Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Sarah Sanders Slaps Back Hard At Former First Lady – ‘Your Husband Signed The Law’

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been having a difficult time with the press recently. Immigration has been a hot-button issue and journalists and reporters alike have been going to the communications department in the White House looking for answers regarding what is happening. Recently, a press briefing devolved into a conversation and questions in reference to former First Lady Laura Bush’s article she wrote for The Washington Post which she wrote on immigration. However, Sanders had a response that some might not like.

Western Journal reported,

“The complicated legal entanglements regarding illegal immigrants who get caught trying to bring their children to the United States have been reduced, more or less, to two separate sets of opinions: either separating children from their mothers while their cases are adjudicated is a human rights violation like never before or we should enforce the law until the problems with it are fixed by Congress.

Trending: Hell To Pay! Trump Just Dropped Anvil On Leaker And Called Them Out BY NAME

Part of the great irony with the first argument is that many of the luminaries speaking out against enforcing what they see as unjust laws are associated with the individuals who passed the laws in the first place. One of these individuals is Laura Bush, who penned a much-ballyhooed op-ed in The Washington Post in which she decried the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

“On Sunday, a day we as a nation set aside to honor fathers and the bonds of family, I was among the millions of Americans who watched images of children who have been torn from their parents,” Bush wrote in the piece published Sunday night. “In the six weeks between April 19 and May 31, the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000 children to mass detention centers or foster care. More than 100 of these children are younger than 4 years old. The reason for these separations is a zero-tolerance policy for their parents, who are accused of illegally crossing our borders. “I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.”

If it breaks her heart, perhaps she should have been blaming her husband. Late in his second term, former President George W. Bush signed a law that was likely well-intentioned but has added to the problems faced by the Trump administration in enforcing their “zero tolerance” policy without separating parents and children. On Monday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders noted this during her news briefing. “Frankly, this law was actually signed into effect in 2008 under (Laura Bush’s) husband’s leadership, not under this administration,” Sanders said, according to The Hill. “We’re not the ones responsible for creating this problem. We’ve inherited it,” she added. “But we’re actually the first administration stepping up and trying to fix it.”

The law she was referring to, assumedly, was the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which requires formal deportation hearings for child immigrants who aren’t from Mexico or Canada and don’t have family in the United States. The intention was that it would stop child sex trafficking, but one of the unintended problems has come now that family units from Central American countries besides Mexico are making up the bulk of new illegal immigrants. In most cases, as The New York Times noted in one story about a Guatemalan woman who was repatriated to her country of origin without her child, most first-time illegal immigrants who don’t seek asylum plead out their case in an expedited manner and are sentenced to time served, then deported.

However, due to federal law, children can’t go through expedited hearings, instead of requiring formal deportation hearings. Thus, while the parent might be repatriated to their home country, the child remains back until their case works their way through clogged courts. This is just one of a maze of laws and court rulings, some of which are meant to do good but all of which have made it more difficult to actually enforce the law and secure our border. There are obviously ways to fix this without jeopardizing border security and ensuring that parents aren’t separated from their children for elongated periods of time. Still, those who bear some responsibility for the maze shouldn’t pretend that this is all on Trump. This is the result of an agglomeration of bad legislation and an unwillingness to touch illegal immigration. Instead of lamenting it in high-profile op-eds, perhaps they ought to be writing about how to fix it beyond just blaming the president and demanding he stop enforcing the law.”

Bush is not the only First Lady to come out against the zero tolerance immigration policy. All of the living former first ladies have spoken out against the policy regarding illegal border crossing that has resulted in family separation. Even former First Lady Rosalynn Carter made a statement, something she rarely ever does. She called the policy disgraceful and shameful and called upon her experience working in Cambodia and Thailand as well as her work with the Carter Center.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama shared Bush’s article on social media. Additionally, former First Lady Hillary Clinton condemned the policy at a Women’s Forum of New York awards lunch. She alleged that the separation policy is not mandated by law. The current first lady, First Lady Melania Trump has also encouraged Congressional Democrats and Republicans to work together to come to a conclusion to this immigration issue. She released a statement where she indicated she hated this policy and believes bipartisan lawmakers need to work together to achieve a successful and efficient solution.

Share if you agree with Sanders.

Share if you think people need to stop blaming the president.

Share if you believe that these immigration issues need to be fixed by Congress.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


College Student Says ‘Illegal Alien’ On Facebook – School Has CRIMINAL Reaction

Published

on

...

* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by The Daily Wire:

The Associated Student Government at Emporia State University in Kansas tried to impeach the student body vice president for using the term “illegal alien” on her personal Facebook page. The vote failed a two-thirds approval vote with 11 votes in favor, seven against, and three abstentions.

Campus Reform reports that Michaela Todd, a senior at the university and Campus Reform correspondent, was called to resign by fellow students and the Diversity and Inclusion Committee.

Todd used the phrase “illegal alien” in a supportive Facebook post about former Kansas gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach prior to election day on November 6.

“Put Kansas first, not illegal aliens,” she wrote. “The millions of dollars spent on public welfare for illegal aliens in Kansas hurts Kansas taxpayers every single day.”

