Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

everlast75

Nox wrote: »

Your statement about "assuming this is true" shows a complete disregard of the facts.  I say again (emphasis added for effect … not shouting … as I have been accused of before) THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN HAVE BEEN DUMPED WITHOUT PARENTS.  BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the former white house occupant did exactly what you are accusing the POTUS of doing. Do the words 'double standard' mean anything to you

No one before Trump removed the children from their parents in the manner in which he did it. Prove me wrong.

Nox wrote: »

Now to the crying … my point was, and remains that nearly anyone can cry on demand.  You seem to forget, or possibly you don't know about the illegals who show up with a printed sheet (which they can barely read) to claim asylum.  Many show up with children who are not theirs … aka child abuse/trafficking.  And your exceedingly stupid question about me ever meeting a four year old … 3 kids of my own, 6 grandkids.  Your apology for stupidity is accepted

Quite a serious allegation. What is the basis for this claim?

Nox wrote: »

Many folks here refer back to some Irish morning show for information on President Donald J Trump.  Is it possible that those folks are victims of only one side of the story?  I wonder how these Irish folks feel about the influx of moslems from Europe, Africa, and the Middle East?  I'm sure Irish treatment of those individuals is just peachy keen.

If you are going to slate an entire religion, perhaps learn how to spell it?

As for our treatment, are you talking about our Government, or the general public? Both seem more than fair when compared to Trump et al, so I'm not sure what your point is?

Leroy42

Nox, do you think Trump was right to have insisted on this policy or right to reverse it?

Was he wrong then or wrong now. Whichever way you answer should be bringing lots of other questions to your mind about Trump and his ability to do his job.

BonnieSituation

Nox wrote: »

Your statement about "assuming this is true" shows a complete disregard of the facts.  I say again (emphasis added for effect … not shouting … as I have been accused of before) THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN HAVE BEEN DUMPED WITHOUT PARENTS.  BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the former white house occupant did exactly what you are accusing the POTUS of doing. Do the words 'double standard' mean anything to you?

Now to the crying … my point was, and remains that nearly anyone can cry on demand.  You seem to forget, or possibly you don't know about the illegals who show up with a printed sheet (which they can barely read) to claim asylum.  Many show up with children who are not theirs … aka child abuse/trafficking.  And your exceedingly stupid question about me ever meeting a four year old … 3 kids of my own, 6 grandkids.  Your apology for stupidity is accepted.

Many folks here refer back to some Irish morning show for information on President Donald J Trump.  Is it possible that those folks are victims of only one side of the story?  I wonder how these Irish folks feel about the influx of moslems from Europe, Africa, and the Middle East?  I'm sure Irish treatment of those individuals is just peachy keen.

Yes we get all of our information 7-9am on Morning Ireland on RTÉ Radio 1, Monday to Friday. And at no other time ever. Or from anywhere else.

We're a simple folk.

Nox

"If you are going to slate an entire religion, perhaps learn how to spell it?"


A short history lesson for you … for 1300+ years … that was how it was spelled.

I'm not sure just which policy you are referring to but if it is securing the boarder, then I say yes he is correct.  As far as treatment of illegal aliens then his executive order shows that.  Changing his mind/position … you betcha.  We already had a historical figure whose quote was … "Damn the torpedo's, full speed ahead".

robinph

Nox wrote: »

"If you are going to slate an entire religion, perhaps learn how to spell it?"


A short history lesson for you … for 1300+ years … that was how it was spelled.

A short language lesson for you and why there is good reason for it is not being spelt like that anymore, unless you have some other agenda you are trying to push?

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/524

Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means"one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means"one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

Leroy42

Nox wrote: »

I'm not sure just which policy you are referring to but if it is securing the boarder, then I say yes he is correct.  As far as treatment of illegal aliens then his executive order shows that.  Changing his mind/position … you betcha.  We already had a historical figure whose quote was … "Damn the torpedo's, full speed ahead".

Oh come on, don't try to act all innocent. You know perfectly well what policy I am referring to The one about separating families and locking the kids in cages.

So was he wrong to implement the policy or wrong to recend it? It really is not that tough of a question.

