Seriously... this is heartwrenching. All politics aside, everybody needs to listen to this.

What you said was "Claiming that separating children from their parents and putting them in cages is "housing and sheltering" is... I don't even need to say what it is.", and you went further to describe that as a violation of human rights...... Now you have ameliorated that position to say "you can distract these children for a few minutes by getting them to play games...…" That is a MUCH different statement. It seems like you are moving the bar and now acting as if that was your original statement. Yes, IT IS an example of housing and sheltering children. It is NOT a violation of any reasonable interpretation of human rights. I am glad that you have ameliorated your position, it actually shows that you have learned something in this conversation. Now I just wish that you would stop acting like that was your position all along. If that had been your statement from the beginning I would not have said anything about it.

Now you want to talk about logic? So logic dictates that reality sets back in? Sure, I wouldnt necessarily disagree that they still have sadness, but that isnt where logic ends. Reality sets in for any child with a parent that has been arrested for any crime. Does that mean that logic dictates that we let an armed robber go free because logic means that it will hit the child hard? Of course not. You see, your logic needs to go MUCH further than that. Lets stick with the armed robber. Logic dictates that society wants to disincentivize armed robbery, so if we want to minimize that crime, we need to prosecute offenders. Logic dictates that if we let armed robbers with children go free, then we are going to get much more armed robbery. You see, you need to look MUCH deeper than the simpleton emotional response that you have for a child that has been separated from their parent whom has been lawfully arrested. If we are to be a nation of laws, then logic dictates that some children are going to be hurt in that process. You see the process of logic requires a comprehensive approach. Raw emotion requires no such thing. All you have is raw emotion, and you have failed to see the entire picture because you are blinded by that raw emotion.

Nothing would make it "illegal", because they were lawfully arrested.​

The children were separated because their parents were lawfully arrested. I realize that the latest leftist talking point is "as a matter of policy", but that talking point in and of itself makes no sense. EVERYTHING that is done in regards to the law and matters of government is a "matter of policy". Literally everything. It is a nonsensical distinction that has no real meaning. When a judge sentences an armed robber, he is working within a set of guidelines. That set of guidelines is "a matter of policy". Please stop with the nonsensical talking point and actually use your own brain.

LOL....yeah.. your problem is that you posted some articles of the UN charter. The argument would be point by point explaining how each article applies. Just because it says cruel and inhumane treatment is a violation of human rights, doesnt mean that you have proven that the act in question qualifies for their definition of what is cruel and inhumane. Yes you have said that it is cruel and inhumane, but you havent proven as much. In fact, not even close. Your response was that putting them in cages is cruel and inhumane, but now you've ameliorated that to" getting them to playing games...…". Your amelioration clearly takes it out of cruel and inhumane, but yet you are acting as if your original characterization was correct and that it has now been proven. In short, you are all over the board. When you boil your argument down it is nothing but raw emotion and blind hatred of Trump.​

You position being nothing but raw emotion and blind hatred of Trump is HIGHLY relevant. Your argument distinctly lacks any form of comprehensive logic. It doesnt harm children needlessly. Law breakers need to be stopped. We are a nation of laws, and we have a right to control who enters our country. To say that arresting people illegally entering our country is needless is basically saying that we should have open borders. Whether you realize it or not, that is the ultimate argument that you are making. We either have a right to arrest people for illegal entry, or we do not. You are trying to have it both ways. You want to say that you dont favor open borders, but then out of the other side of your mouth you want to call arresting people for doing so needless. Once again, your arugment lacks comprehensive logic, it is nothing but raw emotion and blind hatred of Trump.

