Kids In Cages...

[carpedm9587]

I am not whining, I just point it out when posters are unanble to adress the point.

In my experience, Charles, making any statements about your emotional, motivational, or personal disposition on this forum is largely a waste of time. I've largely broken the habit (though not 100% yet) and found it is much easier to post/read here if you read the posts (and parts of posts) that have argument-related content, and just ignore the rest. The ad homs are not going to stop, and if you point them out you'll just be accused of whining, ad infinitum.

I have noticed that when I keep my posts about the arguments, and ignore the rest, eventually the rest dies down a bit. It never dies down completely and you still get the inevitable personal attacks, but such is life...

And I'm betting that observation will earn me a few...

[Roy]

They are beginning to do DNA testing on immigrants with children. I posted this in this thread before. Amazing how you and others just ignore such facts and repeat the same nonsense.

DNA tests reveal 30% of suspected fraudulent migrant families were unrelated

Who is ignoring it? I don't think anyone has said that there aren't some cases of misclaimed parentage.

30% of those suspected is not anywhere near a majority.

[Roy]

Well, that helps a little. At least we know 30% of "families" weren't actually families.

No, we know that 30% of those suspected of not being families weren't actually families. That doesn't include those who weren't suspected of being unrelated, so the % of "families" who were actually families is likely to be much higher.

I wonder how many of those 30% were men who believed they were the fathers and were unaware of their partner's infidelity?

[Sparko]

I am.

No you are not. Europe's economy is in trouble because of all of the open borders. It can't sustain it much longer.

And if the government kills them when they fight for change or do not protect them? Should the jews have stayed in Germany and fought for change?

So you show your ignorance again. The government is not the problem for these people. Crime and poverty is. They just need to elect people who will protect them better.

Yes, but in doing so you ought to make sure you do not cross any moral barriers. Putting innocent children in cages is not "defending borders".

We have gone over this many times. You can't keep children with adults. The ones putting the children in danger are the people taking them in the caravans across 3000 miles of desert. and 30% of them are not even families. AND making them apply in their own countries saves them the trip, the coyote fees, and the danger.

If they can sit around at home for the better part of a year waiting for a new caravan to form, then trudge across 3000 miles of hostile terrain, then they can easily apply at an embassy and stay at home waiting for their application to be accepted or rejected. If accepted, they get a free ride to the USA, if rejected, they still have their homes. And if they are desperate, they can go to Belize or Costa Rica, or Mexico.

[Cow Poke]

In my experience, Charles, making any statements about your emotional, motivational, or personal disposition on this forum is largely a waste of time. I've largely broken the habit (though not 100% yet) and found it is much easier to post/read here if you read the posts (and parts of posts) that have argument-related content, and just ignore the rest. The ad homs are not going to stop, and if you point them out you'll just be accused of whining, ad infinitum.

You're my favorite poster of all, Carpe, cause you're always right and you NEVER try to read anybody's mind or misrepresent what they say, or complain about how you're treated.

[Sparko]

You're my favorite poster of all, Carpe, cause you're always right and you NEVER try to read anybody's mind or misrepresent what they say, or complain about how you're treated.

And he always lets the other person have the last word!

[Teallaura]

Asylum remains something a country of good conscience will consider. I am surprised a Christian would make such a sweeping statement. Perhaps the parable of the Good Samaritan should be reviewed?

Yes, I used the word "asylum," not "economic asylum."

Yeah - no. We were addressing the current border crisis and you are already well aware that I've conceded that SOME might be truly eligible for asylum - but it is only a tiny fraction of the caravans we're seeing. The crisis is about economic migrants - so you can stop moving the goalpost now.

And I am speaking to the injustice of applying the rule for the "vast majority of cases" to "all cases."

Which I didn't do - so kindly quit addressing me with arguments I'm not making.

If the vast majority of cases do not qualify for asylum under existing asylum rules, then they should go back.

But they are not - they are trying to get across the border, and either escape detention, of if detained, disappear when released on their own recognizance.

But turning everyone back because most of them don't qualify is simply not a just system.

Requiring them to petition outside our borders and providing a means to hear and decide those petitions most certainly IS a system - one that's been in place for decades and doesn't require visiting the US border.

And we have a moral/legal obligation to provide asylum for those who truly qualify, so we have a moral/legal obligation to implement systems to separate the sheep from the goats and deal with each appropriately. Such a program would have the dual effect of sending the message that the U.S. is closed for business to those who do not qualify, but still welcomes those who truly have need. Eventually, that will impact the flow of immigrants. Right now, studies show that a huge number are coming here because they know they will end up staying here for years before the U.S. sorts things out. Those who do not qualify would be less likely to make the trip and the expense if they knew within a month they would be turned away if they did not qualify, would spend that month in detention at the border, and would have to make the return trip with nothing gain but great expense realized.

And we have those systems in place - but these caravans are attempting to bypass them - which you already knew - you're just trying to moralize without admitting that you can't make a case for open borders.

