Pretty sure he doesn’t get it yet.
You usually have somewhat reasonable opinions. You might be right. I expressed an alternate opinion…which was only a caveat that I’m not as sure as you are… not that it definitely WAS coming.
This is where you lose any credibility you had to begin with. What an ignorant statement.
I’ll repeat:
The question asked was what Trump **put in place**.
Separating families was in place before Trump was president.
Try again.I’ll repeat:
The question asked was what Trump put in place.
Separating families was in place before Trump was president.
This where you guys lose all credibility. Immigrants, legal or illegal, should NOT be able to come into this country and start receiving social programs and benefits right off the bat. They should be self sufficient or stay where they are. If their parents are not here legally, they shouldn’t even be allowed access to our public school system. If you want to stop illegal immigration, make it painful to be illegal.
1 Like
It was the “Zero-tolerance” policy that Sessions announced in April. Because it considered every adult crossing illegally for federal prosecution, it forced them to be detained separately from their children, as opposed to the policy that was in place before/under Obama that did not immediately prosecute first-time crossers with kids. Kids were only separated then if it was suspected the children’s lives or welfare were in danger.
Got it?
What trump has “put in place” is separating all families. Your attempt to parse this is obvious.
The idea was even floated by Kelly last year:
Watching the Trump admin floundering around trying to point the finger at anyone but themselves was truly something else.
As someone who supports the prosecution of illegal border crossers, I really appreciate you explaining this. This is, quite frankly, the most clear and concise explanation I have seen or heard on any form of media.
That being said, I believe in my heart of hearts that Trump’s policies are benefitting these kids more than any other president that preceded him.
So because the ruling was in agreement with the left’s stance, he swung left?
I don’t think I agree with that. I read somewhere the other day the reason Roberts did what he did with obamacare was he was trying to protect the integrity of the court.
I don’t think that’s a left swing. Of course I don’t know of it’s true.
I don’t want a swinging court.
How much tolerance should we have?
Kennedy was overall a conservative. He sometimes sided with the left. That’s a swing. IMO Roberts is next.
Because he “evolved”?
I believe the easiest solution to this problem is, perhaps, to annex a 10 - 25 mile zone from the border south and enforce that zone, so as to allow enforcement of the border before they get here.
Yes, it would be quite beligerent, but effective.
That’s the argument 538 is making. “evolution” wise i mean. There are articles from 2017, way before this that even discuss whether he is a closet liberal. So this is not just wishful thinking now that Kennedy retired
Good question.
I’ve seen a lot of right-wing freaking out over zero-tolerance in schools.
Tolerance doesn’t mean you get away with it-it just means we’re not going to cut your hands off for stealing that first loaf of bread, or whatever other metaphor you prefer.
Don’t tell the other kids, but sometimes the “left” is right. 
Agreed. So in this case, how much tolerance should we have?
538?
Will it be because he believes in it or some other reason?