I am not twisting anything. You asked for a law that states that children need to be separated from their parents. Of course no such law is written. In fact that is patently absurd. Of course that specific statement isnt written into law. That is a nonsensical question. That would be like discussing an armed robber that is put in jail, and then demanding that I show the law that states that an armed robber must be separated from their children. Of course that exact statement isnt codified into law. Rather it is as I said, it puts restrictions in place that if their child has nowhere else to go, the state will have to house that child in some form or another. In this case, because the parents case takes months if not years to resolve, being that the courts ruled in 2014 that you cannot hold children for more than 20 days, they have no other legal choice other than to separate the children from their parents. I gave you a Vox link (which obviously isnt exactly a rightist source) that explains this very thoroughly. You dont have to take my word for it, you can simply rely upon the leftist source that I provided. Your question was never valid. You need to look beyond the codified law and have the ability to understand that differing aspects of codified law have various consequences. You need to be able to actually deduce the ramifications of laws. If a bank robber is lawfully arrested and sent to jail, they are going to be separated from their children. To insist upon seeing the law that states that a bank robber be separated from their children is patently absurd, and shows that you lack comprehensive logic. All you have is raw emotion and a blind hatred for Trump.

I am not trying to dismiss morals. Its just that my morals ALSO incorporate comprehensive logic. Society needs to limit bank robberies. In order to do so, we need to put the offenders in jail. Putting offenders in jail often times results in parents being separated from their children. This is a necessary evil. That doesnt make me immoral. It makes me a person that is able to see beyond the raw emotion of feeling bad for the plight of the child, and to be able to assess the greater good for society at large. The law is forced to make a lot of decisions that hurt children. That doesnt mean that doing so is immoral. You need to learn how to assess this situation comprehensively. All you have is raw emotion.

​

Matters of law are based on comprehensive logic. Morals are determined AFTER comprehensive logic is applied. Its not the other way around. We dont take the children into account when deciding the penalty for bank robbery. The penalty for bank robbery is determined, and then morality about what to do with their children comes into play. Its not the other way around.

 

That's insane! Absolutely not!

I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Abuse is abuse. Doesn't matter what games they have. If a child is hungry because you don't feed them, it makes no difference if you get them a pool table, they're still hungry! It is NOT different.

Because they have toys? That's id... you almost got me to say the word that would get me in trouble with the mods. But it's very appropriate.

Sadness? OMG! "Sadness" is when the child has to stop his computer game because he needs to do his homework! What you are saying is insane.

I would love to talk about logic. I'm not sure you are ready, though.

Has it even begun?.

No! How can you not grasp such a simple concept? Imagine a child who is enjoying a cup of ice cream. They are "sad" when he finishes. But if somebody grabs that ice cream from them before they finish... the emotional reaction is much different. This is the difference between being separated as an unavoidable consequence of something, than on purpose. This is child abuse because it's on purpose. Even if an adult is separated because a parent is a bank robber, there is an explanation, there is a chance to prepare or, at least, to say goodbye. There is visitation. Children can know where their parents are. If the parent has committed no other crimes, they can make bail and they can be with their children until a judge decides otherwise.. Not so here. Children have no idea why they were separated, in many cases they are told that it's just for a short time. But days, weeks, months... go by. Furthermore, criminals don't usually have a strong family tie. These parents are abandoning everything for their children. They haven't even been found guilty of any crime. And,they are held captive for 6 months or more. What "crime" have they committed to receive this punishment?

For these reasons and many more, it's absurd to compare people seeking asylum with bank robbers is absurd from any point of view that you care to look.

Now... let me know when you start using logic.

Your (so-called) logic fails right off the bat. We do not want to disincentivize people seeking asylum. That would be a violation of human rights. They have done nothing that warrants being separated from their children for months.

Yes! It could be illegal. Very likely it is. Very definitely illegal to hold them for months.... The refugee process can take up to 2 years? What right is there to detain people that long? What crime did they commit?... But this is about the children. It is abuse to separate children from their parents, to keep them away for months or maybe years, and not reuniting them with parents after they are released. It's child abuse. And a violation of their constitutional rights, and of Human rights.

.
You are a Logical Fallacy machine. You have soooo far to go to ever hope to contribute meaningfully to a discussion in which logic is involved.