In July, the Justice Department instructed U.S. attorneys to use the term “illegal alien” instead of “undocumented immigrant” because the “word ‘undocumented’ is not based in US code and should not be used to describe someone’s illegal presence in the country.”

Students took screenshots of Todd’s post and shared it on social media labeling her post “racist” and “ignorant.”

The Multicultural Greek Council said that Todd “does not represent us” on Twitter and called on the university to “take the measures needed to show us that she does not represent ESU either.”

Todd says she edited her post and deleted the phrase “illegal alien” after hearing that it upset some of her constituents, but says she doesn’t regret it.

“It was the correct term to use for the context of my post,” Todd told The Daily Wire. “While I do not regret my post or the language in it, I do understand that it upset certain people, and that was not my intentions behind it. The purpose of my post and the language in it was to reiterate what Kobach stood for and how his leadership would benefit Kansas.”

The student government Diversity and Inclusion Committee also called for Todd to resign last week, threatening to move forward with the impeachment process if she did not resign by Monday, according to the student newspaper. On Wednesday, the committee rescinded its call for her to resign because of concerns over their own “safety and wellbeing.”

“Our committee would like to clarify that we did not intend to make Vice President Todd feel isolated in her community,” the statement said. “We want to make the systemic issues on campus more visible and be voices for marginalized students.”

Todd also said that the criticism she received upset her but believes that the solution is calling for better dialogue.

“It was crushing to see my peers call me an unfit leader, ignorant, and racist solely based on one post I made, expressing my political beliefs,” she said. “ESU strives to be a campus of diversity and inclusion, but the diversity of political thought is next to none. I have been taught that I may not be able to control what people say or do to me, but I can control how I react. Which is why I am dedicated to having better dialogue between students and myself, so that together we can learn and grow from listening to different perspectives and beliefs.”
Continue Reading

Continue Reading

Supremes Asked if Schools Can Expose Naked Children to Opposite Sex

Published

on

...

* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by: WND

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a case that asks whether school districts can require that students be exposed to naked members of the opposite sex.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Boyertown Area School District in Pennsylvania that students should be allowed to use restrooms and shows according to their “gender identity” rather than biological sex.

The Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers is representing Boyertown students and their parents in the case.

“Given students’ constitutionally protected privacy interest in their partially clothed bodies, whether a public school has a compelling interest in authorizing students who believe themselves to be members of the opposite sex to use locker rooms and restrooms reserved exclusively for the opposite sex, and whether such a policy is narrowly tailored” is the question that must be answered, ADF said.

During the 2016-17 school year – without informing parents or students – the Boyertown Area School District opened its high-school locker rooms and restrooms to students of the opposite sex based on the students’ beliefs about their gender, said the legal group.

“Some male students learned of the policy while they were undressing in their locker room and discovered that a female student was changing clothes with them,” ADF said. “Embarrassed and confused, the students sought help from school officials, who told them they should just ‘tolerate it’ and ‘make it as natural as possible.’”

ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch said everyone should be able to agree “that students struggling with their beliefs about gender need compassionate support.”

“But there are sound reasons why schools have always separated male and female teenagers in showers, restrooms, and locker rooms,” he said. “No student’s recognized right to bodily privacy should be made contingent on what other students believe about their own gender.”

Bursch said the 3rd Circuit’s decision “made a mess of bodily privacy and Title IX principles, and the decision deserves review and reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

ADF contends the school violated the students’ fundamental right to bodily privacy under the U.S. Constitution.

“These types of school policies have serious privacy implications,” said ADF Legal Counsel Christiana Holcomb. “Teenagers should not be forced to welcome members of the opposite sex into their showers, restrooms, or locker rooms based on what they believe about their gender. All schools, including Boyertown Area School District, should be providing support for those dealing with gender dysphoria, but they should seek to do so in ways that protect the privacy of all students.

“It is untenable that the Third Circuit made students’ right to bodily privacy contingent on what others believe about their own gender,” the filing states. “Recognizing this reality does not diminish the concern for students who believe they are of the opposite sex. Schools can (and should) teach that every student has inherent dignity and worth and should be treated as such. Schools can (and should) assure students with gender dysphoria that they are valuable and important members of the school community. And school officials can (and should) provide them with resources and support. Despite such alternatives, Boyertown chose to violate the privacy rights of all other students.”

Randall Wenger, chief counsel of the Independence Law Center, said schools “should not expect students to accept that the differences between females and males don’t matter in the very places set apart for privacy from the opposite sex.”

The filing contended disastrous policy decisions followed an order from the Obama administration that public schools make their restrooms and showers open according to gender identity, with the threat to lose federal funding for failing to capitulate.

The Trump administration revoked the guidance but many schools still are pursuing the Obama social agenda.

The school has deprived other students of the use of various facilities “on the basis of sex,” which is precisely what Title IX prohibits, the filing argues.

The lower court’s ruling said a boy who thinks he is a girl, is a girl, and, therefore, there is no offense to others in the facility.

“It is untenable that the Third Circuit made students’ right to bodily privacy contingent on what others believe about their own gender. This court’s immediate intervention is sorely needed,” the brief states.

It was the federal trial-court judge, Edward Smit who ruled that the school could expose students in intimate settings to members of the opposite sex.

Continue Reading

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend