I don't really Care, do you?

I don't think she wore that to make her own statement. I think she wore it to make Trump's statement.

If you honestly have no compassion for those kids (never mind what the parents may or may not have done; the kids are not to blame for any of this), I'm glad you're not a parent.

I obviously meant i don't care about the jacket, not what you suggested it means ;)

It's a powerful symbol of the administration's indifference to human suffering.

Maybe. Though maybe Melania just wore it cause she is fashionable. At any rate, this is hardly the smoking gun, particularly when the issue is Trump...!
 
A pre-nup is likely, what that all entails is anyone's guess.

Whatever it is she'll get, she will most certainly get more if he passes away before then and she inherits everything. The son wasn't born until after they married, so how could that be on the pre-nup? She won't go back to Europe unless she does so voluntarily, she can't be deported because of the divorce.
They've been married for 12 years, it's not one of those "marriage only lasted three weeks so it is a sham marriage" type deals* that may get someone deported who has a green card (and not citizenship) (and even in those situations if the woman claims abuse or something she won't get deported if the claim is believable/provable-don't want to give the men too much control over someone in that situation).

*(but may be a sham in that she is after his money, and he wants to feed his ego by having a supermodel wife)
The pre-nup would have had a clause pertaining to "any future children who may be born within the marriage (ie. she's the mother and Trump is the father)". Trump would have insisted on sole custody of said hypothetical children.

Though maybe Melania just wore it cause she is fashionable. At any rate, this is hardly the smoking gun, particularly when the issue is Trump...!
I don't consider her particularly fashionable. One of her belts was a gigantic twist tie, and it looked ridiculous.

But while this may be fashion among the under-25 set, it's inappropriate for her both age-wise, and due to her extremely public position. If Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau wore such a thing pertaining to some issue that her husband didn't care about, she would be thoroughly raked over the coals in the press, and rightfully so.

She may very well not care about these kids. But while she's the First Lady, she has the duty to at least fake caring. And this falls far short of even faking it.
 
What was the original basis for separating kids from parents, per the law?

There's no systematic separation of 100% of all immigrants from their children, so there must be some sort of reason for doing it sometimes, even if it's a bad reason.
 
What was the original basis for separating kids from parents, per the law?

There's no systematic separation of 100% of all immigrants from their children, so there must be some sort of reason for doing it sometimes, even if it's a bad reason.

I'll explain briefly. Back in 2013 or so there was a lot of violence going on in El Salvador and Honduras, it was at least partially the US's fault for a variety of reasons I won't get into here but it involved the drug war and the usual meddling in the politics of central American countries.

Anyway, as a result of this there was a decided uptick in the number of actual unaccompanied minors reaching the border. Most of these children almost certainly qualify for some kind of asylum. But Obama's administration, in typical gringo fashion, decided to call this a national security crisis rather than a humanitarian crisis. In a 2014 interview Hillary Clinton said:

“We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay. So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”

This is almost identical to the rhetoric I'm seeing from Nazis about Trump's policies today, but we'll leave that aside for now. The situation with all these children and the Obama Administration response meant that lots of children were being incarcerated in detention centers (which are much more like concentration camps than like regular jail). I forget the exact circumstances but there was a court decision that basically said you cannot incarcerate the children in these facilities, that you had to find other accommodations for them, like a foster home or another family member or something like that.

So what's happening now is that in April Jeff Sessions issued an order that the US immigration enforcement apparatus is to incarcerate and prosecute everyone who is caught crossing the border illegally - this has never been the case in US history before, not even in the 1950s when "Operation Wetback" was an actual government program to round up the braceros and deport them back to Mexico. And families are being separated as a result of this directive. There is no specific directive or order to separate families under some clearly-defined circumstances - rather, it's a combination of other policies, most importantly zero-tolerance for border entry, that produces this result.
 
You will have to explain that one. Are you saying we should throw out any sort of immigration requirements and open borders to all? I can't figure out what else your post could mean, but that's insanity

edit: nevermind, I thought you were talking about ALL immigration requirements and ALL border controls, not just the backwards way the U.S. usually does things
 
Last edited:
I see fashion is actually more serious thing than breaking the law. Note taken.

Basic border controls and immigration requirements are "unjust" now?
The law says that asylum seekers can approach a border entry point, enter the country and make their case before a judge. It is entirely legal. Currently, they are not being permitted to enter under the asylum rules. Therefore to get in they have to enter illegally somewhere else. They are being arrested for illegal entry and prosecuted (zero tolerance). At that point the families are broken up. Sessions is denying them legal entry under the asylum rules forcing them to break they law.
 
The law says that asylum seekers can approach a border entry point, enter the country and make their case before a judge. It is entirely legal. Currently, they are not being permitted to enter under the asylum rules. Therefore to get in they have to enter illegally somewhere else. They are being arrested for illegal entry and prosecuted (zero tolerance). At that point the families are broken up. Sessions is denying them legal entry under the asylum rules forcing them to break they law.

This is another point; by not considering any asylum applications the Trump administration is actually in violation of international law, not the asylum-seekers.

I mean, kinda.

It's kinda funny how companies using accounting fraud to report all their profits in the Virgin Islands is just business and to be expected but workers trying to get to the highest-wage countries are an existential threat to civilization, isn't it?
 
Yes, Trump created a border crisis, blames the democrats for it and then claims to solve it even if he doesn't.
 