Either he was strong on securing the barder in implementing the policy, and thus you agree with it, but then he has caved in an shown that political expediency is more important to him than securing the border

or

he was wrong and that he was achieveing nothing to help securing the border by implementing this policy and now substantially weakened himself and his admin by having such a major error. An major error in one of his apparently strong issues.

Nox

Interesting post … I did not know that.  As far as an agenda … I have none.  I make no apologies either.  Having said that, from the Koran … "Convert or die" … moslem appears to be the correct word.  Thanks for educating me.

Gwen Cooper

Nox wrote: »

Interesting post … I did not know that.  As far as an agenda … I have none.  I make no apologies either.  Having said that, from the Koran … "Convert or die" … moslem appears to be the correct word.  Thanks for educating me.

I don't need to tell you that there are some similar lines in the Bible, right?

Celticfire

Trump has backed the left leaning, Trump hating, 9th District "Flores v. Reno" court into a corner, forcing them to either agree to weaken the protections of the Flores order, or reject it and prove Trump WAS exactly right - that he did not have legal authority to change things on his own.

Regardless of the Flores court's decision, Trump has also focused intense attention, and responsibility, on Congress to do their job and address the immigration issue ... exactly what Trump has been trying to get them to do for months.

Leroy42

Celticfire wrote: »

Trump has backed the left leaning, Trump hating, 9th District "Flores v. Reno" court into a corner, forcing them to either agree to weaken the protections of the Flores order, or reject it and prove Trump WAS exactly right - that he did not have legal authority to change things on his own./QUOTE]

You're going have to provide some sources for such a claim that a major component of the US justice system is politically biased against not only Trump, but by extension the GOP.

If you can't do that then the rest of your post is meaningless

Manic Moran

everlast75 wrote: »

Quite a serious allegation. What is the basis for this claim?

Seems to be a longstanding problem.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/child-migrants-surge-unaccompanied-central-america/

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/what-right-policy-toward-unaccompanied-children-us-borders

Last year 41,000 unaccompanied children were arrested at the SouthWest Border, plus an additional 7,000 who presented themselves at a checkpoint but were turned away.

This year, the figures are staggering. For whatever reason, either increased migration or increased enforcement, the tally for January to May of this year is approaching the total of last year. Nearly 33,000 unaccompanied children have been detained crossing the border. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration.

The accomodation facilities are quite simply overwhelmed, the additional 2,000 or so caused by family separations recently are something of a drop in the bucket.

oscarBravo

Nox wrote: »

You seem to forget, or possibly you don't know about the illegals who show up with a printed sheet (which they can barely read) to claim asylum. 

I see the old practice of making up definitions of words to suit your argument continues apace.

By definition, someone claiming asylum isn't an illegal immigrant.

Nox

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nox wrote: »

I'm not sure just which policy you are referring to but if it is securing the boarder, then I say yes he is correct.  As far as treatment of illegal aliens then his executive order shows that.  Changing his mind/position … you betcha.  We already had a historical figure whose quote was … "Damn the torpedo's, full speed ahead".

Oh come on, don't try to act all innocent.  You know perfectly well what policy I am referring to  The one about separating families and locking the kids in cages.

So was he wrong to implement the policy or wrong to recend it?  It really is not that tough of a question.

Either he was strong on securing the barder in implementing the policy, and thus you agree with it, but then he has caved in an shown that political expediency is more important to him than securing the border

or

he was wrong and that he was achieveing nothing to help securing the border by implementing this policy and now substantially weakened himself and his admin by having such a major error.  An major error in one of his apparently strong issues.

First off … I say again I did not know which policy you referred to.  Since there is a feeling by some on this board to follow the standards of usage of the English language … a though should be able to stand alone.  Nuf said, I hope you get the message.

As far as the "policy" of separating children from parents and locking them up … you show a profound lack of knowledge of the law and procedures inherited by President Donald J Trump.

I have no idea what transpired in the WH and the multiple meetings which occurred pertaining to the subject … but I do know that President Donald J Trump takes all of the information before making a decision.  Hmmm, if memory serves, a certain black politician made the statement … "I don't have all the facts, but … "  and made a negative statement about the police in Cambridge MA.  I like a POTUS that doesn't 'charge the torpedos'

Leroy42

Nox wrote: »

First off … I say again I did not know which policy you referred to.  Since there is a feeling by some on this board to follow the standards of usage of the English language … a though should be able to stand alone.  Nuf said, I hope you get the message.

