Oh, come on, Brian. That ban is because most of those people are Muslim. He said as much during his campaign. He only tempered it so he could get it through the Right leaning Supreme Court.
The Clinton Foundation has won accolades while the Trump Foundation is for Trump's personal use. It took 6 months of pestering by the press before he gave his $1 Million to the Vets he promised it to six months earlier.
Yeah, but remember, he did give 1 million. and he's been an administration free of scandals. And he never deleted 33 million emails...so Bill Clinton! I just don't get why people keep living in the past with Donald Trump. Never before has a president had so much stuff brought up from his past... *the preceding was brought to you by sarcasm*
It's a recent past. Of course, the long term past gives us a picture of the man's inclinations. Quite a bit a momentum in his past.
I didn't (don't?) pay attention to many campaign speeches, but the "new" ban (they added Chad and Venezuela and removed Iraq, which, last time I checked, had about 40M Islamic adherents in it. Look, if you tell me that deep down inside Trump wants every Muslim to burn in hell for eternity, I can't tell you you're wrong. What his actions have done, though, is remove much of the logical underpinnings behind the "He's a racist! He's a xenophobe! He's a misogynist!" movement.
He's doing that to make his swipe at Muslims slightly more palatable. He point blank stated he wanted to keep Muslims out. Now, he's constantly refining it so he looks better to those on the fence. You simply can't ignore what he's stated in the past. Have you ever heard anything from him where he says he was wrong about preventing Muslims from entering the U.S. in the first place? Edit: Of course he's a misogynist. OMG, the things he said about women. Are we to ignore what he says even though he'll never apologize for anything? No, he's set in his evil ways.
Millions of people are trafficked every year, and somewhere between 10k and 50k into the US. It's a much bigger deal than "kids being ripped from their moms at the border" is, at least to me. But I'm biased, b/c I work with organizations trying to stop human trafficking. CPS takes about 150k children per year from their parents and puts them in foster care. About 2/3 of them find "forever families" or go back home, but that's approximately 500k in foster care at any one time. I'm all for giving children amnesty, but they go against many of the arguments that (in general, not assuming anyone on here's opinion) liberal/progressive people espouse. To name a few: 1) I've already stated multiple times that I think we need better/faster processing of immigrants, whether the decision is eventually yes or no. But that's a "government worker" problem, and the "government union" aspect is protecting a lot of those underperforming workers. 2) I've already stated that we need to look at the number of visas, immigrants, work/student visas, etc. that we allow. I used to think it was way too low. It still may be. But only 4k of the 20k "asylum" slots allocated so far this FY have been used. Put another way, our legislation shows that we could take in the next 16k legitimate asylum seekers easily and legally. So what's stopping them? Is it #1, or is it that there aren't that many "real" asylum candidates, or...? 3) I think we should take care of trafficked children. But some things go with that. A) They all came from somewhere...maybe they were an orphan, maybe not. Maybe their parents are looking for them, maybe not. I personally (anecdotally) know of one girl in China who was bought out of sex slavery from a brothel in the big city and sent home. Her father sold her back into slavery within a month. B) Our own foster care system is pretty jacked up and unregulated. I'm sure there are a ton of awesome foster families out there (our church has at least 4), but if we're not taking good care of children already due to overburden on the system, will taking in special needs children (language, probably some mental issues with sex slavery, etc) help or hurt the children, or those already in the system? 4) If we do decide to bring them in, why in the world are they not bioregistered and tracked? Every Afghan that came to the gates of our base in Helmand got fingerprinted, eyescanned, and other biometric data taken and logged. You're telling me we cannot do that with children at a US Border Station?! 5) Are we sure (real question---I don't know the answer) that having, say, a Honduran 4 year-old in the US in a foster home is better than in a Honduran orphanage? These are questions I've struggled with for almost 20 years, since I went on a summer mission to a Guatemalan orphanage run by a Christian organization with government approval. I've visited orphanages in West Africa and worked closely with one when I was in Helmand. I've also been inside prisons in the same places. I don't know all the answers, but I'm pretty sure that people aren't understanding all the issues involved (through no fault of their own--none of us are living this). Anyone who thinks that we as American citizens are the bad guys are just not seeing the big picture correctly.
