> They were brought there by their parents that purposely broke immigration laws.

Yes, they crossed the border illegally, in order to apply for asylum, because they would have been automatically rejected otherwise.

Think though, for a moment, how desperate someone must be, to give up their home, travel thousands of miles (not in an airplane) and put their lives in danger, just for the chance for asylum in the USA.

> They possibly even did it with the idea of appealing to emotion of US citizens to get away with it.

Yes, because parents of children often sacrifice their children's health and livelihood just to make a point. Or as a media stunt.

If you don't care about these people, if you feel no sympathy at all, that's fine (well... it's not fine, but it is besides the point). But such cynicism as to their own motives is not accurate.

They aren't breaking immigration laws as they are asylum seekers.

They are economic migrants, otherwise they'd apply for "asylum" with Mexico.

Pretty much everyone is going to say they are seeking asylum if they are caught.

Just like anyone is going to say they are innocent if arrested. Luckily, we have a process to determine validity.

How devious of them to suffer, often because of US intervention in south and Central America, and then tell us about it.

Applying for asylum at the border isn’t illegal.

I understand, but why are the conditions of some of these facilities appalling?

This country was literally founded as a refuge for asylum-seekers.

That country was literally founded because indigenous people couldn't enforce their borders.

That's not even remotely true.

Go read the Statue of Liberty.

You probably mean the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, which was written a century after the founding of the nation.

The founding fathers weren't shy about writing their ideas down. If you're going to speak of the founding, maybe you can quote the actual words of the actual founding fathers, instead of a poet 100 years later. Where did they say the country was founded as a refuge for asylum-seekers?

Remind me, if you will, who the Pilgrims were?

I didn't know the pilgrims founded the country.

Also ironic you would bring them up since they were very much an "asylum for me, but not for thee" group, which explains all of the religious refugees leaving Massachusetts during the pilgrim's rule.

America is built of and by immigrants.

vs.

No it isn't.

It clearly is - native Americans certainly aren't the dominant people in the US.

> native Americans certainly aren't the dominant people in the US.

“Conquerors” and “immigrants” are meaningfully distinct, and the reason the indigenous people of the continent aren't dominant is at least as much the former as the latter.

You're discounting the fact that most extant native peoples almost certainly displaced other native people by the time the Europeans showed up. To provide a single example, Southern Athabaskans ventured south from Canada and displaced the Pueblo people after Europeans had already started showing up in North America.

Also, "aslyum-seeker" and "immigrant" are two distinct concepts.