Media bias largely in terms of both polling but also ridiculously partisan coverage where absolutely everything, no matter what, is framed in a negative way with respect to Trump.
How do you explain the very low Democrat approval ratings?
Democrats have been very vocal and aggressive in their opposition to Trump.
Help me understand how deporting a 4-year-old cancer patient should be framed in a positive way. The executive has broad leeway regarding deportation process and priorities; help me understand how sending out his parents and sending him out with them is supposed to be interpreted and understood by the American people.
This is exactly the kind of media bias I'm talking about. Given the millions of illegals the Dems allowed into the country to sway the voter demographics in their favour, when you are trying to undo the extraordinary damage that this caused (massive levels of fentanyl flowing in, violent gangs establishing territory, extraordinary burden on the taxpayer, sex-trafficking on a large scale etc etc) you will always find some deportation outlier you can focus on in a negative way. It's purely just a numbers thing.
Notice how little focus the mainstream media (and people like you) give to the victims of violent illegals crime, the fentanyl overdoses etc etc.
Also we both know if the parents were sent home without the child, the media would be then accusing the administration of holding the child to ransom and so on.
You didn't answer my question about the Dems low approval rating?
Dems have a low approval rating because they aren't President. They're in Congress, and all of Congress has a low approval rating. Perhaps worth noting: it is higher as of late (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx), which correlates to AOC and Sanders touring against Trump's policies. We'll see if that trend continues. Bad news for Trump if it does.
(Actually, the question is kind of leading; it's worth noting that overall, approval of the whole party, Dem and GOP, is mostly disapprove and only differs by four points or so. America isn't satisfied, as a country, with either party).
Fentanyl is unrelated to immigration. Most fentanyl comes from China, so I don't know why immigration (which is mostly from countries south of the US) is being mentioned. Gangs are only tangentially related to immigration; most US gangs are home-grown. I don't approve of gang violence; I just don't think stymying immigration decreases gang violence. If anything, it gives gangs another powerful card to play: their capacity to move people over the border illegally is only of value if it's hard for people to move over the border. Counterintuitively, you can probably break the back of a lot of gang authority by just handing out day-passes like water at the Southern border.
You are, of course, completely disregarding the third option between "deport with the children" and "deport without the children," which is "don't deport at all." But that doesn't satisfy the need to make America ours again, does it?
I believe we both have our answer. You believe these measures are helping, and are willing to sacrifice the welfare of a few children to see them through. I am not in the same position.
If you'd like to share, I'd be interested in the media you are reading that suggests that fentanyl, sex trafficking, and gang activity will be improved improved or ameliorated by mass deportations. You're right that I haven't seen that in the media I consume, and I'm curious where the meme comes from. Do we have evidence or is it more an instance of we must do something, this is a thing, therefore let's do it?
> purely just a numbers thing
When we start reducing human beings to "a numbers thing," we are going down a very dark path.
