Jump to content

Politically charged altercations at Whataburger


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Hey, look everyone!  Another moron who thinks Hitler was a liberal!!!

Hitler hated Communists because they were... not... leftist... enough?

lol

4 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

The numbers we have right now are only for the ages 5 and under so we only have the 46/103 to go on.

And how many of those 46 were "monsters"?

Why separate the families before the determination is made regarding the parent's status?

Quote

For the sake of argument though, you would agree that Murders, rapists and child abusers shouldn't be near those kids.  Correct?  So are you willing to sacrifice the lives of those 46 kids?

Hold them together and determine parental status under supervision. A DNA test can be run in a few hours.

- If they are the parents, catch and release.
- If they are not the parents, find the parents.
- If they are "monsters" (and being a kid's uncle and saying you're the dad for asylum purposes doesn't make you a "monster"), find relatives for the kid and deport/jail the monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

You do realize that all famous genocides from the 20th century came from the radical left and totalitarianism 

The Holocaust, the Bosnian genocide, the Nanking massacre, the Rwandan genocide, and the Armenian genocide beg to differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And how many of those 46 were "monsters"?

Why separate the families before the determination is made regarding the parent's status?

Hold them together and determine parental status under supervision. A DNA test can be run in a few hours.

- If they are the parents, catch and release.
- If they are not the parents, find the parents.
- If they are "monsters" (and being a kid's uncle and saying you're the dad for asylum purposes doesn't make you a "monster"), find relatives for the kid and deport/jail the monster.

I don't think it's unreasonable to keep everyone together until a determination is made. 

-----

Slow down...

Being an uncle doesn't make them a monster.  Being a murderer, rapist and child abuser does.  If they aren't related to the child, they shouldn't be taking them over the border.  You can pretty much assume the worst if that's the case.  We don't know the exact number but gradually the numbers are coming out.  What we have right now are the 5 and under summary.  More details would be preferable.

We know some are monster though right?  Just need to find out how many.

---

Catch and release back on the Mexican side of the border I'd be fine with. 

The big issue with catch and release on either side of the border is that you have to change the laws for this policy to actually happen legally.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

I don't think it's unreasonable to keep everyone together until a determination is made. 

Why aren't they doing that? Why are they separating the families?

Quote

Being an uncle doesn't make them a monster.  Being a murderer, rapist and child abuser does.  If they aren't related to the child, they shouldn't be taking them over the border.  You can pretty much assume the worst if that's the case.  We don't know the exact number but gradually the numbers are coming out.  What we have right now are the 5 and under summary.  More details would be preferable.

You said 46 of the 103 were "monsters" and that to leave the kids with those 46 would constitute a "sacrifice" of their lives. According to your bullet list, however, only a few seemed genuinely dangerous. Which would also be just as true if you were to go around the streets of America and separate citizen families and subject them to the same scrutiny.

And again, the purpose of this policy is not to catch monsters. That was already in the purview of the work of the security agencies. This separation policy is 100% about deterring asylum seekers and other immigrants by making them suffer and hoping word of that suffering spreads. You should admit this.

Quote

Catch and release back on the Mexican side of the border I'd be fine with. 

Why deport non-Mexicans to Mexico?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

You said 46 of the 103 were "monsters" and that to leave the kids with those 46 would constitute a "sacrifice" of their lives. According to your bullet list, however, only a few seemed genuinely dangerous. Which would also be just as true if you were to go around the streets of America and separate citizen families and subject them to the same scrutiny.

 

Why deport non-Mexicans to Mexico?

46 of the 103 were deemed to dangerous to give the kid back to the adult traveling with them.  We aren't even touching the unaccompanied in this example.

If someone is crossing the US/Mexican border you put them back on the other side of border.  It doesn't matter where they came before that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ScottishHorn said:

You do realize that all famous genocides from the 20th century came from the radical left and totalitarianism 

The biggest truly successful genocide in history came from rightists who believed in manifest destiny. 

Current populist movements are almost all right wing. It is tough for them to maintain control without being socialists, however. One must be a socialist to bring jobs to a small town. So Trump and his brand of populism will eventually go away. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, udaydanceparty said:

46 of the 103 were deemed to dangerous to give the kid back to the adult traveling with them.

According to your link, that is literally a false statement. "Unfit" and "dangerous" are not nearly the same thing and you're trying to make the browns sound scarier on purpose. #sad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Why aren't they doing that? Why are they separating the families?

