|
On October 23 2018 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:. For a person with a DSD where they have a penis, breasts, feminine facial features and the body shape of a woman, which bathroom is for them?
Men’s.
|
On October 23 2018 12:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2018 11:38 xDaunt wrote:
What question did I miss? . For a person with a DSD where they have a penis, breasts, feminine facial features and the body shape of a woman, which bathroom is for them? Men’s.
You think it's going to be easier to explain to kids why there's what by all appearances and visible biological cues is a woman in the men's bathroom with them? Simply because you've assured them there are two concrete distinct genders and that the woman they see really has a penis which means they are a man?
|
On October 23 2018 11:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 11:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2018 10:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2018 07:19 Nebuchad wrote:On October 23 2018 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2018 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On October 23 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that transgender people are being denied the right to exist is rhetorical nonsense. This isn't Nazi Germany where we're putting them on trains with the rest of the undesirables. Much like how one doesn't have to wear a white hood to be a racist, one does not have to be "putting them on trains" to be denying them their identity. I'm not denying them anything. Conservatives aren't denying them anything. No one's stopping transgenders from doing anything that anyone else can do. What I disagree with is this idea that they should be afforded special privileges or considerations by virtue of their being transgender. I also disagree with the idea that transgenderism must be seen as being normal, because that's little more thought policing. If you progressives really gave a shit about "denying people their identity," you'd be calling out your own for harassing conservative politicians and figureheads in restaurants or assaulting them in public. Fix your own illiberal shit before you start accusing us over nothing. You're not denying them anything, you've just defined recognizing their existence as a special privilege that you don't want to give them. Eh, that's mildly clever at least. Has it ever dawned on you to really consider what it means to deny someone their existence? I can no sooner deny that transgendered people exist than I can deny that the sky is blue. We are talking about real people, not the boogeyman. This argument that conservatives are denying transgendered people their existence is beyond stupid, and I'm disappointed at how heavily you are pushing it. This issue isn't whether transgendered people get to exist or whether their existence will be acknowledged. The real issue is whether society must be forced to consider transgenderism a normal state of being. We accommodate all sorts of abnormal "states of being" society shouldn't need to be forced, and as I mentioned earlier particularly not one that supposedly adheres to a philosophy that advocates that they be judged not by how they treat fellow believers, but how the least among them. As to the "existence" argument I think the point is that despite whatever genitals (it's not just penises and vagina's as you would recognize them btw) people are born with they are still complete people that you want to deny a part of them based on outdated understandings of physiology and Victorian era morality. The morals are outdated in your opinion, but they have served society quite well for centuries, and I'm in no hurry to tear them down. Newer isn't always better, which is something that post-modernism has badly failed to grasp as it continues to lead western society off a cliff.
The basic schema wherein there are only 2 distinct genders was something we came up with when we had bigger shit to worry about as a species. It should come as no surprise, upon finding ourselves in a more civilized and well-off place collectively, that we start challenging old ideas that may or may not be true. Just because we got this far with some construct in place is no guarantee that it made it this far off the back of its merits. There are many arguments that can be made against that claim going off of certain events in recent American history, i.e. the Civil Rights Movement. Times can change, and it can actually be for good reason.
|
On October 23 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that transgender people are being denied the right to exist is rhetorical nonsense. This isn't Nazi Germany where we're putting them on trains with the rest of the undesirables.
The US government is literally telling transgender people that they aren't transgender, that they can't be because there is no such category.
Being denied your identity is horrible, and in this case it is being done with no benefit to society out of pure spite.
I read an article in the Guardian a couple of months ago that claimed that the white working class doesn't exist, that its an illusion invented by racists. That irritated me just as much.
Being able to have an identity allows you to organise, to stand up for your interests and to have a voice. This is about much, much more than bathrooms, and it isn't rhetorical nonsense.
|
PSA to help cut down on errant calls to 911
In all seriousness this is a big problem, particularly with a police force largely incapable of deescalation increasing the likelihood that innocent people are hurt or killed because of an irrational fear of Black people.
|
On October 23 2018 10:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 07:19 Nebuchad wrote:On October 23 2018 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2018 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On October 23 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that transgender people are being denied the right to exist is rhetorical nonsense. This isn't Nazi Germany where we're putting them on trains with the rest of the undesirables. Much like how one doesn't have to wear a white hood to be a racist, one does not have to be "putting them on trains" to be denying them their identity. I'm not denying them anything. Conservatives aren't denying them anything. No one's stopping transgenders from doing anything that anyone else can do. What I disagree with is this idea that they should be afforded special privileges or considerations by virtue of their being transgender. I also disagree with the idea that transgenderism must be seen as being normal, because that's little more thought policing. If you progressives really gave a shit about "denying people their identity," you'd be calling out your own for harassing conservative politicians and figureheads in restaurants or assaulting them in public. Fix your own illiberal shit before you start accusing us over nothing. You're not denying them anything, you've just defined recognizing their existence as a special privilege that you don't want to give them. Eh, that's mildly clever at least. Has it ever dawned on you to really consider what it means to deny someone their existence? I can no sooner deny that transgendered people exist than I can deny that the sky is blue. We are talking about real people, not the boogeyman. This argument that conservatives are denying transgendered people their existence is beyond stupid, and I'm disappointed at how heavily you are pushing it. This issue isn't whether transgendered people get to exist or whether their existence will be acknowledged. The real issue is whether society must be forced to consider transgenderism a normal state of being.
"whether their existence will be acknowledged" and "whether society must be forced to consider transgenderism a normal state of being" have the same content. When people refuse to acknowledge their existence, they do so by misgendering them and chalking it up to mental illness. What you said amounts to "the issue isn't [x], it's [x reformulated, and I hope you'll think it's [y]]".
You as a conservative individual may not have a capacity to deny transgender people their existence outside of being a dick to them on a personal level, but Trump's administration has more power. They could, for example, do what they plan to do, with the consequences that Jock, NewSunshine and I outlined. It's good that you recognize that you doing that is about as stupid as deciding the sky isn't blue; I wish you'd apply that observation to Trump's administration offering exactly the same counterfactual proposition.
|
On October 23 2018 11:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 08:50 iamthedave wrote:On October 23 2018 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2018 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On October 23 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that transgender people are being denied the right to exist is rhetorical nonsense. This isn't Nazi Germany where we're putting them on trains with the rest of the undesirables. Much like how one doesn't have to wear a white hood to be a racist, one does not have to be "putting them on trains" to be denying them their identity. I'm not denying them anything. Conservatives aren't denying them anything. No one's stopping transgenders from doing anything that anyone else can do. What I disagree with is this idea that they should be afforded special privileges or considerations by virtue of their being transgender. I also disagree with the idea that transgenderism must be seen as being normal, because that's little more thought policing. How is it a special privilege to be able to use the bathroom that corresponds to one's gender? It's pretty simple and easy when you view sex/gender as a fixed genetic concept, and deviations from that paradigm as being emblematic of a disorder. Show nested quote +You're trying very hard to twist yourself out of this knot you're in, but failing. Your argument hinges entirely upon denying the existence of transgender people, because if you accept their existence, then they should be allowed to use the bathroom that corresponds to their actual gender, not the one that they were assigned at birth. There is no knot. My explanation is quite elegant in its simplicity. And I'm not denying transgendered people their right to identify as whatever they want to identify as. What I am doing is subordinating their desire to use their restroom of choice to the desires of the majority to maintain a strict dichotomy between genetic genders. Let's not pretend that there aren't people who abuse the concept of self-identity.Show nested quote +So either you are denying them something - their right to an identity they're comfortable with - or you aren't, and you're a-ok with them using the correct bathroom. In addition, the 'special privilege' argument doesn't work because that implies the privilege wouldn't apply to anyone else, when in fact it would. The fact that only transgender people are likely to use it is irrelevant. You could take advantage of the same mechanics to define yourself as a woman if you so desired. Hence, no special privilege. I'd suggest to you that anyone whose identity is strictly tied to which restroom they can use is mentally ill and has problems far beyond whether they get to use their restroom of choice. Like I said, I'm quite comfortable in compelling the transgendered minority to acquiesce to the desires of the majority in this circumstance.
I'd suggest to you that claiming you're willing to accept their right to self-identify while simultaneously completely denying that identification on a societal level is completely intolerant and literally denying their existence.
Trans person: "I am a woman."
XDaunt: "You're still using the man's bathroom."
Trans person: "But I'm a woman. You accept that, right?"
XDaunt: "I do. You're using the men's bathroom anyway. Like all the other women do. I guess."
