Racist hag wanted to deport "dreamers"

[Nightshade]

How dare she even make the assertion?

[callmeslick]

so, she wished to PREVENT the exodus of kids to the US which related to gang activities in their home countries? So what? Why do you post your fascist lies here every day?

[Tunnelcat]

No, Ferno and slick, it's a valid point and Hillary deserves the hit. Hillary actually said in the video that as policy, she'd make the attempt to send any kids back to their parents if possible and that the parents of those kids from any foreign countries shouldn't expect the U.S. to freely take in their children as part of our immigration policy. If that wasn't her true opinion, she shouldn't have said it in front of an audience. What's different about her statement than what Trump has done? So far, Trump may have rescinded DACA, but he hasn't deported any of those Dreamers yet either. He handed it to Congress to fix, like they should've done long ago.

[callmeslick]

THOSE ARE NOT 'DREAMERS', why lie? She is talking about KIDS COMING TO AMERICA. Geezus Christ, what is so obscure about the difference. Dreamers were BROUGHT HERE AS CHILDREN BY ADULTS and raised here in the US. Clinton was addressing the fact that families were sending unaccompanied children to the US, a very dangerous trip, in a desperate attempt to escape gang violence in most cases. TC, I am franklhy VERY disappointed in you that you can't parse the difference.

[callmeslick]

since both NS and TC need to be reminded of an issue which our national news DID cover,thoroughly:

What Ms Clinton is speaking to was the matter of a two or three year spike in young people fleeing Central American nations due to a massive uptick in gang violence(somewhat related to how the US deported gang members from cities in the US). At the time, there was a very legitimate debate as to whether we should simply accomodate arrivals here by keeping them, and then risking more families to send kids into harms way getting to the US, or to urge them to stay with their families WHILE THE US PAID TO MAKE THOSE NATIONS SECURE. That was all. In no way does this relate to the reasons NOR the eligibility for the DACA order.

[Tunnelcat]

OK, you're right, I've got it figured out and there is a difference, if you can call it one. My bad. This misunderstanding makes it even better that this thread remain for anyone else to read, and learn. I also agree with you that there's a difference between Dreamer children who illegally came in with their parents and those unaccompanied children who were being sent north by their parents to cross the border illegally into the U.S. just to escape the violence in their own countries.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clin ... 00044.html

But when you think about it, isn't that a hairsplit on Hillary's part? Sure, we don't need hordes of undocumented children crossing the border. Allowing them to come in and remain sends the message to other countries that if you send them, we'll welcome them. That would just flood the border with a constant stream of refugee children, as we've already seen happen in the past. Aside from that, isn't Hillary wanting to send them back as part of her immigration policy any less cruel than sending back those Dreamers? In both instances, they're just children and the only difference between the 2 groups is that they either came here by themselves or were brought here illegally by their parents and have had time to assimilate into our society. So why is one group of children any less deserving than the other? Both groups came here illegally, but only one set gets compassion?

[callmeslick]

I give up. If you see equivalence to the entire basic nature of the two issues, I can't help. One group are REFUGEES, and all Hillary was advocating for was the notion of sending them back to families COUPLED WITH strong US involvement in stabilizing the society. She was(of course,sort of edited out) advocating for an aggressive policy to prevent refugee flight.

The Dreamers have been residents since early childhood, never knew another culture and are, by definition either students or workers, and mandated to be law abiding. They aren't fleeing a goddamned thing. They just wish to stay in the only country they've ever known.

Where is this confusing you, TC?? Seriously, I am shocked you can't parse this far better.

[Tunnelcat]

Oh, I agree with you that the Dreamers are pretty much American citizens and that's were NS's little video ends up as a hit piece on Hillary. These kids have lived here for years and have assimilated into our society as citizens. Sending them back to a country that they've never lived in is a travesty. Sadly, I also think Trump is using his getting rid of DACA as a wedge against the Republican Party, since he seems to be making deals with the Dems just to screw the Republicans and get what he wants, some sort of immigration reform and those tax cuts he wants put through.

I give up. If you see equivalence to the entire basic nature of the two issues, I can't help. One group are REFUGEES, and all Hillary was advocating for was the notion of sending them back to families COUPLED WITH strong US involvement in stabilizing the society. She was(of course,sort of edited out) advocating for an aggressive policy to prevent refugee flight.

Where I see a moral equivalence is that even though these unaccompanied kids are refugees and haven't lived here at all, they're still kids fleeing the violence and poverty in their own countries. You know how well our government follows up with these things, promises, promises, this will get done, that will get done, so what do you think would happen if we just sent them back right now as Hillary so blithely pontificates, even with her caveats and honest efforts? Do you seriously believe that our government, in it's current political state, even if she were president, would spend the time follow up on these kid's situations, get Congress to allocate the money to do so AND make the effort to try stabilize another country's society for the benefit of these kids? Fat chance. Our history of nation building or even nation changing is spotty at best and a failure at the worst. In fact, most foreign governments take extreme exception to our efforts and suggestions at how to run their countries. These refugee kids would have a snowball's chance in hell of making it out of this whole situation alive. You're right that our nation needs to have a disincentive program in place to keep foreign parents from sending us their kids. Maybe I'm a softy, but sending back the ones already illegally here is tantamount to throwing them out as human trash, because I can guarantee you, there would be zero followup after we've set them back.

