Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 01-27-2020, 11:08 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
That’s just it: why — right there — do you lump illegally crossing the border in with “things that aren’t crimes” when you could instead lump it in with even the least of misdemeanors? Do you seriously see it as less of a crime than those?
Your obtuseness shows once again, begbert2 is pointing at immigrants that were not considered criminal as it was the case with previous Republican and Democratic administrations.

You are looking to vote for Trump when he is doing not only inhuman things, but also illegal abuses. (Saying that Trump is also doing criminal things is not out of the question, not only on the Ukraine issue, but also on this issue) As pointed before, you are also willing to vote for him, so you do expect that he will make things worst with immigration from "shit hole nations" as Trump calls them. That will increase thanks to inaction from the Trump administration regarding global warming.

https://www.refugeesinternational.or...-us-asylum-law
Quote:
This administration needs to realize that effective border management does not mean treating asylum-seekers like criminals. In the end, the administration’s wanton cruelty will degrade U.S. relations in the region, make the migration crisis worse and do little to deter those desperate enough to risk everything for a better life for their families.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/k...rce=reddit.com
Quote:
Under Trump, 26% of Climate Change References Have Vanished From .Gov Sites. A new report documents two years of science being scrubbed from government websites.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...mpact-n1056381
Quote:
Trump admin ignored its own evidence of climate change's impact on migration from Central America

EXCLUSIVE: An internal report obtained by NBC News showed migration surged from those areas where climate change is hurting crops and farmers.
https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/the...-is-piling-up/
Quote:
Trump being Trump, he immediately sought to deflect blame onto “the Democrats,” suggesting that his opponents’ humane attitude draws refugees northward at their peril. But by now he knows that his ill-treatment of those migrants has done nothing to dissuade them from fleeing violence and starvation in their home countries — a consequence of U.S. foreign policy that predated Trump but that he has only made worse.

While Trump’s sadistic approach has failed to discourage migration, he has certainly succeeded in wrecking the international image of the United States. Make America great again? Not since the exposure of torture at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 has our reputation sunk so low.

For many months now, the world has looked on our government in horror as the truth has emerged about human caging, family separations and intolerable living conditions inflicted on migrants. With each episode, this situation has grown more intolerable, as we learned that thousands of children have been snatched from their parents and then somehow disappeared, with federal authorities unable to account for their location or condition.

The latest damning evidence comes from within Border Patrol facilities near McAllen and Clint, Texas, where a visiting physician and attorneys found kids living without any of the necessities for decent existence. According to Dr. Dolly Lucio Sevier, the minors she examined in those facilities were subjected to “extreme cold temperatures, lights on 24 hours a day, no adequate access to medical care, basic sanitation, water, or adequate food.” They had been unable to bathe or even wash their hands for days, which could lead to outbreaks of illness. Several infants had come down with flu, which sent them to neonatal intensive care in a local hospital. All of these children have suffered trauma, said the doctor, which provoked her to compare their treatment to “torture.”

The lonely voice of sanity on Fox News Channel, anchor Shepard Smith, was moved to point out that the United States is now subjecting migrant children and adults to conditions not permitted for prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Which is another way to say that the government is perpetrating crimes against humanity. (When Trump claims that the underlying cause is a lack of funding, remember that he was fully prepared to seize money, constitutionally authorized or not, to build his border wall.)
  #202  
Old 01-28-2020, 04:51 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Quote:
I disagree. They were asked: “Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense rather than a crime to cross the border without documentation”.
That is like your opinion dude. (BTW that does not mean that they omit what it was usually done anyhow: repeated offenders of the civil statute were and will still get the criminal charge.)

I prefer to look at what they clarified before, after and the context, and again: no such context or plausible explanations are coming from Trump when he omits exceptions that you "clearly" agree should be there.
You’re glossing over the only part that interests me: I, too, would “prefer to look at what they clarified”. If you’re right — if they’ve later clarified that, despite raising their hands in response to that exactly-as-worded sentence, they actually mean that, well, yeah, of course we’d still sometimes press criminal charges against people for crossing the border illegally — then that’s what I want to hear.

That you think it doesn’t interest me; show me where they so clarified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster
And as pointed many times before, they wanted no criminalization of refugees, their families or the dreamers or asylum seekers.
I get that they want “no criminalization of refugees, their families or the dreamers or asylum seekers.” My question is: have they — since raising their hands — gone on to clarify that they’d limit decriminalization to those groups, while retaining the ability to criminally prosecute others for illegally crossing the border?
  #203  
Old 01-28-2020, 05:37 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,924
I can understand opposing decriminalization of border crossing. What I can't understand, if you oppose Trump on most other issues, is choosing to support the rapist/racist just based on this single issue. That's nuts.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #204  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:29 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But I know that it doesn’t have to be a crime for deportation to happen as a result of it; my point is that I’d like for criminal penalties to be a possibility too. I don’t want to take that option off the table via decriminalization; I want us to have the option of prosecuting them. (Which doesn’t mean I want them to face criminal penalties 100% of the time; it merely means I don’t want that to happen 0% of the time.)
For what it is worth, I understand the position and frankly them NOT getting it is unfathomable.

Taking something away is always worse than allowing the option. IN ALL CASES.

No, it doesn't have to be a crime for them to be deported BUT it IS. And it should stay a crime until we figure out how to and to what level we want to protect our border.

FOLLOW THE PROPER CHANNELS TO GET IN, no crime?!!
  #205  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:33 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I can understand opposing decriminalization of border crossing. What I can't understand, if you oppose Trump on most other issues, is choosing to support the rapist/racist just based on this single issue. That's nuts.
I won't speak for him but everyone ranks policies, whether you actively do it or passively do it , you just know what is important to you.

Now this one ranks pretty low for me, even though I live in Austin so it wouldn't make me vote Trump over some Democratic nominee, but I imagine lots of other things would have me voting for Trump over that nominee if no other option was on the table.

That is also the reason that this issue is so hard for you guys to grasp. THIS issue is important to YOU, but different from Waldo's opinion.


THIS type of thing is exactly why America is do divisive these days, people are UNABLE to find any compromise. because morals!
  #206  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:39 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
And it should stay a crime until we figure out how to and to what level we want to protect our border.
What exactly do you mean when you say this? Physically protect borders with barriers? Which borders? Who is this "we" that is going to figure it out? What are the "levels" of protection involved in this decision?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #207  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:46 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I won't speak for him but everyone ranks policies, whether you actively do it or passively do it , you just know what is important to you.



Now this one ranks pretty low for me, even though I live in Austin so it wouldn't make me vote Trump over some Democratic nominee, but I imagine lots of other things would have me voting for Trump over that nominee if no other option was on the table.



That is also the reason that this issue is so hard for you guys to grasp. THIS issue is important to YOU, but different from Waldo's opinion.





THIS type of thing is exactly why America is do divisive these days, people are UNABLE to find any compromise. because morals!
On some things, compromise is impossible. This isn't a surprise to me.

I'm trying to find out how someone can value this issue so much more than opposing rape, opposing caging children, opposing harming the environment, opposing white nationalism, etc.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #208  
Old 01-28-2020, 09:09 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
What exactly do you mean when you say this? Physically protect borders with barriers? Which borders? Who is this "we" that is going to figure it out? What are the "levels" of protection involved in this decision?
This is one of those questions that wants to eventually delve into but what would YOU do.

That question for the purpose of this discussion is irrelevant, but my answer would be that we was a collective WE, as in governmental policy driven by those who get to make the decisions.

