Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
notme

Detention of undocumented migrant children

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I'm flabbergasted. While discussing the separation of families for internment due to undocumented border crossing, an elderly relative of mine just announced that she's certain it's all Bill Clinton's fault. I don't know what to say, so I just said nothing at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, notme said:

I'm flabbergasted. While discussing the separation of families for internment due to undocumented border crossing, an elderly relative of mine just announced that she's certain it's all Bill Clinton's fault. I don't know what to say, so I just said nothing at all. 

When I heard about the tent city to house children separated from their parents I was disturbed. This is so wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When I heard about the tent city to house children separated from their parents I was disturbed. This is so wrong. 

1. Boy Scouts do the same thing. Same with Girl Scouts.

2. These child endangering 'parents' are being criminally prosecuted.

3. No, this is good.

Even in grade school when had a lesson in the 19th Century prison reform movement.

Before this, men, women and children were all locked-up together. Yet you are advocating this because you bought in to some pro-lIIegaI Entries garbage.

These "parents" are criminals. Not the gooder-than-baby-jezus crowd.

Would you walk your child through a gang street in the US?

But these sneak-ins did worse by moving those children through border regions, counties and what ever --knowing these children will be raped and sodomized in a lot of cases as the price to be allowed to continue on. Those gang areas don't settle for money alone.  And don't tell me there are not "parents" like this. A few times us NCOs broke up 'parties' that "parents" -especially 'mothers' - would bring their 11,12, and so on daughters to -- to pick up a few dollars.

Edited by Hameedeh
Please put your responses to quotes outside the quote box. It helps a lot with clarity and conversational flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hameedeh said:

When I heard about the tent city to house children separated from their parents I was disturbed. This is so wrong. 

I don't have a problem with detention of immigrants until their asylum cases are reviewed. It's my opinion that the United States should have very open immigration policies, but some disagree with me. So be it.

I have a problem with children being taken from their parents, sometimes under false pretenses, and used as a political bargaining weapon. It's terrorism plain and simple.

The definition of terrorism is the use of fear in noncombatants to accomplish a political goal. This is terrorism. 

It would not be at all difficult to house entire families in apartments, trailers, even in tents. Medical care and education could be provided as needed while they wait. 

There is no law, there has never been any law, which requires separation of children from their parents, husbands from their wives, et cetera. Why is it being done now? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, notme said:

The best way to understand people who are different from you is to get to know them. 

If this isn't possible, try to imagine yourself in their shoes.

Empathy is the most important thing. Without it, we humans are the worst of creatures. 

Laughable, Uhty.

l like to meet  "different" people, but l don't want to be like them.

l will not endanger a child. What do you fantasize this is? Wagon Train ? The TV show.

Empathy is a late 19th century word coined as a nuance of 'sympathy'. Most people l cannot empathize with.

This is a foreign invasion. Refugees were recognized as a political weapon in the 1980s. Hugo Chavez agitated the illegal entry problem as a "go take your country back". Remember when -up to a ~decade ago-  these illegal entries claiming they were lndians connected to the North American tribes? Our tribes got real angry over that, which is why that line of lies was discontinued. This subversive stuff goes back to the late 1970s. For your empathetic perusal l selected this: https://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/taro/00267/lac-00267.html  Note the initial concern about terrorism. What it doesn't cover is the CISPES nutwork of nuns and nutty religious folk running a series of safe houses inside our country --a fantasy replay of the Underground Railroad. Did you know the US gov't estimates there are about 10,000 MS--13 members inside the US? Two were ate the restaurant l was at to Eid last Friday, brandishing their tattoos. [They were right next to me.]

You were in the Army during GWOT were you not? You should think better, l observe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hasanhh I didn't say be like. I said understand. 

With understanding comes empathy, not agreement. Your mind and your emotions are related, but hopefully your mind and not your emotions is in control of your actions.

It's disgustingly racist and clear evidence of brainwashing to assume that most illegal immigrants are gang members, drug dealers, criminals (besides the illegal border crossing). In fact, from what I have seen, the majority with families are trying to escape those "gang neighborhoods" you declared above that no sensible parent would travel with their children. 

I am so ashamed of the majority of white Americans my age or older. I really hope the younger generation has enough of the idea of "United States of America" left to save once they come into power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

@hasanhh I didn't say be like. I said understand. 

With understanding comes empathy, not agreement. Your mind and your emotions are related, ... l am quite aware of Piaget's cognitive development theories.

It's disgustingly racist and clear evidence of brainwashing:hahaha:    to assume that most illegal immigrants are gang members, drug dealers, criminals (besides the illegal border crossing). l did not say they were, but such people infiltrate with them like Soviet agents with Russian refugees did.  In fact, from what I have seen, the majority with families are trying to escape those "gang neighborhoods" you declared above that no sensible parent would travel with their children. :hahaha: "By traveling through multiple gang territories?" :hahaha:

I am so ashamed of the majority of white Americans my age or older. WHY?  WHY?   I really hope the younger generation has enough of the idea of "United States of America" left to save once they come into power. So you mean the :surrender: crowd?

We need an emoji for "pulling my hair out" . . . although l am already bald.

Edited by Reza
Note for readers: What is in the quote box is not entirely written by the member quoted. The bolded parts and emoticons are written by hasanhh, not the quoted poster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1810592548987483&id=100001102674101

"Pictured: a two-year-old Honduran asylum seeker about to be taken from her mother and placed in a facility where the staff (according to an interview) "is not allowed to comfort her." 
(Long again. *Sigh.* Please read it anyway.)

We are now essentially torturing parents who legally seek asylum in the United States (and their children), by taking away their minor children, caging those children, and telling the parents they may never be reunited--all to "deter" them (and those like them) from exercising their legal rights under U.S. law. This new Trump "zero tolerance policy" (announced and implemented April 6, 2018 by Jeff Sessions) is evil and not based on our laws.

As some of you know, I used to be a lawyer, and in the 1980s I used to do pro bono political asylum work for Salvadorans fleeing death squads. U.S. law allows you to claim political asylum here if you have a "well-founded fear of persecution" in your home country that fits within specified categories. You can either present yourself at a point of entry and claim asylum (risky--you aren't afforded a lawyer and most asylum claims are turned down) or you can claim asylum as a defense to deportation.

Now on our southern border, the U.S. is (contrary to law) refusing to admit those legally claiming asylum (Chis Hayes/Beto O'Rourke interview, in comments.) They are forcing immigrants to cross into the U.S. illegally, and then arresting them and (even if they have a defense to being deported because of a potentially valid asylum claim) taking their children to be housed in a concentration camp--an abandoned Wal-Mart filled with cages or a new tent camp in 100 degree Texas heat on a military base. This is being done, per Jeff Sessions and Mitch McConnell, to "deter" them from seeking asylum--that is, as a punishment to them, to deter others from doing the same thing. Even though that thing (claiming asylum) is completely legal under U.S. law.  

Accounts from Congressional Representatives and pro-bono attorneys reveal that parents are told that their children are being taken away "to get a bath" and then the children are not returned. When asked how they'll be reunited, parents are being told "your families do not exist anymore." Parents have been deported and they don't know where their children are. Because there are at least four federal bureaucracies involved (CBP, DHS, ICE, ORR in addition to private prison corporations and the DOJ) and there was no planning for implementing the policy none of attorneys representing them, the Customs and Border Patrol, nor U.S. Congressional Representatives can get confirmation that the children are even being kept track of by family. 

Not surprisingly, one man, after learning that his child had been taken away, recently killed himself. 

Jeff Sessions announced the new policy on April 6, 2018 (link in comments) but Trump now (1) claims, inaccurately, that it's "the Democrats'" prior law (a complete lie) and (2) tweeted today that he won't change the new policy unless Congress agrees to fund the wall and end political asylum and end "catch-and-release." (That is, we must make the current policy permanent and worse.) 

Today, DHS revealed that almost 2,000 children have been taken from their parents in the last 6 weeks under the new policy. (Washington Post link.) Children are housed in cages on concrete floors. Many of the children don't have access to anyone who speaks their language. The staff has no training to deal with the children's trauma, and a whistle-blower recently explained that both the staff and the children are traumatized, while the CEO of the private prison company has been paid $1 million. (Chris Hayes, after the O'Rourke interview, in comments.) 

Today, three medical organizations announced their unanimous denunciation of this new policy because separating young children from their parents and incarcerating them is permanently traumatic. (Link in comments) 

So here we are, friends. This is a violation of the Fifth Amendment guaranty of due process of law. It's a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It is a violation of international law. I would hope that any of those who continue to assist the implementation of this new policy are shunned by their congregations of faith until that changes. (Catholic bishops have already discussed assessing Canonical penalties to ICE agents ranging from refusing the sacrament of communion to excommunication.) I would hope that our courts ultimately order them to cease and desist, and if they fail to do so, that they are jailed for contempt of court. I hope they are ultimately prosecuted as international war criminals and they can never travel outside the U.S. In the meantime, every single one of them has violated his or her oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and they deserve our horror and our contempt. 

I've spent today in a funk, knowing that I needed to write this, and hating that fact. I have, despite every horrible thing up until the last nineteen months, been proud to be an American, choosing to concentrate on our lofty aspirations (equal protection, freedom of speech) rather than our tragic failings (slavery, segregation, white supremacy, McCarthyism.) 

But this is simply unmitigated evil. And refusal to face it or to acknowledge it or to own it, is cowardice and a deliberate choice to enable evil. (Yes, friends, this _is_ America, today. This is exactly who we are, until we change it.)

We are terrorizing families. We are traumatizing children. We are violating our principles and our laws to further a racist ideology of our misguided rulers. We are doing evil. We need to do everything in our power to stop that. Now."

Edited by notme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 2006 I got pulled over for speeding. No big deal, right? But actually I was speeding fast enough that it counted as reckless driving and I was almost assured 30 days in jail in that particular jurisdiction. 

When my court date arrived, I argued to the judge that I couldn't go to jail because I was a single mother and my young children had nobody else who would care for them. I was given a hefty fine and my driver's license was suspended for 2 months. The judge told me I had only avoided jail because she didn't want to be responsible for causing the trauma that happens to children who are taken from their parents and put in foster care - that children should only be removed from their families in extreme cases.

So apparently just a few years ago family values were a thing for the American legal system. I wonder what changed.

I'm glad I went to court when judges cared about children. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, notme said:

I'm glad I went to court when judges cared about children. 

Though in fairness to the judges, these asylum seekers and illegal border crossers are never even allowed to see a judge before their children are taken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former "First Ladies" Laura Bush, Hilary Clinton, and Michelle Obama have spoken out and said it is wrong to separate the children from their parent(s).

Leaving your child at daycare, preschool or kindergarten can bring on separation anxiety in that little one. Even a teenager, to be physically separated by force can cause anxiety. We are not talking about anxiety for a few hours until the parent hugs them and takes them home. These children might be separated for weeks or months.

I just read that BBC is reporting First Lady Melania Trump also spoke out against separating children from a parent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Hameedeh said:

I just read that BBC is reporting First Lady Melania Trump also spoke out against separating children from a parent. 

I read that too. 

I suspect she disagrees with her husband on a lot of things, but won't speak up because it would be unheard of for a First Lady. I suspect she's traditional, not evil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to note two things: 

Firstly, the current United States immigration system is not an easy system. There are many who say: "If people came here legally, this issue would be solved." No, it wouldn't. It is not easy to come to the United States legally. You can't just decide to come here legally on the whim if you're not related to anyone that lives in the U.S. Especially if it's your close family. 

Secondly, because of this first reason, people risk a lot to come here illegally. Do they want to do that? I don't think so. I can't imagine what person would want to risk being killed by bringing themselves and their kids over the border. I think one has to acknowledge that many people are escaping poverty, crime, rape, murder, etc. 

The United States immigration system is not black and white. It's broken. 

Edited by Lebanese36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, hasanhh said:

We need an emoji for "pulling my hair out" . . . although l am already bald.

I heard Trump stole your  wig.

On 6/18/2018 at 2:47 AM, hasanhh said:

1. Boy Scouts do the same thing. Same with Girl Scouts.

1. Not even close.  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/surge-children-separated-border-floods-facility-undocumented-immigrants-n883001

Quote

A shelter employee asked a small group of reporters allowed inside the facility to smile at the hundreds of detained migrant kids in line for a meal because “they feel like animals in a cage being looked at.”

 

^ Sounds miserable, I don't recall feeling like that in Scouts.

On 6/18/2018 at 2:47 AM, hasanhh said:

2. These child endangering 'parents' are being criminally prosecuted.

2. You must be unaware of this then. 

Quote

The Trump administration’s practice of separating children from migrant families entering the United States violates their rights and international law, the United Nations human rights office said on Tuesday, urging an immediate halt to the practice.

The administration angrily rejected what it called an ignorant attack by the United Nations human rights office and accused the global organization of hypocrisy.

The human rights office said it appeared that, as The New York Times revealed in April, United States authorities had separated several hundred children, including toddlers, from their parents or others claiming to be their family members, under a policy of criminally prosecuting undocumented people crossing the border.

That practice “amounts to arbitrary and unlawful interference in family life, and is a serious violation of the rights of the child,” Ravina Shamdasani, a spokeswoman for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, based in Geneva, told reporters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html

14 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Two were ate the restaurant l was at to Eid last Friday, brandishing their tattoos. [They were right next to me.]

I doubt it, you would not be typing this if you looked at then the wrong way

On 6/18/2018 at 2:47 AM, hasanhh said:

3. No, this is good.

3. Since when?  It is unacceptable and a travesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This wouldn't happen if they stopped the immigration flow. It's a joke how the most powerful country in the world can't even control its own borders, when the smallest countries in the world can.

I think the best thing is to give amnesty and citzenship to those who already made it in the US and stop seperating families, but at the same time they need to do something to stop people pouring in.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

I think the best thing is to give amnesty and citzenship to those who already made it in the US and stop seperating families, but at the same time they need to do something to stop people pouring in.

Yes, and there has to be more regard for those who seek asylum. 

In addition, sadly I think we know how people feel about amnesty in the United States. They will see it as "freebies" to the "illegals." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sumerian said:

This wouldn't happen if they stopped the immigration flow. It's a joke how the most powerful country in the world can't even control its own borders, when the smallest countries in the world can.  AGREED

I think the best thing is to give amnesty and citzenship to those who already made it in the US and stop seperating families, but at the same time they need to do something to stop people pouring in.  No.

The reason l said "no" to your second paragraph is because Reagan giving amnesty back in the 80s is how-US-got-where-we-are.

You, in this, are another John Lindsay (NYC mayor) of 50 years ago. He started giving out social benefits and giveaways to build political support. So tens of thousands of people moved --actually inundated-- New York City. Two years later NYC was begging Congress for money because NYC was bankrupt.

Edited by Reza
Note for readers: What is in the quote box is not entirely written by the member quoted. The bolded words are written by hasanhh, not the quoted poster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lebanese36 said:

Yes, and there has to be more regard for those who seek asylum.  "My husband beats me" is not grounds for asylum.

In addition, sadly I think we know how people feel about amnesty in the United States. They will see it as "freebies" to the "illegals."  This is correct.

Asylum is basically refuge from political persecution for political activity in their home country.

Edited by Reza
Note for readers: What is in the quote box is not entirely written by the member quoted. The bolded words are written by hasanhh, not the quoted poster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2018 at 7:29 PM, notme said:

I'm flabbergasted. While discussing the separation of families for internment due to undocumented border crossing, an elderly relative of mine just announced that she's certain it's all Bill Clinton's fault. I don't know what to say, so I just said nothing at all. 

Clinton is no humanitarian.  He was responsible for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which established decades long mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession - most of the incarcerated masses were poor and African American.  Many lives and families were destroyed and have not recovered... could go on but I am off topic.  

Edited by forte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sumerian said:

What will cost the US more, a wall on the border, or more immigrants coming in?

Bro, can you and the others please stop calling these law breakers immy-grants. This only confuses things by mislabeling them.

They iz  lIIegaI Entries. Nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, forte said:

It seems there is going to be a general increase in the influx of migrants across the Mexican-US border; not sure what a wall is supposed to do..  It would be better to put money into services to support these people to create contributing citizens, because they have arrived and they are mostly not going anywhere - and if they are deported they just return.  Aside from basic humanitarian reasons, accepting the migrants is a lot cheaper than funding a useless, bizarre wall, funding militia that cannot possibly monitor the entire border, funding the social costs of people living in depravation and chronic poverty (crime, gangs, violent underground economy), unemployment, poor education, lack of stability, acquired mental health issues, etc.  From mainstream media reports and people voicing their opinion with everything from blogs to demonstrations, there seems to be an unspoken consensus among most Americans to accept unfettered documented migration.   In the long run, everyone - both the brand new migrants (them) and those-who-arrived-just-before-they-did-migrants (us) will benefit.

So they should just accept people coming in illegally and hand out citzenship like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An online poll showed 53% of people agreed with Laura Bush that separating the children was wrong. See the screen capture that I made:

zero tolerance.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Hameedeh said:

An online poll showed 53% of people agreed with Laura Bush that separating the children was wrong. See the screen capture that I made

They say that ,they must be together but they don't provide at least current situation for  children ,they just leave them without any support in new community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

So they should just accept people coming in illegally and hand out citzenship like that?

In the most narrow, literal, and dry legal sense, obviously you’re correct. 

However, in the cosmic sense, it’s not as easy to grasp. Were the original European settlers to the Americas (or Australia) “legal” immigrants? Or how about the fact that most of the Western USA was originally Mexico until war forced Mexico’s borders further south? One century it’s “your land”, and then another century it isn’t. History is full of people movement, border changes, demographic shifts.

If we want to say, “That’s history, we can do nothing about that, but can only control present reality”, that’s exactly the point. Why bother doing anything now, when the movement of people throughout Gods Earth, through conquest, migration, or fleeing, seems natural and inevitable, as history shows constantly? Why is now any different? Why should today’s borders be upheld any more than yesterday’s borders, when the borders of yesterday were to put it mildly, “flexible”?

Obviously small measures can be taken for specific economic or social purposes, but in the grand scheme of things, people will always move, and you can’t stop it. Might as well accept that reality, and be compassionate and open, as we’re dealing with real people in real time, not in theories. Overwhelmingly, people are not criminals. Their only crime is usually looking and sounding different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sumerian said:

What will cost the US more, a wall on the border, or more immigrants coming in?

Immigrants produce, not cost. Most of them anyway. Obviously children don't produce immediately. They have to grow up and learn some work skills first. 

A wall won't stop illegal border crossing. If we want people to stop leaving Mexico, Central America, South America, we should work with the governments and community organizations in those countries to improve living conditions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reza said:

In the most narrow, literal, and dry legal sense, obviously you’re correct. 

However, in the cosmic sense, it’s not as easy to grasp. Were the original European settlers to the Americas (or Australia) “legal” immigrants? Or how about the fact that most of the Western USA was originally Mexico until war forced Mexico’s borders further south? One century it’s “your land”, and then another century it isn’t. History is full of people movement, border changes, demographic shifts.

If we want to say, “That’s history, we can do nothing about that, but can only control present reality”, that’s exactly the point. Why bother doing anything now, when the movement of people throughout Gods Earth, through conquest, migration, or fleeing, seems natural and inevitable, as history shows constantly? Why is now any different? Why should today’s borders be upheld any more than yesterday’s borders, when the borders of yesterday were to put it mildly, “flexible”?

Obviously small measures can be taken for specific economic or social purposes, but in the grand scheme of things, people will always move, and you can’t stop it. Might as well accept that reality, and be compassionate and open, as we’re dealing with real people in real time, not in theories. Overwhelmingly, people are not criminals. Their only crime is usually looking and sounding different.

Well there's a lot of reasons why today is different from the old times. There are treaties and agreements that every country on Earth has signed which confirms the clear and complete sovereignty of any government on its own borders, and therefore old European style conquests and colonialism is a thing of the past.

Furthermore, no one is against immigration and freedom of travel. Both sides of the spectrum except the extremists support legal immigration, but not illegal immigration, which is the big problem. A border should be considered like the wall of someone's house, you only get in once the owner allows you in.

1 hour ago, notme said:

Immigrants produce, not cost. Most of them anyway. Obviously children don't produce immediately. They have to grow up and learn some work skills first. 

A wall won't stop illegal border crossing. If we want people to stop leaving Mexico, Central America, South America, we should work with the governments and community organizations in those countries to improve living conditions. 

It depends how much come in. If the entire population of Mexico moved inside the US and sought asylum, the US economy will tank if it tries to service them all and hand citzenship.

What the US should do is limit the amount of future immigration to what it needs. If US corporations want foreign workers and labourers, they could seek migrants in a legal manner with complete co-operation with American and Mexican authorities, just as the Gulf countries do. I should remind you that more than 80% of labour in the UAE is done by migrants, who came to country legally, so it is very possible to have legal migrants produce as much as illegal migrants, if not more. 

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I was wrong when I said there was no difference between Trump and Clinton, she would never have done this. According to a twitter post I read, many who voted for Trump over Clinton because he was a lesser evil are responsible for this, because it's hard to imagine Clinton being worse on any issue than Trump has been (except maybe Syria, but even that is doubtful if the US had no NATO support to conduct an extensive bombing campaign), and she was definitely better on other issues, like climate change, Iran deal, immigration reform, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismehe Ta3ala,

Assalam Alikum 

The CIA goes from country to country either to keep the regime they want or to destroy a government they don't want.  Gary Webb supposedly killed himself after revealing the following:

Webb is best known for his "Dark Alliance" series, which appeared in The Mercury News in 1996. The series examined the origins of the crack cocaine trade in Los Angeles and claimed that members of the anti-communist Contra rebels in Nicaragua had played a major role in creating the trade, using cocaine profits to support their struggle. It also suggested that the Contras may have acted with the knowledge and protection of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The series provoked outrage, particularly in the Los Angeles African-American community, and led to four major investigations of its charges.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

While America is geographically away from the countries they involve themselves in war, Alhamd'Allah there are Mexicans to remind Americans they are not untouchable.   US government thinks it can cause havoc all over the world but when it comes to their backward, do not enter or no trespassing.  Haha.  Tough.  

God bless our Mexican brothers and sisters, I understand your plight.  America does not respect laws or democracies when countries go against its interests.  

M3 SALAMAH, FE AMIN Allah 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I guess I was wrong when I said there was no difference between Trump and Clinton, she would never have done this. According to a twitter post I read, many who voted for Trump over Clinton because he was a lesser evil are responsible for this, because it's hard to imagine Clinton being worse on any issue than Trump has been (except maybe Syria, but even that is doubtful if the US had no NATO support to conduct an extensive bombing campaign), and she was definitely better on other issues, like climate change, Iran deal, immigration reform, etc. 

Trump is not the first to do this.  As for what you may feel that she might have done (if in office) , among many other things, H Clinton backed the mass incarceration of young black males - she referred to them as "super predators".  And they were "in house" Americans.  Once you get out of house, she has shown that she has done even worse.  I think her current rhetoric in regards to "illegals" would have clashed with her actions.

 

2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

A border should be considered like the wall of someone's house, you only get in once the owner allows you in.

You are assuming that we own the house.  In actual fact, we just have use it. 

In Islam, there is no room for one to be a loyal and genuine nationalist. It is a question of identity, and one negates the other.

Nationalism is incompatible with Islam, both schools having two opposite ideologies. These two assume two totally opposite poles in their spirit, essence, direction and goal.      

https://www.al-islam.org/islam-and-nationalism-dr-ali-mohammed-naqvi/part-seven-islam-and-nationalism

6 hours ago, Sumerian said:

So they should just accept people coming in illegally and hand out citzenship like that?

People are going to come and when they come "illegally" it causes a lot of long term problems for many people (as I mentioned before).  If there was a more humane way of allowing people to access a better life, and they came through "legally", they could be documented and supported in a way that would benefit everyone.  People should not be denied basic rights because of a national border.  

Also, to be blunt, The United States is powerful and wealthy based on a lot of the actions of the American governments over many years of maintaining slaves,  invading formerly stable nations, threatening and bullying, economically manipulating, causing massive and severe hardship for many people around the globe.  I would think that the all people who have been hurt by these actions, absolutely have a right to claim asylum; they have more than paid for it.  And that is a lot of people.

Domestically, the only thing an impenetrable border will do, is to further develop and maintain the gap between the wealthy (referred to as the one percenters) and the lower middle class and poor.

If you want to really reduce immigration, you need to improve the living conditions in the areas that these people are risking their life to leave.  

Edited by forte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, forte said:

You are assuming that we own the house.  In actual fact, we just have use it. 

In Islam, there is no room for one to be a loyal and genuine nationalist. It is a question of identity, and one negates the other.

Nationalism is incompatible with Islam, both schools having two opposite ideologies. These two assume two totally opposite poles in their spirit, essence, direction and goal.      

https://www.al-islam.org/islam-and-nationalism-dr-ali-mohammed-naqvi/part-seven-islam-and-nationalism

This isn't nationalism, this is an issue of national and economic security. We don't own the Earth, as the mountains, rivers and forrests are owned by the Imam (as). But what is equally true, is government is authoratative and the purpose for it is to help its own people. As per Islamic Law, the migrants who come in to a country without the permission of the authorities have committed a sin, because obeying the laws of the land is obligatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...