Illegal Immigrants are Criminals
Can someone please explain why liberals defend illegal immigration? Why do they defend and encourage criminals?
You can't say the US is anti-immigrant. We let in approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year. That is a lot of people each year.
Comments
-
My forbears were immigrants. All legal as far as I know. I understand there may be an American Indian in the woodpile way back, but am skeptical.
Funny thing is, kids today are held safe, secure, fed, clothed, sheltered, far better than back home while their cases and (alleged) parents are adjudicated. As articles dating to 2014-15 indicate, Obama had them held specifically for punishment.
So thankful for Trump and a much better system in place today by a better administration. here is a quote:
Under Obama--
“His intelligence analysts estimated that 78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18 — teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught — and he wanted to attack this loophole."
Under Trump--
"During their detention, they are questioned by U.S. authorities and then transferred to a network of facilities run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, across 15 states. While confined, they undergo psychological evaluations and take English courses. Some are allowed tourist-type activities, such as going to the beach or museums, according to Mexican consular officials in Texas. At least one youth earned a high school general equivalency diploma.”Ignorance of the facts is an awful thing and so embarrassing to the occasional shill that trumpets someone else's political lines. We should have grace I suppose--they just don't know. Well, now they do.
-
@GaoLu said:
Under Obama--“His intelligence analysts estimated that 78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18 — teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught — and he wanted to attack this loophole."
Under Trump--
"During their detention, they are questioned by U.S. authorities and then transferred to a network of facilities run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, across 15 states. While confined, they undergo psychological evaluations and take English courses. Some are allowed tourist-type activities, such as going to the beach or museums, according to Mexican consular officials in Texas. At least one youth earned a high school general equivalency diploma.”Ignorance of the facts is an awful thing and so embarrassing to the occasional shill that trumpets someone else's political lines. We should have grace I suppose--they just don't know. Well, now they do.
First thing that struck me about your post, Gao Lu, was that you chose not to provide links to the quotations included therein. Odd but not certainly not unprecedented in online forums, I decided.
With the help of the Google machine I discovered the origins of the two statements:
- The first, which you labeled "Under Obama," indeed refers to an Obama-era program called "the Juvenile Referral Process" by which young Mexicans were held (for an average of 75 days), questioned, and cared for, sometimes without their parents' knowledge, in a network of facilities operated by HHS' Office of Refugee Resettlement. According to the Post's article, the program resulted in just 7% of the kids released back to Mexico trying again to cross the border. And as for Mexican immigration officials, the Post article says...
At the local level, Mexican immigration officials along the border consider the program effective because they’ve found that it discourages children from working as guides.
“It’s excellent for us,” said Erasmo Rodriguez, an immigration official in the border town of Piedras Negras. “We’ve received many fewer minors.”
SO, that's the fuller story behind the "Under Obama" quotation you offered in your post. What about the other quotation you offered? Much to my surprise, given that you labeled the other quotation "Under Trump," giving us a rather clear signal that it reflected actions taken by the Trump administration, the other quotation originated in the same Washington Post story as your "Under Obama" quotation.
Unfortunately for the "ignorance of facts" narrative you asserted in the final paragraph of your post, the Washington Post published the article from which came BOTH of your quotations on March 11, 2015, nearly two years BEFORE Donald Trump took the oath of office. Your "Under Trump" quotation had nothing to do with what has happened "under Trump."
All is well, however. For as you reminded us in the final paragraph of your post, we must have grace for occasional "shills" who "(trumpet)" someone else's political lines." And so we will.
-
- The Obama-era situation was a wretched mess, wasn't it.
- The second quote describes the programs leading to statements of present Trump-era camps being "summer camps." Timing had nothing to do with the message of my post and I think you know that.
So, yes, I was right after all. Read what wrote and don't you dare twist it into lies.
-
@GaoLu said:
1. The Obama-era situation was a wretched mess, wasn't it.I encourage you to revisit the article in which originated the two quotations you used in your previous post in this thread. The Obama-era program therein described produced a quite-low 7% recidivism rate for the Mexican teens involved (i.e. the percentage who tried again to cross the border after time in the program) and was affirmed by Mexican officials for its corrective impact. While the article makes clear there were concerns about the program, the article clearly does not support your description of it as "a wretched mess."
- The second quote describes the programs leading to statements of present Trump-era camps being "summer camps." Timing had nothing to do with the message of my post and I think you know that.
