Thread for obviously newsworthy stuff

[-Jrabbit]

You are confusing the reason with the excuse. This is a change of policy; there has been no change in the law. The only real change is having assh0les like Stephen Miller driving policy.

https://www.gq.com/story/stephen-miller-wants-credit-families-border

[Proteus_MST]

No one cares about Ann Coulter, least of all me, as we all know she is nothing but a paid shill. As for your idiotic question about "suckling babes pulled from the arms of their mothers"... Name a country where that does not happen when the mother is arrested and is sent to jail?

Go ahead name one. These are people being held for criminal offenses. EVERYONE held for criminal offenses goes to jail and doesn't get to keep their children with them. That is the truth and you know it so please stop with the phone emotional manipulation attempts. Criminals go to jail and if they are unhappy about being in jail maybe they shouldn't have done the crime if they are unable to do the time?

In all other western countries, asylum seekers (even if they crossed the border illegally) aren't sent to jail for it.
Not even in countries like hungary or poland, whose right-wing governments have a rather hard stance on asylum seekers

And regarding cases where normal citizens with children get sent to prison) ...
I don't know about other countries, but in germany every federal states has its own regulations.
In Northrhine westphalia, for example mothers and kids get separated ... but in lower saxony, mothers with very small children (age < 3 years) actually can be allowed to take their kids with them to prison (there are special equipped prison tracts in some lower saxony prisons, which have toys and other accommodations for the children, as well as special support).

Nevertheless there is one important difference between a citizen imprisoned and the tactics of imprisoning asylum seekers:
In case of citizens where ony parent gets imprisoned, there still is a huge chance of there being the other parent, or grandparents or aunts and so on, who can take care of the kid.
So the chance of the kid having to go to a foster home or to foster parents it doesn't know are rather miniscule.
Whereas for the imprisoned asylum seekers in the USA (I guess) it is rather the norm than the exception that the kids get sent to foster homes or totally unknown foster parents, because there are no known close relatives in the USA

[Dinner]

And you don't see any problems in sucklings snatched from their mothers breasts, which isn't only heartless but also may cause medical problems for the child (considering that the mothers milk helps to jump start the sucklings immune system)

Or in pics like these, which are from the the mass holding/processing facilities where the kids are stored/processed:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/18/p...tos/index.html

Well, that is the reason why the USA surely not only have lost any claims to "moral leadership" but rather have sunken to the lowest level (compared to all western industrialized nations) when it comes to mortal authority

Also "nice", btw.
Ann Coulter calling the children, crying when they are snatched from their parents to be child actors:

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/392774-ann-coulter-calls-immigrant-children-child-actors

Reminds one of several conservatives / NRA guys calling the survivors of the Las Vegas Shooting and of Parkland to be paid method actors

No one cares about Ann Coulter, least of all me, as we all know she is nothing but a paid shill. As for your idiotic question about "suckling babes pulled from the arms of their mothers"... Name a country where that does not happen when the mother is arrested and is sent to jail?

Go ahead name one. These are people being held for criminal offenses. EVERYONE held for criminal offenses goes to jail and doesn't get to keep their children with them. That is the truth and you know it so please stop with the phone emotional manipulation attempts. Criminals go to jail and if they are unhappy about being in jail maybe they shouldn't have done the crime if they are unable to do the time?

[Kidlicious]

Hillary Clinton used to think that we should send a strong message to people not to bring their children with them. That was just 2008. What the Hell has happened to people?

[Kidlicious]

1. Even people who (after illegally crossing the border) presented themselves to Points of Entry in order to legally ask for asylum are treated this way (even kid admits it) ... often the reason for this seems to be that the normal border crossings are roamed by gangs who extort money from those who want to cross. To treat them in eaxactly the same manner as people who who not only crossed the border illegally, but then also wanted to ilegally stay in the country, surely seems to be unfair

2. AFAIK the approach that was used before (where the parents wouldn't get put in jail, but the whole family would get put into deportation camps, worked fine. There was no reason to change this approach. I guess the new Jeff Sessions approach not only is unsocial/unchristian, but also more expensive (as you need double the amount of facilities and personnel in order to keep parents and children at separate places)

3. No matter how much you defend it, the fact remains that, like the UMC said, it is a practice that goes against anything the christian religion claims to stand for. Trying to defend the practice with the bible therefore rightfully deserves outcrys by (real) christian churches.

They are treated the same way because they must be detained until their case can be settled. It's for the same reason. You may think it's unfair, but there is a legitimate purpose.

I do not think it's unfair. They know they will be detained when they come. So how is that unfair?

[Proteus_MST]

...

2. People caught illegally crossing the border are now officially arrested and detained pending a full criminal trial. As they are in jail the obviously cannot have their children with them just as any other criminal in jail may not have their children with them. The children are therefore sent to Child Protective Services and a sponsor who is a close family member who can pass the background check. If no family.mrmbers can pass a background check then it is off to foster care.

I hardly see that as terrible or immoral as the parent choice to commit a criminal act and they are being treated exactly the same as anyone else being held for a crime.

