Gratuitous harm - gratuitous anything - is that which is caused to occur that has no direct connection, or even any connection at all, with the thing or events it's claimed to be connected to.

Unavoidable harm, as a consequence of getting something done, represents a choice about policy. That is, we need to get X done. Doing Y will help get X done. Is the cost of doing Y worth it?

It's an open question as to whether separating children from parents - apparently for protracted periods of time and under circumstances that contain a real risk of substantial harm to the children separated - will have any material effect on immigration. For example, you might think people wouldn't jump out of the windows of a skyscraper, but they did on 9-11. And so the necessity that drives illegal immigration may not allow for the luxury of weighing future against present risks.

But there must be a better way. Let's argue by assuming the opposite: the best way to stop illegal immigration is to seize the children of the immigrants. Therefore, we, the US, should seize them. Let's stop here and see if it makes sense so far. One word suffices: no! One reason: Trump has been silent on the responsibility his administration bears in taking on the care of these children. How can he proceed without clarity on that point? Of course such considerations are no part of Trump's reckoning. He simply signs all of us up for whatever are the consequences of his un-responsible and un-advised policies.

In a QC environment (which Trump's administration emphatically is not) the idea is before you start to solve a problem, you articulate exactly what the problem is - actually a critical and usually difficult step. This articulation of the problem is neither vague nor general, nor imprecise. It is just that statement of the problem that money will be spent on to solve. If this "problem" is not precisely understood and rendered, then the solution cannot solve it.

Does anyone know of an explicit statement of the problem, as to what it says? No? I doubt very much any such statement has even been attempted. What has happened is that a lot of people have said a lot of stupid things at best tangentially related to immigration. Given that kind of ignorance and stupidity in the driver's seat, is it any wonder that the problem - whatever, exactly, the problem is - remains unsolved.

Of course previous presidents have faced the problem. Imo, it is to the credit of those previous presidents who, being unable to express an exact articulation of the problem, and understanding that they can't solve a problem they cannot express, took a somewhat hands-off stance to the problem.

But we can try it here. You who think you know what the immigration problem is, try making an explicit and exact statement of just what that problem is.

Sometimes the rigor of exactitude can lead to surprising ideas!

While not applicable to all self-described right-wingers, it's extremely concerning to see the common reaction from right-wing pundits and media organizations towards the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, and now the separation of 2,000 children from their parents, range from insouciance at best, to bullying and conspiracies at worst.

So eh? The little girl on the Time magazine cover was never separated from her mother.

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

That wasn't for the trolling, that was for him suggesting by PM that I was a fascist, Nazi and psychopathic idiot for giving him a warning. (And he said he was leaving anyway.) But again, we're off-topic, so speaking of fascist, Nazi, psychopathic idiots, back to Donald Trump.

[Delete] @Baden

Did anyone see this photo?

Yes, she was being either stupid and/or crass. Don't know enough about her to know which or what combination. I would tend to gravitate towards the former though. I would like to think she is not as viciously anti-immigrant as some others in the administration.

You are engaging in a strawman. The merits or lack of is a different discussion.

You asserted religious morality as being in line with the objective, but there is no objectivity to it, as it is all based on one's faith in their choosen religion. Hench religious morality is relative and subjective. It does not rest on an objective foundation, it rest in which religious beliefs you decide to put your faith in. That is relative subjectivity.

In fact I would argue that in general the deeper one's faith in their choosen religion the less able they are to be morally objective. Just take the LGBT community for example, deeply religious people have had a much harder time accepting them, despite the fact there is no objective evidence at all that the LGBT community is at all harmful to society. — Jeremiah

Character, like morality, is based on the needs of the group, not the needs of the individual. If you misunderstand this, you will be vulnerable to the magic trick used to fool people. This misunderstanding is part of the magnet that fools moral compasses. If the compass is induced to point west, and one is not aware, they will think they are right, because they can't see the trick, and all seems to be kosher. One can act immoral, on good faith, due to being fooled by the trick.

Religious morality is about the team. Read the ten commandments and for the sake of argument, think in terms of the needs of a group. To maximize the group, you need to keep it whole, without division, and without a lot of added expensive that can add stress or resentment. That is an objective criteria. It is based on ancient times when resources were scarce and armies roamed the earth to conquer. The team needed to work together and be efficient. It was objective to harsh reality.

