Your "context" of "same" would have Socialists and Capitalists being considered the "same" as they handle economic issues "and that is the same thing." "The specifics in how they were handling it is what differed".

I don't have to "create my own context"; yours is fallacious enough to expose as self-defeating without any effort on my part.

I recommend you figure out what words mean and how to arrange them in a manner consistent with rational thought.  Or you could simply admit your demonstrable errors, provided you are able to admit your mistakes.

You just did it again. Please learn to properly quote.

I actually missed this post and it may very well be one of the most important posts in this discussion. It is a very good question and I'm surprised more people didn't answer it. In my opinion, it depends. When it comes to illegal immigrants, I am more in favor of taking them back to their home country rather than keeping them in prison at the expense of the tax payers, that is unless they committed more crimes after crossing the border. It's kind of a bias on my part because I am not a fan of the prison industrial complex and I do not like the idea of keeping people who aren't dangerous behind bars.

The other reason why this is important is because a lot of people fail to realize that what is happening to these children in the news happens to regular citizens everyday. There are without a doubt many cases where some guy got caught smoking a joint and because of various legal loopholes, that guy was thrown into prison for 10 years. What if that guy had kids? He is being separated from his kids. In some cases, those kids were taken away by social services. The guy smoking the joint wasn't doing any harm to anyone just like how someone simply crossing the border isn't doing any direct harm. I emphasize the word "simply" because that it doesn't take into account what else that person might do later on if they're not caught right away. 

There are two bigger issues here. First of all, the laws need to change in order to avoid this from happening again. That falls directly on Congress. The second issue is if someone crosses the border with children without proper documentation which they're most likely not going to have because they would have no intentions of talking to a border agent or someone from ICE, what are you supposed to do if you aren't if a child really does belong to the person claiming to be their parent? 

Trump is the shit show that keeps on giving.

The next administration is gonna have their hands full just fixing everything that Trump is destroying.

Not surprised about this in the slightest given the rapidly decaying state of the US into scumbaggery. Also not surprised about the numbers of apologists either given that frog-necked clown they elected as the "executive order" dictator of the US.

The intelligent people of the US are going to have a lot to clean up once Trump is done shitting all over the country.

From the memo that Session sent to the border, they actually jail and fine so they do both.  The thing is, the people who continue to compare this to other administration conveniently just ignore the executive order from Trump himself changing illegal entry into a felony.   They ignore statements from Session himself stating they did this to cause exactly what is happening as a deterrent to entry into the US.  Until they actually address Trump administration willfully doing this on purpose to cause exactly what is happening at the border, you either have to believe they support this political move and condone his actions.

Apparently a US Senator was denied entry into one of the child concentration camps. Really scary stuff going on in the US right now:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/senator-denied-entry-florida-child-migrant-facility-56018595

Lol, you have countries like China and Saudi Arabia on that council, so sorry if I'm not concerned.

I read the whole memo, there is a part in it that says they will detain everyone crossing the border.  I actually did not have a problem with the actual change in policy or even the memo.  My problem was how it was done.  Basically it hit on just about everything you stated in your last paragraph.  It was sloppily done with no real support at the border for this change.  It was amoral in the treatment of these people and their children, with this administration knowingly playing games like this with people lives as if they are animals.  We can be stronger and enforce our laws in a way that doesn't demean people seeking our help because GOD forbid if the US ever found themselves on the other end of the stick, reciprocation doesn't happen.

Man would it be terrible if something like the Movie "The Day After Tomorrow" happen and everyone in the US had to migrate to Mexico and other countries in South America.  How the tables would be turned and opinions would totally be different.

Civil wars, and Russia intruding on the fringes. A great amount of cooperation was possible through the UN to keep that at the fringes and prevent it from becoming a world war. If it had just been NATO, we might have gone to war with Russia over Georgia or Ukraine, because there wouldn't have been a diplomacy organization to smooth things over. And I understand that you think the UN is corrupt, but you seem to have this cynical idealism that if its corrupt we should just give up and retreat from the world stage rather than reform it, and all that does is divide the West. If you value the free world at all, you'd be against that. As the United States retreats as a leader on the world stage, there will be no one to set the example except China and Russia, authoritarian nightmare states. China is developing 1984 style surveillance and propaganda technology with their "Social Credit" system, and wants to wrest global control of the internet from the US. If we retreat from the world stage, China will succeed in that, and their social credit system will become the global standard, possibly even in the US. Russia will love it. Trump and his administration get accused of a lot of corruption, shady dealings, conflicts of interest, and more, and some call the US government a plutocracy or kleptocracy, but the US has nothing on Russia. Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship, their "democracy" and "elections" are an obvious farce, and the only people Putin answers to are the elites of his country. Retreating from the world stage doesn't mean the rest of the world won't exist or that America isn't affected by it anymore. We learned that the hard way in WWII, and were just lucky we learned in time to stop Hitler and Stalin. Now we have Putin and Xi Jinping, and we're taking the same attitude we did before WWII, except back then America was on the rise, and this time we're on the decline. There's plenty of evidence that we're holding the authoritarians at bay, you just don't want to accept it, and honestly seem hostile to the very idea of the free world if you think abandoning it to the dictators is the right idea. And if you think the rest of the world falling to dictatorships isn't our problem, that's just plain selfish, and your selfishness will only come to bite you in the ass in the end when America is surrounded on all sides by dictators.

But I suppose arguing in favor of government with an anarchist is a waste of time. I mean if you think "super-government" organizations are inherently wasteful, why would you think the US federal government is worth anything? You're either one of those people that thinks the US federal government should be dissolved and just be 50 states, or you're a hypocrite. I mean really, if you aren't against a federal government, why would you be against any other super-governmental organization? You'd be a hypocrite if you didn't. And if you do, then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, because that would be stupid. If you think the UN props up dictators now, just wait until there's no UN. Those dictators won't be going anywhere but into other free countries. But you don't have a problem with that at all, do you? It isn't about the corruption or the dictators, it never was. It's that you just don't care, and don't want any of your money going towards anything unless you see an immediate benefit. You could care less if we or any other country were a democracy or not. Sure, I'm putting words in your mouth right now, but that's because you've written yourself into a corner here. You either are against "super government organizations" and are thus against the US federal government, or you're a hypocrite for claiming to be against super-governmental organizations but not against the US federal government. It is by definition a government above the government of the 50 states. But if you aren't a hypocrite and do think the US federal government should be dissolved (and no "quasi government" alliances between the new nation states formed), then you're in for a rude awakening when Russia and China invade every state that doesn't have nukes, conquers them, then embargoes the remaining states until they economically collapse because they can't trade with their neighbors and not even Texas, New York, or California are big enough to survive without trade. In order to truly be against super-governmental and quasi-governmental organizations and not just the ones you don't like, you'd have to want to split the US into 50 states with no formal alliance, all to save some money on tax dollars, and not care that dictators around the world wouldn't follow suit but would instead see ripe opportunity to invade. And since you'd have to be really naive to think that they wouldn't invade or that 50 tiny unallied states would stand a chance against two continent spanning behemoths, surely you wouldn't care that most if not all of them would be conquered by dictators, so long as you didn't have to pay tax money to "wasteful" governmental organizations. Again, that is, if you're not a hypocrite that says he doesn't like super/quasi governmental organizations except when it's the one you're okay with for whatever reason.