The post in which you used the two quotations made no mention of or allusion to "present Trump-era camps being 'summer camps.'" Here's the context of your use of the two quotations:
Funny thing is, kids today are held safe, secure, fed, clothed, sheltered, far better than back home while their cases and (alleged) parents are adjudicated. As articles dating to 2014-15 indicate, Obama had them held specifically for punishment.
So thankful for Trump and a much better system in place today by a better administration. here is a quote:
So you introduced the two quotations by claiming Obama held kids "specifically for punishment," and that Trump has "a much better system in place today." You then introduced the first quotation with the simple headline "Under Obama" - the one who held kids "specifically for punishment" - and the second quotation with the equally direct headline, "Under Trump" - the one who has the "much better system in place."
The ONLY common sense rendering of your decision to present the two quotations in that manner is that you wanted us to think the first quotation - with its smuggler guides and drug cartels - referred to Obama-era treatment of immigrant kids, while the second quotation - with its language classes, tourist trips, and educational opportunities - referred to Trump-era treatment of kids. And the only common sense conclusion about your presentation of those quotations is that it a) failed to mention that the quotations originated in the SAME article and referred to the SAME "wretched mess" Obama-era program; 2) inaccurately characterized that "wretched mess" Obama program; and 3) gave the false impression that the second quotation reported conditions "Under Trump," in the "much better system in place today."
So, yes, I was right after all. Read what wrote and don't you dare twist it into lies.
I not only read what you wrote, Gao Lu, I quoted it... correctly and in context. Now please return the favor. Prove that I'm "(twisting)" what you wrote "into lies" by quoting from what you wrote. Specifically, quote for us the section(s) of the post in which you first used the two quotations that referred to "present Trump-era camps being 'summer camps.'"
-
Your reputation is well known.
More and more we are learning how many of these "adults" are child traffickers and drug runners.
Many of the kids learn English and even get outings to the beach and more--all at taxpayer expense. Glad America cares for them so well, and glad they are safe from the "adults" who handle them. Border patrol knows their job. A few other folks with a keyboard don't.
Real Families actually immigrate to the great land of America legally at an incredibly high rate--higher than the rest of the world combined. I have several personal Asian friends who have immigrated to the US, Canada and Australia, or are trying to, in the last couple years, so I have heart in this.
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley
Your reputation is well known.When you can't beat the message, beat the messenger.
Should there come a time when you want to engage the message of my interaction with you in this current exchange, I invite you to revisit my previous posts, where in precise and documented terms I demonstrated what I believe to be the errors of your use of two quotations - one that you labeled "Under Obama;" the other that you labeled "Under Trump" - in a post earlier in this thread.
Specifically, I contended that your presentation of those two quotations...
- Failed to mention that the quotations originated in the SAME Washington Post article and referred to the SAME Obama-era program
- Inaccurately characterized that Obama-era program
- Gave the false impression that the second quotation reported conditions "Under Trump," in the "much better system in place today," when in fact the second quotation referred to conditions created by the aforementioned Obama-era program
Should there come a time when you want to beat the message rather than the messenger, I invite you to start with those bullet points.
More and more we are learning how many of these "adults" are child traffickers and drug runners.
How, if at all, does this assertion - whose meaning is not clear to me - apply to the parents who have been separated from their children by President Trump's "zero tolerance" policy? Please provide links to data that support your claim.
Many of the kids learn English and even get outings to the beach and more--all at taxpayer expense. Glad America cares for them so well, and glad they are safe from the "adults" who handle them. Border patrol knows their job. A few other folks with a keyboard don't.
All but the last sentence in this paragraph is consistent with the methods and outcomes of the Obama-era "Juvenile Referral Process" described in the Washington Post article in which originated the two quotations you offered in an earlier post in this thread. It's not so consistent with the containment facilities in which kids separated from their parents by the president's "zero tolerance" policy were held before being transported to other states, in some cases, hundreds, even more than 1,000, miles from their parents, and without a clear plan for their reunification.
Real Families actually immigrate to the great land of America legally at an incredibly high rate--higher than the rest of the world combined. I have several personal Asian friends who have immigrated to the US, Canada and Australia, or are trying to, in the last couple years, so I have heart in this.
I'm glad the issue matters to you, but your passion doesn't obscure the fact that lots of "real families" have been separated "legally" by the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy, and it is not yet clear that all of those separated "real families" will be reunited. Do you have "heart" in that painful truth as well?
