Thank You, Donald

[Ponder This]

Correct. What other concerns, in your view, ought to be more important than protecting the Constitutional rights of thousands of children forcibly taken into US government custody? I’m listening. This seems to be an area where we simply disagree.

Generally speaking, massive groups of people men, women, or children cannot be allowed to walk into another country illegally (when they do it suggests that they are at war).

I’m sorry, are you asking what more could Trump have done to separate children? Not much, as far as I can tell.

Or are you asking what more could he have done to prevent and rectify this? He could have done many things differently. I listed some of them out in a previous post.

I thought you had claimed that Trump should've done more to reunite children, then what he did do. My bad.

No, that’s just a straw man. I judge Trump based on what is known. We know what Trump and his administration says publicly. And we know what the results are. Both have been inadequate.

Then you know that Trump has repeatedly talked about the problems of illegal immigration... Catch and Release, underfunding was a big issue back then as well. Congress Democrats adamantly refused to give the funds necessary to make the border secure and safe. Trump had to declare it an emergency (which it was at that point) to get anything done!

Have you considered that it hasn’t? I’ve already gone over the facts of what Trump has done, and not done. If you want to argue Trump exhausted his power in preventing separation and expediting reunification, please go ahead. Be sure to provide evidence to back up this claim, as I did for mine.

You seem to claim he should do more. But the evidence you provide shows that agencies have done what they can to reunite the children with the parents. Not being successful at reuniting all the children with their parents does not mean they aren't doing everything they can and should do.

Okay, maybe not more important than “anything else” ... like, preventing an accidental nuclear launch. But it should be a top priority. Surely the President of the United States can do more than one thing at a time.

You don’t think keeping children with their parents, and reunifying those who are separated, should be a top priority?

Since you've acknowledged that it's not the number one priority, I accept that it was merely hyperbole. I concede that it seems like it's a high priority for some, but it is still not the most important priority concern or even the most important priority concern related to the border. And it seems to me that people are doing what they can.

Huh? This makes no sense. Trump implemented his Zero Tolerance policy and virtually everyone in the country - including his own party, the courts, and I believe even Ivanka and Jared Kushner - asked / begged / demanded that he stop it. Which he did. You seem to be deflecting.

Deflecting from what? It wasn't the top priority. Still isn't. And shouldn't be.
In fact, something that would be higher priority would be... getting rid of the law that causes this problem in the first place. Why didn't they do that?

So, you want children to be in jail longer? Okay, that creates its own set of problems, but let’s set that aside for the moment. What is more important for the sake of our discussion is that I did list this among Trump’s options, actually. See post #33. But crucially, I said if Trump wanted to go that route he should have changed the law FIRST. Instead, he chose to brutalize thousands of children FIRST.

Do you understand this point?

You claim:
1. That Trump should've foreseen the problem.
2. That it was or is a higher priority.

I pointed out that if no one foresaw the problem when the law was made, there's no reason to expect that Trump would've foreseen the problem when he made his policy. Claiming the one and not the other is a double standard.

And border security is a higher priority.

I don’t understand your question. I think what I wrote above should clarify.

You didn't notice the part of the law I objected to after I said what it was. You emphasized the length of time as the important aspect. Time wasn't the aspect of primary importance.

No, that is just another straw man on your part. I am saying that firing Trump was necessary, in my view, as a form of holding him accountable for the humanitarian crisis he caused, and failed to rectify. But I am also acknowledging that by itself is not sufficient; therefore, I am happy to listen to your ideas about how the law should be changed. I hope that clarifies.

My mistake. You have made so many remarks about getting rid of Trump that it sounded to me like this is the thing you find more important. I'm glad to know that's it is not.

Actually, you got this wrong. The law does not require the children be separated. Please read this carefully, because you have made a critical error.

The law holds that children at the border cannot be held in jail with adults for an inordinate period of time. One way to satisfy that condition is to release the children, and their parents, from jail. That is reasonable when the parents are simply awaiting an amnesty hearing, or have been charged with a mere misdemeanor. This route is lawful, does not entail separation and is the way it worked before, and after, the reign of terror that was Trump’s Zero Tolerance policy.

A second way to satisfy this condition - in theory - is to hold the parents in jail, and separate the children in a different facility. I say “in theory” because in practice, the courts found that the haphazard and chaotic way this was implemented was unlawful. I.e., the Trump administration decided to separate children before it had adequate controls and systems in place to care for them and reunite them with their parents. This was a violation of due process for these children. That is why the courts ordered an injunction stopping Trump’s Zero Tolerance policy.

So not only are you wrong that the law requires separation, you are also wrong that the law even allows mass child separation in the reckless and incompetent way Trump implemented it.

You simply could not be more wrong on this.

Quoting you:

The law holds that children at the border cannot be held in jail with adults for an inordinate period of time.​

I object to the part where children can't be with their parents because of this law.
"cannot" does not mean "can"
Certainly adults are going to be held in jail at some point and therefore this law will have to come into effect and separate them. A law need not say the word "separation" to be a law that requires separation anymore than a law need say that it "segregates" in order to be a law that segregates.

If there is a good reason to allow such a law to remain, then I'd like to hear it, because when Trump told Congress that they ought to change this law (which they ought to change), Congress basically refused by choosing not to address the issue AND blamed Trump for the problem.

We can't say Trump didn't try to get them to do the right thing. Meanwhile, Trump did his best to comply and still try to do something about the more important issue of border security, but despite it all... the law remains and children have to be separated from their parents. Why? Because it's an inevitability that adults are going to be held in jail.

You say:

One way to satisfy that condition is to release the children, and their parents, from jail. That is reasonable when the parents are simply awaiting an amnesty hearing, or have been charged with a mere misdemeanor. This route is lawful, does not entail separation and is the way it worked before, and after, the reign of terror that was Trump’s Zero Tolerance policy.​

You regard only the part where Trump's policy was involved as the "reign of terror".
The "reign of terror" is over now that it is after Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy? I don't think so. And it's also why it really seems like it's only because you don't like Trump that you hold this view. This law still results in separations of children from parents as it is the inevitable outcome.

Conclusion:
You've expressed that you might be onboard with getting rid of this law. Maybe we can agree on that. I don't think we will agree on Trump's role in this. However, I can see that maybe you regard reuniting children with their parents as a higher priority than border security and that perhaps you oppose Trump for that reason. So I think we've had a productive conversation that helps me to understand more of why you might...

Just imagine the harm Donnie could have done in a second term, unconcerned about reelection.

which is what I wanted to know. I wanted to know what harm people were imagining he would do in a second term. I wanted to know what sort of mental fantasy people were living in that a statement like this would be immediately coherent.

 

[joe1776]

...which is what I wanted to know. I wanted to know what harm people were imagining he would do in a second term. I wanted to know what sort of mental fantasy people were living in that a statement like this would be immediately coherent.

The sentence from my OP was: "Just imagine the harm Donnie could have done in a second term, unconcerned about reelection."

I was asking readers to think about the harm Trump has done in total during his first term and to imagine how much more harm he might do if reelection wasn't a hindrance. I wasn't stupidly asking readers to use their crystal balls and give me specific predictions of his nefarious deeds.

If you were to write a sentence which might be interpreted two ways, and one was stupid and one intelligent, I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant the intelligent one. Please do the same for me. Other readers have done so.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Generally speaking, massive groups of people men, women, or children cannot be allowed to walk into another country illegally (when they do it suggests that they are at war).



I thought you had claimed that Trump should've done more to reunite children, then what he did do. My bad.



Then you know that Trump has repeatedly talked about the problems of illegal immigration... Catch and Release, underfunding was a big issue back then as well. Congress Democrats adamantly refused to give the funds necessary to make the border secure and safe. Trump had to declare it an emergency (which it was at that point) to get anything done!



You seem to claim he should do more. But the evidence you provide shows that agencies have done what they can to reunite the children with the parents. Not being successful at reuniting all the children with their parents does not mean they aren't doing everything they can and should do.



Since you've acknowledged that it's not the number one priority, I accept that it was merely hyperbole. I concede that it seems like it's a high priority for some, but it is still not the most important priority concern or even the most important priority concern related to the border. And it seems to me that people are doing what they can.



Deflecting from what? It wasn't the top priority. Still isn't. And shouldn't be.
In fact, something that would be higher priority would be... getting rid of the law that causes this problem in the first place. Why didn't they do that?



You claim:
1. That Trump should've foreseen the problem.
2. That it was or is a higher priority.

I pointed out that if no one foresaw the problem when the law was made, there's no reason to expect that Trump would've foreseen the problem when he made his policy. Claiming the one and not the other is a double standard.

And border security is a higher priority.



You didn't notice the part of the law I objected to after I said what it was. You emphasized the length of time as the important aspect. Time wasn't the aspect of primary importance.



My mistake. You have made so many remarks about getting rid of Trump that it sounded to me like this is the thing you find more important. I'm glad to know that's it is not.



Quoting you:

The law holds that children at the border cannot be held in jail with adults for an inordinate period of time.​

I object to the part where children can't be with their parents because of this law.
"cannot" does not mean "can"
Certainly adults are going to be held in jail at some point and therefore this law will have to come into effect and separate them. A law need not say the word "separation" to be a law that requires separation anymore than a law need say that it "segregates" in order to be a law that segregates.

If there is a good reason to allow such a law to remain, then I'd like to hear it, because when Trump told Congress that they ought to change this law (which they ought to change), Congress basically refused by choosing not to address the issue AND blamed Trump for the problem.

We can't say Trump didn't try to get them to do the right thing. Meanwhile, Trump did his best to comply and still try to do something about the more important issue of border security, but despite it all... the law remains and children have to be separated from their parents. Why? Because it's an inevitability that adults are going to be held in jail.

You say:

One way to satisfy that condition is to release the children, and their parents, from jail. That is reasonable when the parents are simply awaiting an amnesty hearing, or have been charged with a mere misdemeanor. This route is lawful, does not entail separation and is the way it worked before, and after, the reign of terror that was Trump’s Zero Tolerance policy.​

You regard only the part where Trump's policy was involved as the "reign of terror".
The "reign of terror" is over now that it is after Trump's Zero Tolerance Policy? I don't think so. And it's also why it really seems like it's only because you don't like Trump that you hold this view. This law still results in separations of children from parents as it is the inevitable outcome.

Conclusion:
You've expressed that you might be onboard with getting rid of this law. Maybe we can agree on that. I don't think we will agree on Trump's role in this. However, I can see that maybe you regard reuniting children with their parents as a higher priority than border security and that perhaps you oppose Trump for that reason. So I think we've had a productive conversation that helps me to understand more of why you might...

which is what I wanted to know. I wanted to know what harm people were imagining he would do in a second term. I wanted to know what sort of mental fantasy people were living in that a statement like this would be immediately coherent.

Thanks, Ponder This. We are waaaay far apart on this issue, clearly. And it boils down to two key differences.

(1) From my perspective, you have adopted a highly inaccurate, skewed view of the basic fact pattern of what happened that excuses the unplanned, careless, unlawful mass separation of innocent children by Trump. I can explain the law and what Trump did to you. But I cannot understand it for you. So we are at an impasse there.

(2) We are also at an impasse on the basic ethical assumption that children are innocent, and their wellbeing and Constitutional rights are paramount. You do not apparently think that should be the (or even "a"?) top priority at the border. I am a little aghast at that, frankly. I guess I appreciate your honesty in admitting it. To me, that is the viewpoint of someone who is profoundly confused, from an ethical perspective. You suggest that "border security" comes first, children come second. That is a bizarre ethical position, in my view because creating "insecurity" for children at the "border" seems antithetical to the concept of "border security", to me. I can only make sense of your view if I assume that you consider children at the border to be "unpersons". I.e., their security does not factor greatly into the arithmetic of "border security".

Let me just say that I consider myself to be a patriot. I agree, broadly speaking, with the concept that America should look out for its interests. Perhaps that is something we agree on.

But in my view, to say the security of children at the border should not be the top priority of "border security", after which all other (also important) priorities follow, is to disregard innocent children, who have rights under our own Constitution, because they are foreign. That is not patriotism. It is cruelty. Donald Trump has spread this confusion among his followers, unfortunately. I hope once he is gone America will relearn the difference and become Great Again.

I don't see any hope of us bridging our differences on these two points. But at least we have identified what those points were. So, I'll rest my case and give you the last word. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Ponder This]

Thanks, Ponder This. We are waaaay far apart on this issue, clearly. And it boils down to two key differences.

(1) From my perspective, you have adopted a highly inaccurate, skewed view of the basic fact pattern of what happened that excuses the unplanned, careless, unlawful mass separation of innocent children by Trump. I can explain the law and what Trump did to you. But I cannot understand it for you. So we are at an impasse there.

(2) We are also at an impasse on the basic ethical assumption that children are innocent, and their wellbeing and Constitutional rights are paramount. You do not apparently think that should be the (or even "a"?) top priority at the border. I am a little aghast at that, frankly. I guess I appreciate your honesty in admitting it. To me, that is the viewpoint of someone who is profoundly confused, from an ethical perspective. You suggest that "border security" comes first, children come second. That is a bizarre ethical position, in my view because creating "insecurity" for children at the "border" seems antithetical to the concept of "border security", to me. I can only make sense of your view if I assume that you consider children at the border to be "unpersons". I.e., their security does not factor greatly into the arithmetic of "border security".

Let me just say that I consider myself to be a patriot. I agree, broadly speaking, with the concept that America should look out for its interests. Perhaps that is something we agree on.

But in my view, to say the security of children at the border should not be the top priority of "border security", after which all other (also important) priorities follow, is to disregard innocent children, who have rights under our own Constitution, because they are foreign. That is not patriotism. It is cruelty. Donald Trump has spread this confusion among his followers, unfortunately. I hope once he is gone America will relearn the difference and become Great Again.

I don't see any hope of us bridging our differences on these two points. But at least we have identified what those points were. So, I'll rest my case and give you the last word. Thank you for the discussion.

I feel comfortable in my view here in part because:

1. There was a huge caravan of people deliberately funded for the purpose of creating a humanitarian crisis at the border with the US, which proves that the issue does factor greatly into the question of border security.
2. And doubly so because you made a comparison of the children issue to pro-life abortion issues. Children aren't being killed at the border, so it is not equivalent. Perhaps that was another exaggeration on your part. That's okay, but I suspect that you don't really see these issues clearly.
3. And triply because this law separating children remains... Congress has not acted to reverse it, and the Supreme Court has not overthrown it as unconstitutional (which I can agree they ought to).

I respect that you want me to consider you to be a patriot even though you don't regard border security as being as or more important an issue. And if it were a small issue, then we likely wouldn't have noticed. But the fundamental reason that we did notice is because so many thousands of people constantly entered the US illegally. It was only a problem we noticed because the border was so insecure.

You say I only feel this way about foreigners (to the US). I acknowledge that the problem is exacerbated when it comes to foreigners because they do not reside in the US. However, the law also applies to US citizens. It's not a foreigners only issue. US citizens also get separated from their children when they go to jail. And so when you to claim it's just about foreigners, it just seems to me that you don't understand how deep the problem is with this law.

Consider how different countries approach the same issue...
In Argentina, you can reside with your parents in jail up to 4 years of age. Still not acceptable to me, but it's something. I can respect that the age at which children should be allowed to reside with their parents in jail may differ from country to country, but I think it should be much higher. Maybe that's a topic for debate elsewhere, but I'd consider a limit of age 13 or age 16 maybe. Maybe some countries think age 5 or age 9 is right, but age 4? Age 1 (in some countries)? I wonder.

I'll conclude by saying, that I think we did find some common ground in that we are both opposed to the separation of children from their parents, but that we disagree on the relative importance of border security and the amount of blame to assign to Trump. I thank you again for presenting a point of view to help understand what people see as the great harm Trump has done and I hope that people will keep hold of their convictions as adamantly when it comes to evaluating their representatives in Congress, who have no excuse at all.