What the actual fuck!!?? All in one just ONE day. The Leader of the free world, yeah? Christ
You’re right I think, the headline is inflammatory but the text explains the detail better (‘the big print giveth, but the small print taketh away’). It seems it’s not ‘Trump’s’ separation of children from families, which actually happens under legislation passed by the Democrats. Nor is Sanders using the Bible to defend that practice specifically. She’s using the Bible to defend the upholding of law (which, TBH, shouldn’t need any defending, as a principle). The problem comes in fact when you do start using religious beliefs as the basis for legislation.
VB
1 Like
I thought Sessions had made reference to (I think) Romans 13 to justify the policy.
Nothing Nazi like about that, oh no…
2 Likes
Using Exodus 23:9 as a basis for legislation in this respect wouldn’t be too bad in my opinion. Trump’s lot may also want to look at the verse before that as well…
This had better not be banned:
What an excellent idea ! But I’d have chipped in towards a really big one
VB
1 Like
Or this…
1 Like
He is one step ahead of you,
His new ally North Korea will keep China off his back,
Smart eh?
1 Like
2 Likes
What a cunt !
2 Likes
But it’s what Jesus would have wanted 
But, would Jesus have voted Trump in the first place ?
I feel not.
2 Likes
Absolutely sickening what’s happening in the US now.
I had hoped all right-minded people in this country would show him and the rest of the scum what we think of them come July but I now fear the worst since we’ve got our very own shower of scum running Britain.
2 Likes
1 Like
VB is close, but not quite correct.
“It seems it’s not ‘Trump’s’ separation of children from families, which actually happens under legislation passed by the Democrats.”
Is this the fault of Democrats, as Trump has continued to claim for weeks? (Alarm bells should ring when Trump continually emphasises anything.)
No. This was a policy shift by the Trump administration who have the power to unilaterally reverse it. It’s legal, no question, but it’s purely the current administration’s decision.
The more nuanced point from the administration is that this is something that can and should be addressed by broader immigration legislative efforts, and that Democrats are blocking those efforts. It’s correct that Democrats aren’t in the room on the current House effort, but this is far more a Republican issue than Democrat one. Here’s why:
- The President’s immigration bill got 39 votes in the Senate (the bipartisan effort also fell short of the 60 votes needed to move forward, but received more support.)
- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has explicitly said the Senate won’t take up any immigration legislation again unless the House passes it and the President is explicit he will sign it (more on that below). Republican blocking of possible legislation.
- The House Republican effort has been a purely partisan one – Democrats aren’t in negotiations, being consulted, or expected to provide any “yes” votes given the conservative nature of even the compromise bill.
- Even the GOP-only effort in the House, which is scheduled to be considered next week, is a long way away from having enough votes to pass.
- The President, in Friday’s Fox News interview, said he’s opposed to the GOP moderate-negotiated House bill. This is a kill shot to the entire House exercise, whether they manage the scrounge together the votes or not.
Bottom line: The Trump administration implemented the current separation policy. The policy existed - yes - but is not constitutionally binding, and does not require blind adherence by the GOP, ICE, or US border control.
9 Likes
Excellent post. Really well written and informative. Wasted here sadly…
Tl:dr