1500 Missing Children

[babe]

I didn't miss it. What @Bulletproof told you in response to this specific comment is exactly how I feel as well. The new policy is evil. Period.

"evil", like "good", is meaningless unless the judgment is made by a competent and effective party. You are neither. I'd use the terms myself if I were able to make it stick. I can't any more than you can.

however, I observe, that "liberals" as the term is used by self-styled moralists on the left today, are not anything like the real liberals who believe people have inherent rights and deserve respect even when their opinions vary from the more generally accepted norms.

This whole religion thing you have embraced, which the "left" embraces today whole hog, in fraught with moral imperatives and a self-justifying kind of value system. Worse than medieval statists invoking clerical support in the name of God.

I really think the left, as objectively practiced by some of the combatants for "the cause" in here, has gone nuts. So many people have grown tired of this dictatorial moralism. They're looking at you like you're lepers, politically-speaking, and going hard right. If you had your right mind you'd see that, and do something about it.

And stop piling on anyone who just doesn't roll over and agree with you.

It looks bad to separate parents from children. It's the Obama and/or Democrat law that required the 20-day limit on how long they could be held together. There never have been really decent facilities for holding them. Well-intended I suppose to require quick action, but under a horde of people needing to be checked out, and too few border officials to do it, it breaks down. So with a few Dem votes the period could be lengthened perhaps. That would relieve the "legal" or practical necessity for the stupid policy. I'm sure Obama just ignored his own damn law, or the media didn't cover the issue. The fact is, the photos in the OP were taken during 2014. So some of that was happening then. Still stupid. Still bad optics even if the Press didn't care then. I think the border officials are trying to follow the law as written. I believe they hope the Congress will change it. I believe Trump wants the law changed. I believe we all can do better than this.

But under the lobbying of George Soros and Bill Gates and some outright believers in no borders, the immigration is being deliberately encouraged in every way possible. A nation is not a nation without borders, and without laws. I think the tear-jerking stories are possibly exaggerated, the scenario deliberately biased.

Even families and unaccompanied children brought to the border by "coyotes", escorted by armed insurrectionists on the Mexican side/drug cartels are generally "safe" because the runners make a living off having a reputation for getting the job done. The people who are killed or abducted are done in well within Mexican territory because they are attempting to make it through the desert without paying the cartel on their own, or with a maverick guide. The people who make it to the border, and are processed, are kept track of until the cartel gets its money on any "loaned" amount. And they do have significant numbers of their own "enforcement officers". The kids alone generally have a relative they are heading for, and they stay with them hoping nobody finds them, and they pay whatever they owe from working, and send money home. For many it is a purposeful evasion of being tracked by officials.

There is underage sex trafficking that goes across the border both ways, but the abductions are usually not being done while any officials are tracking them, and usually some distance from the border.

and yeah, part of the effort to solve the problems involves realistic appraisals of what is happening, and this hyped politicization just doesn't help that.

I think it stinks that JazzFanz is host to so many politicized hack folks who just run the talking points Soros has put out. It ought to be a friendlier place for private real opinions and maybe even constructive exchanges of views.

 

[babe]

A large percentage of the welfare recipients are in the rural areas and small towns; many welfare recipients (including in the urban areas) are the working poor, and welfare recipients use drugs with lower frequency that the rich. We already know you are ignorant of these things, it's not necessary to continue to prove it over and over.



So the "socialism" you attribute to nefarious British secret societies was actually well in force long before those societies arrived.



People with property generate wealth? What a novel concept.

Perhaps I should not blame you for being a bad reader. Who ever reads anyone else's work in here.

I made no attributions to "nefarious British secret societies". I did mention Lord Cecil Rhodes who did work to promote an organized world system of governance that has become today's "New World Order" under a sort of singular leadership involving Britain and it's commonwealth nations, and it's former colonial United States. I know it is planned that China will become co-equal, but judging from the NATO/Soros move on Ukraine, it appears Russia is being demoted geopolitically-speaking. Africa is coming apart at the seams and it appears blacks will have no significant role in the new order. But the UN is public. You can read all it's governing principles and programs just google it, whatever, to your hearts content.

secret societies have and do exist. Trade unions in Ireland for example, originated on those principles in order to avoid severe reprisals. The various orders of Masons have some characteristics of "secret societies". And even if the CFR publishes major speakers and opinions from members so you or I could read their full text, the CFR and it's recruitment bush league committees all over the country do have a rule of "non-attribution" meaning if you are a member you can't just go out and blab anything you hear anyone say in their dinner/meetings. Not really "nefarious" even if a large number of the committed members do work for global objectives they believe are most important.