Levels would be from open borders to strict border policies (and I can imagine much stricter policies than we currently have, can you?)
  #209  
Old 01-28-2020, 09:59 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
This is one of those questions that wants to eventually delve into but what would YOU do.

That question for the purpose of this discussion is irrelevant, but my answer would be that we was a collective WE, as in governmental policy driven by those who get to make the decisions.

Levels would be from open borders to strict border policies (and I can imagine much stricter policies than we currently have, can you?)
Well, seems people keep talking around the subject without getting into specifics. How can we agree on what should be done if everyone avoids specifics.

Also, different administrations have different ideas about immigration and how best to implement those policies.

So there is hardly any consensus from the "WE".

When you say you can "imagine stricter policies", can you provide an example? Do you think we should be stricter about refugees seeking asylum claims? Stricter about deporting? Stricter about who is awarded dreamer status? Stricter about physical border barriers? Northern as well as southern borders? What about other ports of entry? Stricter about legal entry visa overstays? How many resources do you think are needed to implement "stricter" immigration policies and what is the problem "we" are trying to solve when it comes to immigration?

If we don't state our criteria, how can we reach agreement or compromise?

Bit rhetorical, all this. I've started a topic in GD on rational immigration policies and, predictably, consensus is nigh impossible.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #210  
Old 01-28-2020, 12:06 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
You’re glossing over the only part that interests me: I, too, would “prefer to look at what they clarified”. If you’re right — if they’ve later clarified that, despite raising their hands in response to that exactly-as-worded sentence, they actually mean that, well, yeah, of course we’d still sometimes press criminal charges against people for crossing the border illegally — then that’s what I want to hear.

That you think it doesn’t interest me; show me where they so clarified.
One has to notice here that you dodged the real question: Remember, a vote for Trump is a vote for continuing to attempt to remove any exceptions, exceptions that you claim to support.

Unfortunately, it does not matter what you claim to support when Trump will continue to be an inhuman cad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I get that they want “no criminalization of refugees, their families or the dreamers or asylum seekers.” My question is: have they — since raising their hands — gone on to clarify that they’d limit decriminalization to those groups, while retaining the ability to criminally prosecute others for illegally crossing the border?
One clear thing: you are willfully ignoring that Biden did not support decriminalization, however:

https://joebiden.com/immigration/
Quote:
The next president will need to take urgent action to end the Trump Administration’s draconian policies, grounded in fear and racism rather than fact, work to heal the wounds inflicted on immigrant communities, and restore America’s moral leadership. As president, Biden will move immediately to ensure that the U.S. meets its responsibilities as both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

In the first 100 days, a Biden Administration will:
  • Immediately reverse the Trump Administration’s cruel and senseless policies that separate parents from their children at our border, including ending the prosecution of parents for minor immigration violations as an intimidation tactic, and prioritize the reunification of any children still separated from their families.
  • End Trump’s detrimental asylum policies. The Statue of Liberty has long been a beacon to people “yearning to breathe free” around the world — including asylum-seekers and refugees. But the Trump Administration has worked against this tradition to drastically restrict access to asylum in the U.S., including imposing additional restrictions on anyone traveling through Mexico or Guatemala; attempting to prevent victims of gang and domestic violence from receiving asylum; systematically prosecuting adult asylum seekers for misdemeanor illegal entry; and severely limiting the ability of members of the LGBTQ community, an especially vulnerable group in many parts of the world, from qualifying for asylum as members of a “particular social group.” Biden will end these policies, starting with Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols, and restore our asylum laws so that they do what they should be designed to do–protect people fleeing persecution and who cannot return home safely.
  • End the mismanagement of the asylum system, which fuels violence and chaos at the border. Trump’s disastrous policy of “metering” — limiting the number of asylum applications accepted each day — forces people seeking asylum to wait on the streets in often dangerous Mexican border towns for weeks before they are permitted to apply. It has created a horrifying ecosystem of violence and exploitation, with cartels kidnapping, violently assaulting, and extorting migrants. Biden will direct the necessary resources to ensure asylum applications are processed fairly and efficiently, while treating families and children with compassion and sensitivity.
  • Surge humanitarian resources to the border and foster public-private initiatives. Humanitarian needs are best met through a network of organizations, such as faith-based shelters, non-governmental aid organizations, legal non-profits, and refugee assistance agencies working together. Biden will dramatically increase U.S. government resources to support migrants awaiting assessment of their asylum claims and to the organizations providing for their needs.
  • End prolonged detention and reinvest in a case management program. The Trump Administration has sought to circumvent the Flores agreement and hold children in detention indefinitely. But proven alternatives to detention and non-profit case management programs, which support migrants as they navigate their legal obligations, are the best way to ensure that they attend all required immigration appointments. These programs also enable migrants to live in dignity and safety while awaiting their court hearings–facilitating things like doctor visits, social services, and school enrollment for children. Evidence shows that these programs are highly effective and are far less expensive and punitive than detaining families. Biden will codify protections to safeguard children to make sure their treatment is consistent with their best interest and invest in community-based case management programs, including those supported by faith-based organizations such as Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, to move migrants into safe environments as quickly as possible.
  • Reverse Trump’s public charge rule, which runs counter to our values as Americans and the history of our nation. Allowing immigration officials to make an individual’s ability to receive a visa or gain permanent residency contingent on their use of government services such as SNAP benefits or Medicaid, their household income, and other discriminatory criteria undermines America’s character as land of opportunity that is open and welcoming to all, not just the wealthy.
  • End the so-called National Emergency that siphons federal dollars from the Department of Defense to build a wall. Building a wall will do little to deter criminals and cartels seeking to exploit our borders. Instead of stealing resources from schools for military children and recovery efforts in Puerto Rico, Biden will direct federal resources to smart border enforcement efforts, like investments in improving screening infrastructure at our ports of entry, that will actually keep America safer.
  • Protect Dreamers and their families. The Obama-Biden Administration created DACA in 2012 to protect “Dreamers,” undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children, obeyed the law once here, and stayed in school or enlisted in the military. DACA provided young people who passed a background check and application process with temporary work permits and protection from deportation. The Trump Administration made the cruel and counterproductive decision to terminate DACA, throwing into turmoil the lives of millions of Dreamers. Dreamers and their parents should have a roadmap to citizenship through legislative immigration reform. But in the meantime, Biden will remove the uncertainty for Dreamers by reinstating the DACA program, and he will explore all legal options to protect their families from inhumane separation. Biden will also ensure Dreamers are eligible for federal student aid (loans, Pell grants) and are included in his proposals to provide access to community college without debt and invest in HBCU/Hispanic Serving Institution/Minority Serving Institutions, which will help Dreamers contribute even more to our economy.
  • Rescind the un-American travel and refugee bans, also referred to as “Muslim bans.” The Trump Administration’s anti-Muslim bias hurts our economy, betrays our values, and can serve as a powerful terrorist recruiting tool. Prohibiting Muslims from entering the country is morally wrong, and there is no intelligence or evidence that suggests it makes our nation more secure. It is yet another abuse of power by the Trump Administration designed to target primarily black and brown immigrants. Biden will immediately rescind the “Muslim bans.”
  • Order an immediate review of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for vulnerable populations who cannot find safety in their countries ripped apart by violence or disaster. The Trump Administration’s politically-motivated decisions to rescind protected status for hundreds of thousands of people fleeing countries impacted by war and natural disasters — without regard for current country conditions — is a recipe for disaster. Biden will protect TPS and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) holders from being returned to countries that are unsafe. TPS/DED holders who have been in the country for an extended period of time and built lives in the U.S. will also be offered a path to citizenship through legislative immigration reform.
  • Restore sensible enforcement priorities. Targeting people who have never been convicted of a serious criminal offense and who have lived, worked, and contributed to our economy and our communities for decades is the definition of counterproductive. Biden will direct enforcement efforts toward threats to public safety and national security, while ensuring that individuals are treated with the due process to which they are entitled and their human rights are protected. President Biden will end workplace raids to ensure that threats based on workers’ status do not interfere with their ability to organize and improve their wages and working conditions. He will also protect sensitive locations from immigration enforcement actions. No one should be afraid to seek medical attention, go to school, their job, or their place of worship for fear of an immigration enforcement action.
Biden and Warren who are the ones supporting decriminalization of most of what Trump is abusing, but as even Biden points out, theirs is a move that may not be needed; however, they do make a good case on that decriminalization issue: (Really, Trump's actions in breaking what was in place before is what it makes this issue debatable)

https://berniesanders.com/issues/wel...e-america-all/
Quote:
Our border policy and immigration court system is badly broken. There are currently almost 1 million pending court cases straining a system already stretched to breaking by the shortage of immigration judges, who are forced to handle complex and sensitive cases as quickly as possible to meet sky-high quotas.
Quote:
Children as young as three years old have absurdly been forced to defend themselves in court in front of judges.
Often, immigrants never receive notice of their hearings, or notices come only in English, and are sometimes marked as absent for hearings that never physically took place. This is not justice. The fact is, when immigrants are given access to counsel, they attend hearings at a rate of nearly 100 percent. We will exercise due process at the border and establish a humane and fair review process for asylum claims.

Bernie believes it is reprehensible that corporations are making a profit from locking children and their families in cages and will immediately close for-profit and private detention centers. Community-based alternatives to detention are more effective, less expensive, and more humane. Bernie will partner with nonprofit organizations to authorize and greatly expand these programs and end detention for nearly all immigrants, with rare exceptions for flight risks or extenuating circumstances. For any shelters necessary, such as those legally required to house unaccompanied minors until they are connected with family or sponsors, Bernie will implement strong quality standards.
Having say that, it is important to notice that, as other articles I have seen that checked the plans that were published, do notice that not even Bernie or Warren are opposed to use criminal law as it was used in past administrations. They are against specific statutes. Again this is happening because of Trump's abuse of the law. (Trump's should appear in the dictionary of sayings as the uber example of "You see, this is why we can not have nice things")

So, again, if you continue to ignore what criminal activity is coming from the administration, one can conclude that you will vote in favor of items like making children as young as three years old to defend themselves in court in front of judges...
  #211  
Old 01-28-2020, 04:22 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Well, seems people keep talking around the subject without getting into specifics. How can we agree on what should be done if everyone avoids specifics.

Also, different administrations have different ideas about immigration and how best to implement those policies.

So there is hardly any consensus from the "WE".

When you say you can "imagine stricter policies", can you provide an example? Do you think we should be stricter about refugees seeking asylum claims? Stricter about deporting? Stricter about who is awarded dreamer status? Stricter about physical border barriers? Northern as well as southern borders? What about other ports of entry? Stricter about legal entry visa overstays? How many resources do you think are needed to implement "stricter" immigration policies and what is the problem "we" are trying to solve when it comes to immigration?

If we don't state our criteria, how can we reach agreement or compromise?

Bit rhetorical, all this. I've started a topic in GD on rational immigration policies and, predictably, consensus is nigh impossible.

I don't think you'll ever find consensus, but we (all of us) should be able to find compromise. You are getting into all the how's again.
How is irrelevant in why it's important for someone, why might be a better question?

One thing I fail to grasp, if the law is poorly written or written exactly as written but bad, CHANGE THE LAW. (For Gigo)

Last edited by Kearsen1; 01-28-2020 at 04:25 PM.
  #212  
Old 01-28-2020, 04:40 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I don't think you'll ever find consensus, but we (all of us) should be able to find compromise. You are getting into all the how's again.
How is irrelevant in why it's important for someone, why might be a better question?

One thing I fail to grasp, if the law is poorly written or written exactly as written but bad, CHANGE THE LAW. (For Gigo)
Funny, that is what the Democrats propose, what Trump did is precisely why laws that are found to be poorly written (as in leading some to abuse other human beings) will be looked at and...

There go the "nice" things that the extreme right loved.
  #213  
Old 01-28-2020, 05:35 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
That’s just it: why — right there — do you lump illegally crossing the border in with “things that aren’t crimes” when you could instead lump it in with even the least of misdemeanors? Do you seriously see it as less of a crime than those?
Read for comprehension, man, because I did no such thing.

Illegally crossing the border doesn't get lumped in with misdemeanors because it's handled by civil code with different potential reactions. It's not lesser or greater; it's just different. Apples and oranges. This is not hard to understand. No, seriously, it's not.

The part which you have failed to explain is why you want to hang onto the ability to criminally prosecute these people for no clear reason. (Racism. Racism is the reason.) If we retain the ability to toss them out if they're illegal, and lock them up if they're smugglers or drug runners or otherwise criminals, what non-racist reason could you possibly be imagining that requires you to blur the line between the two?

Because the way it works out in practice is, again, to let racists abuse people in outsized and outrageous ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
For what it is worth, I understand the position and frankly them NOT getting it is unfathomable.

Taking something away is always worse than allowing the option. IN ALL CASES.

No, it doesn't have to be a crime for them to be deported BUT it IS. And it should stay a crime until we figure out how to and to what level we want to protect our border.

FOLLOW THE PROPER CHANNELS TO GET IN, no crime?!!
Taking away a gun from a child is worse than allowing them to continue to play with it. IN ALL CASES.

Properly executed civil procedure can handle this fine, and maybe avoid handing racists more tools to abuse people with along the way.
  #214  
Old 01-28-2020, 06:44 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
One has to notice here that you dodged the real question: Remember, a vote for Trump is a vote for continuing to attempt to remove any exceptions, exceptions that you claim to support.
Again, if it’s Trump versus someone who (a) isn’t for decriminalization, and who (b) is for some exceptions — hey, I’m interested in that Democrat; that Democrat could get my vote; I’ve said so, in this very thread. But if it’s Trump versus someone who backs decriminalization, no exceptions? I mean, here I was, hoping for someone who’ll bring criminal charges at least some of the time, and instead my choices are zero percent or a hundred percent?

Quote:
One clear thing: you are willfully ignoring that Biden did not support decriminalization,
Why do you keep doing this? Why not ask a question instead of making a claim? Why not simply ask, “hey, what’s your opinion of Biden’s position,” and then maybe take issue with my answer?

“Several Democratic candidates support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally”, I posted — specifying that “South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Bernie Sanders, author Marianne Williamson and entrepreneur Andrew Yang raised their hands when asked at the first Democratic debate whether they believe crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime.” Why state that I’m willfully ignoring something about Biden? I could’ve been wearing a BIDEN 2020 shirt while posting that: noticing that he’s one of the candidates not on the ‘several’ list, and hoping and expecting that everyone else does too!

Why jump to a conclusion when you can just ask?
  #215  
Old 01-28-2020, 07:31 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Read for comprehension, man, because I did no such thing.

Illegally crossing the border doesn't get lumped in with misdemeanors because it's handled by civil code with different potential reactions. It's not lesser or greater; it's just different. Apples and oranges. This is not hard to understand. No, seriously, it's not.

The part which you have failed to explain is why you want to hang onto the ability to criminally prosecute these people for no clear reason. (Racism. Racism is the reason.) If we retain the ability to toss them out if they're illegal, and lock them up if they're smugglers or drug runners or otherwise criminals, what non-racist reason could you possibly be imagining that requires you to blur the line between the two?
Let me try to understand your position, by elaborating on mine.

I’ve never considered the following unreasonable, or racist; but I’ve sometimes thought to myself, hey, if people ever trespass on my property, I sure am glad that the ability is there to — as you put it — “toss them out”. Yep. I sure am.

Thing is, I’m also glad the ability is there to press charges against them. Now, I’m not saying I’d exercise that option every time; heavens, no; but I’m glad to know that the option hasn’t been taken off the table: that they can face criminal charges even if they aren’t “smugglers or drug runners or otherwise criminals”. I don’t need for them to otherwise be criminals; what they’ve done already suffices, even if I’m sometimes going to merely opt for tossing them out.

And, me, I’m just a guy: is it your view that people who enter my property without my permission thus open themselves up to possible criminal charges instead of mere removal; but that entering a country without permission should merely be a matter of removal, with no possibility of criminal charges?

Because, if so, I genuinely don’t get that. Sure, we could decriminalize it and still “retain the ability to toss them out”; we could decriminalize trespassing and still toss folks out, we could decriminalize any number of things that are currently crimes and instead handle them purely as a matter of civil code. But if a candidate for office were to suggest that trespassing on my property be decriminalized, I’d give them no benefit of the doubt while asking why the heck they wanted to utterly remove the option of criminal charges; and if a candidate suggests doing the same for those who illegally enter the country, I’d of course react the same way.
  #216  
Old 01-28-2020, 07:32 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Again, if it’s Trump versus someone who (a) isn’t for decriminalization, and who (b) is for some exceptions — hey, I’m interested in that Democrat; that Democrat could get my vote; I’ve said so, in this very thread. But if it’s Trump versus someone who backs decriminalization, no exceptions? I mean, here I was, hoping for someone who’ll bring criminal charges at least some of the time, and instead my choices are zero percent or a hundred percent?
Your turn now for a cite now, who is not making any exceptions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Why do you keep doing this? Why not ask a question instead of making a claim? Why not simply ask, “hey, what’s your opinion of Biden’s position,” and then maybe take issue with my answer?
Why, TOWP, it is always a pleasure to show to all how ignorant or how willing you are to omit items so as to pump up your sorry arguments!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
“Several Democratic candidates support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally”, I posted — specifying that “South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Bernie Sanders, author Marianne Williamson and entrepreneur Andrew Yang raised their hands when asked at the first Democratic debate whether they believe crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime.” Why state that I’m willfully ignoring something about Biden? I could’ve been wearing a BIDEN 2020 shirt while posting that: noticing that he’s one of the candidates not on the ‘several’ list, and hoping and expecting that everyone else does too!

Why jump to a conclusion when you can just ask?
Well thanks for showing all how you still rely on the stupid point of repeating something expecting a different result.

Biden BTW is still the most likely candidate to be selected, and the other ones do make very persuasive arguments about why to counter the putrid extremism of Trump (who you are still considering to vote, you are not coming smelling like roses indeed) they reports that there are some criminal statutes that should be changed.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-28-2020 at 07:33 PM.
  #217  
Old 01-28-2020, 07:43 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Let me try to understand your position, by elaborating on mine.

I’ve never considered the following unreasonable, or racist; but I’ve sometimes thought to myself, hey, if people ever trespass on my property, I sure am glad that the ability is there to — as you put it — “toss them out”. Yep. I sure am.

Thing is, I’m also glad the ability is there to press charges against them. Now, I’m not saying I’d exercise that option every time; heavens, no; but I’m glad to know that the option hasn’t been taken off the table: that they can face criminal charges even if they aren’t “smugglers or drug runners or otherwise criminals”. I don’t need for them to otherwise be criminals; what they’ve done already suffices, even if I’m sometimes going to merely opt for tossing them out.

And, me, I’m just a guy: is it your view that people who enter my property without my permission thus open themselves up to possible criminal charges instead of mere removal; but that entering a country without permission should merely be a matter of removal, with no possibility of criminal charges?

Because, if so, I genuinely don’t get that. Sure, we could decriminalize it and still “retain the ability to toss them out”; we could decriminalize trespassing and still toss folks out, we could decriminalize any number of things that are currently crimes and instead handle them purely as a matter of civil code. But if a candidate for office were to suggest that trespassing on my property be decriminalized, I’d give them no benefit of the doubt while asking why the heck they wanted to utterly remove the option of criminal charges; and if a candidate suggests doing the same for those who illegally enter the country, I’d of course react the same way.
Again this is ignoring what others posters pointed out already, you are not making any mention of trespassers that had to flee a fire or gang violence. The point has been that Trump is charging as criminals the ones that had to cross because of that and other reasons.

It is because of that willful omission that one gets to be seen as a bigoted bastard, just saying that because thanks to bastard bigoted inflexible guys like Joe Arpaio is that many in Arizona decided not to vote for him anymore. And it is turning the state blue. Nice work breaking it hero!

And yet again, This Trump who I already cited evidence that he has resorted to criminal acts, and you still think that it would be good to vote for him.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-28-2020 at 07:46 PM.
  #218  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:08 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Let me try to understand your position, by elaborating on mine.

I’ve never considered the following unreasonable, or racist; but I’ve sometimes thought to myself, hey, if people ever trespass on my property, I sure am glad that the ability is there to — as you put it — “toss them out”. Yep. I sure am.

Thing is, I’m also glad the ability is there to press charges against them. Now, I’m not saying I’d exercise that option every time; heavens, no; but I’m glad to know that the option hasn’t been taken off the table: that they can face criminal charges even if they aren’t “smugglers or drug runners or otherwise criminals”. I don’t need for them to otherwise be criminals; what they’ve done already suffices, even if I’m sometimes going to merely opt for tossing them out.

And, me, I’m just a guy: is it your view that people who enter my property without my permission thus open themselves up to possible criminal charges instead of mere removal; but that entering a country without permission should merely be a matter of removal, with no possibility of criminal charges?

Because, if so, I genuinely don’t get that. Sure, we could decriminalize it and still “retain the ability to toss them out”; we could decriminalize trespassing and still toss folks out, we could decriminalize any number of things that are currently crimes and instead handle them purely as a matter of civil code. But if a candidate for office were to suggest that trespassing on my property be decriminalized, I’d give them no benefit of the doubt while asking why the heck they wanted to utterly remove the option of criminal charges; and if a candidate suggests doing the same for those who illegally enter the country, I’d of course react the same way.
By recognizing that committing other crimes in addition to unauthorized entry can be dealt with by other, existing criminal statutes, that reduces the sequence of possible events in your analogy to:

1) Unauthorized person enters your property.
2) They do nothing that you consider problematic.
3) They are detected by somebody in authority.
4) They are promptly removed by that person.

Given that that is how your analogy turns out, then no, I don't see any reason to throw the person in the gulag. Keep in mind that most of the reasons you wouldn't want the person on your property don't actually apply to illegal immigrants - privacy concerns and worries that they're casing the place don't really scale up.

Though I have been thinking, I will concede that there is one (1) circumstance where the entry alone could be reasonably dealt with through the criminal system without it being an obvious overreaction: when it's not their first time. A person entering into your property and being removed upon detection once is one thing, but if they keep on coming back I can see it being reasonable to conclude that "the other side of our border" is not doing a good job of confining them, so other steps might be reasonable. Dunno if this should happen on the second strike, but I would concede that a three-strikes-you-don't-go-out escalation policy might be reasonable.
  #219  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:14 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Your turn now for a cite now, who is not making any exceptions?
I gave you a cite that spelled out the following. ““Several Democratic candidates support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally.” It also spelled out the following: “South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Bernie Sanders, author Marianne Williamson and entrepreneur Andrew Yang raised their hands when asked at the first Democratic debate whether they believe crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime.” They were asked a question with no exceptions. They responded.

I mentioned Buttigieg there; am I to merely repeat myself? And so on?

Quote:
Why, TOWP, it is always a pleasure to show to all how ignorant or how willing you are to omit items so as to pump up your sorry arguments!
You get that I copy-and-pasted that list, right? I didn’t omit an item from that list; that simply was their list of candidates who raised a hand. I quoted the sentence where they carefully spelled out ‘several’, and I quoted the sentence where they then supplied that list. The whole point of that list is that some Democrats aren’t there, or else the cite would’ve said “yeah, they’re all in favor of it.”

I’d you’d asked for a cite that some of them didn’t raise their hands, I would’ve provided one, in good faith; instead, I thought it was merely obvious.
  #220  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:20 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Again this is ignoring what others posters pointed out already, you are not making any mention of trespassers that had to flee a fire or gang violence. The point has been that Trump is charging as criminals the ones that had to cross because of that and other reasons.
Right, and, again, if it’s a choice between Trump and someone who says, “hey, let’s prosecute some trespassers but not others” — fine, let’s hear from the reasonable guy who’ll make some exceptions. But if it’s a choice between Trump and someone who says, “hey, let’s decriminalize trespassing” — er, no; if you’re for charging zero acts of trespassing as criminal, if it’s No Exceptions versus No Exceptions, then I don’t see that your analogy works.
  #221  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:29 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Right, and, again, if it’s a choice between Trump and someone who says, “hey, let’s prosecute some trespassers but not others” — fine, let’s hear from the reasonable guy who’ll make some exceptions. But if it’s a choice between Trump and someone who says, “hey, let’s decriminalize trespassing” — er, no; if you’re for charging zero acts of trespassing as criminal, if it’s No Exceptions versus No Exceptions, then I don’t see that your analogy works.
Because your stupid argument is coming from right wing fantasy world, and propagandized also by the guy you want to vote for, funny how that works...
  #222  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:36 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
By recognizing that committing other crimes in addition to unauthorized entry can be dealt with by other, existing criminal statutes, that reduces the sequence of possible events in your analogy to:

1) Unauthorized person enters your property.
2) They do nothing that you consider problematic.
But why do you add that second step? I consider the first step problematic; I don’t need for them to commit “other crimes in addition to unauthorized entry”; the law already allows for the option — the option, mind you — of pressing criminal charges, and I may want to exercise that option; and, to the best of my knowledge, you’re not in favor of decriminalization on this front too.

Quote:
Though I have been thinking, I will concede that there is one (1) circumstance where the entry alone could be reasonably dealt with through the criminal system without it being an obvious overreaction: when it's not their first time. A person entering into your property and being removed upon detection once is one thing, but if they keep on coming back I can see it being reasonable to conclude that "the other side of our border" is not doing a good job of confining them, so other steps might be reasonable. Dunno if this should happen on the second strike, but I would concede that a three-strikes-you-don't-go-out escalation policy might be reasonable.
That’s an interesting point. I’ll think about it.
  #223  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:42 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I gave you a cite that spelled out the following. ““Several Democratic candidates support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally.” It also spelled out the following: “South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Bernie Sanders, author Marianne Williamson and entrepreneur Andrew Yang raised their hands when asked at the first Democratic debate whether they believe crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime.” They were asked a question with no exceptions. They responded.

I mentioned Buttigieg there; am I to merely repeat myself? And so on?
Well thanks for showing all that you will willfully ignore the context so as to still consider voting for the one that has decided to criminalize all, no exceptions. By the way this is about the 4th time that you repeat that while ignoring that the ones who raised hands did not have a chance for nuance, and a lot of what you get from that is an exaggerated position, an exaggerated item thanks to right wing propaganda that depends a lot on wishful thinking, the reality is that a lot of what you infer from what some Democrats gestured is not going to take place thanks to congressional oversight, while at the same time what Trump did was to make big lies about "Democrats wanting open borders" while causing people to die or break families with his Draconian moves.

That is what you still consider voting for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
You get that I copy-and-pasted that list, right? I didn’t omit an item from that list; that simply was their list of candidates who raised a hand. I quoted the sentence where they carefully spelled out ‘several’, and I quoted the sentence where they then supplied that list. The whole point of that list is that some Democrats aren’t there, or else the cite would’ve said “yeah, they’re all in favor of it.”

I’d you’d asked for a cite that some of them didn’t raise their hands, I would’ve provided one, in good faith; instead, I thought it was merely obvious.
Suuuuure, just like it is obvious that you are not seeing the ones that trespassed into your yard came undocumented before like me as criminals... /S

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-28-2020 at 08:46 PM.
  #224  
Old 01-28-2020, 09:12 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Well thanks for showing all that you will willfully ignore the context so as to still consider voting for the one that has decided to criminalize all, no exceptions. By the way this is about the 4th time that you repeat that while ignoring that the ones who raised hands did not have a chance for nuance,
Again, I’ve asked whether they’ve walked it back since. I grant that it’s possible they had a context in mind, and could come forward to helpfully clarify that, no, despite the wording of the question, they don’t really want no-exceptions decriminalization; has Buttigieg done that? Has Yang?
  #225  
Old 01-28-2020, 09:33 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Again, I’ve asked whether they’ve walked it back since. I grant that it’s possible they had a context in mind, and could come forward to helpfully clarify that, no, despite the wording of the question, they don’t really want no-exceptions decriminalization; has Buttigieg done that? Has Yang?
Not likely that they will be selected, and again others did not, like Biden; and I explained (with cites) that the ones that do pointed at the statutes Trump was abusing as the reason.

Of course what this show is that besides obtuse you are going in circles, you do want to justify voting for Trump for a few Democrats reacting to the abuses Trump is committing.

Nice racket.

What Trump is going are not gestures in a debate, what he does is contrary to what you already told us you are against.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-28-2020 at 09:37 PM.
  #226  
Old 01-28-2020, 09:50 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Not likely that they will be selected, and again others did not, like Biden; and I explained (with cites) that the ones that do pointed at the statutes Trump was abusing as the reason.
As I’ve said, this discussion will presumably be more interesting and useful once this narrows down to the Democratic nominee; I’ll still be honest and obliging then; I just figured I’d be honest and obliging now, too, is all.

Quote:
What Trump is going are not gestures in a debate, what he does is contrary to what you already told us you are against.
::shrugs:: If the eventual Democratic nominee takes a stand against no-exception decriminalization, you and I will presumably be able to discuss the specific merits of that policy versus Trump’s at that point; I could then be convinced to vote against Trump, if the specifics strike me as sensible enough. But I’m telling you now: if that candidate gets asked about decriminalization and says, well, yeah; this isn’t some implied thing about context; I don’t believe that crossing the border illegally should actually be a crime at all, no exceptions, and you may quote me — why, then, I’ll presumably still be making the same points then that I am now.
  #227  
Old 01-28-2020, 09:57 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,511
Again, besides obtuse you are going in a circle, you do want to justify voting for Trump for a few Democrats reacting to the abuses that Trump is committing.

A very vicious circle.
  #228  
Old 01-29-2020, 12:17 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,854
I, for one, do not find it at all unreasonable to desire prosecution for those who enter the country illegally. Where do I stand? I don't know. Recall that I'm a radical centrist: I often sympathize with both sides of an issue and have trouble making up my mind. (But, boy when I do make up my mind you'll hear about it!)

THEREFORE, I am very disappointed that a debate on whether a vote for Trump might be sensical has degenerated into a discussion in which both sides have merit.

Even without leaving the subject of immigration, I'd hope to direct the debate into more productive areas. Let me ask Mr. Pepper some other questions:
(a) How do you feel about separating young children from their parents?
(b) How do you feel when you hear Trump speak of shooting refugees?
(c) Border police shut down bridges; then arrested refugees who attempted to approach border stations by alternate routes. Was this clever? Or wrong?
(d) I read that several Iranians with valid student visas have been deported on arrival at U.S. airports. How do you feel about that?
  #229  
Old 01-29-2020, 06:41 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I, for one, do not find it at all unreasonable to desire prosecution for those who enter the country illegally. Where do I stand? I don't know. Recall that I'm a radical centrist: I often sympathize with both sides of an issue and have trouble making up my mind. (But, boy when I do make up my mind you'll hear about it!)

THEREFORE, I am very disappointed that a debate on whether a vote for Trump might be sensical has degenerated into a discussion in which both sides have merit.

Even without leaving the subject of immigration, I'd hope to direct the debate into more productive areas. Let me ask Mr. Pepper some other questions:
(a) How do you feel about separating young children from their parents?
As opposed to what? Let’s say a guy gets charged with any other crime, and is put behind bars; maybe he’s awaiting trial, maybe he’s already been convicted. How do I feel about separating young children from him while he’s locked in that cell? Tell me what you propose for a kid in that situation — where the guy is incarcerated for any other crime — and I’ll struggle to reach the least bad decision.

(In the same vein: say illegal border crossings do wind up getting decriminalized; but, as folks in this thread have kept noting, deportation can of course still result just like one would expect. So spell this out: what do you figure should happen if a parent is to be deported for a civil offense rather than a crime? You’re asking about separating the children; again, as opposed to what?)

Quote:
(b) How do you feel when you hear Trump speak of shooting refugees?
The first time I heard him say anything along those lines, it was limited to migrants who were throwing rocks at American personnel. The second time I heard anything of the sort, he apparently (a) suggested shooting migrants in the legs, (b) got told it was illegal, and (c) dropped it and moved on to something else. I’ve heard worse.

Quote:
(c) Border police shut down bridges; then arrested refugees who attempted to approach border stations by alternate routes. Was this clever? Or wrong?
I don’t think that’s enough info to go on. Can you give me a specific?

Quote:
(d) I read that several Iranians with valid student visas have been deported on arrival at U.S. airports. How do you feel about that?
You read that? Okay: did you read why they were deported? Did you read that others weren’t deported, but should’ve been? Once again, the specifics seem like they’d be doing all the heavy lifting in this story; what are they?
  #230  
Old 01-29-2020, 07:34 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
THEREFORE, I am very disappointed that a debate on whether a vote for Trump might be sensical has degenerated into a discussion in which both sides have merit.
WHEREAS, I am mildly nonplussed that a facetious defense of Jim Peebles posted in the Pit degenerated into a debate on whether a vote for Trump might be sensical.
  #231  
Old 01-29-2020, 08:47 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
again, as opposed to what?
As opposed to just letting them go. What's the point of a criminal justice system that causes more injustice than it prevents?

In other words, for many moral adult humans, the answer to the question "Are there any crimes that are not worth enforcing in specific cases if enforcement means causing irreparable emotional harm to a child" is a simple "yes."

The harm caused by releasing a murderer outweighs the harm to that murderer's child if you have to separate them. The harm caused by releasing someone charged with a misdemeanor border crossing is far outweighed by the harm caused to the border-crosser's child if you have to separate them. It's a pretty simple calculus for those with standard human emotions like "empathy."

eta: I understand conservatives like to rephrase this "quandary" as a version of the trolley problem, wherein they're not responsible for the emotional harm to the child because it's the illegal border crosser who set the wheels in motion, but people with normal human emotions understand that the trolley's actions are irrelevant when it comes to watching a child suffer.

Last edited by steronz; 01-29-2020 at 08:49 AM.
  #232  
Old 01-29-2020, 09:03 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
The first time I heard him say anything along those lines, it was limited to migrants who were throwing rocks at American personnel. The second time I heard anything of the sort, he apparently (a) suggested shooting migrants in the legs, (b) got told it was illegal, and (c) dropped it and moved on to something else. I’ve heard worse.
You already were explained about Trump doing worse and ending making other issues like this one worse.

No wonder one hears a lot about people voting against their own interests.
  #233  
Old 01-30-2020, 06:33 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
But why do you add that second step? I consider the first step problematic; I don’t need for them to commit “other crimes in addition to unauthorized entry”; the law already allows for the option — the option, mind you — of pressing criminal charges, and I may want to exercise that option; and, to the best of my knowledge, you’re not in favor of decriminalization on this front too.
I add this second step because there is already provision for dealing with a person who has entered your property without permission: have an authorized agent remove them. Note that the person doesn't resist the removal - that would be a different analogy. This analogy is the situation where ICE (or a non-evil version of ICE) learns of an illegal immigrant, assess whether they should stay, and determines they don't - and deports them, simple as that. Sure, if the person runs, resists, shoots a bunch of cops, or any such thing - that would be cause for separate criminal prosecution that might supercede the deportation.

But without the person doing any of that, the desire to reserve the right to levy additional charges against them for unstated and unclear reasons comes off as sadism. (And racism, of course. In the real world, in actual practice, it is always racism.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
That’s an interesting point. I’ll think about it.
Yeah - repeatedly coming back in is sort of another way of resisting/superseding the deportation order, and could be treated accordingly. This would not apply to people who are repeatedly attempting legal methods of gaining entry, of course.
  #234  
Old 01-31-2020, 01:51 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,854
@ The Other Waldo Pepper — Please read this article about a refugee immigrant, and give us your thoughts. Please read the entire article: I know you'd be more comfortable with reading that confirms rather than challenges your preconceptions, but I'm also sure that you want to demonstrate that you are open-minded enough to read a challenging article.

(If you've exhausted your free New Yorker articles for the month, use a different browser, or clear your 'newyorker' cookies.)
  #235  
Old 02-01-2020, 07:19 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
@ The Other Waldo Pepper — Please read this article about a refugee immigrant, and give us your thoughts. Please read the entire article: I know you'd be more comfortable with reading that confirms rather than challenges your preconceptions, but I'm also sure that you want to demonstrate that you are open-minded enough to read a challenging article.

(If you've exhausted your free New Yorker articles for the month, use a different browser, or clear your 'newyorker' cookies.)
You know, if you were coming at this from a place of sincerity — if you blandly and straightforwardly wanted to bring this to the attention of someone you figured on then having a serious discussion with — you wouldn’t need to put things in terms of wanting to showily demonstrate that I’m open-minded enough to, uh, read a whole article. You can simply ask, and I can then demonstrate compassion for the guy and then demonstrate a fair-play concern for justice, and so on: not for the sake of demonstrative appearances, but as a natural side effect of honest answers.

But I’d then ask why — after you said you know I’d be more comfortable with stuff that confirms my preconceptions — you felt the need for that bit about challenging my preconceptions. Which preconceptions? My point is already that a candidate who points to what we can do better can have a shot at earning my vote, so long as they don’t call for across-the-board no-exceptions decriminalization for folks who cross the border illegally. So how is this link to this article — along with helpful tips for accessing it, in case I’d cluelessly need instructions for that — relevant?

I don’t get why you’re throwing in what seem like dickish asides; that seems at odds with the whole How-To-Talk-To-A-Possible-Trump-Voter vibe you’re presumably going for. But I also don’t get why you’re posting this here in its own right; it seems like a hell of a thing for another thread, but what’s it doing in this one?
  #236  
Old 02-01-2020, 10:17 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
... [many words] ...
So. Did you read the article or not? What did you think of it?
  #237  
Old 02-01-2020, 10:53 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
So. Did you read the article or not? What did you think of it?
I did; everything there leads me to believe that he’s innocent, and that he doesn’t deserve such wretched treatment. The whole thing strikes me as disgraceful; once again, it seems like you should maybe start a thread about it, because I’m still not really sure what the heck it’s doing in this thread.
  #238  
Old 02-01-2020, 11:06 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,854
You (or anyone) is welcome to mention it elsethread.

What it's doing in this thread is presenting to you the actual implementation of the policies you support by the leadership you support. It's one thing to support hypothetical policies in a vacuum. But you are threatening to vote for a disgusting racist nincompoop. The story I linked you to exposes how his policies differ from yours.
  #239  
Old 02-01-2020, 12:22 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
What it's doing in this thread is presenting to you the actual implementation of the policies you support by the leadership you support. It's one thing to support hypothetical policies in a vacuum. But you are threatening to vote for a disgusting racist nincompoop. The story I linked you to exposes how his policies differ from yours.
Right, and decriminalization also differs from mine. A lot of policies would differ from mine. Give me a candidate who’d do right by the guy in the article, and who doesn’t back decriminalization, and, uh, come, let us reason together.
  #240  
Old 02-01-2020, 01:21 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Right, and decriminalization also differs from mine. A lot of policies would differ from mine. Give me a candidate who’d do right by the guy in the article, and who doesn’t back decriminalization, and, uh, come, let us reason together.
You are not going to find a candidate who supports charging people with a crime for unlawfully entering the country that also would do right by the guy in the article. You're gonna have to choose.

As long as just the act of crossing the border without authorization can be considered to be a criminal act, that will be abused by racists to hurt those who are legitimate seeking refuge and asylum.

You want to say that bringing drugs across the border is criminal? Great. You want to make it a crime to smuggle weapons, people, or to cross for purposes of committing crime or terror? I agree entirely. You want to make it a crime to attempt unauthorized entry after already being kicked out? I'm behind that.

But, to make the mere act of crossing that arbitrary line subject you to criminal penalty, up to and including having your children taken from you to never be seen again is just asking for it to be used and abused by racists who will use it as a tool to prevent legitimate refugee and asylum seekers from entry. This isn't hypothetical, this is exactly what is happening now.

So, for the sake of argument, you have two candidates, one of which will do right by the guy in the article, and one of which supports charging people with a crime for crossing the border. Assuming all else is equal, which would you support?
  #241  
Old 02-01-2020, 02:24 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So, for the sake of argument, you have two candidates, one of which will do right by the guy in the article, and one of which supports charging people with a crime for crossing the border. Assuming all else is equal, which would you support?
I of course reject the rest of your hypothetical; but the answer is, yeah, if that’s the choice, then I’d support the one who’s against decriminalization. Again, let me stress that I think you’re wrong to flatly rule out what seems like an utterly plausible third option; it seems entirely possible for someone to manage to get both decisions right; seems to me you’re just setting up a classic false dilemma.

But if you’re saying that we live in a world where none of the candidates who’ve come out against decriminalization are capable of doing right by the guy in the article? That seems needlessly bleak and unrealistic; but if I’m for some reason playing along with your hypothetical for the sake of argument, well, then, okay, you’ve got my answer. Out of curiosity: if, for the sake of argument, the binary choice instead involved open borders, which would you pick?
  #242  
Old 02-01-2020, 03:47 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I of course reject the rest of your hypothetical; but the answer is, yeah, if that’s the choice, then I’d support the one who’s against decriminalization. Again, let me stress that I think you’re wrong to flatly rule out what seems like an utterly plausible third option; it seems entirely possible for someone to manage to get both decisions right; seems to me you’re just setting up a classic false dilemma.
I actually feel that I am describing reality. I do not see a reason why anyone would be extremely forceful in ensuring that the act of crossing the border without authorization is a crime that comes with it incarceration and family separation.

It's like saying you want someone who will do right by someone like Emmett Till, but is supportive of Jim Crow laws. There is no overlap in those Venn Diagrams.

Tell you what, you find me a candidate that is for incarceration and family separation of asylum seekers, and would have also done right by Omar Ameen, and then we can discuss the plausibility of your third option.
Quote:
But if you’re saying that we live in a world where none of the candidates who’ve come out against decriminalization are capable of doing right by the guy in the article? That seems needlessly bleak and unrealistic; but if I’m for some reason playing along with your hypothetical for the sake of argument, well, then, okay, you’ve got my answer.
Huh, funny that you should object to such a binary choice after giving such much judgement to the candidates that were required to make such a binary choice.

I'm giving you far more leeway than you gave the candidates, in that you are welcome to explain your choice, and the reasons and exceptions to your choices.

But, just so that we are on the same page, if the choice for you is to lock up families and separate them from their children, often never to be seen again, and to also deport people like Ameen to die in a country they never knew, or not to do those things, you would choose the former?
Quote:

Out of curiosity: if, for the sake of argument, the binary choice instead involved open borders, which would you pick?
You'd have to define what you are meaning by open borders here. Many of those who are as dead set against immigration as you are consider allowing anyone to come in to be open borders, and there are others who would consider open borders to have no border control whatsoever.

I'm of the opinion that we need more people in this country. I see that there are people that want to come to this country. I figure, as long as racists and bigots don't get in the way, that situation will sort itself out to everyone's benefit. If you are born here, you are more likely to become a criminal than if you are an immigrant, you are more likely to use govt services, and you are less likely to have your kids go to college and have successful careers. I really don't get the hatred that people have for immigrants that they are willing to commit atrocities in order to keep them from coming here to help us to make this a better place.

But, if you are asking me whether we should continue to incarcerate legitimate asylum seekers and refugees, to deport mentally and physically ill people to a country where they will die horribly, as well as sending back people to face violence that they fled from, or the other binary choice of having no border control whatsoever, I'd pick the latter.

As a similar question, would you rather have no trespassing laws that said that if you set foot on someone else's property you would go to jail and lose your children, or would you rather have no trespassing laws at all? If you are for the draconian trespassing laws, do you think that your attitude would change at all if you knew someone who was incarcerated, charged, and lost their children because they stepped into their neighbor's yard while escaping from a home invasion?

This is only a binary choice because you are insisting that it is. You say that if someone supports decriminalizing border crossing then you cannot support them, no matter their reasons, even if in every other way you feel that they are a far better candidate than their opponent. When you choose to be a one issue voter like that, you force yourself into such binary choices, no one else puts you into that position but yourself.

I know that this is in the pit and all, and as such, is not the most suitable place for a civil conversation, but I am curious as to the reason that you have that you feel so strongly about this? I am a pragmatic person, and the choices that I make are those that I feel further my goals, and I project that onto others, and make the assumption that they too have goals that they are working towards, and the decisions that they make are in an effort to reach them. What will be accomplished, what goal of yours will be achieved, by being able to lock up people, and take away their families, for nothing more than crossing a border without authorization?
  #243  
Old 02-01-2020, 05:15 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I actually feel that I am describing reality. I do not see a reason why anyone would be extremely forceful in ensuring that the act of crossing the border without authorization is a crime that comes with it incarceration and family separation.
I mean, you get that some folks who are — today — in fact in the running to be the Democratic nominee aren’t in favor of decriminalization, right? Help me out, here: what, exactly, do you think of them?

Quote:
Huh, funny that you should object to such a binary choice after giving such much judgement to the candidates that were required to make such a binary choice.
As I’ve said before, when faced with that binary choice, they (a) could’ve kept their hands down, and (b) explained that, while they weren’t for decriminalization, they’d keep it on the books as a crime and enforce it in a less draconian manner; and if that’s asking too much of them, I’d be all ears if they instead later explained that they raised their hands at the debate because they “were required to make such a binary choice” then, but now want to clarify that, heh, no, of course they’d still keep it on the books as a crime.

They’ve got that leeway now. I’m listening.

Quote:
But, just so that we are on the same page, if the choice for you is to lock up families and separate them from their children, often never to be seen again, and to also deport people like Ameen to die in a country they never knew, or not to do those things, you would choose the former?
Well, yeah. I figure that you would, too, if we were talking about other offenses; am I correct? If so, the question is whether we disagree about this offense.

Quote:
As a similar question, would you rather have no trespassing laws that said that if you set foot on someone else's property you would go to jail and lose your children, or would you rather have no trespassing laws at all? If you are for the draconian trespassing laws, do you think that your attitude would change at all if you knew someone who was incarcerated, charged, and lost their children because they stepped into their neighbor's yard while escaping from a home invasion?

This is only a binary choice because you are insisting that it is.
But you’re introducing a key difference to make it into that ‘binary’ choice.

You’re proposing two choices:

1) no trespassing laws at all; or
2) if you set foot on someone else's property you would go to jail.

I’d propose three:

1) no trespassing laws at all; or
2) if you set foot on someone else's property you would go to jail; or
3) if you so set foot, well, you might wind up going to jail for that.

To the best of my knowledge, we in fact opt for #3 right here in the real world. No, honest, we do; it’s not a binary choice between #1 and #2, it’s entirely possible for something to be a crime but not get enforced in some no-exceptions way: maybe, sometimes, there’s no criminal penalty at all, just removal; but maybe there’s a fine; and maybe there’s some time behind bars.

Isn’t that, as you put it, “describing reality”? And isn’t it #3, not #1 or #2?

And if I’m right, and we (a) don’t decriminalize trespassing, but (b) don’t insist on some kind of You Would Go To Jail response — well, then, why not here, too?

We sometimes lock up mere trespassers; they sometimes get separated from their families. Heck, even if illegal border crossings got decriminalized, folks could still sometimes face deportation while their kids don’t, and — what then?

Quote:
I know that this is in the pit and all, and as such, is not the most suitable place for a civil conversation, but I am curious as to the reason that you have that you feel so strongly about this? I am a pragmatic person, and the choices that I make are those that I feel further my goals, and I project that onto others, and make the assumption that they too have goals that they are working towards, and the decisions that they make are in an effort to reach them. What will be accomplished, what goal of yours will be achieved, by being able to lock up people, and take away their families, for nothing more than crossing a border without authorization?
Well, in general, I believe that open borders would doom the country, and I suspect that anyone who loudly declares for decriminalization is — well, is possibly telling the truth, and will stop there; but is possibly looking to push things plenty further in the direction of open borders (and, well, possibly all the way there). But I already think the decriminalization crowd is wrong in their own right, even if I’m concerned that they’ll go on to get it, uh, wronger; and I’d likewise think they were wrong if we were talking about trespassing and they picked #1 over #2 instead of opting for #3.

(And it’s not just trespassing; take, say, perjury: imagine a candidate for office said that it shouldn’t be a crime at all, that we should take Option #1 because we don’t want to take Option #2, and that it’s a binary choice because there’s no Option #3. What would you make of that candidate’s goals and wisdom?)

As an aside: picture two guys who present themselves at the border, asking to be let in: say one makes his case, and we decide, actually, yes, we think it’d be best if you were allowed in; and say the other makes his case, and we decide, well, no, based on what we’ve learned, we think it’d be in our best interest if you stayed the hell out. That’s the whole point, isn’t it? We really do let some people in, and in fact decide that it’d be better to keep some people out?

(And it doesn’t even have to be as binary as all that? Like, there’s an in-between category of people for whom we say, okay, we’ve decided that you can stay here for this long and no longer, right?)

So what does it actually mean for Guy #2 to receive that pronouncement from the United States and illegally cross the border anyway? We’ve decided it’d be bad for the country to let them in, and then they come in, and we’ll 100% waive the ability to bring criminal charges against them for that, no exceptions, we’re going to opt for #1 because we can’t okay #2 — and we for some reason rule out #3?

Why would I sign on for that last part? I see no reason to rule out #3. I figured the whole reason we screen them is because we’re taking the interests of our country exactly that seriously, and I figured the whole reason we’re doing #3 is — well, because we’re taking it exactly that seriously. (Not so seriously that we’d go full-on #2; but we don’t have to choose between #1 and #2; we can choose #3. Wasn’t #3 Barack Obama’s position? Wasn’t it Hillary Clinton’s? Isn’t it Joe Biden’s?)

Last edited by The Other Waldo Pepper; 02-01-2020 at 05:19 PM.
  #244  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:50 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
We sometimes lock up mere trespassers; they sometimes get separated from their families. Heck, even if illegal border crossings got decriminalized, folks could still sometimes face deportation while their kids don’t, and — what then?
What then? We get back as people thought the laws were supposed to work, and not to be interpreted by the legal hacks of the Trump administration.

https://www.immigrantjustice.org/iss...ekers-refugees
  #245  
Old 02-02-2020, 08:00 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,854
This thread has veered wildly off-topic. For a Doper to explain why he might vote for Trump IS on topic. If the issue of immigration weighs more heavily in the Doper's mind than ...
* having a President who believes Putin over his own Intelligence services,
* revealing state secrets publicly, or in private to an enemy, out of ignorance, or because the President is in effect an agent of the the foreign enemy,
* appointing a Sec Education whose agenda calls for deliberate deterioration of public schools,
* increasing the fiscal deficit in prosperous times to run up the wealth of the super-rich at the expense of 99% of Americans,
* looking the other way while an American (green-card) journalist is assassinated in Turkey,
* abandoning in ally in the Syrian War against all advice and for no apparent reason (except possibly that the Turkish President had blackmail material against Potus),
* calling the most distinguished American news sources "enemies of the people",
* firing advisor after advisor until being surrounded only by sycophants and crooks,
* prohibiting government scientists from practicing science,
* repealing scores of regulations aimed at making workplaces safer, protecting the environment, and protecting consumers,
... then I suppose Immigration is what he should talk about.

But even in this strange Through-the-looking-glass world where that single issue outweighs Trump's lies and crimes, we've veered away from reality. TOWP has constructed a strawman -vs- strawman fantasy. None of the Democratic candidates support "open borders." And Trump certainly doesn't adhere to TOWP's stance on Immigration.

@ TOWP - Start a thread about immigration policy, and you might find me taking your side, at least on parts of the debate. But we're not debating Immigration here. We're debating Trump's policies.

Read articles like the following and answer Yes or No. Is this the immigration policy you want?

https://publicintegrity.org/inequali...y-separations/
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation...s-foster-homes

When you read these articles, remember that we are speaking of refugees. In general these are not people who would rather earn $8 an hour than $2 an hour. These are people that would rather Live than Die.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017