Isn't it because of Reno v. Flores that says that they cannot have children detained for more than 20 days? What I don't understand is the difference between detaining them with their family and without their family hundreds of miles away. Why is one not legal and the other is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

We should invade and then colonize Mexico. Wall both borders and send ALL asylum seekers there. 

Confiscate the 25 billion a year from western Union (remittances) to fund it. Out source all of these jobs Americans don’t want to our new “labor” colony. Then send the 100k+ living in tents in California to also colonize. Maybe give everyone a free shipping container to outfit. 

Rape Mexico of all its natural resources. 

Problem solved. 

MEXICO CITY While President Trump regularly berates Mexico for "doing nothing" to stop illegal migration, behind the scenes the two governments are considering a deal that could drastically curtail the cross-border migration flow. 

The proposal, known as a "safe third country agreement," would potentially require asylum seekers transiting through Mexico to apply for protection in that nation rather than in the United States. It would allow U.S. border guards to turn back such asylum seekers at border crossings and quickly return to Mexico anyone who has already entered illegally seeking refuge, regardless of their nationality.

U.S. officials believe this type of deal would discourage many Central American families from trying to reach the United States. Their soaring numbers have strained U.S. immigration courts and overwhelmed the U.S. 

government's ability to detain them. The Trump administration says the majority are looking for jobs rather than fleeing persecution and are taking advantage of American generosity to gain entry and avoid deportation.

"We believe the flows would drop dramatically and fairly immediately" if the agreement took effect, said a senior Department of Homeland Security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss negotiations with the Mexican government, which the official said had gathered momentum in recent weeks.

The proposed agreement has divided the Mexican government and alarmed human rights activists who maintain that many of the migrants are fleeing widespread gang violence and could be exposed to danger in Mexico.

 

its happening?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-and-mexico-discussing-a-deal-that-could-slash-migration-at-the-border/2018/07/10/34e68f72-7ef2-11e8-a63f-7b5d2aba7ac5_story.html?utm_term=.d85355473420

 

could be another W for Trump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

MEXICO CITY While President Trump regularly berates Mexico for "doing nothing" to stop illegal migration, behind the scenes the two governments are considering a deal that could drastically curtail the cross-border migration flow. 

The proposal, known as a "safe third country agreement," would potentially require asylum seekers transiting through Mexico to apply for protection in that nation rather than in the United States. It would allow U.S. border guards to turn back such asylum seekers at border crossings and quickly return to Mexico anyone who has already entered illegally seeking refuge, regardless of their nationality.

U.S. officials believe this type of deal would discourage many Central American families from trying to reach the United States. Their soaring numbers have strained U.S. immigration courts and overwhelmed the U.S. 

government's ability to detain them. The Trump administration says the majority are looking for jobs rather than fleeing persecution and are taking advantage of American generosity to gain entry and avoid deportation.

"We believe the flows would drop dramatically and fairly immediately" if the agreement took effect, said a senior Department of Homeland Security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss negotiations with the Mexican government, which the official said had gathered momentum in recent weeks.

The proposed agreement has divided the Mexican government and alarmed human rights activists who maintain that many of the migrants are fleeing widespread gang violence and could be exposed to danger in Mexico.

 

its happening?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-and-mexico-discussing-a-deal-that-could-slash-migration-at-the-border/2018/07/10/34e68f72-7ef2-11e8-a63f-7b5d2aba7ac5_story.html?utm_term=.d85355473420

 

could be another W for Trump

In other words he wants to do exactly what Canada is doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

This post is not getting enough hate. This is the second time I have seen this suggested on these boards in the last couple of weeks. Last time was by CKHorn, whose name is similar enough to make me think it might be a sock of yours.

 

So yeah, why don't you lead the expedition down in to Mexico, Chickenhawk, and see if the Mexican people will welcome you as a liberator, as CKHorn believes would be the case.

 

LMAO. Who is going to stop them?  Of course they would be welcoming, we are bringing citizenship with our military. They get to now be “Americans”. 

Funny, the current and ongoing invasion of illegal immigrants doesn’t seem to bother you at all. They have nearly 10% of our population occupying foreign soil (soon to surpass African Americans). 

Is turnabout not fair play?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/11/2018 at 10:22 PM, Johnny Sack said:

Kind of like all the good democrats have done for minorities the last 60 years. 

Please stop.

 

Republicans have done nothing for minorities the last 60 years and will do nothing for minorities in the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...