El Salvador in panic mode as so many gang members returned to that country

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Trump Sending So Many Gang Members Back to El Salvador that Officials There Now in a Panic

Jim Hoft May 31st, 2017 9:51 am 18 Comments

The Trump administration is sending so many gang members back to El Salvador that Salvadoran officials are now in a panic.


This is the opposite of the Obama strategy.
In fiscal year 2015 the Obama administration released a total of 564 illegal sex crime criminals on the streets of America because many of their home countries would not take them back.

There is obviously a new sheriff in town.

Joseph Curl at The Daily Wire reported:

The Trump administration is sending violent gang members back to their home countries in droves — so many that one country is dreading what’s to come.

El Salvador authorities are holding emergency meetings and trying to come up with new laws to keep track of all the criminals being deported from the U.S., The Washington Post reports.

This year the U.S. government has deported 398 gang members to this country, compared with 534 in all of 2016, according to Salvadoran government statistics. This sharp increase in the rate of gang deportations — and the prospect of more gang roundups in the United States — has prompted Salvadoran authorities to hold emergency meetings and propose new legislation to monitor suspected criminals who are being sent home.

This clearly affects El Salvador. We already have a climate of violence in the country that we are combating,” said Héctor Antonio Rodríguez, the director of the country’s immigration agency. “If gang members return, of course this worries us.”
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
They why complain about Russia only? Why not blast Obama for what he did in Israel, trying to buy an election. He did far more than the Russians.

I'll answer that for boomer:

"Because Trump represents Republicans who claim to be Christian who claim to represent God and they're all FOS just like Trump is!"

That's why he gives the Russians a pass, they don't claim to be acting on behalf of "God" just themselves.

That's bad of course, but not as bad to him don't you know that Pax?
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I will give Boom credit in that he admits the U.S. media is being hypocritical. Blasting Russia while giving the U.S./Obama a pass in many other countries.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
I will give Boom credit in that he admits the U.S. media is being hypocritical. Blasting Russia while giving the U.S./Obama a pass in many other countries.

He gives lip service to outrage on his side I'll give you that. His actual outrage though is reserved for Christians.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
He gives lip service to outrage on his side I'll give you that. His actual outrage though is reserved for Christians.

He is an atheist, or agnostic, I can't remember. He does seem to hate Christians in particular.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
He is an atheist, or agnostic, I can't remember. He does seem to hate Christians in particular.

He claims to have an "alternate form" of Spirituality not dictated by any organized Religion. I wouldn't call him an "atheist" because he does respect belief others have in a "God" he just rejects that for himself because he finds that concept too limiting.

Not sure how you'd describe him?

I just leave it at "weird"
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
I'll answer that for boomer:

"Because Trump represents Republicans who claim to be Christian who claim to represent God and they're all FOS just like Trump is!"

That's why he gives the Russians a pass, they don't claim to be acting on behalf of "God" just themselves.

That's bad of course, but not as bad to him don't you know that Pax?
What?
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
You don't think that our elections is more pressing for us?

We have zero proof Russia changed a single vote. None. When Obama tried to buy Bibi's defeat, not one main stream story about that attempt to buy a foreign election. I expect our media to be honest. Russia has tried this kind of stuff many times before and will do so again.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
He claims to have an "alternate form" of Spirituality not dictated by any organized Religion. I wouldn't call him an "atheist" because he does respect belief others have in a "God" he just rejects that for himself because he finds that concept too limiting.

Not sure how you'd describe him?

I just leave it at "weird"
Why are you concerned about my beliefs? Hey ATL, worry about yourself, and your aggressive attempt to define other people and limit personal liberty
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Why are you concerned about my beliefs? Hey ATL, worry about yourself, and your aggressive attempt to define other people and limit personal liberty

Why are you so hesitant to tell us your beliefs. I don't care one way or the other. Just not sure why you are trying to hide it. You clearly are not religious. Just not sure if you are agnostic or atheist.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
I don't remember the specific post but based on an accumulation of posts, I assumed you are either an atheist or agnostic. If you are neither, what are you?
No....I mean what signifies my "hate" towards Christians? I don't hate Christians or Christianity. I think it's good for communities, and provides a good support system for many people.

I do, however, hate absolutism and I hate when ANY religion allows their personal views of righteousness in regards to morality to be the source of law for all.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Why are you so hesitant to tell us your beliefs. I don't care one way or the other. Just not sure why you are trying to hide it. You clearly are not religious. Just not sure if you are agnostic or atheist.
I think definition in this area is misleading. And I don't think anyone is interested in my personal spiritual beliefs.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
[QUOTE="Boomboom521, post: 1560182, member: 14642"]Why are you concerned about my beliefs? Hey ATL, worry about yourself, and your aggressive attempt to define other people and limit personal liberty[/QUOTE]

I'm not worried about your "beliefs" boom. Pax and I were just speculating on what you claim as your beliefs...you're certainly free to believe and/or follow whatever you want to my friend...makes no difference to me.