-
Dear Bill, you seem to have some very unpleasant notions about what others think of your reputation. Rethink that.
————
Re: families.
I am in favor of uniting separated families. My wife is adopted and rejoined her biological family. Her mother was adopted and did the same. We are involved in child trafficking prevention, orphanages and rescuing street children. We have worked with a number of immigration cases. So yes, my heart is with united families.
I also am knowledgeable of what is true and what is not regarding the matter. You are both wrong and badly informed. However, there are are some exceptions, rare, but real.
If you think you have ferreted out such a case, please tell us what you are doing other than writing diatribes here. Thus far I find you obnoxious and disengenuous. Give us reason to redeem your reputation. -
@GaoLu said:
Dear Bill, you seem to have some very unpleasant notions about what others think of your reputation. Rethink that.In forums where the guiding expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people," my or your "reputation" shouldn't even arise, and certainly not at the beginning of a post, in large, bold font, as mine did in your previous post.
————
Re: families.
I am in favor of uniting separated families. My wife is adopted and rejoined her biological family. Her mother was adopted and did the same. We are involved in child trafficking prevention, orphanages and rescuing street children. We have worked with a number of immigration cases. So yes, my heart is with united families.It's good to find common ground.
I also am knowledgeable of what is true and what is not regarding the matter. You are both wrong and badly informed. However, there are are some exceptions, rare, but real.
You claim much, but prove nothing. That's really easy to do, Gao Lu. I can claim much, but prove nothing. My nine year-old grandson could come to this forum and claim much, but prove nothing. There isn't a person I know who isn't capable of claiming much, but proving nothing.
The problem with claiming much but proving nothing is that at the end of the claims, you don't have much to show for your efforts. And that's certainly the case with the paragraph from your post I just quoted.
If you think you have ferreted out such a case, please tell us what you are doing other than writing diatribes here. Thus far I find you obnoxious and disengenuous. Give us reason to redeem your reputation.
I don't know what kind of "case" you're asking about. The case I "ferreted out" earlier in this thread was detailed, specific, and documented. It had to do with your attaching quotations from a March 2015 Washington Post story to two different presidential administrations, one of which was Donald Trump's, despite the fact that Donald Trump didn't take office until nearly two years after the Post story was published. Your claim that the "Under Trump" attachment somehow explained assertions about Trump-era "summer camps" is not at all supported by the content of your post.
Aside from that, in our exchange I've asked you for data to prove one of your claims, and I've differentiated between conditions created by the Obama-era program as reported by the 2015 Post article and the conditions faced by kids removed from their parents by the Trump Administration over the last couple of months. You seem to believe such content justifies your judgment of me as "obnoxious and disingenuous." I can't argue with that, at least not in a forum where a central expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
In forums where the guiding expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people," my or your "reputation" shouldn't even arise, and certainly not at the beginning of a post, in large, bold font, as mine did in your previous post.Bill's online reputation
I find that your reputation arises often. Interesting how vigorously your react when your reputation is exposed.You have lots of rules in your life that you demand others should follow. Maybe you should have born a Hebrew at Sinai. You are welcome, as fare as I am concerned, to follow your rules all you like and to scatter them throughout the forums, however, they are of little interest to me. It occurs to me that if you spent less time bullying and demanding that others follow your list of rules, then your reputation might become more pink and shiny.
Prov 22:1
A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold.It's good to find common ground.
mmmm...Except that I don't think you are interested in families for the same reasons that I am, so I doubt it is common ground. Be nice if it was. Any evidence?
I also am knowledgeable of what is true and what is not regarding the matter. You are both wrong and badly informed. However, there are are some exceptions, rare, but real.
You claim much, but prove nothing. That's really easy to do, Gao Lu. I can claim much, but prove nothing. My nine year-old grandson could come to this forum and claim much, but prove nothing. There isn't a person I know who isn't capable of claiming much, but proving nothing.
I have little interest in proving anything to you on forums. I don't come here to prove things to Bill. I don't think you ever proved anything here either. Have you?
The problem with claiming much but proving nothing is that at the end of the claims, you don't have much to show for your efforts.
- That is true enough. My efforts here never have proof as an objective.
- What have you ever proved on here? Is that why you come here?
