Trump’s New Wall to Keep Out the Disabled

  • Thread starter Thread starter John24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The debate over whether Trump uniquely invented a policy of separating minors from adults claiming to be their parents is to large degree a matter of semantics.

-It’s true that under the “Flores vs. Lynch” decision, adults and children could not be kept together.
-It’s true that for a time the Obama administration had a “family separation” policy that was even harsher.
-Trump officials used the term “zero tolerance”. Obama officials seem not to have used the terminology, but did follow the practice until the “Flores” decision.

lawandcrime.com

Obama's Immigration Agencies Separated Children From Their Families, Too | Law & Crime

The Trump administration has an intentional and explicit policy of separating migrant children from their families if caught crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without permission. Long before that, however, the administration of Barack Obama ramped up a program with a sometimes similar effect...
lawandcrime.com lawandcrime.com

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article213525764.html

None of this makes any of it right or the best thing. Congress should revamp the immigration laws so that illegal entrants do not have the ability to stay here. But it probably won[t.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I did not in any way propose “open borders” as someone alleges, and when someone writes that the way to deal with “illegal immigration” is that “The government of the U.S. needs to deter that by all means necessary” at a Catholic website, and then ignores what the bishops did indeed write and agree upon in terms of a mandate to help refugees when possible, there’s nowhere to go forward with them because that’s what tyrants propose. To twist what the Church has said and done is unethical and disgusting. The USCCB simply does not make decisions based on just a couple of bishops as someone has a alleged.

I’m outta here as there’s a small handful of people here who use the “win at any cost” tactic that I simply will not put up with.
 
Last edited:
I’ll gladly pay my part. After all, I’m being forced to pay for the abortifacients of rich girls. This is considerably more worthy.
 
$4.8 million.

$5.0 million.

$5.1 million.

$5.5 million.

$7.3 million.
 
Last edited:
That would violate the Hyde Amendment. Unless you live in Illinois where they fund abortions.
 
If this money is going to the Trump Foundation, I have some sad news for you.
 
Obamacare pays for Ella and Plan B, 100%. Check it out. The Hyde amendment only applies to Medicaid.
 
Last edited:
Most likely the people who donate to the wall are also the ones who do most of the charitable donating as well.
 
lsprag said:
And they raised millions that aren’t going to charitable donations, which was my point
Click to expand...
I understand. But I doubt those who donate for the wall will fail to also donate what they would have otherwise donated to charity. Charity is not a zero sum game.
 
As far as I know there is an Executive Order that prohibits the ACA from covering abortions. That was why Stupak et others voted for the bill.
 
Last edited:
That may or may not be true. Are the donations to this tax deductible? I would say many donate if it’s tax deductible without budgeting in advance. If it isn’t they’re not so quick to “donate.” But then we’re talking about the Donald wants.

Still thinking about buying GE? 🙂
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
As far as I know there is an Executive Order that prohibits the ACA from covering abortions. That was why Stupak et others voted for the bill.
Click to expand...
The Stupak Amendment did not prevent Obamacare from paying 100% of the costs of Ella and Plan B. It didn’t even prohibit paying for abortion in case of rape, incest or the health of the mother. In any event, it wasn’t in the final bill.

The executive order was just Obama’s declaration at the time, to give supposedly prolife Dems a fig leaf, but it didn’t prohibit abortifacients like Ella and Plan B.
 
No GE. The numbers keep shifting. Hard to figure anything out about it. Bought cattle instead. 🙂 100% deductible, which is nice.
 
For the record the Stupak Amendment did not survive in the Senate, perhaps leading to the resignation of many of the 64 Bluedog Democrats in the House.
 
Figures. This country is controlled by farmers and ranchers who have no problems getting bills passed by Democrats and Republicans. 🙂
 
$10.9 million.

$12.5 million.

According to U.S. Government Accountability Office data cited by Bernstein, building the “easiest” sections of the existing 653 miles of fencing ran between $2.8 million and $3.9 million per mile as part of the $7 billion that’s been spent since 2001.

$12.8 million.

https://www.gofundme.com/thetrumpwall
 
Last edited:
Metis1 said:
First of all, I did not in any way propose “open borders” as someone alleges, and when someone writes that the way to deal with “illegal immigration” is that “The government of the U.S. needs to deter that by all means necessary” at a Catholic website, and then ignores what the bishops did indeed write and agree upon in terms of a mandate to help refugees when possible, there’s nowhere to go forward with them because that’s what tyrants propose. To twist what the Church has said and done is unethical and disgusting. The USCCB simply does not make decisions based on just a couple of bishops as someone has a alleged.

I’m outta here as there’s a small handful of people here who use the “win at any cost” tactic that I simply will not put up with.
Click to expand...
Refugees are not illegal immigrants.

I hate it when people seem to intentionally conflate illegal economic migrants with legal refugees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top