And you don't see any problems in sucklings snatched from their mothers breasts, which isn't only heartless but also may cause medical problems for the child (considering that the mothers milk helps to jump start the sucklings immune system)

Or in pics like these, which are from the the mass holding/processing facilities where the kids are stored/processed:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/18/p...tos/index.html

Well, that is the reason why the USA surely not only have lost any claims to "moral leadership" but rather have sunken to the lowest level (compared to all western industrialized nations) when it comes to mortal authority

Also "nice", btw.
Ann Coulter calling the children, crying when they are snatched from their parents to be child actors:

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/392774-ann-coulter-calls-immigrant-children-child-actors

Reminds one of several conservatives / NRA guys calling the survivors of the Las Vegas Shooting and of Parkland to be paid method actors

[Dinner]

1. No, people who present themselves at the border and request to be processed for asylum are not treated this way. The largest complaint by activists right now is that border crossing facilities are at capacity and are legally only allowed to accept people they can process that same day. This leads to some people being told they are full for today and to come back tomorrow.

2. People caught illegally crossing the border are now officially arrested and detained pending a full criminal trial. As they are in jail the obviously cannot have their children with them just as any other criminal in jail may not have their children with them. The children are therefore sent to Child Protective Services and a sponsor who is a close family member who can pass the background check. If no family.mrmbers can pass a background check then it is off to foster care.

I hardly see that as terrible or immoral as the parent choice to commit a criminal act and they are being treated exactly the same as anyone else being held for a crime.

[Proteus_MST]

You seem to not understand factually what the policy is and who it effects. Asylum seekers may simply present themselves at a border crossing and their families are not "broken up" (a retarded term). People caught in the act of entering illegally on the other hand are now criminally charged which means they go to jail awaiting their criminal trial and naturally they cannot maintain custody of their children while they are in jail just as any other criminal in jail may not do. Thus children are turned over to Child Protective Services.

There seems to be a willful attempt to lie to the public about this policy. Asylum seekers who lawfully present themselves are in no way effected so please stop pretending they are. Now, if you want to debate if illegal border crossers should be criminally charged that is a fair debate but it is a policy the majority of Americans do support.

1. Even people who (after illegally crossing the border) presented themselves to Points of Entry in order to legally ask for asylum are treated this way (even kid admits it) ... often the reason for this seems to be that the normal border crossings are roamed by gangs who extort money from those who want to cross. To treat them in eaxactly the same manner as people who who not only crossed the border illegally, but then also wanted to ilegally stay in the country, surely seems to be unfair

2. AFAIK the approach that was used before (where the parents wouldn't get put in jail, but the whole family would get put into deportation camps, worked fine. There was no reason to change this approach. I guess the new Jeff Sessions approach not only is unsocial/unchristian, but also more expensive (as you need double the amount of facilities and personnel in order to keep parents and children at separate places)

3. No matter how much you defend it, the fact remains that, like the UMC said, it is a practice that goes against anything the christian religion claims to stand for. Trying to defend the practice with the bible therefore rightfully deserves outcrys by (real) christian churches.

[Broken_Erika]

The majority of Americans do get shot, multiple times. Its the ones that don't that are the problem. Stupid Anti-Vaxxers.

[Dinner]

Sparky: Everyone who goes to jail doesn't get to bring their family with them. If there is next of kin then they can pick up the kids as a sponsor but they do have to fill out the paperwork and pass a background check before they can leave with the kids. Thaat can be a problem if the family member is an illegal alien.

That is a kind of sad catch 22 but the law should be enforced and people should think of the consequences before they break the law.

As for your claims that Americans should be shot for wanting the duly passed laws to actually be enforced... You can stick that where the sun does not shine.

[Uncle Sparky]

Then the majority of Americans should be shot... The NRA will support that!

[Dinner]

The United Methodist Church (UMC), to which Sessions belongs to, opposes his biblical justification for the breakup of asylum-seekers families

https://hillreporter.com/united-meth...-families-2730

Statement from the UMC:

You seem to not understand factually what the policy is and who it effects. Asylum seekers may simply present themselves at a border crossing and their families are not "broken up" (a retarded term). People caught in the act of entering illegally on the other hand are now criminally charged which means they go to jail awaiting their criminal trial and naturally they cannot maintain custody of their children while they are in jail just as any other criminal in jail may not do. Thus children are turned over to Child Protective Services.

There seems to be a willful attempt to lie to the public about this policy. Asylum seekers who lawfully present themselves are in no way effected so please stop pretending they are. Now, if you want to debate if illegal border crossers should be criminally charged that is a fair debate but it is a policy the majority of Americans do support.

[Aeson]

What about the parable of the rapist, drug mule Samaritan who beat up that poor white guy and took his job?

[Proteus_MST]

The United Methodist Church (UMC), to which Sessions belongs to, opposes his biblical justification for the breakup of asylum-seekers families

https://hillreporter.com/united-methodist-church-calls-out-jeff-sessions-for-using-bible-to-justify-breaking-up-families-2730

Statement from the UMC:

“Jesus is our way, our truth, our life. The Christ we follow would have no part in ripping children from their mothers’ arms or shunning those fleeing violence. It is unimaginable that faith leaders even have to say that these policies are antithetical to the teachings of Christ,” the statement says

The church continues: “Christian sacred texts should never be used to justify policies that oppress or harm children and families.”

The UMC took a big step in separating itself from the Trump administration, unlike Evangelicals who have found every reason under the sun to justify the President’s various affairs, hate-filled speeches, and numerous other actions.

[Kidlicious]

Trump's former campaign manager is in jail as we speak over charges he did conspire with Russians, Kidiot. Not to mention the six guilty pleas and 22 indictments and counting. For a supposed "conspiracy theory" there sure are a lot of people being charged and/or pleading guilty.

But reality never has been your strong point, Kid.

Russians is not Russia