I don't know what kind of "case" you're asking about. The case I "ferreted out" earlier in this thread was detailed, specific, and documented. It had to do with your attaching quotations from a March 2015 Washington Post story to two different presidential administrations, one of which was Donald Trump's, despite the fact that Donald Trump didn't take office until nearly two years after the Post story was published. Your claim that the "Under Trump" attachment somehow explained assertions about Trump-era "summer camps" is not at all supported by the content of your post.
Oh. So your extent of "proving" that you care about immigrants and families is a link to internet news articles. I was hoping for something more.
I know you have actively defended gay families and their rights (written internet posts, maybe marched in a circle somewhere or sat on a curb with a sign?), but I am thinking more along the lines such as I mentioned above, getting your heart and hands involved in messy immigration cases, risking your life helping trafficked children, working with the worlds most disadvantaged and unwanted orphans, personally setting up guard at high-risk border crossings where children and adults are trafficked, rescuing kidnapped or duped women dragged from villages to cities.
I have done all those in the last couple years so that partial list comes to mind. Ever do anything like that? Or something similar? Ever do anything other than write posts here or march for gay families around your town? This is your day, the invitation is open...
Aside from that, in our exchange I've asked you for data to prove one of your claims, and I've differentiated between conditions created by the Obama-era program as reported by the 2015 Post article and the conditions faced by kids removed from their parents by the Trump Administration over the last couple of months. You seem to believe such content justifies your judgment of me as "obnoxious and disingenuous." I can't argue with that, at least not in a forum where a central expectation is that participants will "criticize ideas, not people."
You did make some claims--I experience them as your personal emotional diatribes. I am glad you feel safe here to express your inner feelings as needed.
I have little interest in proving things to Bill Coley. Oh, I can offer a link or two from an iffy news source and do if I deem it helpful. News, for the most part, is little more than superfluous piffle. You are welcome to take that as proof if you like.
Regarding kids caught sneaking across international borders kept cramped in cages vs kids in summer camps, and child traffickers posing as parents and whether or not they should be separated from the children they are trafficking--goodness, the news is full of all sorts of drivel on the matter and nothing remotely trustworthy, much less proof. I did go so far as to assume you were aware of all that. If you are not, then I won't try to prove it to you here--you are on your own, big boy,
If you want proof, or if you want to offer proof, and you are serious, then maybe we can meet down in the border area of some places I know, and move at night through a mined jungle guarded by bad people with machine guns and machetes and actually DO something. That to me would be proof that you care about families and separation issues. Admittedly, I would want to be surer of your reputation and life than I am now before taking you there*. I am in the US for a couple more weeks, but will be heading that way soon.
*As Dave would say, I suspect you are all hat and no cowboy.
-
@GaoLu said:
Bill's online reputation
I find that your reputation arises often. Interesting how vigorously your react when your reputation is exposed.My reputation arises often in your posts, Gao Lu, but it does so only because you raise it. The obvious objective of the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people" is to create a community where posters don't raise each other's reputations.
You have lots of rules in your life that you demand others should follow.
The only "rule" I'm raising/enforcing/demanding/praying for you to follow is the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people."
mmmm...Except that I don't think you are interested in families for the same reasons that I am, so I doubt it is common ground. Be nice if it was. Any evidence?
In your previous post, you reported that you "favor uniting separated families," and that your "heart is with united families." Because I too favor uniting separated families, and my heart, also, is with united families, I decided there was common ground in our views.
NOTE: Your request for "any evidence" to support my observation of common ground in our views is striking given its appearance in your post just six sentences ahead of your declaration that your "efforts [in these forums] never have proof as an objective." So when I ask for evidence of the truth of your claims, you refuse to provide it because "proof" is not your objective. But when I make a claim whose truth you question, you ask for "any evidence." Priceless.
I have little interest in proving anything to you on forums. I don't come here to prove things to Bill. I don't think you ever proved anything here either. Have you?
Of course I have. For example, I engaged you in this thread on the narrow and well-defined subject of your use of two quotations in one of your earlier posts. Through a link to a March 2015 Washington Post story, I proved that though you labeled the two quotations "Under Obama" and "Under Trump" respectively - inarguably giving the impression that the first quotation referred to conditions during Mr. Obama's presidency, and the second quotation referred to conditions under Mr. Trump's administration - in fact, the quotations came from the SAME Post story and BOTH referred to conditions during the Obama administration.
