heh
Discussion?
No. Very seldom anything specific laid out
That you chose to ignore it or deny it doesn't mean it didn't occur.
The conversation about refusing legal asylum seekers the right to apply for asylum is a violation of our laws and our treaties, directed by the President's administration.
The kidnapping of children from those legal asylum seekers violated our laws and the Constitution.
The refusal to track them and initially to aid in recovering them was a violation of the Constitution, probably more than one. (Habeus Corpus, for one.)
The seizure of citizen's passports and denial of new ones without due process was a violation of the Constitution.
Locking up citizens because the officials "suspected" they might not be citizens is a violation of the Constitution.
That's not discussion
Its accusation.
And you have taken liberties here, sir.
Kidnapping? Really?
The EXTREMITY of position is your (YES, YG - I mean it plural) greatest deficiency.
Kiid -
Somebody locks up a person illegally and takes their kid and sends them a thousand miles away, keeps no record of where they sent the kid and refuses to give the kid back, while admitting they took the child as hostage to extort money out of a third party.
Sounds like kidnapping to me. What part of what I describe do you think is extreme? Do you approve of the actions and the stated goal?
Those were the topics, not the discussions. The point gets raised - you choose to participate or not. More than one of us discussed them, even if you did not.
And no, those are not accusations. All of those are facts, with the
arguable exception of the word "kidnapping." For your benefit, I will say, instead, "imprisonment and transportation hundreds of miles away of children, without record-keeping or willingness to return the children."
Happier?