Ivanka Trump photo with son sparks backlash over separations at border
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
An online backlash greeted Ivanka Trump on Sunday, after the president’s daughter tweeted a picture of herself cuddling her two-year-old son at the same time widespread news reports detailed children being taken from their mothers by US border agents.
Related: US to stiffen border rules and separate children from parents
Trump’s tweet was captioned “My <3! #SundayMorningThe comedian Patton Oswalt was one of thousands to draw a connection between the tweet and the separation of families at the border under policies pursued by the Trump administration.
“Isn’t it the just the best to snuggle your little one – knowing exactly where they are, safe in your arms?” Oswalt wrote. “It’s the best. The BEST. Right, Ivanka? Right?”Outraged reaction to Trump’s tweet included responses by many mothers who asked the first daughter to contemplate being forcibly separated from her child.
“You’re a mother of 3,” wrote a user with the Twitter handle @litbrit. “So am I. Imagine someone in an ICE uniform takes away your precious baby, and you never get to see him or her ever again. This is what’s going on, thanks to your Dad’s policy. DO SOMETHING.”
Brian Klaas, a fellow at the London School of Economics and former Democratic strategist, wrote: “This is so unbelievably tone deaf, given that public outrage is growing over young kids being forcibly ripped from the arms of their parents at the border – a barbaric policy that Ivanka Trump is complicit in supporting.”Previously, families suspected of crossing the border illegally were allowed to stay together until their cases were resolved. In early May, attorney general Jeff Sessions announced a “zero tolerance” policy on illegal immigration.
A Department of Homeland Security official told Reuters: “Those apprehended will be sent directly to federal court under the custody of the US Marshals Service, and their children will be transferred to the custody of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement.”
On Friday Laura St John of the Florence Project, an Arizona nonprofit that provides legal services to migrant families, told Chris Hayes of MSNBC the policy had been in effect for months, directing border agents to separate children as young as one year old from their parents.
In April, a New York Times report concluded that “more than 700 children have been taken from adults claiming to be their parents since October, including more than 100 children under the age of four”. The Times also reported that the Department of Health and Human services had lost track of almost 1,500 migrant children placed with US sponsors after showing up at the border alone.
In a tweet on Saturday, Donald Trump, who as president guides the application of immigration laws, blamed Democrats for the separation policy.
“Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there [sic] parents once they cross the Border into the US,” he wrote.
The reasoning by which the president held Democrats responsible for a policy announced and followed by his own administration was unclear.
Ok, I can understand why people would be upset, I'm upset about the policy of separating families but, it is Donald Trumps policy and, Jeff Sessions policy, not Ivanka Trumps policy.
Tags
Who is online
112 visitors
A tone deaf president for sure. What folks don't get about these people is that they are "American Royalty" it isn't right but, they are "above the common folk" and, don't understand what it is they are doing that is so wrong, even if you tell them what it is, they still wouldn't understand it.
Omg the left with this issue is worse than the right claiming Michael Obama's, All this for a damned fag lip reading comments.
Did you see the Fake occupy democrats picture of how President Trump was treating illegal immigrants? It was taken in 2015.
I can't believe all the simple minded people that follow stuff like them and other extreme pages.
that's flag....
Hard to believe. Anybody in the President's family probably can't even buy a soda without the media twisting it into an insult. I don't know for the life of me why anyone would even THINK about wanting to be the POTUS. Just wait. Baron might get caught holding a girl's hand and there will be banner headlines: "Young Trump Molests Innocent Underage Girls - Just Like His Father"
I doubt this would happen since it hasn't happened to his older boys. Yet.
And my first thought was that I liked her sunglasses. Anybody know what they are?
Expensive?
Likely.
It's Trumpmentia. No matter what, no matter when, ti will be twisted into something insulting. Thta's the way of the left. Formerly intelligent people cannot see past their bias. It's foolish at best.
Oh, please, it's not like you guys didn't do the same thing with the Obama's and, the Clinton's so, get off of your high horse.
At least most of us are not cixelsyd
Many of the articles I've read on this have been dated 2014, 2015. I guess it was OK under the last administration. I guess this is just like the monuments. It only become offensive because of Trump.
It is only the Trump administration who have decided to separate family's, other administrations took the option of keeping family's together until their case was decided.
Well, surely the parents knew the possibility of this happening, so coming here illegally is sorta irresponsible on their part. They could have stayed in Mexico since they were out of Central America. The previous administration is largely responsible for this continuing influx of illegal immigrants.
Yeah, I guess that's why the immigrants called Obama the "Deporter and, Chief".
Yep. They were no longer refugees since they were out of the danger zone.
Simple solution for the separation problem, easily understood by anyone. If you do not wish to be separated from your children, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO CROSS THE BORDER INTO THE US WITHOUT THE REQUIRED PAPERWORK. If you do so, you are a criminal. Criminals do not get to stay with their children.
