to get across our border.

                        Sheesh, you make being a patriot meaningful.
                        That's a fine distinction Trump has made every refugee illegal.hasn't he?

                        ?


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by redrover View Post

                          That's a fine distinction Trump has made every refugee illegal.hasn't he?
                          This one isn't even worth a cogent response.

                          ?


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                            This one isn't even worth a cogent response.
                            I see that a federal judge has order Trump to reunite the families of the children he has kidnapped if they haven't been exterminated already.https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...amilies-678809

                            ?


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                              I agree no none needs to "rip" families apart (emotionalism noted) to deport people not found eligible for asylum.

                              Of course that is not what is happening, notwithstanding what one might read in the New York Times or similar periodical committed to the disparagement of this president.

                              Children are removed from those claiming to be their parents if those adults are to be held for more than (whatever the law prescribes ... I believe it is currently 20 days). They are removed because the Adult detention centers are not equipped to handle children AND there are predators around the adult detention centers looking for children. The children are placed with family members already in the country if possible or they are placed in Foster Care.

                              Children are also removed if their relationship to the adult in whose custody they are cannot be established. There are significant numbers of adults "renting" children and claiming to be their parent JUST to support their "need" for asylum (every one of these people have also been coached on how to claim asylum).

                              Children are NOT removed simply because their parent demands asylum. Children are also not removed if they are caught on their first illegal attempt at entry (only a misdemeanor). IF the "parent" was caught and deported ... and this is their SECOND attempt at illegal entry, it is a felony and, yes, the child is removed from felons ... JUST as if they robbed a bank.

                              And finally, please stop conflating "migrants" with "ILLEGAL immigrants." Migrants come here legally, illegal immigrants (by definition) do not). This is not a migration crisis. It is an attempt by ILLEGAL immigrants to overwhelm our system. I do not believe most of them ARE trying to escape persecution or violence (else why didn't they seek asylum in Mexico? and why don't they NOW seek asylum in Mexico once they are rejected by the U.S.)... Trump (neither Sessions) invented this process. IT was codified by president Bill Clinton in 1997 with the signing of the Flores Consent Decree (which Congress then amended). I find it compelling that no one complained when presidents Clinton, Bush, or Obama invoked the same rules. Only when president TRUMP'S justice department does it is everyone choking on their own bile.
                              I see the problem here. Besides the lefties suddenly getting all wet-hanky about children being ripped out of their mother's arms, we have righties who think Mexico is a fine & dandy place to take refuge from homicidal politicians and worse criminals. Why don't we look at what rational presidents did? Here's a link:
                              It was Mr. Bush, who had firsthand experience with the border as governor of Texas and ran for president as a compassionate conservative, who initiated the zero tolerance approach for illegal immigration on which Mr. Trumps policy is modeled.

                              In 2005, he launched Operation Streamline, a program along a stretch of the border in Texas that referred all unlawful entrants for criminal prosecution, imprisoning them and expediting assembly-line-style trials geared toward quickly deporting them. The initiative yielded results and was soon expanded to more border sectors. Back then, however, exceptions were generally made for adults who were traveling with minor children, as well as juveniles and people who were ill.

                              Mr. Obamas administration employed the program at the height of the migration crisis as well, although it generally did not treat first-time border crossers as priorities for prosecution, and it detained families together in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody administrative, rather than criminal, detention.
                              https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/u...ion-trump.html

                              See the difference, righties? The parents stay with the kids unless there's good evidence the kids are used as pretext for illegitimate claims. BTW, Mexico is where lots of those kids went to die horrible deaths, along with mom, dad, and/or an older relative. Link:
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_S...nando_massacre ....Just a heads up. More links if you need 'em.

                              -Which leads to a "you too" accusation for many of my fellow lefties. -When the f*ck all did you find compassion for Latin American kids getting butchered or enslaved, that you would take active political steps to stop it? In the home countries where those kids lived? no. When those kids were trying to get thru parts of Mexico that more resemble Somalia? no.

                              This "better late than never" treatment of reality is something for which I could forgive righties; after all, they were big fans of supporting dictators who were better suited to a padded cell, than leader of a country allied to the US. Lefties weren't much better (sorry Bernie, but an outright condemnation of Fidel would have elevated your status, rather than remove you from the Dem Socialist OK list). If the left had taken a consistent, stronger stance on child abuse and immigration, from it's origins in other countries to their arrival here (or in Europe), it just might be a little easier to deal with the hallucinatory meltdown currently being suffered by the right on this issue.

                              ?


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                I see the problem here. Besides the lefties suddenly getting all wet-hanky about children being ripped out of their mother's arms, we have righties who think Mexico is a fine & dandy place to take refuge from homicidal politicians and worse criminals. Why don't we look at what rational presidents did? Here's a link:
                                As yet to be proven they ARE refugees or that they DO flee anything other than their home. What we DO know, however, is virtually all of these people in the Caravan through Mexico have been supported with food and clothing (at least) and they have been coached on what to say when they get to the border.

                                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/u...ion-trump.html

                                See the difference, righties? The parents stay with the kids unless there's good evidence the kids are used as pretext for illegitimate claims. BTW, Mexico is where lots of those kids went to die horrible deaths, along with mom, dad, and/or an older relative. Link:
                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_S...nando_massacre ....Just a heads up. More links if you need 'em.
                                AH, yes, that's a great plan. Let's hypothesize, then, but first a question: How many children are you willing to allow to be molested and sexually abused? O.K., while you ponder that, let's hypothesize.

                                A predator rents a child from her parent(s) in Honduras. He has every intention of selling her into sex slavery once he gets into the U.S., but he tells the parents, of course, he will send them money once he makes it and help them also migrate into the U.S..

                                So, your plan at this point is leave the child with the predator, IN an adult detention center potentially with other predators, while U.S. Customs figures out if she really IS his child?

                                To quote the T-Rex from Meet the Robinsons, " I have a big head and little arms. I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through."

                                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                -Which leads to a "you too" accusation for many of my fellow lefties. -When the f*ck all did you find compassion for Latin American kids getting butchered or enslaved, that you would take active political steps to stop it? In the home countries where those kids lived? no. When those kids were trying to get thru parts of Mexico that more resemble Somalia? no.

                                This "better late than never" treatment of reality is something for which I could forgive righties; after all, they were big fans of supporting dictators who were better suited to a padded cell, than leader of a country allied to the US. Lefties weren't much better (sorry Bernie, but an outright condemnation of Fidel would have elevated your status, rather than remove you from the Dem Socialist OK list). If the left had taken a consistent, stronger stance on child abuse and immigration, from it's origins in other countries to their arrival here (or in Europe), it just might be a little easier to deal with the hallucinatory meltdown currently being suffered by the right on this issue.
                                Wow, not sure from where you got this whole diatribe... but you have clearly had some kind of terrible experience at the hands of conservatives to believe this (I do appreciate the flowery prose you employ, though).

                                Speaking of "you too?" accusations, let's talk abortion. You're O.K. ripping THOSE children from the arms (or in that case, the wombs) of their mothers but somehow get your panties all in a pinch when children are separated from their parents while Customs verifies their relationship? You don't see the duality (if not absolute hypocrisy) there? "you" (meaning the alt-left with their short hairs being pulled over this) don't give a rat's ass about "the children." "you" are simply looking for the next outrage you can hurl against the wall, hoping it will stick.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X