[callmeslick]

it was a tough call, TC. If you just take them, as they arrive, and assimilate them humanely, it drives more parents to take the chance, and send their kids. Knowing that the survival rate was like 50%, you would, in essence killing 2 or 3 kids for every one you rescue. If you have a program of aggressive meddling in a foreign nation's criminal justice system, then you can send them home and squelch the flow northward. It's a humanitarian disaster all around there. By contrasts, with the Dreamers, you are CREATING a crisis where there was nothing but tax revenue, entrepreneurship and solid contribution to society.

[Tunnelcat]

.... By contrasts, with the Dreamers, you are CREATING a crisis where there was nothing but tax revenue, entrepreneurship and solid contribution to society.

Yep, I agree with you there. They're now tax paying society contributing citizens, even though they're still illegal aliens. However, Hillary should have taken care with her "I'd send them back" comment. It still made her sound callus, even if she wasn't talking about the Dreamers.

[callmeslick]

had you sat through everything that was said, in context of the choices being considered. She didn't at the time sound the LEAST callous.

[Tunnelcat]

Oh, I did. That's one of her problems. She comes off as dispassionate when she speaks. Like I said at one time, she's too robotic and bland for her own good. Plus, she's been going around promoting her book and blaming everyone but herself for her loss in 2016. Sexism, the FBI, the Russians, etc., etc. But she keeps missing her biggest faults. She comes off as arrogant, elitist and unemotional. She didn't lose because she's a woman, although I'm sure that played a small part (a lot of women voted for Trump instead of her and that took A LOT for any self-respecting woman to choke down a vote for Trump), she lost because she had that elitist Washington attitude, assumed that she'd win handily, then took things for granted and didn't even try to connect with the average middle class voter. She also never addressed the elephant in the room, her husband. Instead, she drug him around like he was a good luck charm. In fact, I think he had the opposite effect.

[callmeslick]

Oh, I did.

no, I mean, the whole of the context. You clearly didn't, because you didn't even remember the nature of the problem she was addressing, nor the public debate hearings at which she was participating at the time. I'll agree she sounds like a wonk. She IS a policy wonk, and damned if the US couldn't use every policy wonk front and center because we are piling up a bunch of overpoliticized, unaddressed problems that are slowly killing our nation's future. Folks responding to such shallow triggers as you seem to claim are WHY we are in deep ★■◆●. We've stopped being a nation that gives a ★■◆● about the intellect and problem solving skills of elected officials. Not surprising, given what seems to be important to many is celebrity status.

[Tunnelcat]

Yes, I'll admit that I generalized at first. It was late at night, the usual time NS posts this kind of junk. But the fact is, others also generalized what she said (some on purpose), including a whole host of right wing sites and NS himself (which is par for the course). That's why I left it, to get a good discussion going. At least saw the error of my thinking after a little back and forth with you and some deeper digging online.

However, as to Hillary being a policy wonk, that's all well and good for getting things done. But that's what got a moron like Trump elected this time, the appearance of someone who's genuine, touting the desire to change the status quo in Washington. Hillary has never in her life come off a genuine and she's always been a Washington insider. Appearances and the desire for change mattered in the minds of just enough voters this time around to gave her an electoral loss.

[Ferno]

No, Ferno and slick, it's a valid point and Hillary deserves the hit. Hillary actually said in the video that as policy, she'd make the attempt to send any kids back to their parents if possible and that the parents of those kids from any foreign countries shouldn't expect the U.S. to freely take in their children as part of our immigration policy. If that wasn't her true opinion, she shouldn't have said it in front of an audience. What's different about her statement than what Trump has done? So far, Trump may have rescinded DACA, but he hasn't deported any of those Dreamers yet either. He handed it to Congress to fix, like they should've done long ago.

Wait, what?

I'm not even involved in this thread.

[Tunnelcat]

You didn't report the thread? The report had your name associated with it, as best as I can remember.

[Grendel]

Oh snap

[Tunnelcat]

Like I said, as best as I can remember.

[Ferno]

You didn't report the thread? The report had your name associated with it, as best as I can remember.

That's weird. I'm pretty sure I didn't click on anything in this thread. But my browser's been acting kind of strange lately -- executing navigation commands on its own.

Though, seeing as i'm here... Slick, you need to start watching what you slam as 'fascist' better.

[callmeslick]

I'm pretty selective as it is.

[Ferno]

I'm pretty selective as it is.

While I agree that a lot of the ★■◆● he says is straight out of whacko land, this time it's not fascist.

[callmeslick]

so, what would you call conflation of resident alien Dreamers, and an out of context remark about child refugees? There is a REASON people wish to muddy the moral waters here.

[Ferno]

Terrible argumentative ability.