Prior to I believe the early 1800s nobody had formed an intellectually-consistent formula for "socialism". so prior to that, it was all oligarchic or monarchal projections of national or collective values which it was hoped the little people would patriotically stand for.

I believe the French Revolution Jacobins were the first attempt at organizing along what I'd call "socialist" lines, but even the Pilgrims at the outset were collectivists, and some say the Whiskey Rebellion early in US history had elements of the genre. In judging things that way, I refer to notions of collective governance with reduced rights to private property??? But then all rebellions are essentially mob rule until laws can be codified and courts established. I think George Washington violated the US Constitution in imposing an unconstitutional national tax on whiskey, and all kinds of creatures raged out to protest.... as we all should have done.....

But maybe you know more about all this than I do.....

To me, a "socialist" is one who promotes values in a collective sense over values on the individual level. Hence, the meaning of "social" applies..... and sure, it is appropriate where it's just not practical to elevate individual rights. Where it goes wrong is if a few folks acquire elevated power and influence and use the "social" idea to consolidate their personal individual power..... you know, Rockefeller-like.

inviolable property rights are essential to other rights, including the right to life.....and hell yeah. People with property rights, or the hope to lawfully obtain what they need in commerce, are seldom "beggars". And any concept of property rights that is not fundamentally a private or individual right, is inadequate to meet the need. One way or another, stuff doled out by government, or taken by government, does not really measure up.

I am not nearly as ignorant as you wish to think. You have I think statistical information. I see it every day. Farmers and rural poor have been doing poorly under the USDA programs which sorta give the cartels a better shake. Working for a big Ag corp is generally a depressed-wage scene because of the policies which attract low-skill immigrant labor. The practice of hiring illegals and leaving the Fed programs picking up the tab for medical care, housing, education.... is really very regressive economically. Especially when so much of what they are paid goes to the smuggling cartels south of the border, or to families outta this country.

You have no case, bro.

 

[One Brow]

I made no attributions to "nefarious British secret societies". I did mention Lord Cecil Rhodes who did work to promote an organized world system of governance that has become today's "New World Order" under a sort of singular leadership involving Britain and it's commonwealth nations, and it's former colonial United States. I know it is planned that China will become co-equal, but judging from the NATO/Soros move on Ukraine, it appears Russia is being demoted geopolitically-speaking. Africa is coming apart at the seams and it appears blacks will have no significant role in the new order. But the UN is public. You can read all it's governing principles and programs just google it, whatever, to your hearts content.

I acknowledge "secret society" was a bit of hyperbole, but you seem to believe that many of these supposed goals of (whoever) are either not advertised or distorted, hence kept secret.

To me, a "socialist" is one who promotes values in a collective sense over values on the individual level. Hence, the meaning of "social" applies..... and sure, it is appropriate where it's just not practical to elevate individual rights. Where it goes wrong is if a few folks acquire elevated power and influence and use the "social" idea to consolidate their personal individual power..... you know, Rockefeller-like.

Thank you for the definition. I would normally refer to this as "utilitarianism", if I understand you correctly. I will try to keep it in mind.

I see it every day. Farmers and rural poor have been doing poorly under the USDA programs which sorta give the cartels a better shake. ... You have no case, bro

I don't recall saying farmers and the rural poor have easy lives. I'm not sure what case you think I don't have.

 

[babe]

I acknowledge "secret society" was a bit of hyperbole, but you seem to believe that many of these supposed goals of (whoever) are either not advertised or distorted, hence kept secret.



Thank you for the definition. I would normally refer to this as "utilitarianism", if I understand you correctly. I will try to keep it in mind.



I don't recall saying farmers and the rural poor have easy lives. I'm not sure what case you think I don't have.

point one..... "kept secret" might be more like not clearly taught in public schools. We get a slanted world view presented as fact, and it's slanted to promote more what the "elites" believe as reality. Makes me do the contrarian gig.

