This is exactly the kind of media bias I'm talking about. Given the millions of illegals the Dems allowed into the country to sway the voter demographics in their favour, when you are trying to undo the extraordinary damage that this caused (massive levels of fentanyl flowing in, violent gangs establishing territory, extraordinary burden on the taxpayer, sex-trafficking on a large scale etc etc) you will always find some deportation outlier you can focus on in a negative way. It's purely just a numbers thing.
Notice how little focus the mainstream media (and people like you) give to the victims of violent illegals crime, the fentanyl overdoses etc etc.
Also we both know if the parents were sent home without the child, the media would be then accusing the administration of holding the child to ransom and so on.
You didn't answer my question about the Dems low approval rating?
Dems have a low approval rating because they aren't President. They're in Congress, and all of Congress has a low approval rating. Perhaps worth noting: it is higher as of late (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx), which correlates to AOC and Sanders touring against Trump's policies. We'll see if that trend continues. Bad news for Trump if it does.
(Actually, the question is kind of leading; it's worth noting that overall, approval of the whole party, Dem and GOP, is mostly disapprove and only differs by four points or so. America isn't satisfied, as a country, with either party).
Fentanyl is unrelated to immigration. Most fentanyl comes from China, so I don't know why immigration (which is mostly from countries south of the US) is being mentioned. Gangs are only tangentially related to immigration; most US gangs are home-grown. I don't approve of gang violence; I just don't think stymying immigration decreases gang violence. If anything, it gives gangs another powerful card to play: their capacity to move people over the border illegally is only of value if it's hard for people to move over the border. Counterintuitively, you can probably break the back of a lot of gang authority by just handing out day-passes like water at the Southern border.
You are, of course, completely disregarding the third option between "deport with the children" and "deport without the children," which is "don't deport at all." But that doesn't satisfy the need to make America ours again, does it?
I believe we both have our answer. You believe these measures are helping, and are willing to sacrifice the welfare of a few children to see them through. I am not in the same position.
If you'd like to share, I'd be interested in the media you are reading that suggests that fentanyl, sex trafficking, and gang activity will be improved improved or ameliorated by mass deportations. You're right that I haven't seen that in the media I consume, and I'm curious where the meme comes from. Do we have evidence or is it more an instance of we must do something, this is a thing, therefore let's do it?
> purely just a numbers thing
When we start reducing human beings to "a numbers thing," we are going down a very dark path.
I don't find your explanation for the Dems low approval rating very convincing.
After 4 years of Joe Biden, the American people voted in the most disruptive, change agent in US political history, the polar opposite of Joe Biden.
So fairly obviously people are not happy with the Dems.
Fentanyl is obviously related to the Democrat open border policy. Gangs establishing territory in the US is obviously related to the Democrat open border policy.
You can tie yourself in knots with whatever tortuous logic you choose to justify the unjustifiable but most people (like me) are on the side of commonsense. Close the borders and manage immigration in an orderly, controlled way.
With regard to deporting the family of illegal immigrants, the people responsible for this situation is the Democrats who opened the borders and the family that chose to break the law by immigrating illegally.
Re: the "purely numbers thing". You haven't understood the point I was making. With any govt action at scale (Dems or Republican) there will always be winners and losers.
Depending on your bias (and we can obviously see your bias) you'll focus on whatever outlier situation you find to justify your political framing.
And there are so many "very dark paths" aren't there?
Some people might consider weaponising the justice system in an attempt to take out a political opponent a very dark path".
Or others might consider constructing a fake dossier alleging political collusion with Russia, and then using that fake dossier to weaponise the FBI against a political opponent, a "very dark path".
Others might consider opening the borders to illegal migration at scale to sway the voter demographics in your favour (a complete corruption of democracy), a "very dark path".
Not to mention the sex trafficking at scale, the importation of fentanyl at scale as a result of the open border policy could also be a "very dark path".
Others might consider hiding the diminished mental state of a president (in collusion with the media) and gaslighting the public on this issue, so that a cabal of unelected bureacrats can run the country from behind closed doors, a "very dark path".
Others might consider placing enormous pressure on social media companies to censor public discourse thereby bypassing the first amendment a "very dark path".
So please spare me your highly, highly selective, performative faux "concern". I simply can't take you seriously.
The feeling is mutual because much of what you have said applies to the current President as well.
For a country that was, ostensibly, as you claim, tired of the government being weaponized for political ends, the President's mental decline being hidden by his lickspittles, and fentanyl and illegal immigration, they sure picked a winner, didn't they? A 78-year-old with obvious deteriorating health who already had the job and failed at it. And it's on the court record that the GOP planned to use the census to manipulate demographics for representation purposes (because their leadership knows the actual population, undocumented immigration or no, is trending away from people who will vote for them over time; most of the power they hold now is from gerrymandering of representation regions), so your protestations and conspiracy theory around illegal immigration being a political ploy ring extremely hollow.
I think America is getting the government it has chosen and appears to be reaping the consequences. So if you support these decisions, I can't really take you seriously either.
Americans wanted someone to fix their drug and border problems and what they got is a guy who will take a free jet with him when he leaves the job.