How do I limit or define whatever the Hell it is you believe? I'm not even allowed to observe it or comment on it or even answer a question about it?

OK.

So then why do you get to characterize me as in operational mode of "aggressive attempts to define other people and limit personal liberty"?

You see what you see in me perfectly with 20/20 vision, but I'm blind in what I see in you boom?
 
Last edited:

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
We have zero proof Russia changed a single vote. None. When Obama tried to buy Bibi's defeat, not one main stream story about that attempt to buy a foreign election. I expect our media to be honest. Russia has tried this kind of stuff many times before and will do so again.
That's exactly why it's pressing for me.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
[QUOTE="Boomboom521, post: 1560182, member: 14642"]Why are you concerned about my beliefs? Hey ATL, worry about yourself, and your aggressive attempt to define other people and limit personal liberty

I'm not worried about your "beliefs" boom. Pax and I were just speculating on what you claim as your beliefs...you're certainly free to believe and/or follow whatever you want to my friend...makes no difference to me.

How do I limit or define whatever the Hell it is you believe? I'm not even allowed to observe it or comment on it or even answer a question about it?

OK.

So then why do you get to characterize me as in operational mode of "aggressive attempts to define other people and limit personal liberty"?

You see what you see in my perfectly with 20/20 vision, but I'm blind in what I see in you boom?[/QUOTE]
Yes
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
I think definition in this area is misleading. And I don't think anyone is interested in my personal spiritual beliefs.

See? That's weird to me.

How does one "define" a set of beliefs without actually having a proscribed definition with which to define them as?

Ans: boomer...ie: weird!
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
No....I mean what signifies my "hate" towards Christians? I don't hate Christians or Christianity. I think it's good for communities, and provides a good support system for many people.

I do, however, hate absolutism and I hate when ANY religion allows their personal views of righteousness in regards to morality to be the source of law for all.

Why do you single out religion regarding the creation of law. Our laws are passed by those we elect. Many, many things influence their opinions. Some may use their religion, while others may use philosophers, or other sources. Why should religion be excluded from this process? What would you think if I thought we should exclude all atheists or agnostics from making law?
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
I'm not worried about your "beliefs" boom. Pax and I were just speculating on what you claim as your beliefs...you're certainly free to believe and/or follow whatever you want to my friend...makes no difference to me.

How do I limit or define whatever the Hell it is you believe? I'm not even allowed to observe it or comment on it or even answer a question about it?

OK.

So then why do you get to characterize me as in operational mode of "aggressive attempts to define other people and limit personal liberty"?

You see what you see in my perfectly with 20/20 vision, but I'm blind in what I see in you boom?
Yes[/QUOTE]

It is amazing to me how you are the only one who is properly equipped to "aggressively attempt to define other people and limit personal liberty"

Boomer quote in post #21 of this thread"
"I do, however, hate absolutism and I hate when ANY religion allows their personal views of righteousness in regards to morality to be the source of law for all"

Now THAT'S what I call tolerance!

Amazing!
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
Why should religion be excluded from this process? What would you think if I thought we should exclude all atheists or agnostics from making law?

Because he is of the "tolerant, compassionate, considerate, open minded, patient, and accommodating Left!"
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
That's exactly why it's pressing for me.

That is simply being intellectually dishonest boom (in my opinion)

I'd challenge you to find at least three posts you've offered in this forum indicating how upset you were over Obama "meddling" in Israel's free election as often as you've posted your disgust over the Russians attempting to meddle in ours.

I'd even go one further and ask you to repost ANY threads where you were as upset with the Democrats actually "meddling" in their own primaries as much as you and the Left were upset with Trump allegedly "colluding" with the Russians to steal the election (which so far we have zero evidence of)

So am I being "aggressive in my attempts to define your behavior or restrict your liberty" to answer this question boomer?
 
Last edited:

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Why do you single out religion regarding the creation of law. Our laws are passed by those we elect. Many, many things influence their opinions. Some may use their religion, while others may use philosophers, or other sources. Why should religion be excluded from this process? What would you think if I thought we should exclude all atheists or agnostics from making law?
I never said it should be excluded. You are an American and a part of the democratic process of law that n our nation. Therefore your religion is represented. It's when the ultimate right or wrong is defined by a religious doctorine that I do not think is conducive to American ideals. For example: the argument against abortion should be about the depriving of unborn children of their individual right to life, not about murder. It may seem an identical argument. However, one label indicates that the act is a form of evil and against life (God) itself, the other addresses less of a moral issue and more of a legal one. It matters in regards to respect in the overall public and political discourse.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
I never said it should be excluded. You are an American and a part of the democratic process of law that n our nation. Therefore your religion is represented. It's when the ultimate right or wrong is defined by a religious doctorine that I do not think is conducive to American ideals. For example: the argument against abortion should be about the depriving of unborn children of their individual right to life, not about murder. It may seem an identical argument. However, one label indicates that the act is a form of evil and against life (God) itself, the other addresses less of a moral issue and more of a legal one. It matters in regards to respect in the overall public and political discourse.

boomer, if you don't believe that unborn child has any rights then why would a criminal who kills a fetus of an expectant Mother during a crime be prosecuted for murder?

