And then there's this NAZI motherfccker Bannon, the engineer behind the Dotard Doctrine. He gets interviewed.

The guy wants a war with China and Islam. Really...someone should take that turd out for America's good.

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/25-general-chapman's-last-stand

For people who are wondering what can be done about immigration policy, Malcolm Gladwell's latest podcast is an interesting listen. Basically, the argument is that when the U.S. border was basically "open" (people came across, but most of them just came in for seasonal work and then went back), there was actually LESS of an immigration problem than there is now (when people are worried about being prosecuted for trying to cross the border again). By building a "wall," you don't keep people OUT so much as you wind up keeping them IN. And by keeping them in for so long, you wind up with DREAMers and other big problems that don't go away. And then because of this growing problem you create "zero tolerance" policies that wind up treating children of asylum seekers like criminals.

I can only hope that the current horror is waking up a new generation of voters who won't fall for the old fear-mongering again.

Another Bear said:

---

Stephen Miller, the Trump aide behind the harshest immigration policies, is a descendent of asylum-seekers

OF course this is the case. If the GOP Nazis are anything, they're hypocrites. The irony however is even bigger...as Miller is a Jewish Nazi, whose family escaped anti-Semitic persecution, only to become an JEWISH NAZI. Seriously, W.T.F.

---

I'd like to kick him straight in the schmeckel.

I'd pay for the chance to punch that guy in the face.

Actually that should be a great campaign game/app to raise money. $25 buck donation for the app. Make ones for Dotard, Bannon and all the swamp monsters.

http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_31120713/dan-c-winters-donald-trump-and-martial-law

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/presidential-election-donald-trump-will-impose-martial-law-if-he-becomes-president-says-art-of-the-a7382086.html

God damn, that makes sense. Jesus H. Christ, and I know who he'd get to head up coup, Erick Prince, mass murderer for hire, Black Rock (or whatever it's called now) founder and brother of super dumb DeVos. Quite seriously, a coup is likely Prince's wet dream.

mikecohen said:

---

oski003 said:

---

They are only separating children from the adults they arrived with if they came in illegally, correct? They are not doing this with those legally seeking refugee status through proper procedures, correct? Therefore, wouldn't doing a better job of keeping people from illegally entering the U. S. result in less separation?

Also, isn't it true that the majority of the kids that come in enter without adults? What should be done with them?

---

They ARE doing with with those legally seeking refugee status through proper procedures!

Also: By majorly moving the goal posts, they are creating a whole, large class of people who struggled mightily to get here, only to find that the legal ground on which they (and everybody else theretofore) believed they had the right to asylum (i.e., gang violence and domestic abuse), all of a sudden, without the benefit of changed legislation, was arbitrarily declared to be not a ground for asylum - thus effectively substituting the rule of Diktat for the rule of law.

---

We are enforcing the laws passed by Congress, and we are doing all that we can in the executive branch to protect our communities. It is now time that Congress act to fix our broken immigration system," Nielsen said. "Surely it is the beginning of the unraveling of democracy when the body who makes the laws, rather than changing them, asks the body who enforces the laws not to enforce the laws. That cannot be the answer."

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, speaking at the same event as Nielsen, also defended the Trump administration's immigration practices Monday morning.

"These children are not entering at points of entry, but dangerous places," Sessions said. "They can go to our ports of entry if they want to claim asylum."

Sessions said the children "are taken care of," at an "enormous cost." Sessions called the system "generous." He also emphasized most children have come here unaccompanied and said the Department of Health and Human Services takes custody of them at a cost of more than $1 billion a year.

Nielsen called a 2015 court settlement -- dating back to a court ruling in 1997 that requires children not be detained longer than 20 days -- a "historic get out of jail free practice of the past administration."

No previous administration has interpreted this as requiring the separation of parents from their children, instead releasing families with court dates for immigration proceedings and various monitoring tactics.

"It is important to note that these minors are very well taken care of -- don't believe the press -- they are very well taken care of," Nielsen said. But, she added: "If you cross the border illegally. If you make a false immigration claim, we will prosecute you. If you smuggle aliens ... we will prosecute you."

And once again, she told asylum seekers to show up at a legal port of entry. CNN is looking into reports that these individuals are being turned away there, as well.

"If you are seeking asylum, go to a port of entry," Nielsen said.