If you ever pretend to use logic, you must learn about logical fallacies. Pay attention. This one is called "Illicit Minor"

The argumentative form of this Fallacy is:

All A are B.
All A are C.
Therefore, all B are C​

Compare to your "argument"

Laws are policies
Laws are good
Therefore, policies are good​

If the separation happens as a negative consequence of a just policy, then it's unavoidable. If the negative consequence is the policy, then it is wrong!

Cruel and inhumane means that it causes undue harm. Unnecessarily separating children from their parents causes undue harm no matter what definition you use. And what crime have the parents committed to be held sometimes for almost a year?

I probably could prove that separating children from their family for no reason and for weeks... months... maybe forever... is cruel and causes harm. I see no need to do so.

And you believe it's not?
​

No. It's not. And your continual regression to that non-argument is a definite sign that you have ran out of arguments. Yours is another fallacy. The fact that hate Trump doesn't make me right or wrong. Nor if my position carried emotion or not. I have given you my arguments. Which you have not rebutted. I have stated that it's unnecessary to separate the children from their family (it wasn't done before Trump, and it's not done now). I have stated that it's illegal (adjudicated). I have stated that it's a violation of human rights (cruel and unusual, long-term psychological harm to the children. parents and children are held for months)/ These are some of the arguments I have mad. You have addressed none. Instead choosing to try to make me the subject of the discussion (Ad hominem fallacy). My hating Trump. My being emotional or not. None of that even addresses the question of whether I'm right or wrong. I have shown the logical failure in your fallacies. You just.... say.... that mine "lack logic" without bothering to point out where.

Another Fallacy: Red Herring. I have not said if I favor or not open boarders, or closed boarders, or... any variation thereof. And I have not done so because it's not the topic. You, on the other hand, keep trying to change the subject.

That clearly indicates that you have no arguments.

Therefore it is unlawful to enact a policy committing a cruel and unnecessary act against children such as separate them from their family.

Your "robber" analogy was debunked above.

Then you go on a diatribe of ad-hominem fallacies which I shal skip hoping there is anything of substance after that.

There is no "my morals" vs "your morals", any more than there is "my logic" vs "your logic", or "my facts" vs "your facts" There are only facts, logic and morals. And I believe your problem originates in the fact that you confuse morals with emotions.

Yes. And if you expect to ever contribute to a discussion about morals, the first question you need to answer is "why".

Hint: The answer is not "because it's illegal". And this is also not the answer of why we separate children from parents who have done nothing wrong.

However, I'm not expecting you to do any better in a discussion about morals, then you did in the one about logic.
​

.
OMG... How absolutely ridiculous! Look. Laws are moral constructs. More precisely "ethical constructs" (because they are a list). Laws are based on moral principles. If the law does not respond to a moral imperative (which is universal.... not "yours" or "mine"), they cannot exist. You cannot have a law that mandates that innocent people be killed. And you cannot have a law that says that children must be separated in the long term from their parents when they are "suspicious" of breaking the law.

 

Terrorism?

Really?

Building a wall and enforcing our soverign border is imperative. If democrats want a bill that addresses the problems caused by illegal immigrant parents related to the separation of their children, they need to get on board with securing our border.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. That is exactly the thinking that has lead to 12M illegal immigrants living in our country.

The fact of the matter is, the left doesn't want to fix this problem. It's completely for political gain and power. THEY are using children as pawns, straining our immigration policy and enforcement, encouraging immigration, even giving safe haven in full knowledge that their actions are contrary to Federal Law.

How you can spin this around on Republicans is simply an amazing logic cartwheel.

 

Yes, but sheltering and housing children of parents that have been lawfully arrested does NOT constitute abuse. That assertion is patently absurd.You seem to think that you can throw any label around and that it automatically becomes true by virtue of you saying it.

Its not an abuse of their human rights as you claim. The assertion is patently absurd. I am sensing a pattern here.

So now you have the market cornered on the word sadness? Only you can define it? So what do you call it when a child has their parent murdered by an illegal immigrant? Id call that sadness.

