|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 24, 2018 13:45:38 GMT -5
Interesting new definition, RJ. However, since you're not an attorney or even a law student, and since you've proven numerous times that you have little idea of what the law holds, your new definition is bunk. A woman bringing her child across a border is a child abuser? Bunk. And I don't pretend that sex trafficking doesn't exist, nor am I covering for MS-13. But I don't believe everyone try to cross a border is a child trafficker, nor do I believe that everyone trying to cross a border is a member of any gang. The more important question is why do you believe that? Why do you believe that anyone crossing a border with a child is a child abuser and sex trafficker? Why do you believe they're all members of MS-13? Is it your xenophobia or your white supremacy? I'm certain I know far more about the law than you ever have or will. But that is beside the point. I consider it abuse to involve a child in the commission of a crime, and I stand by that. That you do not feel that way simply exposes your partisan bias. Nothing more. If you're crossing the US border in a remote area of the border, far from help (or even water) you're risking death. Indeed, hundreds of migrants die every year attempting this. See: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexico–United_States_borderThese alleged parents are not only involving their children in crime, they're risking their children's lives. This is abuse.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 24, 2018 16:02:07 GMT -5
You've shown on many occasions that you know little if anything about the law, RJ. You continue to show your ignorance.
And it's interesting -- and very telling -- that you continue to ignore my question. Why do you believe that anyone crossing a border with a child is a child abuser and sex trafficker? Not all areas are remote, and not all people come that way. Why do you believe they're all members of MS-13? Is it your xenophobia or your white supremacy?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 24, 2018 16:15:13 GMT -5
You've shown on many occasions that you know little if anything about the law, RJ. You continue to show your ignorance. And it's interesting -- and very telling -- that you continue to ignore my question. Why do you believe that anyone crossing a border with a child is a child abuser and sex trafficker? Not all areas are remote, and not all people come that way. Why do you believe they're all members of MS-13? Is it your xenophobia or your white supremacy? Again, parents who come to a legal border crossing are not separated from their children. But we already covered this. Parents who come across illegally are COMMITTING A CRIME, and they're involving their children in the commission of that crime. By itself this is abuse. If they do it in a remote area to lessen their chances of getting caught, they increase their chances of dying from exposure. This compounds the abuse. I never said they were all sex traffickers. This is a fantasy you came up with because I've embarrassed you yet again. However, child sex trafficking DOES occur on the border, and MS-13 has a heavy presence there. In order to insure that the children found on the border are not being victimized, it is important to sort out who the adults are that are with them. When people like you assume that all of the children being detained at the border are with their parents and should not be separated, you are enabling MS-13.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 24, 2018 22:16:17 GMT -5
Interesting new definition, RJ. However, since you're not an attorney or even a law student, and since you've proven numerous times that you have little idea of what the law holds, your new definition is bunk. A woman bringing her child across a border is a child abuser? Bunk. And I don't pretend that sex trafficking doesn't exist, nor am I covering for MS-13. But I don't believe everyone try to cross a border is a child trafficker, nor do I believe that everyone trying to cross a border is a member of any gang. The more important question is why do you believe that? Why do you believe that anyone crossing a border with a child is a child abuser and sex trafficker? Why do you believe they're all members of MS-13? Is it your xenophobia or your white supremacy? It doesn't matter if it's 1 in 10, 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000, we have to weed out the gang bangers, drug runners, coyotes, child traffickers, and terrorists. That means detaining them, and separating the kids from them, until we can vet them. Period. Why do you insist that child abusers, and traffickers, should be able to maintain access to their victims?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 24, 2018 22:17:53 GMT -5
You've shown on many occasions that you know little if anything about the law, RJ. You continue to show your ignorance. And it's interesting -- and very telling -- that you continue to ignore my question. Why do you believe that anyone crossing a border with a child is a child abuser and sex trafficker? Not all areas are remote, and not all people come that way. Why do you believe they're all members of MS-13? Is it your xenophobia or your white supremacy? No one said they are all abusers, just those that do abuse their kids by dragging them through jungles, swamps, drug cartel areas, deserts, and making them swim a river. Especially when there are legal ways for them to get here.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 25, 2018 10:51:16 GMT -5
Embarrassed, RJ? Hardly. Why would I be embarrassed? I'm not the white supremacist. I'm not the one who lives in an area that's 96.2% white. I'm not the xenophobe. I'm not the one content with a failing president leading us toward an authoritarian, totalitarian government. I'm not content with a failing president who thinks only of his own image, not what's best for the country. I'm not the one who who has little idea what the law is about. I'm not the one who condones sexual harassment. I'm not the one who gets all his fake news from ultra-conservative sites. I'm not the unthinking partisan swallowing any line the failing president tells me to.
