What a weaselly, stupid excuse.
I suppose you would say it would be the law's fault for separating children from their parents if some local sheriff decided to arrest every moving violator in front of a school, instead of giving them a ticket. After all, if the law wasn't there, he could keep the children locked up with their parents for as long as it was necessary, right? If you don't like it, change the law. It's not the policy's fault! 
Not sure why you'd use that example. Kids are removed from their US parent's custody all the time when that person is placed in jail. Often they have other parents or responsible adults that can take them, but when they don't they go into foster care.
In what way are the children of illegal immigrants being treated differently than the children of US citizens held in jail? Answer, they aren't.
One could just as easily
choose to release all US citizen parents accused of a crime on their own recognizance so that they could retain custody of their children. It's only a "weaselly" choice that we elect not to do so, right?
The idea that the only workable solution is to continue to ignore the actual law and release people into the country who never show up again is also an "obvious lie."
There is no "actual law" that says you have to lock up people for a misdemeanor, even this misdemeanor. That was Trump's policy.
And there is an actual law that makes it illegal to cross our borders. I find it offensive that you find enforcing the law more problematic than breaking it. Fix the law. In the meantime, it's blatant hypocrasy to call out Trump for doing his constitutional duty to enforce the laws as written, while simultaneously calling him out for perceived unConstitutional and autocratic acts.
And do some research. What percentage of people released show up for their hearings? It might surprise you.
Here's the most in depth analysis I've seen, and it didn't surprise me. It may surprise you.
https://cis.org/Report/Courting-Disaster The actual failure to appear rate could be anywhere from 25% to over 50% of those released on their own recognizance. It's the US court with the worst rate of appearance (it even beats the court that processes traffic tickets). For something this significant that is truly horrendous.
Conservatives think it was a terrible crime that Obama and Hillary said that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a videotape, even when they corrected themselves a week later.
They lied to your face and knew it was a lie for nothing but their own gain. How does citing to this not prove that your "outrage" is false?
We're not talking about my outrage. I can assure you, it is real. We're talking about Trump's supporters lack of outrage.
You weren't, and still aren't, outraged that Obama and Hillary lied about Benghazi. As far as I could tell from the thread you still didn't believe it even after the emails showing came to light.
And remember, Obama and Hillary lied for exactly the same reasons that G.W. Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.
I don't recall G.W. Bush lieing about WMD in Iraq, let alone because he was at risk of loosing an election to Mitt Romney and needed to appear to not be a failure.
So why weren't there million-dollar hearings about that? Why aren't Conservatives still outraged about that?
I think there were not even more hearings on WMD in the Bush admin than there were because, unlike you, members of Congress saw the same intelligence that the Bush admin did. They are fully aware that the case you're making is false and that the actual records of what Bush knew don't support the Bush lied meme. No more than they support the "Senate lied" meme when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of action against Iraq.
What should Conservatives be outraged about? Oh yeah, I'm still outraged that the left used the Big Lie propaganda to sell a false narrative that a mistake was a lie. I'm still outraged about that, and I'm still opposing rewriting history to sell it.
There's a reasonable legal case that Birthright Citizenship is not required by the language of the Constitution. In fact, birth tourism is almost certainly not a constitutional requirement. Even illegal aliens are almost certainly subject to the jurisdiction of another country - or do you believe they are not entitled to consular help if arrested? - which makes the case colorable.
Wow, you'd make a great Democrat (as Republicans say they are). In spite of the plain language in the Constitution, and at least one Supreme Court ruling, you still think there is a "reasonable case" that it "is not required."
"[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
It's really just an interpretation of what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. You could actually read up on the debate instead of just being snarky. I mean honestly, using quotes to pretend words are not reasonable?
We already know that children of non-US diplomats born in the US are not US citizens. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (notwithstanding that in some cases they be subject in reality). The traditional interpretation of meaning on that clause would have been that the person in question was not subject to the jurisdiction of another sovereign (they were mostly concerned about divided loyalty).
There's literally no reasonable basis for believing that a birth tourist is not subject to the jurisdiction of another soveriegn (though they are subject to US jurisdiction, their sovereign has specific rights over them and on their behalf as well). The children they bear will absolutely have conflicted loyalties. This is the kind of abuse that should be "clear" but has not because of the bigger picture way we've interpretted the clause to provide for birth right citizenship.
Illigal immigrants are in the grey area as well. They can be deported and are entitled to their sovereigns protections. They can't legally be drafted, or made to comply with the burdens of citizenship (other than tax, but that's true for non-illegal immigrants and temporary residents as well). Could you legally prevent them from returning to their own country?
I would love to have you argue that the Second Amendment is not absolute in regards to personal firearms.
The right to bear arms predates the Constitution. There's no basis for that argument.
The militia clause should be sufficient to make it "colorable."