Under what aspect of the Law is that unborn Child now considered a person...all "aggressive attempts to define your morality" aside?
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
So why are your "experiences" more relevant for creating new laws than those of a religious person?
I didn't say that did I? My personal experiences define my belief system, as does yours. My belief system does not what is righteous based on any set standards. Meaning I am open to discussion on the morality of say.....stem cell research or the legalization of prostitution. I don't care that your morality (which is derived from religious doctorine -- a seriously defined set of beliefs) drives your opinion of these legal issues. I only care that the discussion is simplified in (most devoutly religious people--not sure if it's you or not) terms of what's define by the doctorine. This limits the discussion and analysis of any potential law.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I didn't say that did I? My personal experiences define my belief system, as does yours. My belief system does not what is righteous based on any set standards. Meaning I am open to discussion on the morality of say.....stem cell research or the legalization of prostitution. I don't care that your morality (which is derived from religious doctorine -- a seriously defined set of beliefs) drives your opinion of these legal issues. I only care that the discussion is simplified in (most devoutly religious people--not sure if it's you or not) terms of what's define by the doctorine. This limits the discussion and analysis of any potential law.

You posted this in this thread:

I do, however, hate absolutism and I hate when ANY religion allows their personal views of righteousness in regards to morality to be the source of law for all.

Sure as heck seems like you don't want those of faith being a source of law.

I could say that your ideology and beliefs based on your "experiences" limits the discussion and analysis of any potential law. I see zero difference that would justify excluding those of faith from law making and you being involved in law making.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
I didn't say that did I? My personal experiences define my belief system, as does yours. My belief system does not what is righteous based on any set standards. Meaning I am open to discussion on the morality of say.....stem cell research or the legalization of prostitution. I don't care that your morality (which is derived from religious doctorine -- a seriously defined set of beliefs) drives your opinion of these legal issues. I only care that the discussion is simplified in (most devoutly religious people--not sure if it's you or not) terms of what's define by the doctorine. This limits the discussion and analysis of any potential law.

OK boomer. So apply your specific set of morals to the question I asked you in post #34. And how do you square your stated position in post # 35 with what you said about me in post # 15?

My experiences as a Christian are less relevant than yours or whatever you claim as a belief system boom?

And you insist I'm the one "aggressively attempting to define one's belief system and restrict personal liberty'?
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
That is simply being intellectually dishonest boom (in my opinion)

I'd challenge you to find at least three posts you've offered in this forum indicating how upset you were over Obama "meddling" in Israel's free election as often as you've posted your disgust over the Russians attempting to meddle in ours.

I'd even go one further and ask you to repost ANY threads where you were as upset with the Democrats actually "meddling" in their own primaries as much as you and the Left were upset with Trump allegedly "colluding" with the Russians to steal the election (which so far we have zero evidence of)

So am I being "aggressive in my attempts to define your behavior or restrict your liberty" to answer this question boomer?
Let me see. You're are being your typical arrogant self, assuming you know others mindset by defining a group, other than the one to which you belong, as wrong.

I was outraged by the DNC's actions towards Sanders, and I expected heads to roll.....which they did. Would you like me to keep whining about it?

Obama's meddling, Kennedy's meddling, Eisenhower's, Nixon's, Regan's, Clinton's, Bush's.....it's all wrong. I'm more concerned about what's happening right now, I'm more concerned about what's happening to our systems of information dissemination and analysis. Maybe you looking for equal opportunity whining? I'm looking for answers from my government on an issue I think it substantially important.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
Let me see. You're are being your typical arrogant self, assuming you know others mindset by defining a group, other than the one to which you belong, as wrong.

I was outraged by the DNC's actions towards Sanders, and I expected heads to roll.....which they did. Would you like me to keep whining about it?

Obama's meddling, Kennedy's meddling, Eisenhower's, Nixon's, Regan's, Clinton's, Bush's.....it's all wrong. I'm more concerned about what's happening right now, I'm more concerned about what's happening to our systems of information dissemination and analysis. Maybe you looking for equal opportunity whining? I'm looking for answers from my government on an issue I think it substantially important.

I agree with you boomer. I simply asked you to show us your equal outrage over what Obama did in Israel or what the Dems did to Sanders. I wasn't assuming anything, or defining anything. I was simnply asking you to back up your claim that you were equally as "outraged" over our attempts to interfere in ours or Israel's free elections as you were with the Russians getting in the middle of them with Trump?

Can you show that, or will you just continue to attack me for asking the question?