Political Talk Forum

Status
Not open for further replies.
JHDK said:
When someone breaks the law and has their kids with them the kids go into the government system. That's how it's always been.
Click to expand...

No. This is a brand new policy. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, and only when proven in court. Separating parents from children over misdemeanor charges is not how it has always been.

Do some research. Educate yourself.

Trump owns this policy. He said it's a negotiating tactic to get Democrats to agree to fund his border wall. He's harming kids to advance his legislative agenda.
 
What I'm saying is, for normal citizens, kids get separated from their parents all the time if the parent decided to break the law when their kid was with them. Non-citizens should be treated equally or harsher than that. Certainly not easier.

If I go out drunk driving and get caught while my kid is in the car (if there is no accident) it would likely be a few serious misdemeanor charges. If I had no one to give the kid to he would go into the system and it would all be my fault for deciding to break the law with my kid.

Yea Trump's big selling point was his hard line stance on illegal immigration. This is hard line. This is what I voted for. If the punishment for illegally entering the country is losing custody of your kid for awhile and if it happens enough, perhaps people will start thinking twice before deciding to commit criminal acts at the border.
 
Last edited:
JHDK said:
What I'm saying is, for normal citizens, kids get separated from their parents all the time if the parent decided to break the law when their kid was with them. Non-citizens should be treated equally or harsher than that. Certainly not easier.

If I go out drunk driving and get caught while my kid is in the car (if there is no accident) it would likely be a few serious misdemeanor charges. If I had no one to give the kid to he would go into the system and it would all be my fault for deciding to break the law with my kid.

Yea Trump's big selling point was his hard line stance on illegal immigration. This is hard line. This is what I voted for. If the punishment for illegally entering the country is losing custody of your kid for awhile and if it happens enough, perhaps people will start thinking twice before deciding to commit criminal acts at the border.
Click to expand...
You've officially proven yourself to be a thoughtless deciple of hate. You're really comparing what happens when a parent goes to jail - where the kid goes to the other parent or another family member - to ripping a child from his only family and putting him in a prison, having nothing but strangers throw food and diapers at him.

If your father really was in a Japanese internment camp, then shame on you for dishonoring that too.
 
You think I'm lying about my Dad? I've mentioned it multiple other times here in non-politically charged posts over the years. And it was not internment. It was a concentration camp. Internment is what we did to the Japanese and while still wrong it was much more humane. No one was starved of gassed and they even had schools and some form of regular life while imprisoned. The Japanese were a million times harder on the Dutch colonists in Indonesia. Literally starving women and children to death.

This convo has clearly gotten too heated so this will be my last post on the matter. I really hope this won't get the thread locked. I don't care if you want to continue to point out how I may appear heartless but I ask you refrain from nonchalantly implying that I'm lying about the single most devastating event in the Koopman family history. But if you don't want to that's fine too. It's not the end of the world. I just consider you a friend and didn't expect this. Perhaps my judgment of our online relationship was misguided.
 
Last edited:
JHDK said:
You think I'm lying about my Dad? I ask you refrain from nonchalantly implying that I'm lying about the single most devastating event in the Koopman family history.
Click to expand...
When did I imply you were lying? The phrase "If X really did happen to you then Y" is not intended to literally question whether X happened. It's a way of saying "since X happened, that's all the more reason you should think Y".

I'm not sure why your first thought was to be defensive of your family story. I'm sure you've probably mentioned it, and it's certainly a horrible thing to have happened, and one that (I think) would permanently affect your beliefs (but not in the way you're now expressing). Anyway, what basis could I possibly have for actually questioning your claim? And knowing me as you do, why do you think I'd be doing that?
 
JHDK said:
What I'm saying is, for normal citizens, kids get separated from their parents all the time if the parent decided to break the law when their kid was with them. Non-citizens should be treated equally or harsher than that. Certainly not easier.

If I go out drunk driving and get caught while my kid is in the car (if there is no accident) it would likely be a few serious misdemeanor charges. If I had no one to give the kid to he would go into the system and it would all be my fault for deciding to break the law with my kid.