Yes, Trump created a border crisis, blames the democrats for it and then claims to solve it even if he doesn't.

Trump had plenty of help creating this border crisis. Human rights abuse has been commonplace at the border and in the course of immigration enforcement for decades.
 
The law says that asylum seekers can approach a border entry point, enter the country and make their case before a judge. It is entirely legal. Currently, they are not being permitted to enter under the asylum rules. Therefore to get in they have to enter illegally somewhere else. They are being arrested for illegal entry and prosecuted (zero tolerance). At that point the families are broken up. Sessions is denying them legal entry under the asylum rules forcing them to break they law.

I'd have to imagine most of the migrants arriving are not actually seeking political asylum, but rather a higher standard of living (reasonably so in the cases with abject poverty). If the actions are disagreeable it would appear it's the law itself that's to blame...but I'm not convinced that bypassing legal framework and entering a nation illegally being treated as a crime is inappropriate.

Based on the description above illegal immigration is treated as a crime per the law. That actually separates families for US citizens too.

It sounds like there needs to be a systematic way to evaluate asylum vs migrant without cluttering up the processing.
 
I'd have to imagine most of the migrants arriving are not actually seeking political asylum, but rather a higher standard of living (reasonably so in the cases with abject poverty). If the actions are disagreeable it would appear it's the law itself that's to blame...but I'm not convinced that bypassing legal framework and entering a nation illegally being treated as a crime is inappropriate.

Based on the description above illegal immigration is treated as a crime per the law. That actually separates families for US citizens too.

It sounds like there needs to be a systematic way to evaluate asylum vs migrant without cluttering up the processing.
By denying the asylum process, those coming to the border are forced to either sit in Mexico without resources or find another way in. They are being denied legal entry so they can be prosecuted for illegal entry. The Asylum process is how it is determined whether they are here because they are refugees from terrible places or just seeking a better life.
 
By denying the asylum process, those coming to the border are forced to either sit in Mexico without resources or find another way in. They are being denied legal entry so they can be prosecuted for illegal entry. The Asylum process is how it is determined whether they are here because they are refugees from terrible places or just seeking a better life.

What is the actual "process", when it's working though? Can't be using claims of the person in question, so presumably there'd be some documentation to review.

Could set up holding areas just barely across the borders, but still partitioned from rest of USA so it's hard to cross illegally there. This way you don't have to put them in jail (unless they bypass and enter illegally anyway) but they're free to go/not detained if the process is taking too long.

I'd anticipate legitimate asylum seeking to be a relative minority, given the criteria of persecution based on explicitly protected categories. And you must have a means of discerning this, otherwise claiming asylum will be common even in scenarios where persecution based on race/religion isn't plausible (IE it would allow 90% of a country to make an asylum claim).
 
We abandoned "Basic border controls and immigration requirements" a year and a half ago. Try to keep up.

Really, we abandoned them a lot longer ago than that. The system we had in place for white people in the second half of the 19th century is what I would describe as "basic border controls and immigration requirements." Ie: show up, get your name recorded, they make sure you don't obviously have some kind of communicable disease, then "welcome to the United States"
 
She hasn't faced the possibility of deportation in 12 years since she became a US citizen (almost immediately after marrying Trump).

Edit: Ok, I guess technically it's possible, but extremely rare. Their not going to denaturalize a first lady, barring some hollywood type movie playing out in real life (she's been a deep undercover spy all this time).

https://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html


But that's really the point, isn't it? The rules that apply to other people don't apply to her.
 
What is the actual "process", when it's working though? Can't be using claims of the person in question, so presumably there'd be some documentation to review.
Asylum seekers must present themselves at a port of entry and turn themselves into US customs and border protection. That starts a detailed review process. In the past most are not granted asylum. Currently, US Customs and Border protection won't allow them surrender under asylum process. They are being denied the right to seek asylum. Then they are arrested as entering illegally and put into custody. It's a totally manufactured crisis.

QUOTE="TheMeInTeam, post: 15158431, member: 136315"]Could set up holding areas just barely across the borders, but still partitioned from rest of USA so it's hard to cross illegally there. This way you don't have to put them in jail (unless they bypass and enter illegally anyway) but they're free to go/not detained if the process is taking too long.

I'd anticipate legitimate asylum seeking to be a relative minority, given the criteria of persecution based on explicitly protected categories. And you must have a means of discerning this, otherwise claiming asylum will be common even in scenarios where persecution based on race/religion isn't plausible (IE it would allow 90% of a country to make an asylum claim).[/QUOTE]Claiming asylum doesn't get it. Could it be done better? Sure. But solutions are not the issue today.
 
We abandoned "Basic border controls and immigration requirements" a year and a half ago. Try to keep up.
We abandoned "Basic border controls and immigration requirements" with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This country's immigration laws have always been racist and unjust.
 
We abandoned "Basic border controls and immigration requirements" with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This country's immigration laws have always been racist and unjust.


Sure. But for some years it was somewhat better. Now it has definitely shifted far to the bad again.
 
She hasn't faced the possibility of deportation in 12 years since she became a US citizen (almost immediately after marrying Trump).

Edit: Ok, I guess technically it's possible, but extremely rare. Their not going to denaturalize a first lady, barring some hollywood type movie playing out in real life (she's been a deep undercover spy all this time).

https://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html

The Trump administration is starting some sort of task force to review the paperwork of naturalized citizens with the intent of deporting those who made errors.
 
Top Bottom