If they commit the crime of crossing our border illegally, whatever happens to them is not our problem, neither is it Trump's problem. It is strictly THEIR PROBLEM.
Turning illegals away at the border is not the same as deporting them.
Actually it is, the end result is the same...they didn't come into the country.
Imagine being poor, starving and in threat of your own government killing you for no good reason.
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
Very Christian of you.
The illegal aliens sneaking in here ARE the robbers!
Is that how you feel about your ancestors who came here? Were they "robbers"?
For data purposes they are. Trump counts a 'turn away' as a deportation just like Obama did.
And yet, they have come from Central America and are now in Mexico, which is not a threat to them, especially from their own government.
Was a decent comment, until you decided to make it personal. For shame.
It's a little late to do anything anybody robbing land. And it doesn't even apply to most illegals anyway. They can trace themselves back to the conquistadors who were the first Europeans to start grabbing land.
And, something to consider, they at one time, owned all the land up to Louisiana, Northern Colorado and, west to the Pacific.
Why? The Jews waited centuries.
Do you really think that there were no indigenous people living in the West and Southwest before the fucking Conquistadors invaded?
The illegals invading from the south arent Native Americans from the West and Southwest, are they? They are descendents of the original colonizers and no more entitled than anyone else. But keep on searching for a victim....
And lost it in a war. Of course before that it was all owned by Spain. I don't see anybody wanting to give them back their old colonies.
France also had a hand in ownership once upon a time.
Actually, historically, they sure as hell are.
Oh and perhaps you were unaware that Mexico is in North AMERICA and there is a South AMERICAN continent too. EVERYONE born there are 'Native Americans' and the VAST majority have a much longer ancestral claim to this hemisphere that anyone with European ancestors.
Wrong again. There are MANY Indigenous Tribes in Mexico and South America that have quite pure ancestry compared to their U.S. counterparts. No one but an idiot would claim that U.S. Native American Tribes aren't 'more entitled' to a claim to this land.
Keep on striving for an education.
You really have NO clue WTF you are talking about. For you summer school assignment, go read a history book about the history of the west.
In the mean time, here is a visual aid for you edification.
You MAY recognize some of the Tribes on the map. Alas unfortunately, all too many are all but extinct.
I Trump wrote here is a falsehood, ask this one question when you read his statement. Who is currently in charge of both houses of Congress and, the Executive Branch? Those are the people who are currently in charge of changing laws. If Trump was interested in fixing this he could submit a bill to Congress who could then vote on it.
Again, who currently is in charge of Congress, they have the power, if they chose to use it.
It is what it is, elections have consequences, but what is the point of attacking Ivanka.
That is why I seeded this, I don't see the reason myself.
I can't believe I have to point this out.
Ivanka Trump is an advisor to the President. She has CHOSEN to sit in the White House and help move the President's agenda forward as well as shape policies for all of the United States.
Let's also not forget her proclaimation that she was going to be an advocate for women. Well guess what.....women are mothers.
If she wants to be a private citizen then she needs to get out of the White House. Otherwise, she is a surogate of this President and open to criticism.
Then criticize the policy put forth by her father and, Sessions, not the idea that she is a mother.
Where did I criticize at all? I simply pointed out that she is fair game because she works for America and not just the President Trump supporters. If she doesn't want criticism she needs to get out of the White House.
Maybe I used the wrong word.
True but, she is also the First Daughter, there is some latitude that needs to be given for that. Not much but, some.
That won't happen as long as daddy is POTUS, unfortunately.
I'm sorry but I disagree. She is a civil servant. She will receive no latitude because she is using her position to promote policy in the country and well as to financially benefit personnally. Not sure if you saw that principal advisor/first daughter just received several brand approvals from China...... I'm not giving her any free passes.
Yep, I did see that, 7 brand lines in China, just as Trump gives in to easing sanctions on China and, saying China needs jobs. Amazing how that worked out, isn't it?
Now, let's stay on topic. Please?
I have nothing else to add but I do take exception to you suggesting I'm off topic. My comment about the brand shows that she is in a position of influence. Try and look at the broader picture.
Is she complaining or is it the silly people that are making a big deal about a photo of her and her son, which, BTW, she is ignoring?
Lovely photo of Ivanka and her little one. The DOJ clearly said children who are brought in illegally could be separated from parents. Even though I am totally against this happening, it is totally irresponsible of the parents to do so. There is no way I would do this unless it meant my child's life.
Should they have just left their children in the country they came from? Wouldn't that have been more irresponsible of them? Wouldn't it have cost that child's life to have left them in the country they came from?
I wouldn't have left to begin with leaving my children behind. I am responsible for them.
And, they know that they are responsible for their children, that is why they take them with them and, the reasons they want to leave the country they are from may vary by person and, country, not enough jobs, a crooked government, rebels raiding villages like the ones they come from, if you don't want to leave conditions like those to save your children then, what kind of parent does that make you?
For some if not many immigrants I'd say that is true and the catch 22 that drives them to try to relocate to a better existence.
It seems its a universal want, for our children to have it better than we did or do.
I was fortunate when my life needed more than the local area and workforce and government provided in my area I legally "immigrated" or as I called it relocated to another state.
also more fortunately, I was born in America to begin with.
Which is the point I'm trying to get across to Magnolia.
They had children in conditions like that. We have children in the U.S. who don't have it so good. Parents unemployed, living on the streets or in squalor.
That's like taking food from your own hungry kids and giving it to a neighbors kids.
Well, gosh, I don't think they had much choice in were their kids were born,
Why no choice?
Sure, a North American slum,
In our country we help the poor, at least right now, that could change with Trump in office. Which place, if you had a choice of the two sets of pictures I've shown you, would you rather live in? By the way, it's your only choices.
Because their government doesn't give them a choice, that is why a lot of them become rebels and, try to over throw the government or, they become drug lords, either one pays more than labor work.
I have lived in two other countries...one, being Mexico.
That's nice, how much time did you spend in the slums?
True, Unless you are the neighbor, then both scenarios suck.
Galen,
They were in Mexico, not in Central America any more. They had reached a reasonable level of safety, for both themselves and their children. All they had to do was visit the US Consulate and start the paperwork if they felt that they had a case. Under no circumstances should they have attempted to cross the US border, with or without their children.
And just why would that be our problem? We are not, and never will be, responsible for the welfare of everyone in the world. If they wish us to be responsible for their welfare, they should force the government of their country to give up sovereignty to the US Government. Then we will rule their country and make it better.
Actually, from our beautiful villa we had to walk through various parts of Guadalajaro and Cuernavaca;
Maybe because of this.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Jesus says otherwise.
How, we can barely rule ourselves without killing each other, ask the Native Americans how it's working out for them.
What does virgin birth have to do with this? Off topic.
You make no sense here, I'm still wondering why you mentioned "Immaculate Conception", which is the term used for the birth of Jesus. As to your question in this post, why do people have children to begin with? Maybe because they want a family. Maybe because, they are Catholic and, their religion forbids abortion or, contraception so, when they have sex, the women tend to get pregnant.
Great.....you have a Bible.
LOL, Maggie, I've had a Bible in my life since I was a kid, I just don't believe in following what some greedy preacher says and, Wicca is closer to what I believe anyway.
I remember you said something about being a Wiccan.
He has a broom that he can fly around on!
Yeah, it's called a "Silverado".
A Chevy man?? Cool, I always liked you Galen, now I flat out love ya!
Chevy trucks and, Mopar Dodges pre 1980's.
Dodge cars? Ok, now we might be sliding back to just 'like.'
Real Dodges not the ones they're making now.
you are right it is not our problem
I like the old Dodges
If you are a Christian refer to my post 4.1.19.
The assumption that they would just go and live in the United States is the issue. There is no guarantee that a citizen form another country can just move into the United States. There is an immigration policy. Follow it, just as everyone else has. If you try to enter the country illegally, you are a criminal and will be spearated from your children. It shouldn't be a surprise when this happens. If you cross the border illegally into Mexico, or Canada for that matter, you are also subject to arrest. Why should that be any different her in the U.S.?
He is in office. That's a pretty foolish statement.
Only under the Trump Administration, no other administration has done this.
No, that is fact.
The insanity of the left wing on twitter (which is where all these "firsetorms" take place) is large part of the reason why Trump is our President.
This is the perfect example.
Why hate on Ivanka? She's not out there breaking the law with her kid in tow. Therefore, she won't be arrested for anything and she won't have to be separated from her child.
By contrast, these foreign nationals cross our border illegally and are - quite appropriately - arrested for breaking the law. Of course they are separated from their children! Are the children supposed to go to jail with them? Are we not supposed to arrest law breakers just because they have a child with them? People need to grow up and face reality.
They hate on Ivanka because she is connected to Donald Trump. In the view of the Resistance, anyone having anything at all to do with Trump must be guilty of something. If they can't find something real, they will twist something innocent or just make something up. The rule the Resistance follows is, ANYTHING TO GET TRUMP, WHETHER IT'S TRUE OR NOT. They believe, as first propounded by Josip Stalin, that "The Party Comes First. Anything that must be done is acceptable if it helps the Party". "The Party" is not, of course, the Democratic Party. The Resistance, no longer has much use for them. except as a nominal tag to keep from offending too many voters.
Your whole comment is pure BS.
Only if he's talking about the current crop of Republicans.
Your argument is not persuasive. It's also not an argument.
So? His comment is still BS.
off topic [ph]
A well reasoned reasponse. Not. Come on, you're better than that.
Spike, I don't like stupidity and, deflection and, that whole post in 6.1 was both, that is what makes it BS.
How did she get 7 trademark protections in China so quickly? It is said the president used his office to do it, seems fishy to me.
The "illegals" are trying to find a better life and, escape a life were there is more death than life to be had.