Your argument is simple, alright, but it has the elegance of a drunken cow. You're claiming to do one thing while doing another. Either they're the gender they say they are, or they aren't. This is the cornerstone of being trans. You can't claim that you accept their existence while denying them the basic rights that go with being that gender. And one of THE most basic rights is using the bathroom.
|
On October 23 2018 19:48 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2018 08:50 iamthedave wrote:On October 23 2018 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2018 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On October 23 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that transgender people are being denied the right to exist is rhetorical nonsense. This isn't Nazi Germany where we're putting them on trains with the rest of the undesirables. Much like how one doesn't have to wear a white hood to be a racist, one does not have to be "putting them on trains" to be denying them their identity. I'm not denying them anything. Conservatives aren't denying them anything. No one's stopping transgenders from doing anything that anyone else can do. What I disagree with is this idea that they should be afforded special privileges or considerations by virtue of their being transgender. I also disagree with the idea that transgenderism must be seen as being normal, because that's little more thought policing. How is it a special privilege to be able to use the bathroom that corresponds to one's gender? It's pretty simple and easy when you view sex/gender as a fixed genetic concept, and deviations from that paradigm as being emblematic of a disorder. You're trying very hard to twist yourself out of this knot you're in, but failing. Your argument hinges entirely upon denying the existence of transgender people, because if you accept their existence, then they should be allowed to use the bathroom that corresponds to their actual gender, not the one that they were assigned at birth. There is no knot. My explanation is quite elegant in its simplicity. And I'm not denying transgendered people their right to identify as whatever they want to identify as. What I am doing is subordinating their desire to use their restroom of choice to the desires of the majority to maintain a strict dichotomy between genetic genders. Let's not pretend that there aren't people who abuse the concept of self-identity.So either you are denying them something - their right to an identity they're comfortable with - or you aren't, and you're a-ok with them using the correct bathroom. In addition, the 'special privilege' argument doesn't work because that implies the privilege wouldn't apply to anyone else, when in fact it would. The fact that only transgender people are likely to use it is irrelevant. You could take advantage of the same mechanics to define yourself as a woman if you so desired. Hence, no special privilege. I'd suggest to you that anyone whose identity is strictly tied to which restroom they can use is mentally ill and has problems far beyond whether they get to use their restroom of choice. Like I said, I'm quite comfortable in compelling the transgendered minority to acquiesce to the desires of the majority in this circumstance. I'd suggest to you that claiming you're willing to accept their right to self-identify while simultaneously completely denying that identification on a societal level is completely intolerant and literally denying their existence. Trans person: "I am a woman." XDaunt: "You're still using the man's bathroom." Trans person: "But I'm a woman. You accept that, right?" XDaunt: "I do. You're using the men's bathroom anyway. Like all the other women do. I guess." Your argument is simple, alright, but it has the elegance of a drunken cow. You're claiming to do one thing while doing another. Either they're the gender they say they are, or they aren't. This is the cornerstone of being trans. You can't claim that you accept their existence while denying them the basic rights that go with being that gender. And one of THE most basic rights is using the bathroom.
Like I said, if one's self-identity is so acutely tied to bathroom use, then that person has far bigger problems that need to be addressed than who gets to use which bathroom.
|
On October 23 2018 22:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 19:48 iamthedave wrote:On October 23 2018 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2018 08:50 iamthedave wrote:On October 23 2018 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2018 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On October 23 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that transgender people are being denied the right to exist is rhetorical nonsense. This isn't Nazi Germany where we're putting them on trains with the rest of the undesirables. Much like how one doesn't have to wear a white hood to be a racist, one does not have to be "putting them on trains" to be denying them their identity. I'm not denying them anything. Conservatives aren't denying them anything. No one's stopping transgenders from doing anything that anyone else can do. What I disagree with is this idea that they should be afforded special privileges or considerations by virtue of their being transgender. I also disagree with the idea that transgenderism must be seen as being normal, because that's little more thought policing. How is it a special privilege to be able to use the bathroom that corresponds to one's gender? It's pretty simple and easy when you view sex/gender as a fixed genetic concept, and deviations from that paradigm as being emblematic of a disorder. You're trying very hard to twist yourself out of this knot you're in, but failing. Your argument hinges entirely upon denying the existence of transgender people, because if you accept their existence, then they should be allowed to use the bathroom that corresponds to their actual gender, not the one that they were assigned at birth. There is no knot. My explanation is quite elegant in its simplicity. And I'm not denying transgendered people their right to identify as whatever they want to identify as. What I am