As far as the "policy" of separating children from parents and locking them up … you show a profound lack of knowledge of the law and procedures inherited by President Donald J Trump.

I have no idea what transpired in the WH and the multiple meetings which occurred pertaining to the subject … but I do know that President Donald J Trump takes all of the information before making a decision.  Hmmm, if memory serves, a certain black politician made the statement … "I don't have all the facts, but … "  and made a negative statement about the police in Cambridge MA.  I like a POTUS that doesn't 'charge the torpedos'

What are your rabbiting on about? The policy, brought in recently by Trump, which he recently signed an EO to reverse (but it didn't need it).

Do you really expect me to believe that you have no idea of the policy that has been all over the media and discussed at length on this board.

So I ask again, do you think Trump was right to direct Nielsen to remove children from their parents and lock them in cages in the desert or do you think he is right to reverse that decision?

Nox

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nox wrote: »

You seem to forget, or possibly you don't know about the illegals who show up with a printed sheet (which they can barely read) to claim asylum. 

I see the old practice of making up definitions of words to suit your argument continues apace.

By definition, someone claiming asylum isn't an illegal immigrant.

They are if they don't go through the gate.  Sometime you might want to take a look at the thugs on top of the trains and those climbing the fence.  Those folks meet the definition.

oscarBravo

Nox wrote: »

They are if they don't go through the gate. 

No, they're not, unless - as I suspect - you're using the word "illegal" as an epithet without bothering to understand what you're talking about.

But then, as a Trump fan, "not bothering to understand what you're talking about" is something you clearly admire.

Manic Moran

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, they're not, unless - as I suspect - you're using the word "illegal" as an epithet without bothering to understand what you're talking about.
.

CBP's position is pretty clear. If you are seeking asylum, present yourself at the border points of entry and make your claim.

If you cross unlawfully, it doesn't matter if you are looking to seek asylum or not. You will be arrested and deported. (Or now, I guess, arrested, and prosecuted)

Captain Obvious

joe40 wrote: »

I was listening to Marian McKeown on Morning Ireland this morning and she was saying that there is a strong likelihood that many of the younger children that can't self identify may never be re-united with their parents. Many have been moved all over the states under the care of social services, so parents may never be able to trace them.
That is horrific, and if trump maintains his support base after this I feel very sorry for the decent Americans. For all their talk of Christian values, it will be a country and leadership facing moral collapse, .

23andme are donating DNA testing kits to help migrants be reunited because Trumps enforcers can't be relied on to keep track of everyone they abduct.


https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/21/congresswoman-jackie-speier-asks-23andme-to-reunite-families-separated-at-border/

Nox wrote: »

Your statement about "assuming this is true" shows a complete disregard of the facts. I say again (emphasis added for effect … not shouting … as I have been accused of before) THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN HAVE BEEN DUMPED WITHOUT PARENTS. BTW, you are ignoring the fact that the former white house occupant did exactly what you are accusing the POTUS of doing. Do the words 'double standard' mean anything to you?

Former white house occupant did not do what Trump did.

Nox wrote: »

Now to the crying … my point was, and remains that nearly anyone can cry on demand. You seem to forget, or possibly you don't know about the illegals who show up with a printed sheet (which they can barely read) to claim asylum. Many show up with children who are not theirs … aka child abuse/trafficking. And your exceedingly stupid question about me ever meeting a four year old … 3 kids of my own, 6 grandkids. Your apology for stupidity is accepted.

So do you think the children that have been recorded are crying on demand or do you think they were legitimately upset?

Celticfire

Leroy42 wrote: »

Celticfire wrote: »

Trump has backed the left leaning, Trump hating, 9th District "Flores v. Reno" court into a corner, forcing them to either agree to weaken the protections of the Flores order, or reject it and prove Trump WAS exactly right - that he did not have legal authority to change things on his own./QUOTE]

You're going have to provide some sources for such a claim that a major component of the US justice system is politically biased against not only Trump, but by extension the GOP.

If you can't do that then the rest of your post is meaningless

You don't believe that a notoriously left leaning court with 16 democrat appointed Judges and 6 Republican appointed Judges will have no bias against Trump or Conservatives?