Character is not an individual sport based on individual needs, especially if this divides the team and adds a lot of extra social expenses. The LGBTQ community divides the team by its in your face style. I don't wish to see that. If these choices were discrete, I would not care. The man of character is not asking for special favors, since this will also divide the team. It is similar to stealing like a used car salesman. You may get your way, by shaming or conning others, but resentment will soon occur and the team will divide. This is not character. That is self serving and will divide the team, as you have indicated.

Trump tries to help everyone via the economy and via national security. These two action are for the team and not just for one group he is trying to hijack from the larger team. Make America Great Again is about the entire team called America.

Immoral behavior will attempt to undermine the group, called America, for personal gain. If you break into someone's house you are committing a crime against someone. Illegal immigration, which breaks into another country's house, is not good for the team. One can see the extra added social expenses needed to deal with this immorality. If you encourage that, one is not moral. A man of character tries to restore the team. Fake news is not moral since fake news is not truth, but gossip that can undermine the objectivity needed for character.

The Democrats have a moral compass, but it is only for their own team, which they have hijacked from the larger team. A smaller divided out sub-team makes character, relative to the needs the smaller team and not the larger team. The Ten commandment has no taboos on differences of opinion. This does not have to divide the team if the 10 basics are followed.

Did anyone see this photo? — René Descartes

She doesn't care about your criticism of her or her jacket.

I would like to think she is not as viciously anti-immigrant as some others in the administration. — Baden

Ant-ILLEGAL-immigration. Funny how that slips by.

confusing an immigrant with an illegal immigrant is like confusing a rapist with a boyfriend.

You are are giant hypocrite.

You claim your subjective morally is based on being a team player, but yet exclude Dems and the LGBT community from your team. That is not being a team, all you are doing is egotistically judging people who don't fit into you narrow and very subjective views. The only team you are playing for is your own, and the notion that Trump is trying to help everyone shows a great lack of insight.

Democrats are not your enemy. You claim to be a team player but have these senseless subjective divisions. It is completely backwards.

as you have indicated. — wellwisher

Your own warped views are just that yours. Personally, I think your views are disgusting and you are clearly a judgmental homophobe.

Comparing illegal immigrants to rapists just marks you as a racist/xenophobic moron.

“Comparing illegal immigrants to rapists just marks you as a racist/xenophobic moron”

You did that. I compared a rapist with a boyfriend. It is how it is written.

OK, another time-waster. Let me know when you have something of substance to contribute.

Get it? Raping and crossing a border illegally are against the rules. Legal immigration and being a boyfriend is ok.

And, by the way, many races of people are legal immigrants. Am I against legal immigration? No.

You moron.

Actually it reads as if you were comparing an illegal immigrant to a rapist. I am glad you don't think of them in that way, as such hateful thoughts would be a clear sign of extreme racism.

Your contribution of falsely accusing someone of racism is of substance then?

well it’s sort of like seeing a photo of a crying girl on the Time cover and believing she was torn from her mother. So I do understand how you like to read things.

I'm not going to play the time wasting game with you. You're obviously a xenophobe to make that comparison. I'd guess racism plays a part in your hatred, but yes, I don't know that for sure. It's just an educated guess.

“ I don't know that for sure. It's juts an educated guess.”

An education might be a good idea for you.

After the insane treatment given to President Obama, it is difficult to believe that the vast majority of Republicans are not racist, I'm afraid.

You just shoot of in random directions, don't you? What does Time have to do with me? I don't read it.

I don't agree with that actually, but there is an element amongst right wingers whose rhetoric towards illegal immigrants needs to be combated with full force. Republicans is too broad a brush.

I was looking at some data on the two parties after the election that show a noticeable divide in ideologies within the Republican party. I'll see if I can find it in a bit.

It’s a fashionable narrative to believe in for you. Those who think borders are important are apparently racist which goes along with the media narrative containing deliberate fabrications for your eager compnsumption.

Let me see if I understand this, there are still over 2300 children still separated from their families, yet somehow you are the victim here?

Don't be such a cry baby.

Ok. I’ll let you know whether you understood.

No, you didn’t.

I’m not a victim merely for repeating what you assumed me to be.

The topic of racism was not introduced by me. I was merely commenting on what was introduced.

Is that not how this works?