After that, Nielsen once again walked through the administration's wishlist for changing immigration laws -- including targeting sanctuary city policies, changing the threshold for qualifying for asylum to be much higher, and reversing many protections for children allowing them to be detained for longer or deported immediately.

Nielsen also addressed some of her remarks directly at lawmakers as they are expected to vote on immigration legislation in the House this week. She framed the issue as anyone who votes against their preferred policy is voting against the "rule of law."

"My message to members is clear: You have a chance. If you want to secure our borders, if you want to keep gangs such as MS-13 out of our communities, if you want to address ... if you want to restore the rule of law, you must close the legal loopholes," Nielsen said, referring to the pieces of law that the administration wants to change.

"However, if you want to support a broken immigration system that harms the interest of Americans and our security, that rewards those who thumb their noses at our laws ... then don't vote to fix the problem. It's a simple choice," she said.

Nielsen said "those who have complained" about the policies now have an "opportunity" to work with the administration on the issue.

"As (GOP Rep. Steve Scalise) said, it is an issue that every one of the last four administration has faced. It is time to fix it," Nielsen said.

Another Bear said:

---

God damn, that makes sense. Jesus H. Christ, and I know who he'd get to head up coup, Erick Prince, mass murderer for hire, Black Rock (or whatever it's called now) founder and brother of super dumb DeVos. Quite seriously, a coup is likely Prince's wet dream.

---

oski003 said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

oski003 said:

---

They are only separating children from the adults they arrived with if they came in illegally, correct? They are not doing this with those legally seeking refugee status through proper procedures, correct? Therefore, wouldn't doing a better job of keeping people from illegally entering the U. S. result in less separation?

Also, isn't it true that the majority of the kids that come in enter without adults? What should be done with them?

---

They ARE doing with with those legally seeking refugee status through proper procedures!

Also: By majorly moving the goal posts, they are creating a whole, large class of people who struggled mightily to get here, only to find that the legal ground on which they (and everybody else theretofore) believed they had the right to asylum (i.e., gang violence and domestic abuse), all of a sudden, without the benefit of changed legislation, was arbitrarily declared to be not a ground for asylum - thus effectively substituting the rule of Diktat for the rule of law.

---

We are enforcing the laws passed by Congress, and we are doing all that we can in the executive branch to protect our communities. It is now time that Congress act to fix our broken immigration system," Nielsen said. "Surely it is the beginning of the unraveling of democracy when the body who makes the laws, rather than changing them, asks the body who enforces the laws not to enforce the laws. That cannot be the answer."

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, speaking at the same event as Nielsen, also defended the Trump administration's immigration practices Monday morning.

"These children are not entering at points of entry, but dangerous places," Sessions said. "They can go to our ports of entry if they want to claim asylum."

Sessions said the children "are taken care of," at an "enormous cost." Sessions called the system "generous." He also emphasized most children have come here unaccompanied and said the Department of Health and Human Services takes custody of them at a cost of more than $1 billion a year.

Nielsen called a 2015 court settlement -- dating back to a court ruling in 1997 that requires children not be detained longer than 20 days -- a "historic get out of jail free practice of the past administration."

No previous administration has interpreted this as requiring the separation of parents from their children, instead releasing families with court dates for immigration proceedings and various monitoring tactics.

"It is important to note that these minors are very well taken care of -- don't believe the press -- they are very well taken care of," Nielsen said. But, she added: "If you cross the border illegally. If you make a false immigration claim, we will prosecute you. If you smuggle aliens ... we will prosecute you."

And once again, she told asylum seekers to show up at a legal port of entry. CNN is looking into reports that these individuals are being turned away there, as well.

"If you are seeking asylum, go to a port of entry," Nielsen said.

After that, Nielsen once again walked through the administration's wishlist for changing immigration laws -- including targeting sanctuary city policies, changing the threshold for qualifying for asylum to be much higher, and reversing many protections for children allowing them to be detained for longer or deported immediately.

Nielsen also addressed some of her remarks directly at lawmakers as they are expected to vote on immigration legislation in the House this week. She framed the issue as anyone who votes against their preferred policy is voting against the "rule of law."

"My message to members is clear: You have a chance. If you want to secure our borders, if you want to keep gangs such as MS-13 out of our communities, if you want to address ... if you want to restore the rule of law, you must close the legal loopholes," Nielsen said, referring to the pieces of law that the administration wants to change.

"However, if you want to support a broken immigration system that harms the interest of Americans and our security, that rewards those who thumb their noses at our laws ... then don't vote to fix the problem. It's a simple choice," she said.

