So Foxy et al,

"The Trump's administration policy was a policy to separate
children from their parents."

So now that the Trump policy is to not separate these kids from their loving parents, I assume that you are in fully and furious agreement with the Trump position given that its the same as what you say was the Obama position.

Or should I repeat the link to the dictionary explanation of hypocrite?

mhaze,

Not at all.

I'm sure that you're aware of the meaning of that
word. But if it makes you feel any better - you
go right ahead Sunshine.

Taken from an American's comment on the web:

"When you lose your keys - you panic.
When you lose your wallet/purse - you panic.
Now imagine having your child/children forcibly
taken and they won't tell you where they are.
This is not the America I know. It is a disgraceful
example of bigotry and incompetence."

We should all be embarrassed for the USA, And deeply
ashamed of their President Donald Trump.

Hi o sung wu and david f,

The events leading up to the 'Treaty of Waitangi' and the subsequent actions by all parties is interesting, but complex. The British representative at the time Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson, his aid James Freeman, the official British resident James Busby and the missionaries Henry Williams and his son Edward, the missionaries translated the treaty into Maori, which most chiefs could read, only a few could read English. Whilst Busy acted as an adviser to Hobson, and also helped with the wording of the English version, all their behaviour was totally honourable, in my opinion, but today some do dispute that. Hobson was obviously instructed to get the best deal for the British that was possible. Unfortunate for Hobson he had no experience in drafting a treaty of any sorts, all he had with him were some odd European documents to use as a guide. James Busby, who had a very good understanding of the Maori, as did the two missionaries, were pivotal in the deliberations. After the first draft, Busby advised Hobson it would be unacceptable to the chiefs, and advised several changes, which Hobson included.

The argument today comes down to two simple words, the English version contains the word "sovereignty" (article 1), in the Maori version the word translates to "governance". To cede sovereignty is different to bestowing governance, as most chiefs believed they were doing. The British believed the Maori would be subservient to them, with Queen Victoria becoming the overall paramount chief. The chiefs believed they retained sovereignty, but received British governance (protection) in return, for giving the British exclusive land purchasing rights, which incidentally excluded the French, and all others, particularly the Americans which were becoming a growing threat to British interests in the Pacific. There was concerned about French intervention/influence at the time in New Zealand, so close to Australia. There was a possibility that the South Island could have become a French possession.
The lesson to be learnt is if you want a treaty be careful of the wording, it could come back to bite you.

http://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-treaty/english-text

So Foxy,

That's a yes? You now fully support Trump's policy re illegals immigrants?

G'day PAUL1405...

What a fascinating history NZ has, I had no idea of the impetus of the 'Treaty of Waitangi' of 1840. In comparison it puts, Australia's effort of reconciliation into a poor light eh?