I also do not remember asking you to provide any data, so your comments about my motivations are more than a bit off. I simply noted that there is some data I would like to see, and I have not been able to find it, raising the question how anyone could hold the positions you espouse in the absence of this data.

Yeah, right - if you want it, go look it up. Otherwise, why ask me about it? That you don't see the evidence isn't my concern - and this 'oh, but I can't see it' act is old.

[Teallaura]

...
I wonder how many of those 30% were men who believed they were the fathers and were unaware of their partner's infidelity?

[Charles]

No you are not. Europe's economy is in trouble because of all of the open borders. It can't sustain it much longer.

Let's see... Teal just called me a hypocrite for not having to live with the consequences. And now I am not minding my business because I have not closed the borders. Statements made by people who do not know what I do, say or vote. And seemingly do not even know where I live. Should we get back on topic?

So you show your ignorance again. The government is not the problem for these people. Crime and poverty is. They just need to elect people who will protect them better.

Asking a question based on an extreme example is not ignorance. And I note you could not answer the question.

We have gone over this many times. You can't keep children with adults. The ones putting the children in danger are the people taking them in the caravans across 3000 miles of desert. and 30% of them are not even families. AND making them apply in their own countries saves them the trip, the coyote fees, and the danger.

Yes, we have gone over it many times. You still haven't answered the very simple question why the danger and suffering the children endured justifies even more suffering. What is the need for further bad things to happen?

And why do you state "30% of them are not even families"? It has already been showed to you why that is not correct.

If they can sit around at home for the better part of a year waiting for a new caravan to form, then trudge across 3000 miles of hostile terrain, then they can easily apply at an embassy and stay at home waiting for their application to be accepted or rejected. If accepted, they get a free ride to the USA, if rejected, they still have their homes. And if they are desperate, they can go to Belize or Costa Rica, or Mexico.

And the innocent children made the decision to go?

[Sparko]

Let's see... Teal just called me a hypocrite for not having to live with the consequences. And now I am not minding my business because I have not closed the borders. Statements made by people who do not know what I do, say or vote. And seemingly do not even know where I live. Should we get back on topic?



Asking a question based on an extreme example is not ignorance. And I note you could not answer the question.



Yes, we have gone over it many times. You still haven't answered the very simple question why the danger and suffering the children endured justifies even more suffering. What is the need for further bad things to happen?

And why do you state "30% of them are not even families"? It has already been showed to you why that is not correct.



And the innocent children made the decision to go?

I find it ironic that you and carp have been arguing about these poor immigrants who are just looking for a better life with Teallaura. Her past and current situation of living in poverty would put even those immigrants to shame. She has been homeless several times, living out of a car, unjustly fired from a job and has several health issues on top of all that. Our country should be doing more to help people like her FIRST and then worry about people from Guatemala. I bet neither you nor carp has ever had to go a day without a meal.

[carpedm9587]

No, we know that 30% of those suspected of not being families weren't actually families. That doesn't include those who weren't suspected of being unrelated, so the % of "families" who were actually families is likely to be much higher.

I wonder how many of those 30% were men who believed they were the fathers and were unaware of their partner's infidelity?

Wow - nice catch. I completely missed that. So not only don't we know that the 30% is in anyway a solid number across the border, it's a percentage of those already suspected of not being family units. So 70% of the units suspected on not being families actually are, and we have no idea what percentage of units believed to be families that are not.

That's a pretty useless article...

[Cow Poke]

Wow - nice catch. I completely missed that. So not only don't we know that the 30% is in anyway a solid number across the border, it's a percentage of those already suspected of not being family units.

It's a pilot program.

So 70% of the units suspected on not being families actually are, and we have no idea what percentage of units believed to be families that are not.

That's a pretty useless article...

It's simply addressing the fact that there are, indeed, "faux families" crossing the border.

[Charles]

I find it ironic that you and carp have been arguing about these poor immigrants who are just looking for a better life with Teallaura. Her past and current situation of living in poverty would put even those immigrants to shame. She has been homeless several times, living out of a car, unjustly fired from a job and has several health issues on top of all that. Our country should be doing more to help people like her FIRST and then worry about people from Guatemala. I bet neither you nor carp has ever had to go a day without a meal.

I feel very sorry for Teal if this is her situation. I had no idea about that and I wish her all the best. I do not change my view on how you should talk and treat about other people based on what you tell. The reason for that is very simple. What I have said goes for all people in need.

I find it a little ironic that you try to change the topic of the debate. Were the questions a bit too difficult to deal with?

[One Bad Pig]

It's simply addressing the fact that there are, indeed, "faux families" crossing the border.

This stems from MM misspeaking a few pages ago, asserting that the majority of kids are coming in faux families. Roy, as is his wont, pounced.

[Cow Poke]

This stems from MM misspeaking a few pages ago, asserting that the majority of kids are coming in faux families. Roy, as is his wont, pounced.

Ah, ok. Thanks. Some of these pages and posts really fly by!