Separation of kids for a short period (yes, a few weeks to a month is )to further prevent child trafficking is something to protest?
You know what else is something to protest?
Advocating to hold children for a hundred days, five times as long as we currently have. And the article notes that it mirrors a desire from Trump, so before you once again peddle the "They hate Trump just because he's Trump" nonsense for the umpteenth time, this is specifically about Graham and Trump wanting to change current policy; changes that they are trying to create. We can argue against what they are proposing precisely because they are the ones making these ideas. The article also calls out your previous attempts to claim that asylum seekers don't show up to court by providing data that shows how Graham was lying.
So we have a Republican
(Who has just committed witness tampering, by the way) lying through his teeth to attempt justifying holding children in captivity for 100 days, and is specifically singling out Central America to do so. The article mentions that Trump ended a program designed to help people immigrate, so it's safe to say that these actions are explicitly designed to harm immigrants as much as possible. Graham uses Winter's "invasion" rhetoric, which, if Winter's conspiracy theory is anything to go by, just means "We're scared of people who might vote Democrat within a couple decades."
- TheComposer likes this