Trump says he won't sign legislation banning separation of children from parents

[The Barbarian]

President Donald Trump said he hates his own administration’s policy that separates immigrant children from parents when they illegally cross the U.S. border but said he’d refuse to sign compromise immigration legislation crafted by House Republicans that, among other provisions, would end the practice.

“I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law,” Trump said during an impromptu media appearance on the White House lawn. “That’s their law and we can change it tonight.”

But White House officials haven’t been able to cite any part of U.S. law that requires the policy, which was initiated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The president, his aides and congressional Republicans all have given differing rationales for it: Sessions and Chief of Staff John Kelly said children were being taken away as a deterrent while Republicans in Congress recently have said it’s based on a 1997 court settlement regarding the treatment of immigrant children in federal custody.

Trump’s remarks about refusing to sign a compromise plan that was headed to a vote next week in the House blows up an agreement brokered by House Speaker Paul Ryan among Republican factions seeking to defuse a politically fraught issue less than five months before elections that will decide control of Congress.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/3GF4n...ortune.com/partners/csx-transportation/132029

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemöller

 

[intojoy]

Good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[annabenedetti]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday used a Bible verse to defend his department’s policy of prosecuting everyone who crosses the border from Mexico, suggesting that God supports the government in separating immigrant parents from their children.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Ind.
​

We're a republic, not a theocracy.

 

[Rusha]

“I hate the children being taken away. The Democrats have to change their law,”

Lie ... IF he hated it, it wouldn't be happening. Intentionally inflicting harm on children due to hatred of their parents is NOT prolife or pro-child.

 

[The Barbarian]

Lie ... IF he hated it, it wouldn't be happening. Intentionally inflicting harm on children due to hatred of their parents is NOT prolife or pro-child.

Of course. As you know, that never happened in the last administration. It was imposed by Sessions. The White House staff was once again forced to admit that there was no basis at all to Trump's claim. He was responsible for taking children from parents, and he could end it tomorrow if he wanted to.

His statement that he would not sign a bill protecting children from being seized and separated from their parents makes it clear that it's his policy.

Republicans in Congress are afraid that the democrats will take this to the voters in the fall elections. And they should.

 

[Foxfire]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday used a Bible verse to defend his department’s policy of prosecuting everyone who crosses the border from Mexico, suggesting that God supports the government in separating immigrant parents from their children.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Ind.
​

We're a republic, not a theocracy.

Half the reason for separation of church and state is to prevent government from subverting religion to it's own purposes.

Mark 9:36-37 :think:

 

[intojoy]

Get em outta here lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Danoh]

Get em outta here lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look at it from what happened to your beloved Hawaii...

"Hawaii’s Monarchy Overthrown With U.S. Support, 120 Years Ago..."

https://www.history.com/news/hawaiis-monarchy-overthrown-with-u-s-support-120-years-ago

 

[Danoh]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday used a Bible verse to defend his department’s policy of prosecuting everyone who crosses the border from Mexico, suggesting that God supports the government in separating immigrant parents from their children.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes,” Sessions said during a speech to law enforcement officers in Fort Wayne, Ind.
​

We're a republic, not a theocracy.

The man might have a corrupt...point.

Sure, there is this...

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

At the same time...according to other passages, like, say Romans 1:18-3:20 the system of "powers that be" as "ordained of God" (in Genesis 9) fell many, many generations earlier (all the way back in Genesis 11).

Thus, though the Lord noted many generations later to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" He did so well aware He was referring to doing so only because it is God's will that man govern his affairs in accordance with some form of a Rule of Law.

He was not endorsing the mighty, infamously corrupt to its core Roman Government, neither was the Apostle Paul, decades later.

Rather, what both Christ and Paul were asserting was more along this line...

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

Note the following endorsements of going against King Herod himself, by God Himself, when Herod's rule was unjust...

One...

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. 2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

Two...

2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

Who mocked said "power that be" that he then pulled a Kim Jung Un Trump would have been proud of?

God Himself mocked that corrupt evil fool.

Continuing on, we also read...

2:19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 2:20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life. 2:21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

Three...

2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Because the system of "powers that be" that were "ordained of God" long since fell; long since went their own way.

Insert the Parable of the Good Samaritan, here...

For that matter, this passage that follows, concerning "religiousus right" hypocrites who cite Scripture as some sort of supposed evidence their injustice is God's will.