Yea Trump's big selling point was his hard line stance on illegal immigration. This is hard line. This is what I voted for. If the punishment for illegally entering the country is losing custody of your kid for awhile and if it happens enough, perhaps people will start thinking twice before deciding to commit criminal acts at the border.
Click to expand...

You think they don't think twice? You're allowing your mind to be filled with propaganda.

I'm no fan of illegal immigration, but it isn't the problem Trump portrays it as. He's using it for purely political purposes.
 
memebag said:
I'm no fan of illegal immigration, but it isn't the problem Trump portrays it as. He's using it for purely political purposes.
Click to expand...
It's been established that illegal immigration has been down since 2007, and that the Obama admin deported at a higher rate than his predecessor. So the claim that it's gotten worse is just not true. Also, illegal immigrants have become an important part of our workforce. Without them, the price of fruits and vegetables, and landscaping, and home construction, and many other things would skyrocket. And there's not one job they do, that any of us would want.

"The wall" is a farce. There already exists miles and miles of border walls, fences, troughs, and barriers. Natural features, such as rivers, hills, forests, or cliffs constitute much of the border. There's no practical engineering plan for a quick, simple, effective wall. It was supposed to be paid for by Mexico (at a cost of less than $10B), but now it's been 18 months without any funding, and Trumpy is asking for $25B. It will take years, it will not be effective, and it won't even address the majority of the flow of illegal immigrants. They come by boat, or through Canada, or by plane. It's really all a joke.
 
Look at these two
upload_2018-6-20_17-32-32.webp

Looks like they're being held at gunpoint.

"It was fun for a while, wasn't it Mike?"
"Yeah, Kirstjen, it was. We'll have to find something else fun to do."
 
JHDK said:
This is interesting:

Americans want to keep Roe v. Wade, poll finds ahead of Supreme Court nomination - CNNPolitics

Abortion is an issue where I don't really care what happens either way. I guess I think it should just be left up the ladies. I probably lean more towards pro choice but like I said, I don't really care. It's legal and that's fine with me, if it was made illegal that would also be fine with me.
Click to expand...
Why would you be ok with making a personal liberty illegal? It's been legal for 45 years; do you think we should have less freedoms than we had back then? Do you have any opinions about anything that doesn't directly affect you, or is your morality completely self-centered? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm seriously asking.
 
scotchandcigar said:
Why would you be ok with making a personal liberty illegal?
Click to expand...

Because while I lean pro choice I think there is an argument to be made about the personal liberty of the group of cells or fetus or whatever.


scotchandcigar said:
Do you have any opinions about anything that doesn't directly affect you
Click to expand...

Yea, lots of things. I was all about gay marriage becoming law. I think in general it's more important to worry about the current economy than the long term effects of global warming...well maybe that's a bad example because the economy does affect me, but it affects everyone. While I have 0 interest in owning a gun I think semi autos should remain legal. I strongly feel that it is wrong to raise the buying age of weapons to 21 unless we are also going to raise the draft age to 21. Same goes for the drinking age.

So there are a few things off the top of my head that mostly don't have any impact on my daily life. I'm sure I could think of a bunch more if I waited to post this for a few hours.
 
I'm anti abortion. I think there should be as few as possible. Make birth control cheap and easy to get. Get rid of the insane income disparity that makes people unable to afford to reproduce.

I'm anti forced birth. The law shouldn't interfere with a pregnant woman's medical decision.
 
JHDK said:
Because while I lean pro choice I think there is an argument to be made about the personal liberty of the group of cells or fetus or whatever.

Yea, lots of things. I was all about gay marriage becoming law. I think in general it's more important to worry about the current economy than the long term effects of global warming...well maybe that's a bad example because the economy does affect me, but it affects everyone. While I have 0 interest in owning a gun I think semi autos should remain legal. I strongly feel that it is wrong to raise the buying age of weapons to 21 unless we are also going to raise the draft age to 21. Same goes for the drinking age.

So there are a few things off the top of my head that mostly don't have any impact on my daily life. I'm sure I could think of a bunch more if I waited to post this for a few hours.
Click to expand...
So guns that kill thousands of people a year should always be legal with no restrictions, but a woman's right to control the fetus within her own body - before it's viable without her - is questionable. Got it.

Funny how the people who are anti-welfare are always trying to create situations that force people into welfare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom