It really doesn't matter what else they said. They directly and unequivocally accepted the initial claim as being a fact; Anything else they presented cannot form a rebuttal of that claim (though it might constitute a rationalisation of it).
The only rebuttal they leave open is "... but the Trump Administration isn't doing it", which would be a bizarre admission that your President's administration isn't in control of the federal agencies involved.
Do you really think that they went on to say '...but Trump is an impotent fool who tried to stop them but was ignored', or words to that effect?
Fuck, what's the point. I know you aren't capable of thinking this through even with detailed guidance. I am wasting my time here.
See, it's like a modified Chinese room. Somewhere, this user is plugged into an echo chamber of conservative "discussion" where "arguments" used are communicated alongside results. Then when they see results that have not recurved negative reactions or which they were able to leverage into "a win", they repeat them elsewhere when similar keywords are identified.
It's not an argument strategy that requires thought or understanding, it's just flinging magic words at a "problem" until it "cracks" in the form of a 'gotcha' or a silent opponent.
Many such people lack entirely the mechanism to live by application of principles, instead functioning by whatever just-so rules have worked in the past for them.
It still stands that if he is causing this suffering to deter migration, he IS in fact sitting somewhere like a cartoon villain twisting his mustaches watching kids suffer, saying "this will teach their parents what happens when you try to legally seek asylum in my country!"