That was the substance of my initial post in our exchange, but actually, that's been the sum and substance of all my posts to you in this thread: You used two quotations in a way that gave a false impression. Given that you "have little interest in proving anything" in forums, and the fact that what I posted was objectively true, it's not surprising that you have yet to disprove my claim.
- That is true enough. My efforts here never have proof as an objective.
This is the declaration to which I referred above.
- What have you ever proved on here? Is that why you come here?
I just had a scary thought: If I came to these forums illegally, do you think the Trump administration would separate me from my posts?
Oh. So your extent of "proving" that you care about immigrants and families is a link to internet news articles. I was hoping for something more.
I know you have actively defended gay families and their rights (written internet posts, maybe marched in a circle somewhere or sat on a curb with a sign?), but I am thinking more along the lines such as I mentioned above, getting your heart and hands involved in messy immigration cases, risking your life helping trafficked children, working with the worlds most disadvantaged and unwanted orphans, personally setting up guard at high-risk border crossings where children and adults are trafficked, rescuing kidnapped or duped women dragged from villages to cities.
I have done all those in the last couple years so that partial list comes to mind. Ever do anything like that? Or something similar? Ever do anything other than write posts here or march for gay families around your town? This is your day, the invitation is open...
I encourage you to revisit my posts in our exchange in this thread. As I reported above, my focus in all of them has been the very narrow issue of your use of two quotations. I've not tried to prove my "care about immigrants and families." If you want posters to prove their immigrant care bona fides, I think your best course would be to create a thread in which that was the topic.
You did make some claims--I experience them as your personal emotional diatribes. I am glad you feel safe here to express your inner feelings as needed.
There were no "inner feelings" expressed in my provision of a link to a Washington Post story which proved that the two quotations you used earlier in this thread BOTH referred to the Obama administration, contrary to your post's assertion that second one referred to the Trump administration.
That's not to say there've been no "inner feelings" expressed in our exchange! You've questioned my "reputation," and reported that you find me "obnoxious and disingenuous." I'm guessing there's some "innerness" going on there.
I have little interest in proving things to Bill Coley. Oh, I can offer a link or two from an iffy news source and do if I deem it helpful. News, for the most part, is little more than superfluous piffle. You are welcome to take that as proof if you like.
I think President Trump would be proud of these lines in your post. He too has little interest in proving the things he says (which isn't surprising since by definition, you can't prove the "truth" of lies and other falsehoods) When confronted with evidence of one of his falsehoods, he ignores the evidence, refuses to accept responsibility for his (intentional or otherwise) mistake, and moves on, usually to another falsehood. In my view, Gao Lu, your lack of regard for the objective truth of the content of your posts reflects a refined and creative form of Trumpsterism, one that might well advance the cause of today's post-truth milieu.
Regarding kids caught sneaking across international borders kept cramped in cages vs kids in summer camps, and child traffickers posing as parents and whether or not they should be separated from the children they are trafficking--goodness, the news is full of all sorts of drivel on the matter and nothing remotely trustworthy, much less proof. I did go so far as to assume you were aware of all that. If you are not, then I won't try to prove it to you here--you are on your own, big boy,
Now I'm an "obnoxious and disingenuous" "big boy." Yeah. There might well be some "inner feelings" going on here.
If you want proof, or if you want to offer proof, and you are serious, then maybe we can meet down in the border area of some places I know, and move at night through a mined jungle guarded by bad people with machine guns and machetes and actually DO something. That to me would be proof that you care about families and separation issues. Admittedly, I would want to be surer of your reputation and life than I am now before taking you there*. I am in the US for a couple more weeks, but will be heading that way soon.
What I "want" is for you (and myself) to abide by the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people." Notice that in the nearly 700 words of your most recent post to me, not once do you engage the question of whether your posts' critiques and characterizations of me conform to that expectation, even though I raised the issue to your attention twice in my last post.
*As Dave would say, I suspect you are all hat and no cowboy.
One last update: You consider me an "obnoxious and disingenuous" "big boy" who's "all hat and no cowboy." Yep. Those feelings are definitely "innies"!
p.s. It took me a moment to come to peace with the fact that you consider me a "big boy" BUT NOT a "cowboy." I guess that means I'm a big boy, but one without a cow. A disappointing realization, I admit, but sometimes the truth - whatever that is - hurts.
-
Take home: You blow smoke and do nothing. Just hoped to invite you to be clear on that and you were.