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Idolater]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemöller

The only thing that anybody's coming for, are the Democrats coming for the guns.

 

[The Barbarian]

The only thing that anybody's coming for, are the Democrats coming for the guns.

Let's take a look...

Cruz claims that Obama is "the most anti-gun president we've ever seen." But Obama's package is far less ambitious than the 1993 Brady Law, which mandated background checks on sales by licensed dealers, and the 1994 "assault weapons" ban, which were signed by Bill Clinton.

Both measures had the endorsement of three other presidents: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and -- surprise! -- Ronald Reagan. Ford and Carter had earlier supported a ban on "Saturday night specials" -- small, inexpensive pistols.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ama_a_threat_to_the_2nd_amendment_129259.html

"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ess-second-white-house-gun-meeting/381145002/

Unless you're prepared to show us that Obama is a republican and Trump is a democrat, you've got it mixed up.

It's not just the first and fourth amendments Trump's seeking to take away. And it puts a finer point on what I was saying; you can't take away some people's rights without losing your own.

 

[Idolater]

"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ess-second-white-house-gun-meeting/381145002/

While due process isn't inalienable like the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it does come in handy when gun haters want to seize an innocent person's weapons.

you can't take away some people's rights without losing your own.

You don't have to tell me that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Trump's approach to the 2nd Amendment:
"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ing/381145002/

While due process isn't inalienable like the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it does come in handy when gun haters want to seize an innocent person's weapons.

Just noting that it's a republican president who is looking to take down the 2nd Amendment, not democrats.

 

[Idolater]

Trump's approach to the 2nd Amendment:
"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ing/381145002/



Just noting that it's a republican president who is looking to take down the 2nd Amendment, not democrats.

Um, no. It's the Democrats who actually have a sizable minority who'd like to repeal the Second Amendment. If you're referring to another in a long, long line of infringements upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then yes, Republicans have bloody hands there.

 

[intojoy]

Look at it from what happened to your beloved Hawaii...

"Hawaii’s Monarchy Overthrown With U.S. Support, 120 Years Ago..."

https://www.history.com/news/hawaiis-monarchy-overthrown-with-u-s-support-120-years-ago

Thank God for it too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Barbarian]

Um, no. It's the Democrats who actually have a sizable minority who'd like to repeal the Second Amendment.

List and policy statements to that effect would improve your credibility. How many democrats have said what Trump said, or anything close to it? There may be some democrat somewhere in office who wants to end the 2nd Amendment, but here we have the head of the republican party asserting that we can just shove it aside:

Trump's approach to the 2nd Amendment:
"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

 

[annabenedetti]

Of course. As you know, that never happened in the last administration. It was imposed by Sessions. The White House staff was once again forced to admit that there was no basis at all to Trump's claim. He was responsible for taking children from parents, and he could end it tomorrow if he wanted to.

His statement that he would not sign a bill protecting children from being seized and separated from their parents makes it clear that it's his policy.

Republicans in Congress are afraid that the democrats will take this to the voters in the fall elections. And they should.

 

[Idolater]

List and policy statements to that effect would improve your credibility. How many democrats have said what Trump said, or anything close to it? There may be some democrat somewhere in office who wants to end the 2nd Amendment

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/28/repeal-2nd-amendment-cry-resonates-39-percent-demo/

, but here we have the head of the republican party asserting that we can just shove it aside:

Trump's approach to the 2nd Amendment:
"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

What the president expressed there, infringes the right.

 

[glorydaz]

Lie ... IF he hated it, it wouldn't be happening. Intentionally inflicting harm on children due to hatred of their parents is NOT prolife or pro-child.

Lie....it's the Democrates who keep these long standing problems from being solved.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
List and policy statements to that effect would improve your credibility. How many democrats have said what Trump said, or anything close to it? There may be some democrat somewhere in office who wants to end the 2nd Amendment

Fully 21 percent of Americans think the same way. That’s according to a poll taken back in February by the Economist/YouGov.

So a sizable minority of Americans agree with Donald Trump on trashing the 2nd Amendment. But you can't find even one democrat officeholder who thinks so. And from this, you conclude it's the democrats who want to take out the 2nd Amendment?

I don't think you've given this enough thought.

What the president expressed there, infringes the right.

Of course. Did you really think that a person who would trash the Bill of Rights would somehow exempt the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?