doing is subordinating their desire to use their restroom of choice to the desires of the majority to maintain a strict dichotomy between genetic genders. Let's not pretend that there aren't people who abuse the concept of self-identity.So either you are denying them something - their right to an identity they're comfortable with - or you aren't, and you're a-ok with them using the correct bathroom. In addition, the 'special privilege' argument doesn't work because that implies the privilege wouldn't apply to anyone else, when in fact it would. The fact that only transgender people are likely to use it is irrelevant. You could take advantage of the same mechanics to define yourself as a woman if you so desired. Hence, no special privilege. I'd suggest to you that anyone whose identity is strictly tied to which restroom they can use is mentally ill and has problems far beyond whether they get to use their restroom of choice. Like I said, I'm quite comfortable in compelling the transgendered minority to acquiesce to the desires of the majority in this circumstance. I'd suggest to you that claiming you're willing to accept their right to self-identify while simultaneously completely denying that identification on a societal level is completely intolerant and literally denying their existence. Trans person: "I am a woman." XDaunt: "You're still using the man's bathroom." Trans person: "But I'm a woman. You accept that, right?" XDaunt: "I do. You're using the men's bathroom anyway. Like all the other women do. I guess." Your argument is simple, alright, but it has the elegance of a drunken cow. You're claiming to do one thing while doing another. Either they're the gender they say they are, or they aren't. This is the cornerstone of being trans. You can't claim that you accept their existence while denying them the basic rights that go with being that gender. And one of THE most basic rights is using the bathroom. Like I said, if one's self-identity is so acutely tied to bathroom use, then that person has far bigger problems that need to be addressed than who gets to use which bathroom.
To be fair it's possible to say that your identity is closely tied to who gets to use which bathroom based on your arguments.
|
On October 23 2018 22:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 19:48 iamthedave wrote:On October 23 2018 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2018 08:50 iamthedave wrote:On October 23 2018 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 23 2018 06:32 NewSunshine wrote:On October 23 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that transgender people are being denied the right to exist is rhetorical nonsense. This isn't Nazi Germany where we're putting them on trains with the rest of the undesirables. Much like how one doesn't have to wear a white hood to be a racist, one does not have to be "putting them on trains" to be denying them their identity. I'm not denying them anything. Conservatives aren't denying them anything. No one's stopping transgenders from doing anything that anyone else can do. What I disagree with is this idea that they should be afforded special privileges or considerations by virtue of their being transgender. I also disagree with the idea that transgenderism must be seen as being normal, because that's little more thought policing. How is it a special privilege to be able to use the bathroom that corresponds to one's gender? It's pretty simple and easy when you view sex/gender as a fixed genetic concept, and deviations from that paradigm as being emblematic of a disorder. You're trying very hard to twist yourself out of this knot you're in, but failing. Your argument hinges entirely upon denying the existence of transgender people, because if you accept their existence, then they should be allowed to use the bathroom that corresponds to their actual gender, not the one that they were assigned at birth. There is no knot. My explanation is quite elegant in its simplicity. And I'm not denying transgendered people their right to identify as whatever they want to identify as. What I am doing is subordinating their desire to use their restroom of choice to the desires of the majority to maintain a strict dichotomy between genetic genders. Let's not pretend that there aren't people who abuse the concept of self-identity.So either you are denying them something - their right to an identity they're comfortable with - or you aren't, and you're a-ok with them using the correct bathroom. In addition, the 'special privilege' argument doesn't work because that implies the privilege wouldn't apply to anyone else, when in fact it would. The fact that only transgender people are likely to use it is irrelevant. You could take advantage of the same mechanics to define yourself as a woman if you so desired. Hence, no special privilege. I'd suggest to you that anyone whose identity is strictly tied to which restroom they can use is mentally ill and has problems far beyond whether they get to use their restroom of choice. Like I said, I'm quite comfortable in compelling the transgendered minority to acquiesce to the desires of the majority in this circumstance. I'd suggest to you that claiming you're willing to accept their right to self-identify while simultaneously completely denying that identification on a societal level is completely intolerant and literally denying their existence. Trans person: "I am a woman." XDaunt: "You're still using the man's bathroom." Trans person: "But I'm a woman. You accept that, right?" XDaunt: "I do. You're using the men's bathroom anyway. Like all the other women do. I guess." Your argument is simple, alright, but it has the elegance of a drunken cow. You're claiming to do one thing while doing another. Either they're the gender they say they are, or they aren't. This is the cornerstone of being trans. You can't claim that you accept their existence while denying them the basic rights that go with being that gender. And one of THE most basic rights is using the bathroom. Like I said, if one's self-identity is so acutely tied to bathroom use, then that person has far bigger problems that need to be addressed than who gets to use which bathroom.
