You should start with a less fallacious pretense if you actually want a discussion.
Correct. The question is effective vs ineffective.
Printable View
I don't follow your logic and I don't see how to I am forced to acknowledge the EO tried to resolve the immorality of the situation. If I'm understanding your position, and please correct me if I'm wrong, are you saying a policy can be morally agnostic even if the outcome is morally reprehensible?
Also, can you explain how you see the EO as solving a moral problem? Are you suggesting that a "zero tolerance policy" is preferred because it will discourage people from attempting to cross the border with their kids thus stopping the separation of families?
It is factual that intermittent reinforcement is dangerous; it encourages people to "play the game." As it relates to policy, it is absolutely ineffective. Conversely, continuous reinforcement (zero tolerance) of policy is effective. The decision is "effective vs ineffective." There is no morality embedded in the facts. So, if you want an effective immigration policy you have to be willing to enforce it.
but now that we agree that trump changed the policies ... your argument that obama and trumps policies were identical is laid bare, and you are ready to now answer my question.
is trumps policy of child, baby, and even newborn separation and self defense in a court of law, a moral one, or an evil one?
again, we are all in agreement now that what obama was doing, and what trump did is different. so that can't be a response.
Hahaha.
https://media.tenor.com/images/7cba9...5661/tenor.gif
In the same ways as pretty much any conspiracy that involves George Soros.