The policy of separating children from their parents is terrible. It is an awful policy, and should be ended. America stands for something better, something more decent.
I think most agree it is terrible but quit pretending that America stands for better. All it does is show how ignorant you are of our history. We had genocide of the Indian, Slavery and even more brutal removal operations like Operation Wetback in the 1950s where we used the Army.
It is pretty clear that some folks in this thread are pretty ignorant regarding our dark history. So forgive me if I laugh when you say what America stands for.
So just because we've had such an atrocious track record, historically, doesn't mean that we can't change/aspire to be something much better?
In these situations, we are best off making sure there are consequences, but that we don't crush people. We can't really win here. The best we can do is to put up appropriate resistance and live with the human limitations.
We could win but I often doubt we have to win to win like in the past. In the past, we would have went
to war with Mexico to make this stop. That is what America stood for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War#Impact_of_the_war_in_the_United_States
They would not stand a chance against us. We are never going to do that, though, nor should we do that. Reading these threads about what America stands for is very funny though. How many here were home schooled? I was not but some here seem to have a very white wash view of History.
Given that it should have been "gone" as opposed to "went" in that sentence, I wouldn't exactly go around throwing shade at the perceived, and respective, levels of education that have been attained by the members of this forum, to say the least, but whatever.
Besides, we simply don't have the manpower to occupy Mexico even if we wanted to invade, anyway, although I am hardly advocating for such, and as a result, our forces would just get bogged down in another unwinnable guerrilla war, as if those are actually winnable, anyway, and before long we'd leave with both a country and people, in ruin, as well as having to deal with the loss of still more American service men and women, not to mention the fact that the circumstances in terms of contemporary immigration between America and its southern neighbor aren't even remotely close to the events that led to the Mexican-American War, imo, as we're not even dealing with a Pancho Villa-like situation, here, lol
. Like not even close.
For a long time I was concerned if we didn't have strong borders we could go the way of Rome when they could no longer defend themselves from the barbarians surrounding them. I felt you need to follow the law and give to God what is God's but also give to Rome what is Rome's, and I've lived my whole life trying to serve two masters this way. But it doesn't always work to serve two masters. People don't realize at one point a huge mistake Rome made was to take advantage of their neighbors. The Romans traded the Goths desperately needed food for the requested asylum from other barbarians, and also, in exchange, separated Gothic children from their families. This didn't show strength of the Romans, but rather weakness. It emboldened and angered their enemies and only a couple years later in battle they lost almost two thirds of their force and their emperor was killed. This policy does not serve God and it does not serve Rome. We are setting a trap of cruelty for ourselves.
Rome also let so many barbarians in their armies that they were no longer Roman and lacked Roman discipline. This had a lot more to do with their fall than trading foods. Again, lack of knowledge of history seems epidemic here, no offense.[/quote]
Lol, in terms of "borders", the United States essentially won the geopolitical jackpot, although, much like Rome, we are an empire that is certainly in decline, imo, so there's that