No matter if you believe it or not the ball is back in their court now so they will have to rule one way or another.

Leroy42

Celticfire wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

You don't believe that a notoriously left leaning court with 16 democrat appointed Judges and 6 Republican appointed Judges will have no bias against Trump or Conservatives?

No matter if you believe it or not the ball is back in their court now so they will have to rule one way or another.

Right, so no actual proof, just a belief you have.

Do you consider all judges to be biased? IS it just politically or does it break down on gender/racist lines?

I mean, that quite a position to have as it basically means that you think that the entire justice system in the US is flawed and not worthy of the name. Can black criminals use this defence to get out of jail if the judge was white? OR perhaps if a defended can state the way they voted at the start of a trail if the judge is found to have opposite affiliation then the case is a mistrial.

Or is, I suspect, just on cases that don't go the way you want them to?

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you cross unlawfully, it doesn't matter if you are looking to seek asylum or not. You will be arrested and deported. (Or now, I guess, arrested, and prosecuted)

I would point out that that's in direct contravention of the 1951 Refugee Convention, but it would be a bit pointless since the USA has retreated into full-on America First and F*ck All Y'all mode lately.

Celticfire

Leroy42 wrote: »

Celticfire wrote: »

Right, so no actual proof, just a belief you have.

Do you consider all judges to be biased? IS it just politically or does it break down on gender/racist lines?

I mean, that quite a position to have as it basically means that you think that the entire justice system in the US is flawed and not worthy of the name. Can black criminals use this defence to get out of jail if the judge was white? OR perhaps if a defended can state the way they voted at the start of a trail if the judge is found to have opposite affiliation then the case is a mistrial.

Are you honestly trying to say that you believe that political affiliations and left or right leaning ideas don't come into play in Judge based courts like the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court? If that's the case why is there such a big deal made as to the political leanings of these judges when being nominated and appointed? Do you think that the Ninth Circuit court is left leaning or straight down the middle?

Or is, I suspect, just on cases that don't go the way you want them to?

Like when the Ninth Circuit was overturned by the Supreme Court on the travel ban?

Nox

"So do you think the children that have been recorded are crying on demand or do you think they were legitimately upset?"


What I think is … neither one of us was there at the time.  Neither of us know if/what they were upset about.

Blowfish

Manic Moran wrote: »

CBP's position is pretty clear. If you are seeking asylum, present yourself at the border points of entry and make your claim.

If you cross unlawfully, it doesn't matter if you are looking to seek asylum or not. You will be arrested and deported. (Or now, I guess, arrested, and prosecuted)

And this is the crux of it as that's a change of policy. Here's the quote from the UN convention on Refugees, which the US has ratified (bolding mine):

The 1951 Convention consolidates previous international instruments relating
to refugees and provides the most comprehensive codification of the
rights of refugees at the international level. In contrast to earlier international
refugee instruments, which applied to specific groups of refugees, the 1951
Convention endorses a single definition of the term “refugee” in Article 1.
The emphasis of this definition is on the protection of persons from political
or other forms of persecution. A refugee, according to the Convention,
is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin
owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
The Convention is both a status and rights-based instrument and is underpinned
by a number of fundamental principles, most notably non-discrimination,
non-penalization and non-refoulement. Convention provisions, for
example, are to be applied without discrimination as to race, religion or country
of origin. Developments in international human rights law also reinforce
the principle that the Convention be applied without discrimination as to
sex, age, disability, sexuality, or other prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees
should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes
that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.
Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal
offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained
purely on the basis of seeking asylum. Importantly, the Convention contains
various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees. The principle of nonrefoulement
is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be
made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee
against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or
she fears threats to life or freedom.
Finally, the Convention lays down basic minimum standards for the treatment
of refugees, without prejudice to States granting more favourable treatment.
Such rights include access to the courts, to primary education, to work,
and the provision for documentation, including a refugee travel document in
passport form. Most States parties to the Convention issue this document,
which has become as widely accepted as the former “Nansen passport”, an
identity document for refugees devised by the first Commissioner for Refugees,
Fridtjof Nansen, in 1922.

Captain Obvious

Nox wrote: »

"So do you think the children that have been recorded are crying on demand or do you think they were legitimately upset?"


What I think is … neither one of us was there at the time. Neither of us know if/what they were upset about.

