If you destabilize the refugees' country of origin, you have an obligation to take care of them:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/crisis-of-honduras-democracy-has-roots-in-us-tacit-support-for-2009-coup …
-
New conversation
-
-
-
1) It's 100% a straw man argument. No one said get rid of the official border crossings/points of entry and just let everyone in. They're saying asylum seekers should be granted a hearing not turned away. They're saying don't demonize hard working immigrants as criminals/rapists.
-
2) There is some serious hypocrisy among Democrats who supported building fences that won’t work while mocking Trump for wanting a wall that won’t work. But, kidnapping children while deporting their parents is not the equivalent morality of wanting border checkpoints in general.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
In our system, the executive is all that matters. So if you don't have the executive, you oppose everything hoping to make the president unpopular so your side can win the presidency. Giving the other side "wins" is the worst thing you could ever do even at expense of country.
-
That's why 98% of things are the same as Obama but both parties have flipped on every issue.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Despite what they say, the actual operating principle unfortunately happens not to be a moral one for most of them, the painful obviousness of which is very helpful for Trump.
-
How come nobody’s acknowledged the fact that even if Congress did cave & give him the funding for it it wouldn’t happen anyway??
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm sure they don't want to tear down the Walls in their own homes

-
I tore the walls out of my house a few days ago, and it's a little colder now, but I'll be fine. I realized that I literally couldn't think a wall along the border was the dumbest fucking thing I've heard in my life and still live in house with logical consistency. Thanks!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Oh, you must have missed the latest memo. It's not the immorality of the wall; it's now THE COST. Democrats opposed to profligate spending. Right.....
-
As they approve $25 billion going to other countries to protect their borders.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Democrats and operating principles go together like salmon and peanut butter
-
I threw up thinking of that combination
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Operating principle"? Good one, Michael.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
principles lol... stop man... you are killing me :)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s an issue of functionality and expense. There are places a physical barrier is a useful adjunct to other border security mechanisms. But spending a few million on high traffic areas versus a few Billion that will have virtually zero effect makes it immoral.
-
Actually, the way I understood the “morality” arguement was in absolute terms. Definitely needs clarification.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is a perfect example of an obvious question that real journalists ask which require a principled answer, but MSM journos never ask them, therefore politicians are never forced to answer.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.