And what you said is a childish over simplification. It's part and parcel of being the gender you say you are. If there was a perfectly functioning men's bathroom and you wanted to go into it and were told 'we don't accept your kind in this bathroom' you'd be pissed off. It'd be an attack on your identity. And you'd be entirely right to be pissed off.
|
The working nature is then bathroom doesn’t address the fundamental problems for transgender people, that they get assaulted and sometimes killed in public restrooms, especially of they cannot use the one that for the gender they identify and present as. The only alternative is to only use the bathroom in their house, which prohibits their ability to exist in modern life.
|
Here's what some trans-people say about it:
On what it would be like to be forced to use a men’s bathroom in North Carolina:
“My choices are: Go to the women’s room and probably be OK and break the law, or go into a men’s room until someone realizes why I’m there. After they’ve worked so very, very hard to label sexual predators, God only knows what happens when I walk in or when I walk out.
“If you walk in and you’re presenting as female, even if you have passing privilege, you walk into the men’s room and you’ve immediately identified yourself as a lost cisgender woman… or you walk in and you stay and that immediately marks you as transgender.… Last year, we had 22 or 23 trans women murdered. And we’ve got North Carolina legislators… having beat the drum that transgender people are perverts and have no rights. You walk into a bathroom, you’ve announced yourself as transgender and everyone in that bathroom has been told that you’re a child-molesting, subhuman monster. Whatever compunctions they have against violence have been significantly lowered.”
Source
One of the interviewees also talks about how they suffered from frequent UTIs as a result of holding it in so long for fear of using public restrooms. Trans-people have a practical interest in being able to use the public restrooms of their choice, it's not just about affirming their identity.
|
On October 24 2018 02:06 Mercy13 wrote:Here's what some trans-people say about it: Show nested quote +On what it would be like to be forced to use a men’s bathroom in North Carolina:
“My choices are: Go to the women’s room and probably be OK and break the law, or go into a men’s room until someone realizes why I’m there. After they’ve worked so very, very hard to label sexual predators, God only knows what happens when I walk in or when I walk out.
“If you walk in and you’re presenting as female, even if you have passing privilege, you walk into the men’s room and you’ve immediately identified yourself as a lost cisgender woman… or you walk in and you stay and that immediately marks you as transgender.… Last year, we had 22 or 23 trans women murdered. And we’ve got North Carolina legislators… having beat the drum that transgender people are perverts and have no rights. You walk into a bathroom, you’ve announced yourself as transgender and everyone in that bathroom has been told that you’re a child-molesting, subhuman monster. Whatever compunctions they have against violence have been significantly lowered.” SourceOne of the interviewees also talks about how they suffered from frequent UTIs as a result of holding it in so long for fear of using public restrooms. Trans-people have a practical interest in being able to use the public restrooms of their choice, it's not just about affirming their identity.
Forcing the restroom issue isn't going to fix the underlying problem of promoting tolerance. It's only going to exacerbate matters and inflame the majority. Attacking and flaunting social norms will always have a price.
|
I'm looking forward to seeing what Trump does with this migrant caravan coming up through Mexico. One thing is for sure: you couldn't pick a better way to advertise the need for the Wall.
|
On October 24 2018 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing what Trump does with this migrant caravan coming up through Mexico. One thing is for sure: you couldn't pick a better way to advertise the need for the Wall.
I’m really not sure how labeling a group of poor people and children fleeing violence as terrorist set on destroying America is going to help him. They are going to get to the border and be processed as asylum seekers, which means their children might be taken away. The only way Trumps plan is good is if no reporters or cameras go near the caravan.
|
On October 24 2018 03:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing what Trump does with this migrant caravan coming up through Mexico. One thing is for sure: you couldn't pick a better way to advertise the need for the Wall. I’m really not sure how labeling a group of poor people and children fleeing violence as terrorist set on destroying America is going to help him. They are going to get to the border and be processed as asylum seekers, which means their children might be taken away. The only way Trumps plan is good is if no reporters or cameras go near the caravan.
Most Americans understand that opening the border to endless torrents of poor foreigners from failing countries is a horrible idea. That's why Democrats routinely get killed politically on the border security issue.
