1)I think it's done to set an example for those th... (
1)I think it's done to set an example for those that will follow. You know, try to come to the United States and this too will happen to you.
If this were the case, children would routinely be separated from the adults they arrived with.
2)As for your human trafficking...why would they come in with a group that is going to be detained instead of using a tunnel or crossing where it is safer to cross the border? If they are human traffickers they are showing themselves to be very bad ones.
You are thinking only of professional human sex and labor slave traffickers. Rent-a-child rings are also human trafficking. And they get paid whether the person paying makes it through or not. If he gets through with the child, he makes his contact and returns the child. The child is sent back south of the border to be paired with another customer. If the CBP finds out the adult is not the child's parent or relative, the child is separated and the real parents or guardians sought. The child is returned to those who have legal custody and he is again sent south to be handed to another customer.
3)True, we separate children from their parents all the time--to protect the children--but not for the crime of crossing a boundary line. You are using a false equivalency which is a logical fallacy--and no, your human trafficking theory is illogical.
They are NOT separated just for coming over the border. They are separated if:
>>They or their parent has a contagion or needs hospitalization.
>>The adult has a felony warrant for their arrest and will be incarcerated.
>>There is evidence the child is being molested or abused.
>>There is evidence the adult is not the parent or guardian of the child.
4)My opinion of Barr he established for himself and if you had any intellectual honesty you would understand that.
As you said. Your opinion.
5)As for Kavanaugh and Roberts. Good, maybe now Trump will cooperate with the House as using the Supreme Court to save his sorry ass won't work...
Exactly what are you trying to convey?
6)The constitution was written by liberals of the day. It was never designed to be a rigid document that never changed. It has always been designed to be the people's document. Nothing the left is proposing has changed that.
The term liberal at that time meant someone who wanted liberty for themselves and others. The term conservative meant someone who was for traditional values of family, law and order, honest work, and supporting your community. The founders were both. It was designed to be stable and difficult to change. Read the requirements in our constitution for amendments if you don't want to take my word. This was NOT suppose to be something which could change with a fad or the desires of whoever was in office at the time!
7)From the day this country was founded name a single thing you backward knuckle-dragging conservatives have done for this country? If you want to sit there and piss all over liberals name a single GD thing Conservatives have ever done for this country. As Torries you sided with King George and the English. As southern conservatives, you started the Civil war and were responsible for Jim Crow and the KKK. You fought against labor laws and stood on the side of monopolies. You would against the right of women to vote. You were against SS and later Medicare and Medicaid. You stood against school integration and voting rights. You stood against any form of welfare, educational grants, food assistance and still do. From public education on down, there is no advancement this country has ever made that you people have supported.
I am certain at least some Tories were conservative. But this does not mean what is today a right wing conservative. Would you say Islamic conservatives have the same goals as American conservatives? That is the same faulty reasoning which the left uses to say since the Nazis were nationalists, nationalists are NAZIs. During our War of Independence their were conservatives loyal to the colonies, or their own colony, or their neighbors; and conservatives who were loyal to the king.
Starting with Alexander Hamilton, there was a movement to have elites of America control the populace. Hamilton wanted a national popular election but only the wealthy to have the franchise. During the antediluvian south, the elites were the wealthy plantation owners. The populace was the poor whites and slaves.
The Jim Crow laws were an attempt to keep the blacks in quasi slavery. They weren't written by Republicans.Republicans fought to end slavery.
Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was known for being a trust buster. In other words, anti-monopoly. Their is also a difference between labor laws and labor union laws. An article he wrote starts with this paragraph. "One of the prime objects which the Progressives have in view in seeking to secure the highest governmental efficiency of both the National and the State Governments is to safe-guard and guarantee the vital interests of the wage-workers. We believe in property rights; normally and in the long run property rights and human rights coincide; but where they are at variance we are for human rights first and for property rights second. Lincoln phrased it in one of his homely anecdotes when he said, "We are for both the man and the dollar; but if we must choose between them, we put the man above the dollar"; and in a more formal speech, when be said: "Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." …"http://www.sageamericanhistory.net/progressive/docs/TRonLabor.htm
While labor unions can do good or ill, even for the laborer.
I will concede regarding SS and medicare.
AS for desegregation, again it was the Republicans who voted in favor of desegregation and civil rights, NOT Democrats. Eisenhower, a Republican, fought for desegregation. He sent troop to enforce the desegregation ruling of Brown v Board of Education.
And do you really think our founders would have favored government funded welfare programs? Can you provide any quotes from our founders which support that?