Do you think any of the children children that have been forcibly removed from their parents and put in an internment camp with minimal care might be as upset as the one in the recording?

Leroy42

Celticfire wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are you honestly trying to say that you believe that political affiliations and left or right leaning ideas don't come into play in Judge based courts like the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court? If that's the case why is there such a big deal to the political leanings of these judges when being nominated and appointed? Do you think that the Ninth Circuit court is left leaning or straight down the middle?

There is a big difference between thinking that certain judges may lean a certain way either side of the interpretation. You claimed they were Trump hating. Your words. What evidence have you got of this?

Celticfire wrote: »

Like when the Ninth Circuit was overturned by the Supreme Court on the travel ban?

But on your own theory then the Supreme court is nothing but a political hack job, which Trump has skewed in favour of himself and the GOP regardless of the actualities of the law. Why should the non GOP sections of the US pay any head to such a clearly biased institution?

Or does it stop once you get past the 9th, and they are all perfectly unbiased after that.

Celticfire

Leroy42 wrote: »

Celticfire wrote: »

There is a big difference between thinking that certain judges may lean a certain way either side of the interpretation. You claimed they were Trump hating. Your words. What evidence have you got of this?





But on your own theory then the Supreme court is nothing but a political hack job, which Trump has skewed in favour of himself and the GOP regardless of the actualities of the law. Why should the non GOP sections of the US pay any head to such a clearly biased institution?

Or does it stop once you get past the 9th, and they are all perfectly unbiased after that.

Ok I'll retract the Trump hating bit (I'm sure the 16 Democrat Judges love him). Now you can answer the simple questions I posed to you. Is the Ninth Circuit left leaning or straight down the middle? Why does it matter so much then as to the political leanings of prospective Judges when it comes to appointments in these Courts?

Leroy42

I don't have an answer to that as I have never seen anything to substantiate the claim that the judges and courts are biased.

As I said, I fully understand how a judge will interpret the law based on their own positions, but that would be when the law is vague, such as the interpretation of the 1st amendment. So a judge may well be anti-abortion, but in a case dealing with abortion their view really doesn't come into it. If it does, and you seem to be suggesting that this is widespread in the US justice system, then the US is in serious trouble.

But that is very far removed from the position that judges go out of their way to rule for or against certain people based on nothing more than the political affiliation of the judge. And that is the point you made.

As I questioned, how can any judgment be taken as legitimate. And clearly Trump, the GOP and his supporters are very happy that they got to appoint the latest SCOTUS, but surely that calls into question every judgment that now comes from that court. So effectively, on your own position, the US has no longer got a supreme court it can rely on .



Now if you want to discuss the merits, or otherwise of the case itself then that is fine, but not really to do with Trump.

Manic Moran

Blowfish wrote: »

And this is the crux of it as that's a change of policy. Here's the quote from the UN convention on Refugees, which the US has ratified (bolding mine):

Always read the text, not the general overview (Or in this case, 'introductory note'). It doesn't seem to apply here.

The operative bit of the convention being referred to is Article 31.

"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence."

There are three requirements listed above for the 'protection' to be enabled.
Firstly, their life or freedom must be threatened in the country they are coming directly from. Granted, Mexico is not the safest place in the world, but it's arguable if this is quite what they meant. That's before one gets to the question of 'in the sense of Article 1' which, reading it, seems to require political persecution, not merely a hope for better economic future.
Secondly, they must present themselves without delay to the authorities. If they are trying to evade Border Patrol, that's an immediate fail.
Thirdly, they must show why they entered illegally and not presented themselves at an official point of entry. There are plenty of points of entry on the border, and I am at a loss as to any good cause as to why a migrant cannot simply walk up to one. To my knowledge, the Mexican authorities are not turning people back on their side of the border.

Of the scores of thousands of people crossing the border every year, it seems to me that only a few folks are going to meet the requirements. It may be a change of policy, but I see nothing indicating it's contrary to any law.

everlast75

Nox wrote: »

"So do you think the children that have been recorded are crying on demand or do you think they were legitimately upset?"


What I think is … neither one of us was there at the time.  Neither of us know if/what they were upset about.

So which is more likely - that a kid who had his mother taken away will be upset or not upset?

Your scenario seems less likely no?