Its child abuse because they lawfully arrested their parents? There is an explanation for the parent being lawfully arrested whether that parent is a bank robber OR a person entering this country illegally. You keep claiming that you arent for open borders, but then you make assertions like entering our country illegally is not a valid reason to arrest someone. You either believe we need to enforce our laws or you believe that we should just let it go which effectively constitutes open borders. Maybe you arent asking for codified open borders, but you are certainly suggesting a policy that effectively creates open borders. You cannot have it both ways, but you sure are trying.

It is a completely valid analogy because it is referring to the laws reaction to a crime. Clearly you do not see illegally entering our country as a serious enough crime to warrant an arrest, but you dont speak for the country. This topic was put before the voters in 2016, and they voted on the side of policing our borders more aggressively. Elections do have consequences. Sorry it didnt go your way.

Almost all of those asylum applications are denied. A very tiny percentage are approved. You are lying to yourself if you fail to acknowledge that false asylum applications are a HUGE problem that is clogging up our system. We MOST CERTAINLY want to disincentivize the all too common occurrence of filing bogus asylum claims.

Nobody is holding those kids for 2 years. Of course they cannot, which is precisely why they ultimately cannot stay with their parents for the duration of that parents appeals process. The kids theoretically have committed no crime, nor are they charged with one. They are being sheltered because their parents being arrested has left them unaccompanied. We dont want to take control of those kids. We do everything in our power to get relatives to come get them Stop pretending like the kids are being held in jail. They most certainly ARE NOT. Stop with your emotional weepy nonsense and man up.

.

LOL....wow its so cute how you took all that time to make this illustration, unfortunately it is predicated on a lie. My argument is in no way shape or form that "Laws are policies...laws are good....therefore policies are good. I didnt say one thing about a policy being good or bad. You have completely fabricated that notion. What im wondering is why you took this much time fabricating what amounts to an out and out lie?​

Securing our borders is a just goal. End of story. Its not a just goal if you are an advocate of effective open borders. To each their own, but I only wish that you would own up to what you are effectively advocating.

The children arent unnecessarily being separated from their parents. They have been separated because their parents broke the law. The entire notion that this somehow constitutes a violation of human rights because it is cruel and inhumane is patently absurd.

They arent separated for no reason. They are separated because their parents were lawfully arrested. I know this all seems so redundant, but when you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over and over, I have no choice.

Sheltering children that are unaccompanied because their parents were lawfully arrested does NOT constitute cruel and inhumane.
​

When your argument is nothing BUT emotion and Trump hatred, it certainly doesnt constitute a legitimate argument. It lacks a comprehensive logic that takes into account all factors, and it relies solely upon your out of control emotions and assumptions at every turn based on your hatred of Trump.

,

….I know you havent said that,and nor have I claimed that you have. What I said was "whether you realize it or not", you are waging the argument for open borders, or at least effectively making that case. You dont see this is a worthy reason to arrest someone. Thats a position that effectively creates open borders.

You mentioned the robber argument, that doesnt mean that you debunked ANYTHING. You have also mentioned that you think this constitutes cruel and unnecessary, but that doesnt mean you have proven as much. The reader can decide for themselves, and I feel more than confident that I have adequately rebutted everyone of those points multiple times in this thread.

mor·al
ˈmôrəl/
noun
plural noun: morals
​

1. 
   
   
   • 1.
     a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
     "the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"
     synonyms: lesson, message, meaning, significance, signification, import, point, teaching
     "the moral of the story"
   • 2.
     a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

Obviously definition 2 is what applies to this discussion. A persons standard of behavior connotes that there are in fact are "your morals" and My morals". If it referred to one set of morals, it would say "everyone's" morals. It doesnt. It speaks specifically to an individual person. This is one of those rare things in political debate that isnt obscured by a gray area. This is a right or wrong topic. I am right, morals are specific to an individual, as evidenced by the dictionary. You are wrong, there is not one universal set of morals, as evidenced by the dictionary. Even when confronted with irrefutable proof, you will still try to obfuscate and pretend like you just won that point. Therein lies the nonsense that I have been dealing with when speaking with you.