If any of those applied to me, I'd be embarrassed as hell. What is surprising is that you don't have the moral sensibilities or conscience to be embarrassed yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 25, 2018 10:57:12 GMT -5
Embarrassed, RJ? Hardly. Why would I be embarrassed? I'm not the white supremacist. I'm not the one who lives in an area that's 96.2% white. I'm not the xenophobe. I'm not the one content with a failing president leading us toward an authoritarian, totalitarian government. I'm not content with a failing president who thinks only of his own image, not what's best for the country. I'm not the one who who has little idea what the law is about. I'm not the one who condones sexual harassment. I'm not the one who gets all his fake news from ultra-conservative sites. I'm not the unthinking partisan swallowing any line the failing president tells me to. If any of those applied to me, I'd be embarrassed as hell. What is surprising is that you don't have the moral sensibilities or conscience to be embarrassed yourself. No. You're the one who has chosen to side with the child sex traffickers, and when you got called on it, all you could do was squeal "white-supremacist xenophobe!" in your own impotent rage. If you're not embarrassed by that, then you have no shame.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 25, 2018 11:09:21 GMT -5
Embarrassed, RJ? Hardly. Why would I be embarrassed? I'm not the white supremacist. I'm not the one who lives in an area that's 96.2% white. I'm not the xenophobe. I'm not the one content with a failing president leading us toward an authoritarian, totalitarian government. I'm not content with a failing president who thinks only of his own image, not what's best for the country. I'm not the one who who has little idea what the law is about. I'm not the one who condones sexual harassment. I'm not the one who gets all his fake news from ultra-conservative sites. I'm not the unthinking partisan swallowing any line the failing president tells me to. If any of those applied to me, I'd be embarrassed as hell. What is surprising is that you don't have the moral sensibilities or conscience to be embarrassed yourself. Really? You are the anti white racist, that worships a failed President, who is hysterical because Trump is busy erasing the failed "legacy" of your hero. You hate white people, and want the entire country overrun by illegal aliens from 'sh*t hole countries', because that's the only way your masters can regain control and implement their Communist agenda. Your hero, The Puppet, was the authoritarian, totalitarian, Marxist Muslim, that insisted on "reforming" the country into Cuba, or the USSR. The one that used EO's because he couldn't get Congress to pass the anti Constitutional dictates that he wanted. He was the one that used the IRS, the ATF, and the intel apparatus to determine the outcome of elections, or to punish anyone that didn't bow at his Communist altar. As for sexual harassment, notice that your SA goons only go after females, in public, because they don't have the guts to go after men. Your pajama boys would faint if a man stood up and confronted them in their hissy fits. You get all your talking points from the propaganda outlets like CNN, WaPo, and MSNBC, the anti American Goebbels wing of the Party of the KKK. What they don't lie about they simply ignore.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 25, 2018 11:30:29 GMT -5
No, RJ, I've never sided with child sex traffickers. I just don't think it's the major problem that you think it is. While there may be some, there's no evidence that it's an epidemic at the border. You're the one who thinks that anyone crossing the border is either a child sex trafficker or a member of MS-13. And because of your attitude, you continue to show your xenephobia and white supremacy.
By the way,do you know which part of the US has the highest rate of human trafficking (not quite the same as child sex trafficking, but those stats are harder to find). Hint: it's not a border state.Texas is number 8 or 9 on the list, and California isn't in the top 10.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 25, 2018 11:50:01 GMT -5
No, RJ, I've never sided with child sex traffickers. I just don't think it's the major problem that you think it is. While there may be some, there's no evidence that it's an epidemic at the border. You're the one who thinks that anyone crossing the border is either a child sex trafficker or a member of MS-13. And because of your attitude, you continue to show your xenephobia and white supremacy. By the way,do you know which part of the US has the highest rate of human trafficking (not quite the same as child sex trafficking, but those stats are harder to find). Hint: it's not a border state.Texas is number 8 or 9 on the list, and California isn't in the top 10. Look, we've already gone over this: the only people we're actually talking about are the folks crossing the border illegally. People doing this with children are exposing them to harm - illegally crossing the border is a crime. If it is done in a remote area, they're exposing the children to additional risks. These adults should not get the benefit of the doubt that they have the child's best interest at heart. They have already demonstrated poor judgement. There are essentially 3 ways of looking at this: no one wants children in cages, but until the identity of the adults who have been detained has been sorted out, this is preferable to just assuming they're not being trafficked. You're either pro-detention, or you're pro-giving the traffickers free-reign on the border. The third group are the imbeciles who think Trump can fix this by signing an order. Which is exactly what he did last week, and which hasn't really changed anything on the border. But go on... keep ranting about xenophobia and white supremacists. Just like MS-13 wants you to do.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 25, 2018 17:30:21 GMT -5
You do realize that the number of alleged trafficakers is actually very small, don't you, RJ? Perhaps 1% of those trying to cross the border? We're going to separate children from their parents on the miniscule chance that the "parent" might actually be someone else? Like an uncle, because the parents have been killed by gang violence? Or an aunt, for the same reason?