I am aware of various kinds of "socialism". Fabian socialists have had the inside track mostly, in my opinion. Gradualism has been fairly successful until recently. I think Bush jr. blew it with TARP, and Obama compounded the public outrage with thinly-veiled Marxism per his little autobiography. Plus Hillary just scared the daylights outta a lot of people. The tea party rattled the left just enough to tip them over and then Trump knocked the ball outta the park. People like gradualism, whatever way it's going, if it makes a nice picture of the world. A world with well-run organizations addressing every kind of concern could be great..... if it's not just run by unelected corporate schills.

the case you didn't have is just saying I'm so ignorant it's tiresome. Welll......... maybe.

 

[Zombie]

I really think the left, as objectively practiced by some of the combatants for "the cause" in here, has gone nuts. So many people have grown tired of this dictatorial moralism. They're looking at you like you're lepers, politically-speaking, and going hard right. If you had your right mind you'd see that, and do something about it.

I've seen this theory posited elsewhere and it's utter nonsense. The idea that the 'left' is somehow responsible for others becoming racist alt-righters out of hurt feelings just doesn't make sense. The right has done plenty of dictatorial moralizing of their own that hasn't resulted in a similar reaction on the left. People are responsible for their own political views.

It looks bad to separate parents from children. It's the Obama and/or Democrat law that required the 20-day limit on how long they could be held together.

It IS bad to separate parents from children. Don't minimize it. Also I'd love to see a citation for this claim. What Obama law is this in reference to?

 

[One Brow]

the case you didn't have is just saying I'm so ignorant it's tiresome. Welll......... maybe.

That was based primarily on your description of the poorer residents of inner cities. I have not only statistics, but work and life experience there.

 

[babe]

I see. Well, what do you say to the likes of Bill Cunningham... "the great American" radio host sunday nights, who says he's worked with blacks, been in the same clubs (moneybag clubs where sorta elites do time) with very intelligent and successful blacks, to make a point about hip hop being the wrong culture for blacks to project.... obviously he doesn't make much outta Sonny Johnson, and all the hip hop multimillionaire cultural icons.... saying they should speak high class lingo not gutter.....

Sonny says hip hop sings her a love song because it's capitalism.... lines like "up like Trump" and words that portray overt rejection of the socialism that has kept blacks down. It's a thing. Rodman and Kanye wearing MAGA hats.

Sonny's life story is coming from being taken from an aunt who cared for her because her mom was on drugs and dysfunctional and thrown into Fostercare Hell. Boy does she hate The Man, the government systems. She herself hit the streets pretty hard but came around to believe in herself, and now goes around Republican waterholes trying to tell the Rs how to not offend the blacks with all their ignorance.

She simply says "Don't try to take care of me. I am fine." I kinda get the notion that she is a heavy hitter swinging for the bleachers, but fully able to do it. She wears black like a badge of honor.

 

[babe]

I've seen this theory posited elsewhere and it's utter nonsense. The idea that the 'left' is somehow responsible for others becoming racist alt-righters out of hurt feelings just doesn't make sense. The right has done plenty of dictatorial moralizing of their own that hasn't resulted in a similar reaction on the left. People are responsible for their own political views.



It IS bad to separate parents from children. Don't minimize it. Also I'd love to see a citation for this claim. What Obama law is this in reference to?

IF that is what it amounts to, sure. But let me look for the Obama law. Things I hear on Breitbart.... ok.... I'll look somewhere else.

Of course no one is simply reactionary, wholly determined by people they react to distastefully. But we do wear out after a while, wear down, and sink into some reactions to stuff we've heard too much of.

So there's a ton of stories supporting your thesis and you can hardly find any reference to the policies. I did find some items coming from the ORR on their policies. Of course they talk like they are responsible folks making sure everyone is OK. But then I found this, which parallels my own views above imo on most of the points I've tried to make. The Trump statements and broadcast that parents will be separated from children is discussed as a "scare tactic" aimed at illegals heading north to sorta stem the tide I suppose. But then there ARE children being separated from parents in some cases, perhaps paralleling what happens when we arrest any parent for any charged crime.

I have been reacting to the outrage in a way that reflects my apprehension that nothing will be done to actually secure the border and establish a regular legal entry process capable of putting the coyotes/runners/cartels outta the human smuggling business.

Here is the article that I think treats the subject fairly.

https://www.brit.co/what-is-and-isnt-true-about-1500-lost-migrant-children-that-outraged-the-nation/

Perhaps you will note that these things have been ongoing generally for years. Trump only advertised it.... trying to get the message to families heading north, and trying to do enough to make it credible to the migrants. But even Trump says he wants it all changed by Congress.

Let's do it.

 

[Zombie]

IF that is what it amounts to, sure. But let me look for the Obama law. Things I hear on Breitbart.... ok.... I'll look somewhere else.

Of course no one is simply reactionary, wholly determined by people they react to distastefully. But we do wear out after a while, wear down, and sink into some reactions to stuff we've heard too much of.

So there's a ton of stories supporting your thesis and you can hardly find any reference to the policies. I did find some items coming from the ORR on their policies. Of course they talk like they are responsible folks making sure everyone is OK. But then I found this, which parallels my own views above imo on most of the points I've tried to make. The Trump statements and broadcast that parents will be separated from children is discussed as a "scare tactic" aimed at illegals heading north to sorta stem the tide I suppose. But then there ARE children being separated from parents in some cases, perhaps paralleling what happens when we arrest any parent for any charged crime.

I have been reacting to the outrage in a way that reflects my apprehension that nothing will be done to actually secure the border and establish a regular legal entry process capable of putting the coyotes/runners/cartels outta the human smuggling business.

Here is the article that I think treats the subject fairly.

https://www.brit.co/what-is-and-isnt-true-about-1500-lost-migrant-children-that-outraged-the-nation/

Perhaps you will note that these things have been ongoing generally for years. Trump only advertised it.... trying to get the message to families heading north, and trying to do enough to make it credible to the migrants. But even Trump says he wants it all changed by Congress.

Let's do it.

That article is fair, and I belive I saw the Twitter thread cited within about how it's really not necessarily a bad thing that these kids are 'missing.'

I still believe there's cause for concern that this administration really isn't all that worried about the well being of these children, unaccompanied or otherwise. When asked about the policy, White House CoS Kelly brushed it off with 'They will go into foster care, or whatever.' That doesn't exactly inspire confidence. In fact just today it was reported that the Trump administration is planning a 'tent camp' near a military base in Texas to house children. That sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

As for what Trump himself thinks of these things, he can claim he wants a solution, but he's got both houses of congress under party control and there is no movement from them on this issue, aside from a bill with support from Democrats only that is. Remember, this is a president who also claimed to support a dream act for DACA recipients but ended up balking when he was presented with a deal, again from the Democrats.

Finally, it is not the case that children have been separated from parents at the border as a matter of course until Trump made that policy. He didn't just advertise it, he created it. He has tried, rather clumsily, to blame it on some law that doesn't exist, and other unscrupulous outlets have repeated it, but its not true.

 

[babe]

I don't know much about you but I'm guessing twenties or something???/ I know other participants are older. Sometimes older means cooler heads and more reasoned thinking.

What most people who want to control immigration see is a flood that threatens our capacity to sustain our laws, our economics, our budgets. American taxpayers bearing the costs of the do-gooder bleeding heart impulses of compassionate folks who just think we can do it. Working taxpayers can't maintain their own families as they're once could. People feeling the pinch are saying "No More". Tens of millions of voters turning away from Pelosi and the Dems.

I don't think we can do it. Our most efficient efforts would conserve our status quo with a slower influx of people presenting less stress on our capacities. If we could do anything to fix the problems on the ground where these people are coming from, that would be the way we could help the most people. Borders and laws are what creates the circumstances businesses can grow in. Hire people. Pay people wages. Better wages.

If we found a way to turn around some countries like NK, Venezuela....and a whole lot of other places which cannot maintain order enough to attract investment, those places would boom economically. It's not about anything else. It's economic displacement and economic stress on destination countries.

If I was Trump I'd buy buses and hire some security guards, and tell Mexico we're busing them back home unless they want to set up care facilities. Then I'd be on the horn telling a lot of guvmint slackers no aid unless I see it go to facilities to care for their displaced people, and police action to end the cartels/smuggling.

A new immigration law would perhaps increase allowed immigration, but the human smugglers would be deep sixed.

 

[Red]

"evil", like "good", is meaningless unless the judgment is made by a competent and effective party. You are neither. I'd use the terms myself if I were able to make it stick. I can't any more than you can.

however, I observe, that "liberals" as the term is used by self-styled moralists on the left today, are not anything like the real liberals who believe people have inherent rights and deserve respect even when their opinions vary from the more generally accepted norms.

This whole religion thing you have embraced, which the "left" embraces today whole hog, in fraught with moral imperatives and a self-justifying kind of value system. Worse than medieval statists invoking clerical support in the name of God.

