do thier parents not have the right to take them with them?
2 Likes
That’s what the government claims. The lawyer for the families claim differently. They say they were told to bring both their kids and their passports to the meeting where they scooped them up and deported them.
One of the citizens was in cancer treatment. Why would they want to I interrupt that?
Why did the ICE office tell them to bring the kids passports?
They were trying to keep the family together, and still the libs bitch. 
5 Likes
Umm no.
But they just like when we put parents in jail, we don’t let the youngsters stay at home and take care of themselves. We putt hem in foster care.
That is probably what happened here
Note "Government claims they wanted to take their kids. " in the OP
1 Like
Because the mother was being deported and it was a reasonable presumption that she would take her children with her?
media in overdrive amplifying every sob case to create the narrative…
then the worker bees run it up the flagpole
4 Likes
Can you imagine the Dems reaction if ICE had told the mother she couldn’t take her children with her and they were going to be put in foster care? What the libs are going for is come,to,the US, have a kid, and you are a de facto US resident.
3 Likes
I seldom believe lying lawyers. 
So you are on record as wanting to split a family apart to promote your own political narrative.
The way the left time and time again just use people to promote their political narrative and then just trash them. It’s nothing short of evil.
3 Likes
Their father wanted to keep them here, especially the one undergoing cancer treatments, but…wait for it…no one was given any notice that this was happening, and the mother was allowed no access to any lawyers to talk through the various ways the kids could have been kept here.
And so much for “prioritizing the most dangerous”.
It is clear now the priority is whoever is the easiest to catch, those are who are being removed.
The “most dangerous” will be left here to commit their “violent crimes” because the most dangerous are too difficult to catch at a rate fast enough so arrest and removal targets can be met.
Trump is now targeting the law abiding ones who do what they are told to do and thus it’s easy to predict where they are going to be so they can be seized.
Won’t make the country any safer, but will feed a lot of vindictive mindsets.
4 Likes
This.
You are on fire this morning. Got to love that LW rhetoric. You are on a roll.
Which part is rhetoric?
What part is “rhetoric”?
Do you feel safer now that a mother and three children, one sick with metastasized cancer, have been deported?
Do you feel like we are a much secure nation now that a student who wrote an OpEd has been silenced, but our Secretary of Defense is sharing sensitive military information on a public computer in his office and on his cell phone, the number of which is in the hands of many people around the world now?
2 Likes
It’s right in there.
Rhetoric.
I am sure if the mother agrees that the father can go to whatever country the mother is in and get the child. If the mother does not agree he can take her to court and get custody. This is not about us deporting a citizen. This is about custody of children between a man and woman. Has nothing to do with deportation.
4 Likes
One sided comments. Let’s see both sides.
Classic LW rhetoric. The accusation is that ICE can’t get rid of some of the low hanging fruit while removing the most dangerous. They can and are doing both.
More LW rhetoric. You have no clue about ICE priorities. You are simply making stuff up.
This is pure absurdity. Nothing more need be said.
Those in this country illegally are not law abiding. More LW rhetoric.
LW rhetoric.
I was asked to point out the rhetoric. I will do so and respond to it.
End of faux poutrage.
4 Likes
There is nothing they can do to satisfy the left, so they should ignore them and get their job done.
1 Like