Our failing president is making a mountain out of molehill. In reality, very few traffickers come across the border. Most come through major ports of entry -- Los Angeles, New York -- legally.
By the way, the city with the highest incidence of drug trafficking (by population) is Washington, D.C. Not sure the numbers have increased since our failing president took office. Of the top 10 states with the highest conviction rates, Alabama is second.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 25, 2018 18:39:49 GMT -5
You do realize that the number of alleged trafficakers is actually very small, don't you, RJ? Perhaps 1% of those trying to cross the border? We're going to separate children from their parents on the miniscule chance that the "parent" might actually be someone else? Like an uncle, because the parents have been killed by gang violence? Or an aunt, for the same reason? Our failing president is making a mountain out of molehill. In reality, very few traffickers come across the border. Most come through major ports of entry -- Los Angeles, New York -- legally. By the way, the city with the highest incidence of drug trafficking (by population) is Washington, D.C. Not sure the numbers have increased since our failing president took office. Of the top 10 states with the highest conviction rates, Alabama is second. There have only been about 2,300 kids detained at the border, and last year, we caught 530,000 illegal immigrants. If 1% of them being sex traffickers isn't a problem, .4% of them being detained as kids is an even less significant problem. It also suggests that .4% of a percent that are actually separated from the adults accompanying them are especially at risk.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 27, 2018 10:49:41 GMT -5
No, RJ, I've never sided with child sex traffickers. I just don't think it's the major problem that you think it is. While there may be some, there's no evidence that it's an epidemic at the border. You're the one who thinks that anyone crossing the border is either a child sex trafficker or a member of MS-13. And because of your attitude, you continue to show your xenephobia and white supremacy. By the way,do you know which part of the US has the highest rate of human trafficking (not quite the same as child sex trafficking, but those stats are harder to find). Hint: it's not a border state.Texas is number 8 or 9 on the list, and California isn't in the top 10. so, how many children are you willing to sacrifice to human trafficking just to avoid separating kids from adults for a few days? How many murders, drug mules, or forced into prostitution are you willing to accept, just so you can virtue signal to your masters that you are "down with the children"? I want a specific percentage. CA isn't in the top 10 because they refuse to even ask the status of those they arrest. They are even trying to not prosecute anyone indicted if they are illegal. When all the evidence is ignored, of course the conclusion is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 27, 2018 10:54:21 GMT -5
You do realize that the number of alleged trafficakers is actually very small, don't you, RJ? Perhaps 1% of those trying to cross the border? We're going to separate children from their parents on the miniscule chance that the "parent" might actually be someone else? Like an uncle, because the parents have been killed by gang violence? Or an aunt, for the same reason? Our failing president is making a mountain out of molehill. In reality, very few traffickers come across the border. Most come through major ports of entry -- Los Angeles, New York -- legally. By the way, the city with the highest incidence of drug trafficking (by population) is Washington, D.C. Not sure the numbers have increased since our failing president took office. Of the top 10 states with the highest conviction rates, Alabama is second. The chance is not "miniscule". It's real. How many of your children are you willing to put in the care of an MS 13 member? Since you don't want any research on the "caregiver" before you do so? How many of your children are you willing to sell to a coyote? You claim the numbers are miniscule. So how many of those children are you willing to sacrifice? As many as you were willing to sacrifice in the school shooting in FL? As many as you sacrifice through Planned Parenthood? You have just proven that the children are nothing but a talking point to you, that you couldn't care less about them unless you can use them to make a political issue out of them. If they all died, you wouldn't mourn for a nanosecond, you would immediately use their deaths to attack Trump for not following the law that you are now castigating him for enforcing. So, a Party of the KKK enclave is a drug addict's haven, while a conservative state is actually prosecuting them. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 10, 2018 13:35:41 GMT -5
You do realize that the number of alleged trafficakers is actually very small, don't you, RJ? Perhaps 1% of those trying to cross the border? We're going to separate children from their parents on the miniscule chance that the "parent" might actually be someone else? Like an uncle, because the parents have been killed by gang violence? Or an aunt, for the same reason? Our failing president is making a mountain out of molehill. In reality, very few traffickers come across the border. Most come through major ports of entry -- Los Angeles, New York -- legally. By the way, the city with the highest incidence of drug trafficking (by population) is Washington, D.C. Not sure the numbers have increased since our failing president took office. Of the top 10 states with the highest conviction rates, Alabama is second. As it turns out, about 80% of the girls and women illegally crossing the border are at a minimum raped along the way. Huffington PostTrafficking isn't at all rare.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jul 10, 2018 15:17:54 GMT -5
Then maybe we need a more open and accessible way for people from Latin America to enter legally.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 10, 2018 17:43:10 GMT -5
Then maybe we need a more open and accessible way for people from Latin America to enter legally. I don't have a problem making legal immigration easier. But we need to have a secure border. A country without one isn't a country. Either way, this isn't for Trump to do. It's Congress' job to write the law. In the mean time, ICE is correct to make sure the kids aren’t being exploited or abused by the people bringing them across the border.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 12, 2018 9:15:30 GMT -5
Then maybe we need a more open and accessible way for people from Latin America to enter legally. Why? There is no right for them to come here. There is already a process for them to come here legally. If they find that too onerous, tough. Stay home and work to change the conditions there. Don't come here and expect us to foot the bill for your health care, education, housing, and then pay you welfare to boot. We don't need more illiterate, uneducated people here, we already have Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by 3000fps on Jul 12, 2018 11:17:47 GMT -5
Then maybe we need a more open and accessible way for people from Latin America to enter legally. What other groups would you propose for open and accessible, Australians and Slovak's? Canucks maybe???
