The policy for separating parents from children at the border after an illegal crossing was policy before Trump came into office. It was for the children’s protection, while parents went off to be processed. What would have happened to them otherwise? Leave them on the sidewalk outside the courthouse?
In the camera shots of the children inside the fences they looked fine. They were not upset or clawing at the fence. They were probably fine because their parents had explained to them what would happen. The ones who looked upset were the protesters outside, yelling and waving signs about this “inhumanity.” Didn’t the parents bring their children here illegally, knowing what would happen?
It wasn’t such a big deal when the number of children was small. When it hit 2,000 the protesters showed up. Now it is a crisis. We have to explain our policy repeatedly so we don’t have unlimited immigration. I vote for zero tolerance at the border.
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Carol Bachelder, Boise
Helsinki and Trump
In light of Helsinki, Senators Crapo and Risch and Congressmen Simpson and Labrador must decide whether they will defend Donald Trump or the United States of America. They cannot do both.
John Todd Stewart, U.S. Ambassador, Ret., Sun Valley
If there is anyone in the world who is always right, it’s President Donald Trump.
He has recently offered advice to Theresa May, Prime Minister of the U.K., which she did not accept.
If there is any possibility that something is wrong, he always blames it on someone else and for heaven’s sake, never apologize for anything.
George Bambauer, Boise
On Friday, July 13, the Statesman had two major articles written by New York Times people. The front page article basically defended FBI agent Strzok against GOP questions. The Inspector General Horowitz report cited numerous examples of Strzok’s bias and poor performance on the job. Of course, there was no mention of this in the article. I also watched a lot of this hearing and came to a completely different conclusion than the New York Times article. The next article covered Trump’s visit to NATO. Here the writers were more concerned about discord rather than results. Our presidents have complained for years about the U.S. bearing the major costs of NATO. Trump is trying in getting other countries to pay what they previously agreed to. Isn’t this more important than ruffling somebody’s feathers?
The New York Times writers are and have been decidedly anti-Trump. Don’t you think Idaho residents deserve opinions from pro-Trump people as well. Isn’t a newspaper supposed to print news for all people and not just what the editors want? I feel the Statesman has become anti-Trump and published biased reports as well.
Joe and Dee Smart, Nampa