I really think the left, as objectively practiced by some of the combatants for "the cause" in here, has gone nuts. So many people have grown tired of this dictatorial moralism. They're looking at you like you're lepers, politically-speaking, and going hard right. If you had your right mind you'd see that, and do something about it.

And stop piling on anyone who just doesn't roll over and agree with you.

It looks bad to separate parents from children. It's the Obama and/or Democrat law that required the 20-day limit on how long they could be held together. There never have been really decent facilities for holding them. Well-intended I suppose to require quick action, but under a horde of people needing to be checked out, and too few border officials to do it, it breaks down. So with a few Dem votes the period could be lengthened perhaps. That would relieve the "legal" or practical necessity for the stupid policy. I'm sure Obama just ignored his own damn law, or the media didn't cover the issue. The fact is, the photos in the OP were taken during 2014. So some of that was happening then. Still stupid. Still bad optics even if the Press didn't care then. I think the border officials are trying to follow the law as written. I believe they hope the Congress will change it. I believe Trump wants the law changed. I believe we all can do better than this.

But under the lobbying of George Soros and Bill Gates and some outright believers in no borders, the immigration is being deliberately encouraged in every way possible. A nation is not a nation without borders, and without laws. I think the tear-jerking stories are possibly exaggerated, the scenario deliberately biased.

Even families and unaccompanied children brought to the border by "coyotes", escorted by armed insurrectionists on the Mexican side/drug cartels are generally "safe" because the runners make a living off having a reputation for getting the job done. The people who are killed or abducted are done in well within Mexican territory because they are attempting to make it through the desert without paying the cartel on their own, or with a maverick guide. The people who make it to the border, and are processed, are kept track of until the cartel gets its money on any "loaned" amount. And they do have significant numbers of their own "enforcement officers". The kids alone generally have a relative they are heading for, and they stay with them hoping nobody finds them, and they pay whatever they owe from working, and send money home. For many it is a purposeful evasion of being tracked by officials.

There is underage sex trafficking that goes across the border both ways, but the abductions are usually not being done while any officials are tracking them, and usually some distance from the border.

and yeah, part of the effort to solve the problems involves realistic appraisals of what is happening, and this hyped politicization just doesn't help that.

I think it stinks that JazzFanz is host to so many politicized hack folks who just run the talking points Soros has put out. It ought to be a friendlier place for private real opinions and maybe even constructive exchanges of views.

Uh huh. The new policy is evil. Period.

 

[The Thriller]

I really like Jimmy

 

[Gameface]

I really like Jimmy

And we can stop talking about whose fault this is and just end it! There are ****ing kids involved. Children who haven't done a damn thing to hurt anyone.

 

[Red]

OK, first off, I noticed the video that @The Thriller posted to page 1 of this thread has been removed. I reposted it on page 1.

Second, as some will recall Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon was denied entry to the detention facility for children, both unaccompanied, and those separated from their families, at a former Walmart in Brownsville, Tx. That was two weeks ago. Now, an NBC reporter was able to tour that facility. he was interviewed by Chris Hayes last night, 6/13/18. About 30% of the children held there are those separated from parents. All are boys 10-17 years of age.

It can be viewed from 31:29-38:51 at the following video from last night's All In with Chris Hayes. I just noticed the clip I posted below starts just as the interview ends, so you will need to roll it back to the 31:29 mark to see it from the actual start. Sorry, you may have to go to the actual YouTube page to roll it back, but that's easy enough to do by clicking the title at the top of the clip:



The above interview being widely reported now. This article at the Independent includes a photo of the Trump mural:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-jacob-soboroff-casa-padre-a8398051.html?amp

And New York Magazine:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...-children-incarcerated-in-texas-facility.html

Other reporters were also given the tour of the Brownsville, Tx facility. This from CNN. I believe visitors allowed were from MSNBC and the Washington Post:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/us/i...ren-shelter-brownsville-texas-invs/index.html

And finally, McClatchly is reporting the Trump administration is planning to build tent cities to hold the children on military bases in Texas. These tent cities will be for the unaccompanied children:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article213026379.html

 

[Red]

Interview of MSNBC reporter and Senator Merkley:

 

[Red]

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the...ntOpposingSeparationofChildrenandParents.aspx

“As a pediatrician, as a parent, as the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), I am appalled by a new policy reportedly signed by Department of Homeland Security that will forcibly separate children from their parents, a practice that this Administration has already been carrying out for months. In fact, during my recent trip to the border, I saw its impact with my own eyes, and I am not alone in my outrage and dismay at its sweeping cruelty. The AAP is opposed to this policy and will continue to urge the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to reverse it immediately.