|
|
|
Post by demopublican on Jul 12, 2018 16:00:53 GMT -5
I think we all understand that as a nation we have to have immigration laws and policies. I am sure there have been sad stories and unfortunate side effects of those laws/policies for a long long time. What is particularly disturbing is when someone uses the separation of families and a weapon and a dog whistle to rile the base and deflect from his own legal/ethical issues.
That is what is disgusting
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 12, 2018 16:25:22 GMT -5
I think we all understand that as a nation we have to have immigration laws and policies. I am sure there have been sad stories and unfortunate side effects of those laws/policies for a long long time. What is particularly disturbing is when someone uses the separation of families and a weapon and a dog whistle to rile the base and deflect from his own legal/ethical issues. That is what is disgusting Do you think someone did that here? Separation of families goes back to the Obama era, and given the very high levels of sexual exploitation and trafficking of women and girls on the border, I think we have an obligation to ensure the children detained at the border are actually with family. Obama got that right, and Trump has basically only continued the practice, albeit a little more stringently. No one wants to see children detained, but far too often the alternative to detention is trafficking or sexual abuse. Given the choice is between separating and detaining them or exposing them to a lifetime of sexual slavery, it's hard to understand the outrage over the former. It isn't ideal in any sense, but it is considerably better than the even more horrific alternative.
|
|
|
Post by demopublican on Jul 12, 2018 18:13:20 GMT -5
I think we all understand that as a nation we have to have immigration laws and policies. I am sure there have been sad stories and unfortunate side effects of those laws/policies for a long long time. What is particularly disturbing is when someone uses the separation of families and a weapon and a dog whistle to rile the base and deflect from his own legal/ethical issues. That is what is disgusting Do you think someone did that here? Separation of families goes back to the Obama era, and given the very high levels of sexual exploitation and trafficking of women and girls on the border, I think we have an obligation to ensure the children detained at the border are actually with family. Obama got that right, and Trump has basically only continued the practice, albeit a little more stringently. No one wants to see children detained, but far too often the alternative to detention is trafficking or sexual abuse. Given the choice is between separating and detaining them or exposing them to a lifetime of sexual slavery, it's hard to understand the outrage over the former. It isn't ideal in any sense, but it is considerably better than the even more horrific alternative. Absolutely Trump and his crew promoted the weaponization of border security to fire up his base. No question about it.
|
|
|
Post by demopublican on Jul 12, 2018 18:14:29 GMT -5
“No one wants to see children detained”
The Trumpublicans clearly did and enjoyed the hell out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 12, 2018 21:07:32 GMT -5
“No one wants to see children detained” The Trumpublicans clearly did and enjoyed the hell out of it. Again, this isn't true. Human trafficking is very common on the border. It is important for ICE to insure the children are with the people they're supposed to be with. I don't believe you support child sex trafficking, but that's the alternative to detaining kids.
|
|
|
Post by demopublican on Jul 13, 2018 7:26:06 GMT -5
“No one wants to see children detained” The Trumpublicans clearly did and enjoyed the hell out of it. Again, this isn't true. Human trafficking is very common on the border. It is important for ICE to insure the children are with the people they're supposed to be with. I don't believe you support child sex trafficking, but that's the alternative to detaining kids. It is absolutely true. Trumpublicans like Jim Jordon like to see children at risk.
|
|