The arguments are textual. The 2nd amendment text doesn't support your interpretation. It would actually be contrary to the way those phrases are interpretted in other places in the Constitution to read it that way, and contrary both to the common and legal understanding.
I guess interpretation is going by the wayside, this is the same country where some are interpretating the right to free speech as permitting one person to ban another person's speech they find hateful.
Not to mention the various jurisdictions that have banned guns over the history of our country.
Mostly a mishmosh of poorly understood case law. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in our history that legally criminalized the ownership of a firearm. This is mostly a bed time story the left tells itself to justify lying about the actual history.
And "birth tourism" is not the reason for Trump's assertion, and you know it. If it were only birth tourism, I would probably support it. No, it is to take away the citizenship of people born in this country and have lived here all their lives. The ones who are "taking away jobs" from "real" Americans. Birth tourism may sound good, but if it were limited to that, it would never get support from the Republicans.
Again, I didn't say it was a good idea, and specifically said I don't think it's up to a President to decide. That changes nothing about whether the Constitution requires it, which I don't believe it does. No matter what though the interpretation of the Constitution that it is required is very long standing and not something that would be lightly overturned.
I think the case is very strong for birth tourism. Far less strong for legal or illegal immigrants that intend to stay. Migrant workers? Pretty strong there too.
Substantively, why should we give citizenship to persons whose primary loyalty is to another country?
No it's not. My primary motivation is that Trump is undermining the principles and unwritten rules of American government and democracy.
The anti-Trump movement is doing far far more to undermine the principles of American government and democracy than Trump. Whether it be pretending an elections was stolen (it wasn't), undermining executive authority (which has been ongoing on multiple fronts), demanding district judges overrule legitimate executive actions (ongoing and wide spread), using the Justice Department and state AGs to pursue charges based in partisanship rather than fact, leaking constantly, it all adds up to a polity whose strongest message seems to be "it's only Democracy if our side wins."
Lying about being able to ignore the Constitution;...
Doesn't even make sense. He never said anything matching that literally, and most everytime you've tried to demonstrate a failure to follow the Constitution it's been you that hasn't succeeded.
...lying about the reasons he separates children from their parents;....
Give you a maybe on this one. Though the complaint is normally about lying about the
justification not the reasons. He didn't lie on the first, but I'm reasonably convinced he did lie about the second (it seems obvious that separation was intended to be a punitive discouragement).
...lying about what he says and the power that he has;....
Pretty vague, and mostly overstatement.
...these are the things that break democracies.
On what basis do you make this conclusion? Pretty sure that corruption is what breaks Democracies, and the left is engaging in that wholesale so long as they think the target is Trump. Pretty sure demonizing your opponents and trying to delegitimize elections in which you lose, is what break Democracies, and again the left's engaging in that wholesale.
Pretty sure they end when you elect a Dictator, for which all the whining on the left Trump has not been. He hasn't failed to listen to the courts, even when the courts were grossly exceeding their authority. I'm not happy that he's increasingly used executive orders to implement things, but that was something that you literally cheered for when it was Obama. So yes, our Democracy is threatened, but it's not me or mine that are making the threats. It's not the conservatives who are the thought police suppressing contrary opinions, its not the Conservatives that are the brown shirts using violence to shut down speech.
You can't tell me that when you perceived Democrats doing these things you weren't up in arms.
The Democrats are literally doing these things. Everyday and constantly. Your anger is misdirected.
That when Obama lied, you weren't angry.
Offended, not angry. Mostly disappointed in the unthinking support he received.
That when Obama seemed to ignore the Constitution, you weren't ready to impeach him. But now when Trump is doing these things, the anger is gone.
Trump is skirting an executive authority border that Obama trampled. That's the difference to me.
As in all things in this country, those on the right face far more restrictions on actions. Trump has a special prosecutor (literally a witch hunter for all the justification that's been provided) looking at him, state AG's trying to find evidence of crimes (which flips due process on its head), and a media that digs into every single word he says. Even in Congress he's not well loved because he's a dramatic break from their culture of corruption.
Obama? Absolutely controlled his DOJ, faced no serious investigation of partisan attacks fomented through the IRS, EPA, the FBI and the DOJ. Congress, no brakes on him at all. Media? Actively excused his conduct.
And while your perception of Obama may have been wrong, I think what Trump is doing is real. And that frightens me to the bone.
All I can recommend is taking a step back. Take a break from the hype and the media analysis and look at what's actually getting done. A heck of a lot of it is positive, most of it risks no long term harm.
Even on the most dangerous stuff it's not things that Trump gets to decide unilaterally and it is things that have been open sores for decades because other politicians refuse to address them.
My primary motivation is not policies. It is the nation itself. And it should be your primary motivation, too.
It is, Trump is doing much good, and I weigh his actual harms as less than those of Obama.