“So many of these parents are fleeing for their lives. So many of these children know no other adult than the parent who brought them here. They can be as young as infants and toddlers.

“Separating children from their parents contradicts everything we stand for as pediatricians – protecting and promoting children’s health. In fact, highly stressful experiences, like family separation, can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child's brain architecture and affecting his or her short- and long-term health. This type of prolonged exposure to serious stress - known as toxic stress - can carry lifelong consequences for children.

“The new policy is the latest example of harmful actions by the Department of Homeland Security against immigrant families, hindering their right to seek asylum in our country and denying parents the right to remain with their children. We can and must do better for these families. We can and must remember that immigrant children are still children; they need our protection, not prosecution.”

 

[The Thriller]

Democrats have done their part.

Trump has admitted to using these kids as leverage for border wall funding.

 

[The Thriller]

To be blunt, I don’t recognize this country anymore.

This “solution” to stanching the human exodus from Latin America across our border takes a toll not only on those arrested and detained but also on our own humanity.

She’s a conservative writer too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9c898a-70cb-11e8-bf86-a2351b5ece99_story.html

 

[babe]

Uh huh. The new policy is evil. Period.

I dunno. My wife says I'm getting senile. happens sometimes with old codgers. But it sounds like you missed a lot of this thread above.

As far as I've gleaned so far from my occasional reading. the "Trump policy" or "new policy" is not new. Obama was just not following it or doing anything but pumping up the immigration train every way he could. The policy goes back to Bill Clinton, who..... oh my gosh... am I really saying something good about Bill????.... was concerned about human trafficking, and thought it would help stop that trafficking to take the effort to determine the facts of claims about family connections.

In the age of salive DNA testing, we should require DNA testing to make sure someone is not abusing the family connection claim to get across the border with someone impressed into involuntary sex work.

The open borders folks who simply believe in John Lennon's imagination are in that one respect believing in a basically false proposition. Borders increase human liberty in many ways. They allow local folks to have a say in matters close at hand. The extreme position on the other end allows tyrants.... one tryrant.... virtually unlimited power to infringe on human rights. And that is what was intended in the promulgation of the ideology from the outset.

The reportage on the children being separated on the border has not been good. It looks to me like we have agitators on the ground organizing or promoting immigration, and some of them are cartel or smuggler outfits out to make a buck with the traffic. I am sure there is some human trafficking being run under the cover of this immigration push.

And it looks like an organized political push from our side to make it out more than it should be. Political organizers who exploit real human problems for political gain would be my idea of "evil", if that mattered to anyone.

anyway, we know who you are and what you think. I don't think I care to work on this case to make an example of anyone.

 

[Red]

There is no law, mandating that children must be separated from their parents at the border. Trump is simply lying through his teeth because he gets away with bald face lies like no other chief executive in our history. He is lying for the benifit of his cult of personality.

Well, although, like so many other Americans, this situation breaks my heart, I can't be surprised that Trump is not only violating human rights, but lying through his teeth day after day in blaming Democrats, while, at the very same time calling the policy of separating children leverage to use against Democrats. And how can anybody be surprised by the cruelty of it all? This is exactly what I expected from the man. This is what our President is doing. Warning, this is a very difficult read:

http://www.thisisinsider.com/psychological-effects-of-separating-immigrant-kids-and-parents-2018-6

And this is why. This is the extent to which he will go to get his wall. Traumatize kids for life in persuit of his political goals, to satisfy the whims of his cult of personality:

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/201...of-separating-immigrant-children-from-parents

You know, I've seen frequent references to people who are somehow nothing but members of a "left wing hate Trump" movement. Isn't love the opposite of hate? Now, I ask you, should I really be expected to love this man? Cruelty is his defining trait, it seems to me. Why would I want the leader of my country to be the face of cruelty in America? And we should just shut up, accept the man and just shut up already? I feel sorry for this man. He is the nadir of the office of the Presidency in the history of the USA. In Donald Trump, the office has reached rock bottom. And this policy, which is his policy, and that of Jeff Sessions, reveals his true nature better then any other of his words and actions since he took office. He hurts children for political gain. Says it all I think. This is our so-called leader. He hurts children as a gamble that it will lead to political gain. I wish his apologists would just take the blinders off, but I guess I can't expect cult members to recognize the true nature of their leader.