I hope that Trump deploys a US Army brigade or two on the southern border and then orders them to intercept the caravan in Mexico as it approaches the border. They can then process everyone in Mexico and ship the migrants back home in due course.
|
On October 24 2018 03:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 03:20 Plansix wrote:On October 24 2018 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing what Trump does with this migrant caravan coming up through Mexico. One thing is for sure: you couldn't pick a better way to advertise the need for the Wall. I’m really not sure how labeling a group of poor people and children fleeing violence as terrorist set on destroying America is going to help him. They are going to get to the border and be processed as asylum seekers, which means their children might be taken away. The only way Trumps plan is good is if no reporters or cameras go near the caravan. Most Americans understand that opening the border to endless torrents of poor foreigners from failing countries is a horrible idea. That's why Democrats routinely get killed politically on the border security issue. I hope that Trump deploys a US Army brigade or two on the southern border and then orders them to intercept the caravan in Mexico as it approaches the border. They can then process everyone in Mexico and ship the migrants back home in due course.
How would that even work? The immigration courts that hear asylum claims are in the US. And why is the president unlawfully deploying the US army to a state border? Or did you mean the National guard, which is under state control?
|
On October 24 2018 03:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 24 2018 03:20 Plansix wrote:On October 24 2018 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing what Trump does with this migrant caravan coming up through Mexico. One thing is for sure: you couldn't pick a better way to advertise the need for the Wall. I’m really not sure how labeling a group of poor people and children fleeing violence as terrorist set on destroying America is going to help him. They are going to get to the border and be processed as asylum seekers, which means their children might be taken away. The only way Trumps plan is good is if no reporters or cameras go near the caravan. Most Americans understand that opening the border to endless torrents of poor foreigners from failing countries is a horrible idea. That's why Democrats routinely get killed politically on the border security issue. I hope that Trump deploys a US Army brigade or two on the southern border and then orders them to intercept the caravan in Mexico as it approaches the border. They can then process everyone in Mexico and ship the migrants back home in due course. How would that even work? The immigration courts that hear asylum claims are in the US. And why is the president unlawfully deploying the US army to a state border? Or did you mean the National guard, which is under state control?
Of course Trump could send the military to the border and into Mexico with the purported purpose of stopping an unlawful foreign incursion. No judge is going to issue an injunction to stop him. Trump will have 60 days (or whatever the period to act is) before he has to secure the consent of congress, which will be plenty of time to do what he needs to do.
|
On October 24 2018 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing what Trump does with this migrant caravan coming up through Mexico. One thing is for sure: you couldn't pick a better way to advertise the need for the Wall.
Pence isn't firey, but he does his own thing well. We have this many suspected terrorists apprehended on the southern border. I talked to this leader whose nationals are in this parade, and he says it's lefty NGOs organizing people.
The worst thing for the left on this topic is people remember the last caravan. It launched with 1200 people. This one launched with 7,000. Americans are wondering how big the next one will be, particularly if this one makes it to the border more intact than the last. The previous encourages the next, and to paraphrase Trump, there's enough shithole countries to the south of the US to send tens of thousands more.
|
On October 24 2018 03:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 03:35 Plansix wrote:On October 24 2018 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 24 2018 03:20 Plansix wrote:On October 24 2018 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing what Trump does with this migrant caravan coming up through Mexico. One thing is for sure: you couldn't pick a better way to advertise the need for the Wall. I’m really not sure how labeling a group of poor people and children fleeing violence as terrorist set on destroying America is going to help him. They are going to get to the border and be processed as asylum seekers, which means their children might be taken away. The only way Trumps plan is good is if no reporters or cameras go near the caravan. Most Americans understand that opening the border to endless torrents of poor foreigners from failing countries is a horrible idea. That's why Democrats routinely get killed politically on the border security issue. I hope that Trump deploys a US Army brigade or two on the southern border and then orders them to intercept the caravan in Mexico as it approaches the border. They can then process everyone in Mexico and ship the migrants back home in due course. How would that even work? The immigration courts that hear asylum claims are in the US. And why is the president unlawfully deploying the US army to a state border? Or did you mean the National guard, which is under state control? Of course Trump could send the military to the border and into Mexico with the purported purpose of stopping an unlawful foreign incursion. No judge is going to issue an injunction to stop him. Trump will have 60 days (or whatever the period to act is) before he has to secure the consent of congress, which will be plenty of time to do what he needs to do.
The US army cannot be deployed on US soil without an foreign invasion. Trump would need to convince the joint chiefs and Mattis that a 7000 poor people and children are an invading force that merits a response from the US army for them to comply with that order. I don’t see that happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