Why?......because as a nation of laws we need to take control of people illegally entering this country and draining a disproportionate share of our resources.
​

.

Morality is a system of ideas based on what is right and what is wrong. Making that determination depends upon weighing ALL factors involved. It is not a product of raw emotion. You weigh the societal good versus the societal bad.

-Once again, morals are not universal, no matter how many time you repeat that falsehood.

-Once again, there isnt a law that states that children MUST be separated. You keep repeating this strawman but it makes no sense. There isnt a law that says a bank robber must be separated from their children either. But since they are going to prison, the natural consequence is that they are going to be separated. You seem to lack any ability whatsoever to use deductive reasoning. All you have is unbridled emotion and a blind hatred of Trump.



PS....To me, it seems like this conversation is going nowhere. We have both had our say and it has reached the point of mind numbing redundancy. I am more than happy to let the reader decide. If you have something new to say then by all means say it, but please dont respond with another recycled version of the exact same thing that has been discussed ad nauseam. You think it is a violation of human rights. I do not. Both of our explanations and arguments on that topic are already there in black and white, and I see no need to keep going over and over the exact same thing.

 

You might find this helpful. It'll clear up an awful lot of misunderstandings on US immigration.

 

You're the only one using "labels" like "sheltering and housing". I'm saying what happened. They separated children from their parents, for no reason (this is important), with no plans to reunite them for months or even years... maybe ever. That's what happened. They are just facts. Nothing more, nothing less. Now... if you don't think that's abuse... I don't know how to help you. All has been said. There is no way I could explain why it is to anybody who has made a cult of their political views.

I'm talking about the kids. But let me tell you this: even before Trump created this mess, due to the backlog, the refugee process took over a year. Illegally crossing the boarder carries a maximum prison sentence of 6 months. Maximum. No jusdge would apply the maximum sentence to somebody who is not a repeat offender, who is fully cooperative, who committed the illegal act because their life and their kids life was in danger, who has no criminal record, who is the only care-giver to his or her children... Holding them for a year for a misdemeanor that carries a maximum prison sentence of 6 months is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

So if they were arrested for the reason you state, then take them to a judge. Let them plead guilty. Let them do whatever prison time the judge considers appropriate.

Do you believe we need to enforce our laws? Because what I wrote above are our laws!

I have been talking about the children, not the parents. But you insist on talking about the parents... Ok then.,. Was this accusation you made about believing "we need to enforce our laws" just hypocrisy?

The "robber" analogy is pure nonsense. When a robber is arrested, they are promptly taken before a judge. The judge sets bail and the robber is immediately reunited with their children. Nobody takes them thousands of miles away to a "secret" place that nobody can inspect. They stay with their children until the day of the trial. And if they are sentenced, they can make decisions about their children. Refugee seekers aren't even told where they are. A robber is not in prison for a term that is longer than the maximum sentence for the crime they committed, as refugee seekers are.

Approval rate is 48% of those represented by an attorney, and 10% of those who are not. If you were intellectually honest I wouldn't have to bring the numbers because you would have done it yourself. However, even ONE child going through this intentionally caused trauma is child abuse. Period...

So, how long will they be held? And what happens to them then?

Theoretically?????


.

​

Really?

I am quoting YOU: "The children were separated because their parents were lawfully arrested."

So now we are supposed to believe that you didn't say that the policy of separating children is "good" (justified) because of the fact that "their parents were lawfully arrested"?

This is getting ridiculous! I'm just going to skip the nonsense. This is getting too long and you have proven here that it's nothing but a huge waste of time. I'll skim over the rest and see if there is anything worth commenting on, but you have shown us here that you are not serious nor intellectually honest.

This Fallacy is called "Argumentum ad dictionarium"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium

Bringing up a dictionary definition as argument in a serious debate is a sign of shallow intellectual arguments. A dictionary can settle the meaning of a word in a colloquial sense. But it does not settle it in a discussion about Morals and Ethics.

One more time you show that you are not prepared for a serious debate on topics dealing with Logic, Morals and Ethics.

​

Ridiculous argument. It has been shown time and time again that illegal immigrants create wealth. There is a problem with the morality of the way in which that wealth is created. And that's why it should be controlled. But it's a fact that what you say, one of the favorite lines of groups like the KKK, is nonsense. There are many studies measuring the impact of illegal immigrants on the economy. Findings range between no impact to a significant positive impact. They pay taxes, they contribute to Social Security (even though they will never benefit from it), and they produce an estimated 11% increase in GDP. They benefit employers by taking jobs that natives won't take.... There are some effects of illegal immigration that would make an "open boarders" policy inadvisable, But "dreaining our resources" is most definitely not one of them. And, BTW, neither is crime, as Trump likes to falsely claim.

https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-state-local-tax-contributions-2/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigrants-impact-on-the-u-s-economy-in-7-charts/
https://immigration.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=003143
https://cis.org/Testimony/Fiscal-and-Economic-Impact-Immigration-United-States
​

.

If you were ever to take an Ethics class in any University, that statement would earn you, on a scale of 1 to 10, about a 5.

First of all, you are confusing Morals and Ethics. "Ethics" can refer to one of two things: one is the overall name of the sub-branch that deals with Morals and Ethics (not relevant here). More importantly,and to illustrate the difference, "ethics" can be viewed of basically "a list" of what is "good" or "bad". Examples of codes of ethics are: Professional Ethics like a physician's: ("Do no harm"), or Attorney's Code of Ethics (Client-attorney privilege). Or even "Pool Rules" ("Do not dive"). The ten Commandments (Thou shalt not kill...). Also the Laws. Laws are a Code of Ethics. Again they are like a list with two columns (figuratively speaking). One column for "Right", and another for "Wrong". Morals are what tell you in which column each action belongs. To do this, you need a "Moral Principle". Some use a subjective "Moral Principle" for example "Killing goes to the bad column because the Bible says it's bad" or "Tax breaks for the rich are good because Trump says they're good". But there is an objective Moral Principle. It's objective because it's Universal. It has been expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as on the Preamble to the Constitution. This principle is ultimately based on the fact that the Human Race is a gregarious species (and the reasoning to conclude this is too complex to go into on this forum). In order to survive as a species, we need to live in a Society. The species would be extinct if not for Society. Therefore, the principle is this: "Everything that favors the cohesion of Society is "morally good". Everything that opposes it is "morally wrong" or "immoral". It can be expressed many ways. Whether it's this one or "In order to form a more perfect union..." the bottom line is the same.

So.... with this you can answer any moral question. Is killing morally good or bad (immoral)? It's immoral because if people were allowed to kill each other, society would ultimately disperse (out of fear of being killed), and the human species would become extinct. Is keeping families together morally good or immoral? It's good because children grow up to be productive citizens when they are raised by their parents. And it's immoral to forcefully separate them when there are alternatives because these children will grow psychologically scarred and will not be as productive members of their communities as they would be otherwise.

The moral principle, as shown above, is universal. Of course, the final decision about the specific action will depend on the circumstances. If you are in a deserted island with 4 other people and all five are about to die of hunger, it might be justifiable to kill one and commit cannibalism to preserve a society of four. But the discussion is about the circumstances. Not about the moral principle. That one is UNIVERSAL.

Do you acknowledge that when Trump said that there was a law passed by Democrats, he was casting aspersions based on twisted misinformation?

 

Why do you feel the need to keep continually taking a bite at the same apple? I am more than comfortable that I have adequately proven my point, and it is time for the reader to decide for themselves. I am not going to continue going over the same things again and again and again and again and again. It is already there in black and white.