Nielsen said "those who have complained" about the policies now have an "opportunity" to work with the administration on the issue.

"As (GOP Rep. Steve Scalise) said, it is an issue that every one of the last four administration has faced. It is time to fix it," Nielsen said.

---

Her own words condemn her as surely as did Goebbels' condemn him; and he, just as surely, thought that his insane ideas were totally right on morally and totally acceptable by the masses of the German people..

The previous attempts at comprehensive immigration reform in which the Democrats participated had the overwhelming support of the country, plus enough bi-partisan support to pass and get signed into law by favorable presidents (including even GW Bush, and even Trump who originally said he'd sign whatever was put in front of him - draw your own conclusions on that -- I think everyone knows that not a single thing that Trump says can be counted on as having any claim to truth); but were blocked by one of the main (if not THE main) creators of Washington gridlock: What the Rethugs called "The Hastert Rule" (which Hastert denied having any connection with), i.e., that nothing would get a vote in the House unless the majority of the majority Republicans favored it.

"....from a well-wired Republican: "Trump's biggest crisis will come if the trade wars cause a slowdown in the economy. The boom is giving him a cushion against the impact of his policies, personal behavior and impetuous decision making. No boom, no cushion. Political collapse." Axios

Asylum Seekers Not Breaking the Law are Not Being Separated.
If you cross the border illegally and claim asylum, you are still a lawbreaker. Regardless of your intent, crossing the border illegally automatically puts you in the criminal justice system, where you will obviously be separated from family.

These asylum seekers are choosing to break the law, are choosing to be separated from family.

Asylum seekers who respect our laws, by turning themselves in at legal points of entry, are not being separated. Over-crowding due to the abuse of this policy might eventually make this impossible, but it is up to Congress to allocate more funds.

Trump Is Correct About the Loophole
In 1997, a consent decree called the Flores Settlement made it illegal for America to hold migrant children for longer than 20 days. Meaning, in order to keep the family together after 20 days of detention, we can either reunite the family by letting them loose to live illegally in America, or we can keep the parent in detention and place the child in a foster home or with a relative who lives in America.

Trump is wisely choosing to do the latter (for a number of moral reasons I will explain later).

A case involving an illegal border crosser not seeking asylum is usually adjudicated before the 20 days are up, which means the family unit is reunited during deportation and no foster care is needed. This, obviously, is the best case scenario.

Those who cross the border illegally and then claim asylum status (an important distinction from asylum seekers who obey the law) are another story, because the asylum process almost always exceeds the 20 days, and this is the law the Trump administration wants changed.

By speeding up the asylum process, the family unit can be reunited faster, either in the deportation process (if asylum is not granted and this process is frequently abused) or in the resettlement process (if asylum is granted).

Another option is to end the 20-day limit so foster care does not become necessary. Parent and child can remain in the detention centers until the asylum process is settled.

oski003 said:

---

Asylum Seekers Not Breaking the Law are Not Being Separated.
If you cross the border illegally and claim asylum, you are still a lawbreaker. Regardless of your intent, crossing the border illegally automatically puts you in the criminal justice system, where you will obviously be separated from family.

These asylum seekers are choosing to break the law, are choosing to be separated from family.

Asylum seekers who respect our laws, by turning themselves in at legal points of entry, are not being separated. Over-crowding due to the abuse of this policy might eventually make this impossible, but it is up to Congress to allocate more funds.

---

The Trump Administration has deliberately made it nearly impossible to legally request asylum.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/12/us/asylum-seekers-mexico-border.html
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/hrf-crossing-the-line-report.pdf
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17428640/border-families-asylum-illegal

What do you think they will try if you do that? You can't just literally stop all migration.

oski003 said:

---

Trump Is Correct About the Loophole
In 1997, a consent decree called the Flores Settlement made it illegal for America to hold migrant children for longer than 20 days. Meaning, in order to keep the family together after 20 days of detention, we can either reunite the family by letting them loose to live illegally in America, or we can keep the parent in detention and place the child in a foster home or with a relative who lives in America.

Trump is wisely choosing to do the latter (for a number of moral reasons I will explain later).

A case involving an illegal border crosser not seeking asylum is usually adjudicated before the 20 days are up, which means the family unit is reunited during deportation and no foster care is needed. This, obviously, is the best case scenario.