Politicians attempting to improve their chances at elections is about as far from a conspiracy theory as you can get. (Why were the Dems gaslighting the public about how "difficult" it was to solve the border problem? For years we've heard ...."We need legislation! We need more money!"). Trump closed the border within weeks so clearly the Dems were lying through their teeth (nobody is shocked, the Dems have been lying about everything). And your "trend" argument is very weak, people were surprised at the demographic trends in the recent election even though it was a minor bump. So it's not really a good explanation for the last 4 years of wide-open borders.
We are in the very early stages of major change and disruption. III make my assessment after a year or two, not after a few months into the new presidency.
The conspiracy theory is that the immigration policy is about encouraging demographic shift because it benefits some politicians over others (as opposed to other explanations such as "There's only but so much you can do to discourage immigration before it crosses over into 'cruelty unbecoming a civilized society'"). It really doesn't hold up to scrutiny of either evidence (Latinos supported Trump significantly in the 2024 election) or common sense ("if immigrants cause problems, wouldn't politicians supporting free immigration lose votes, not gain them? So you end up with a state with more representation but then you hand the representation immediately to the other party? Who benefits?").
Here's a counter-hypothesis: Maybe the Dems didn't do that when they were in power because it was a very stupid idea. There are many, many ways to "solve" the border problem that leave the country far worse off than when the problem was just unsolved. What is your trust level in this administration finding them?
> We are in the very early stages of major change and disruption
On this, we agree. Though I suspect you're thinking more "new, better America" and I'm thinking "Fall of Rome." His last term ended with a barely-managed pandemic; maybe he can top himself in round 2.
Note in the 2020 election more than double the number of Latinos voted Democrat over Republican. With the massive levels of illegal immigration under the Biden open border policy, the demographic voting shift would have likely happened in the medium term as the millions of illegals slowly merged into the legal population (from 5 years onwards). And of course, within a year or two the Dems would have been clamouring to have the illegals made into citizens.
I think the Dems thought they could get away with it because they had enough of the media on their side (CNN, NYT etc) to carry water for them.
But with podcasts, social media etc the media landscape has changed drastically and they weren't able to control the narrative the way they have previously.
And this was particularly catastrophic given Kamala Harris was such a poor candidate seemingly pathologically incapable of saying anything beyond rehearsed talking points (and as a consequence largely avoided podcasts).
We can come back in year and everything could be amazing but based on what I've seen so far, I'm sure you would come up with some tortured logic as to why up is down, black is white and it's the worst economy ever etc...
If we're still deporting cancer patients mid-treatment, things can't be amazing in a year somewhat by definition. It's not the logic that's being tortured; it's human beings.
When did we become a nation so cowardly that we have to deport sick kids to feel safe?
Neither of us have the faintest clue what the actual specific details were of this situation you are attempting use as some form of emotional blackmail. The utterly corrupt Biden administration allowed millions of illegals into this country to sway the voter demographics in their favor. This situation is 100% on them, the current administration is simply attempting to clean up their mess.
If you're trying to assert this isn't a child with cancer (and an American citizen) being sent out of the country before his treatment is over, present evidence. Otherwise you're trying to ignore the facts in your face by deflecting and equivocation. Which you must if you hope to maintain this endeavor to defend the administration, because the facts are monstrous.
I've seen your other posts on other threads. You are attempting to cope with the wheels coming off of the United States by shutting your eyes to the news. It has to be lies, because if it's not lies then what this administration is doing is an existential threat, and you'd much rather not be facing an existential threat. I get that. It sucks being in the middle of history.
I will entertain for a bit accepting your premise that there is a national threat on the border and something must be done (I think it's a flimsy premise; I think these immigration laws are an attempt to build a beaver dam against a rising tide of demographic shift globally, and their incompatibility with the reality on the ground is demonstrated in their inability to be enforced; I think Americans get, at some fundamental level, that we don't get to enforce border constraints like a scared ethnostate while at the same time being America, but we aren't willing to admit that to ourselves yet).
It is entirely possible for the goal to be just, but the process to be monstrous and the administrator to be too stupid to find a balance between efficacy and mercy. You kicked off this subthread by interjecting that people should have just enforced the law. Well here we are. This is what enforcement looks like. It is not the people we want to be.
If previous administrations didn't do this? Good. That was wise leadership that we replaced with a fool.
(Concretely, in this situation: they simply could have let them stay until the treatment was complete. That is always a choice. The executive has broad leeway over enforcement, and that's a feature not a bug.)
Sorry but I'm simply not wasting any more time on this. You've addressed none of the points I've made, none of the extraordinarily corrupt behaviour of the previous admin and you are completely detached from reality on almost all issues of significance. Your arguments are weak and immature. I could equally make a moral argument about the enormous harm caused by the previous administration on so many levels but you'll of course, ignore that and focus on the one scenario you believes supports your case. I'II leave you to have the last word as it's clearly a waste of time engaging with you.
Notice how little focus the mainstream media (and people like you) give to the victims of violent illegals crime, the fentanyl overdoses etc etc.
Also we both know if the parents were sent home without the child, the media would be then accusing the administration of holding the child to ransom and so on.
You didn't answer my question about the Dems low approval rating?