The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump

[dimejinky99]

Is there even a roughly accurate number of how many cross annually?

[McParadigm]

Is there even a roughly accurate number of how many cross annually?

Apprehensions data:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files ... FY2017.pdf

[Norah]

Is there even a roughly accurate number of how many cross annually?

Apprehensions data:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files ... FY2017.pdf

So about a quarter of what we were seeing 18 years ago. Some crisis.

[Simple Torture]

Is there even a roughly accurate number of how many cross annually?

Apprehensions data:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files ... FY2017.pdf

So about a quarter of what we were seeing 18 years ago. Some crisis.

TBF, those charts only document apprehensions, so there's going to be continued disagreement about how many undocumented people make it through without being apprehended. How you read the data matters, too: the numbers dropping so low under Obama could be seen as them being "soft" or uncommitted to protecting the border.

[Norah]

Is there even a roughly accurate number of how many cross annually?

Apprehensions data:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files ... FY2017.pdf

So about a quarter of what we were seeing 18 years ago. Some crisis.

TBF, those charts only document apprehensions, so there's going to be continued disagreement about how many undocumented people make it through without being apprehended. How you read the data matters, too: the numbers dropping so low under Obama could be seen as them being "soft" or uncommitted to protecting the border.

The 2017 numbers are under Trump though.

[McParadigm]

[Simple Torture]

Is there even a roughly accurate number of how many cross annually?

Apprehensions data:
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files ... FY2017.pdf

So about a quarter of what we were seeing 18 years ago. Some crisis.

TBF, those charts only document apprehensions, so there's going to be continued disagreement about how many undocumented people make it through without being apprehended. How you read the data matters, too: the numbers dropping so low under Obama could be seen as them being "soft" or uncommitted to protecting the border.

The 2017 numbers are under Trump though.

Yeah but that's the obstructionist Democrat's fault. WITCH HUNT

[dimejinky99]

Haha. Bam!

[Rangi Guy]

I have to say if you support the owner of Ren Hen for asking Sarah to leave cause of their personal convictions - then you kinda have to be on the side of the baker

[Norah]

no you don't

[Rangi Guy]

So one person's personal convictions count another's don't?

[Norah]

Judging someone's actions and saying I don't want that person in my shop isn't the same as saying I don't want homosexuals in my shop.

[Rangi Guy]

That's a pretty slippery slope

[Simple Torture]

So one person's personal convictions count another's don't?

I think the main thrust of the argument here is that a person's sexual orientation is not the same as someone's personal decisions about the policies they choose to enact as a member of a political administration. I've had some trouble organizing how I feel about the situation over the past few days--on the one hand, of course the owner of the restaurant had every right to do what he did, and of course I find SHS to be a willing participant in the Trumpain machine; but, on the other, I think that allies of the LGBT+ community "citing" the SCOTUS decision on the bakery when defending the owner's actions to be, well, icky and weird.

[Rangi Guy]

Sounds like mob mentality to me. Everyone should be given the same servicce

[dimejinky99]

She expected the same service as anyone while supporting others BEing discrimated against in another. And vocally.

I simply wouldn’t want to lose regular custom for hosting her. I don’t even think the restaurant had any agenda last that.

[McParadigm]

Refusing to serve Sarah Huckabee Sanders food that you’ve liberally tainted with your feces when the opportunity is present is truly noble.

[Simple Torture]

Judging someone's actions and saying I don't want that person in my shop isn't the same as saying I don't want homosexuals in my shop.

To be fair, the SCOTUS case wasn't about having gay people in their shop or even serving gay people--it was about providing a cake for a gay wedding. There's a very fine distinction there, and some of the language in the SCOTUS decision was really interesting in the sense that it compared a wedding cake to a work of art. The thinking goes like this, I guess: if you were an artist and you painted and then sold horses and landscapes, you'd be in violation of federal law if you refused to sell a painting to a person for who they are (i.e., a protected class). But if you're a painter and you only do works that people commission you to do, you're under no obligation to paint something that you find morally reprehensible or that you flat-out don't feel like.

I'm not saying I agree with the ruling, it's just something I found interesting about it; I also think it's important to be precise about what was being argued there.

[Bi_3]

So one person's personal convictions count another's don't?

I think the main thrust of the argument here is that a person's sexual orientation is not the same as someone's personal decisions about the policies they choose to enact as a member of a political administration. I've had some trouble organizing how I feel about the situation over the past few days--on the one hand, of course the owner of the restaurant had every right to do what he did, and of course I find SHS to be a willing participant in the Trumpain machine; but, on the other, I think that allies of the LGBT+ community "citing" the SCOTUS decision on the bakery when defending the owner's actions to be, well, icky and weird.

They get hard from the irony of the discriminators getting discriminated against. It’s a core tenant of progressive thought.

[BurtReynolds]

"It's ok when we do it." - both sides

They are both right though I think.