My critical thinking skills are just fine. I'm just calling out your bullshit for it is.
I'll even address your points. As a liberal, I'm...
1. not for a strong military if it costs nearly a trillion dollars a year, is rife with corruption, and does more to protect the government's interests than it does to protect the American people,
2. not for borders so strong that the enforcement interferes with commerce and trade, and results in violations of rights of legal citizens and legal immigrants, and..
3. I am absolutely for the private ownership of guns as an individual right but against the unrestrained buying and selling of firearms that results in guns ending up in the hands of criminals.
Make sense to you yet?
Thanks for making my point.My critical thinking skills are just fine. I'm just calling out your bullshit for it is.
I'll even address your points. As a liberal, I'm...
1. not for a strong military if it costs nearly a trillion dollars a year, is rife with corruption, and does more to protect the government's interests than it does to protect the American people,
2. not for borders so strong that the enforcement interferes with commerce and trade, and results in violations of rights of legal citizens and legal immigrants, and..
3. I am absolutely for the private ownership of guns as an individual right but against the unrestrained buying and selling of firearms that results in guns ending up in the hands of criminals.
Make sense to you yet?
A) And yet there are still states that maintain them.(A) SCOTUS already invalidated them
(B) Those weren't federal statutes
(C) The way you deal with bad laws is by repealing them, not just randomly enforcing them at times and not others. Doing so both degrades the rule of law and is immoral because you're effectively engaging in operant conditioning.
A) And yet there are still states that maintain them.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...n-sodomy-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/
B) So you are okay with not enforcing state laws, just not federal ones?
C) I agree, but in the mean time, how do you deal with them? I would prefer to deal with bad laws that need to be either repealed or altered in a humane, reasonable way, rather than just saying, "Well, the law's the law."
Which must have been that everything you know about liberals and liberalism you learned from talk radio.Thanks for making my point.
No argument with 1 and 3 although they're not relevant to this thread. #2 seems to be irrelevant for the topic of the OP unless you have some evidence that citizens and legal immigrants are routinely being separated from their children which is the topic of this thread.
What was it that Sheriff Joe Arapaio was convicted of (and was pardoned by Trump for) again? It was for repeatedly imprisoning, denying due process, and even deporting, legal citizens and immigrants even after the courts had ordered him to stop.
The fallacy in the Trumper "just enforce the law" anti-immigration rhetoric is how the Trumpers keep ignoring how legal citizens and immigrants are being adversely affected by this immigration enforcement solely because of their heritage and/or the color of their skin.
I fully support enforcing the law within the confines of the law. I do not support enforcing the law by breaking the law. But hey, I guess you're not really breaking the law by denying American citizens of their constitutional rights when your mindset is that every Hispanic inside the US isn't a citizen, right?
...unless you have some evidence that citizens and legal immigrants are routinely being separated from their children which is the topic of this thread.
I provided that with the Arapaio reference.Already addressed this earlier:
I provided that with the Arapaio reference.
I provided that with the Arapaio reference.
So the actions of a county sheriff who is no longer even employed is relevant to our current federal immigration policy and whether laws should be ignored? Hell then I’m going to bring up Gavin Newsome flagrantly breaking then California law to issue same sex marriage licenses when it was illegal. Surely if Newspbe can break laws as he sees fit then so can Arpiro? Or should both have been impeached and/or arrested for breaking the law?
I was gonna post this with some sarcastic comment...but I just can’t.
This is why camera crews are being turned away and held back from detention facilities.
Hopefully this is widely seen by would be economic migrants and they reconsider.
Maybe, but until children start dying from heat exposure in tent cities, people fearing for their lives will calculate the risk of separation as an acceptable condition.
It's probably been said already but you're a Jeff Sessions level horrible person.Yep, that's exactly the kind of people we want here in the U.S., people who value the opportunity of making a few more bucks than they could back home over being separated from their kids; an "acceptable condition."
This is another despicable episode of Trump hostage taking. Trump creates a humanitarian crisis and then refuse to fix it until he gets what he wants. If his DACA shenanigans are indicative, he'll stretch this "crisis" out for months.I was gonna post this with some sarcastic comment...but I just can’t.
This is why camera crews are being turned away and held back from detention facilities.
It's probably been said already but you're a Jeff Sessions level horrible person.
This is another despicable episode of Trump hostage taking. Trump creates a humanitarian crisis and then refuse to fix it until he gets what he wants. If his DACA shenanigans are indicative, he'll stretch this "crisis" out for months.
You're projecting again. Not everyone is as immoral as yourself.What, do you need another day laborer to work for below minimum wage while you threaten to call ICE if he acts up? Or are you a sex trafficker looking for new inventory?
Yep, and Congress is finally moving toward a DACA fix. Toddlers are even better pawns than young adults. On the other hand, it seems that some Republicans aren't willing to go as low as Trump and Sessions have. Even among Republicans glenn is on the scummy end.I mean he basically admitted today that these kids are just his pawns to get Democrats to cave on curbing legal immigration and fully funding the wall. He said it. Judge ruled that he couldn't threaten the DACA kids with deportation, so he needed to find a new chess piece.
You're projecting again. Not everyone is as immoral as yourself.
Good idea, one advocate myself. In the meantime you pass your days spewing your vile shit on the internet and you double down by conflating legal asylum seekers with illegal immigrants.So how much below minimum wage do you pay your day laborers? Personally I think we should leave the immigrants alone and change the laws so that employers caught using illegal immigrant workers are put in jail so long that they fart dust when they are finally released. Collapsing the demand side of the equation is the far easier and more moral way of handling this and then supply will handle itself.
Yep, that's exactly the kind of people we want here in the U.S., people who value the opportunity of making a few more bucks than they could back home over being separated from their kids; an "acceptable condition."
It's a little disingenuous for you to pretend that you care about their fates after you've made it clear that you wish they'd just die, preferably with government 'help,' under the pretense of 'enforcing the law.'What, do you need another day laborer to work for below minimum wage while you threaten to call ICE if he acts up? Or are you a sex trafficker looking for new inventory?