Should the government take away my children if I deliberately involve them in ...

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Again, President Trump, DID NOT abuse one single child.

Sorry, that's already been established. He lied when he said the democrats were forcing him to do it. As soon as the damage from an outraged America hit him, he caved and stopped the abuse, even though he had earlier claimed that he could not do it. What you are parroting is a LIE.

He was following the Flores agreement

Nice try.

You really want to accuse and rile against somebody, please accuse and rile against the GOVERNMENT(s) of the countries from where all these people are fleeing from.

The leaders of some of those nations are no better than Trump. How does that justify abusing children to get even with them?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What I got from your original post was that you had misunderstood my words.

You weren't comparing US border policy to Nazi Germany?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

Danoh

New member
You weren't comparing US border policy to Nazi Germany?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Nope.

As life-long financially and politically corrupt Trump and those who blindly continue to support such a vile individual are finding out daily, their self-delusion for, is not, U.S. Border Policy, and never will be.
 

Danoh

New member
So you were happy with the policy?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Which "interpretation" of it?

Personally, ANYONE with the power to prevent what has been done to those children during what amounts to their parent's desperate attempt at a better life for them - anyone with the power to prevent what has been done to those children during the attempt to address their parent's justified attempt - is dung, Jeremiah 8:2.

ALL children are sacred.

I don't care what so called "Believer" that offends.

Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Which "interpretation" of it?
Just read the policy. Are you happy with it?

ANYONE with the power to prevent what has been done to those children during what amounts to their parent's desperate attempt at a better life for them - anyone with the power to prevent what has been done to those children during the attempt to address their parent's justified attempt - is dung.
And if the parents — or whoever has the kids — are not acting in a proper manner? Ie, say they attempt an illegal border crossing.

ALL children are sacred.
This is a platitude. Policy based on platitudes is a bad idea.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

Danoh

New member
Just read the policy. Are you happy with it?

And if the parents — or whoever has the kids — are not acting in a proper manner? Ie, say they attempt an illegal border crossing.

This is a platitude. Policy based on platitudes is a bad idea.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Big difference between a platitude and an outlook.

As for your other statements there, I tend to have an outlook very similar to the following...

 

WizardofOz

New member
He was following the Flores agreement
That remains to be seen


The main part that is important to the current discussions is that children must be released "without unnecessary delay" to (in order) a parent, a legal guardian; an adult relative (brother, sister, aunt, uncle, or grandparent). A licensed program came after.

Therefore, it is illegal to detain a child even if they are with their parents. That is what the courts found when they were asked to clarify the matter for the Obama administration, which tried to detain whole families in 2015 as border crossings increased. But a judge ordered that those women and children be released.

Elora Mukherjee, a law professor at Columbia University who represented some of the affected women, at the time said that the courts' "decision confirms that the mass detention of refugee children and their mothers violates U.S. law.

Now, the Trump administration would like the courts to reverse that decision. Department of Justice lawyers have asked the courts to modify the Flores Settlement to allow for families to be detained together. "We ask for immediate interim relief from this Court that would permit family detention during immigration proceedings," the filing reads.

The DOJ wants: "a limited exemption from its construction of the Flores Settlement Agreement’s release provisions so that ICE may detain alien minors who have arrived with their parent or legal guardian together in ICE family residential facilities."

DOJ writes that this is needed due to "the ongoing and worsening influx of families unlawfully entering the United States at the southwest border." It's also the only way that Trump's executive order can hold. He's ordered for the construction of new and reallocation of existing facilities that can be used to detain entire families.

But that will only work if the courts agree that doing so does not contradict Flores.



Link

How are you interpreting this law and then viewing the Trump administrations as "following the Flores agreement"?
 

WizardofOz

New member
Is Kirstjen Nielsen lying or telling the truth?


Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said on Twitter Sunday: "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."

She added that asylum-seekers would be protected from separations as they always had been: "For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law."

Nielsen and Attorney General Jeff Sessions say women and children will only be separated when they are caught crossing the border "illegally," which they define as crossing between designated ports of entry.

NBC News has found that some women are separated from their children even if they are legally claiming asylum and not being referred for prosecution. In those cases, the children are kept in the same facility, but they are still separated for days without being told whether they will be reunited.



Link
 

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
Is Kirstjen Nielsen lying or telling the truth?


Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said on Twitter Sunday: "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."

She added that asylum-seekers would be protected from separations as they always had been: "For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law."

Nielsen and Attorney General Jeff Sessions say women and children will only be separated when they are caught crossing the border "illegally," which they define as crossing between designated ports of entry.

NBC News has found that some women are separated from their children even if they are legally claiming asylum and not being referred for prosecution. In those cases, the children are kept in the same facility, but they are still separated for days without being told whether they will be reunited.



Link

Don’t worry about it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Is Kirstjen Nielsen lying or telling the truth?


Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said on Twitter Sunday: "We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."

She added that asylum-seekers would be protected from separations as they always had been: "For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law."

Nielsen and Attorney General Jeff Sessions say women and children will only be separated when they are caught crossing the border "illegally," which they define as crossing between designated ports of entry.

NBC News has found that some women are separated from their children even if they are legally claiming asylum and not being referred for prosecution. In those cases, the children are kept in the same facility, but they are still separated for days without being told whether they will be reunited.



Link


Lying using weasel words because they closed the bridge to asylum seekers so when the asylum seekers went around the bridge, they "broke a law," thus - punitive separation.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Big difference between a platitude and an outlook.

As for your other statements there, I tend to have an outlook very similar to the following...
So you have no problem with the current policy?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
So,everyone freaked out that Trump was keeping the Asylee adults until their court date and sending the kids to social services after 20 days like he had to.
Now hes going to keep the whole family together in detention.
Is that about right?
Whereas Obama did what different?
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
So,everyone freaked out that Trump was keeping the Asylee adults until their court date and sending the kids to social services after 20 days like he had to.
Now hes going to keep the whole family together in detention.
Is that about right?
Whereas Obama did what different?


Obama kept the families together.


I think I know what you mean by Asylee, and if you're using it instead of asylum... why are you?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Obama kept the families together.

Yes, but consider the kind of family life Obama has, compared to the sort that Trump has lived. That kind of thing means more to someone who has been faithful to his wife, and who cares about his children.


I think I know what you mean by Asylee, and if you're using it instead of asylum... why are you?

It's easier to be flippant about it if you don't know what kinds of things those people are fleeing, I suppose.
 

Danoh

New member
Yes, but consider the kind of family life Obama has, compared to the sort that Trump has lived. That kind of thing means more to someone who has been faithful to his wife, and who cares about his children.




It's easier to be flippant about it if you don't know what kinds of things those people are fleeing, I suppose.

Oh come on - just because Trump openly and blatantly cheated on Ivanna with Marla?

And just because he cheated on Marla with that Playboy Bunny?

And just because he cheated on Melanie with that Porn Star?

And just because he covered both those up; that latter one even as he was all over the long corrupt "Christian" Television talking about how he is "a Christian"?

And just because he then repeatedly denied having bought her off at the same time he and his equally spiritually corrupt base continually vilified anyone who pointed out the obvious cover up?

Come on now, be fair, we're talkin about "The Christian Donald" here.

Have a little heart - for that fraud.

1 Corinthians 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
 
Top