I ignore what most people say and focus on what they do, especially in today's society where you don't get blackballed for lying and very few people live up to their oaths. But he must really be fooling us all if he places women within his administration, allows people like Sarah Sanders and Hope Hicks (before she messed up) to speak for the administration, to have KellyAnne Conway as his de facto Chief of Staff...he's been good friends with Oprah, Anna Wintour and Barbara Walters for almost 30 years... Are his choices great ones? That's for you to decide. But his words would make you think that the only people he likes are landowning old white males, and he actions dispute that.
Child Protective Services takes children way because they are mistreated by their families. This largely does not apply to the case of immigrant children. I'm not sure what the number is but I've heard repeatedly that a lot of these children and their families are threatened with losing their lives. They really have no other choice. If we want to reduce the flow of immigrants perhaps we could do something about getting the governments of the countries of origin involved in eliminating gangs and extreme poverty. Something has to be done and who else has the clout to make it happen. By the way, the Pope opposed separating children from their parents at the border and so does a Federal court.
It's been partially discussed above, but you can at least get a good deal of certainty about whether or not someone is a blood relative. Per my anecdote above, that doesn't always guarantee that everything's on the up-and-up, but it's a good first step. Another thing, because sometimes kids look similar, it would be difficult to explain that you have multiple children with you that don't have at least cousin-level matching. Because children being trafficked are sometimes brainwashed or just aren't old enough to know better (see: child abuse testimony among US children), it would immediately show if someone is not someone's birth mother or father if that's what's being reported. It's not a 100% solution, but it does do a good job of that first-level protection against traffickers. There are some other fun things that can be extrapolated, but that's for another conversation.
That's one step, but not always the case. 1/3 of CPS cases in which children are taken in "imminent danger" are shown not be ex post facto. The other ways that children can be taken are vague: "Maltreatment", which has variously been used to have children taken away from parents who administered spankings ("excessive corporal punishment"), lived off-grid for the summer camping, and let their kids walk to a park by themselves. Part of the reason the water problems in Flint and Detroit weren't taken care of more quickly was that people were afraid that if they reported that they had no running water CPS would take their children. And, similarly to if cops broke into your home at gunpoint without a warrant, there is little recourse at the time. One of the main CPS tactics is to tell people that they will make it harder for them to get their kids back unless they settle or plead nolo contendre. Or put them through proceedings which require a lawyer, that many people probably have a hard time affording. And the whole time, you don't have your child.
What's the purpose? What kind of trafficking are we talking about here? I'm having a hard time believing your 10-50k number, but maybe I'm not understanding the definition. barfo
Lanny parrots the speak of many of liberals. I know it is asking much, it takes a lot of reading to come to grips with the fact, religions are not all equal, not all created with the good intent. If you read the Koran, the bible, the works about the bible, like Who wrote the Bible and more, the books of Hindu, the writing of the Buddhist Monks, you can begin to understand Why Men Need religion. Perhaps you can get a clue as to why one stands alone as different. Another clue can be learned paying attention to Piracy in the World and which religion does not find it wrong. After all, hostages are only Kaffirs. But Lanny will not read what is there to read.
So there are a few. The most prevalent is probably as drug mules. The next is as forced labor. (Also: U.S. Dep’t of State, Trafficking in Persons Report, 2004 at 23 (2004) [hereinafter 2004 TIP Report].) The next is as sexual slaves. (Shandra Woworuntu, “My life as a sex-trafficking victim,” BBC News, March, 2016, ; Trafficking in Persons Report, 2007, U.S. Department of State.) The beneficiaries are both perverted criminals on our side of the border, and the cartels on the other. There are a lot of data out there, and I try to take them from State Dept reports, UN Refugee items, etc. Believe it or not, the military is big on stopping human (sex) trafficking, to the point that many "exotic dance" facilities are off limits because of the prevalence of human trafficking in them.
Aside from the ones in the reply to barfo's post (above), here's a State Dept one where it spelled out ~15k/yr into the US. Many other reports (like UNESCO briefs) show that that number has risen, both in the US and worldwide, in the last decade. It's hard to pin down exact numbers, as UNESCO states: And it can't be discounted that the only ones that most Americans hear about are what the media feeds you...they even have a wiki page describing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
Lanny is a liberal...he parrots no one but rather speaks for himself...you seem to have this issue with people who don't parrot your line