Those who cross the border illegally and then claim asylum status (an important distinction from asylum seekers who obey the law) are another story, because the asylum process almost always exceeds the 20 days, and this is the law the Trump administration wants changed.

By speeding up the asylum process, the family unit can be reunited faster, either in the deportation process (if asylum is not granted and this process is frequently abused) or in the resettlement process (if asylum is granted).

Another option is to end the 20-day limit so foster care does not become necessary. Parent and child can remain in the detention centers until the asylum process is settled.

---

Sounds fine in theory (well, actually NOT fine since taking such young children away from their parents is inevitably traumatic to them, but if there was a real plan for swift reunification it would be "less bad"). Not happening in practice.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/07/ice-releases-mother-it-detained-four-months-far-away-from-7-year-old-daughter/

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-government-has-no-plan-for-reuniting-the-immigrant-families-it-is-tearing-apart

So AT BEST, the Trump Administration is bungling its own policy and generating a bigger humanitarian crisis. At worst . . . this is what they want. To punish children as a negotiating ploy and as a deterrent to future immigrants.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/18/all-things-to-all-people-how-the-administration-is-presenting-child-separations-to-different-audiences/

If they wanted to end child separation while they figure this out . . . they could do it. Sort of like they did with the Muslim Ban. So far, nothing.

sycasey said:

---

If they wanted to end child separation while they figure this out . . . they could do it. Sort of like they did with the Muslim Ban. So far, nothing.

---

The Wall Street Journal, that liberal rag, agrees with me here.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gops-immigration-meltdown-1529364334

bearister said:

---

"....from a well-wired Republican: "Trump's biggest crisis will come if the trade wars cause a slowdown in the economy. The boom is giving him a cushion against the impact of his policies, personal behavior and impetuous decision making. No boom, no cushion. Political collapse." Axios

---

Global markets took a hit today. The trade wars make no sense...unless you're a Nazi looking to start a World War, which is the case with Bannon and Miller the Nazi twins.

I wonder how long before the GOP core figures out Trump is against others making money...or this is actually a Nazi Russkie power play. So who benefits from this discord? Things point back to Mother Russia and Vlad de Putin. Thing about it, damaging both the U.S. and China (Russia's neighbor and rival) benefits the Russians the most.

bearister said:

---

"....from a well-wired Republican: "Trump's biggest crisis will come if the trade wars cause a slowdown in the economy. The boom is giving him a cushion against the impact of his policies, personal behavior and impetuous decision making. No boom, no cushion. Political collapse." Axios

---

An economic decline is probably the major thing that could cause Trump's partisan support to erode. Honestly, having his level of of job approval (around 40%) in a pretty good economy and no wars is very bad. That kind of number usually only hits Presidents when one of those things goes badly. What happens if it hits Trump?

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/pollsters_asked_for_first_word_that_comes_to_mind.html

This Is Evil.' Inside Lawmakers' Visit With Immigrants at a Detention Center

Quote:

---

"At one point I wanted to cry when I was hearing some of this," said Nadler, who arranged the meeting. "Its Father's Day. You know that when this is over in an hour, you're gonna go home to your family. And they're gonna go back to a cell. And they don't know where their kids are. And they're being processed for deportation."

"It's evil," Nadler said. "I have never said anything about the United States government being evil before. This is evil."

---

Stephen Miller's Family is Furious Over Family Separtion Policy

It's nice to know some of this Nazi's family are human and okay. That said, someone really should do this country a big favor and run that guy over with a car.

Another Bear said:

---

Stephen Miller's Family is Furious Over Family Separtion Policy

It's nice to know some of this Nazi's family are human and okay. That said, someone really should do this country a big favor and run that guy over with a car.

---

This guy deserves a plain old fashion butt kicking...after a sucker punch.

The evil was too much for Rachel tonight...

Nice.

I think this nit picking tRump ad nauseam is so boring and pointless.

Surprisingly heated exchange between Geraldo and Hannity (and one other Trump cultist, quite possibly iwantwinners):

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Surprisingly heated exchange between Geraldo and Hannity (and one other Trump cultist, quite possibly iwantwinners):

---

So many people who deserve to be punched these days. Can I take that guy on the left?

The guy on the left is a Jeet Kune Do Master so the obstacles will be formidable. You will have to be like water.

[url=https://twitter.com/mannyNYT?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor]

[/url]

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Womp womp.

oski003, aren't you glad you debased yourself with all those arguments in favor of family separation?