Straight Dope Message Board

[asahi]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rants-n1016646

Defense attorneys argued that Scott Daniel Warren, a 36-year-old college geography instructor, was simply being kind by providing two migrants with water, food and lodging when he was arrested in early 2018. He faced up to 20 years in prison.

But prosecutors maintained the men were not in distress and Warren conspired to transport and harbor them at a property used for providing aid to migrants in an Arizona town near the U.S.-Mexico border.

Feds may try to prosecute him again.

It gets better.

In West Texas, a county attorney was detained earlier this year after stopping her car on a dark highway to pick up three young migrants who flagged her down. Teresa Todd was held briefly, and federal agents searched her cellphone.

People who think that comparisons of this administration and its adherents to Nazi Germany are hyperbole are dangerously naive. 1

[yojimbo]

Europe is having the same kinda issues.

This is an activist but she is looking at a lot of time for pulling people out of the water.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-prison-saving 2

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by asahi

People who think that comparisons of this administration and its adherents to Nazi Germany are hyperbole are dangerously naive.

Were the laws that these people are accused of breaking passed during this administration? 3

[E-DUB]

.............only criminals will be humanitarians? 4

[WillFarnaby]

There should be opportunity for a grand compromise. Migrants are granted admittance once they have secured private funding and they and their descendants are prevented from securing transfer payments. 5

[wguy123]

Originally Posted by yojimbo

Europe is having the same kinda issues.

This is an activist but she is looking at a lot of time for pulling people out of the water.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-prison-saving

I listen to the NY Time's "The Daily" podcast and this week they are going to different EU countries to talk about the surge of the far-right in politics. Today's episode is in Italy and at the end, they talk about how a girl gave a thumbs up to the news that a migrant boat sank and over a hundred died. We are at a sad state of affairs when people are happy to hear of large groups of humans dying. 6

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

and they and their descendants are prevented from securing transfer payments.

What does this mean? 7

[Just Asking Questions]

Originally Posted by manson1972

What does this mean?

And what does it have to do with the case at hand? 8

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by manson1972

What does this mean?

This means "punish immigrant's children for having the moral failing of being born to an immigrant." 9

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by manson1972

Were the laws that these people are accused of breaking passed during this administration?

Don't know. Let's say they were enacted previously. Were they prosecuted as zealously by previous administrations? 10

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

Don't know. Let's say they were enacted previously. Were they prosecuted as zealously by previous administrations?

Not sure. I would hope that a person who thinks they ARE being prosecuted by this administration more zealously than previous administrations would have that information on hand. 11

[Typo Negative]

I guess the OP did not consider that Scott Daniel Warren may be lying and was trying to harbor them.

I ain't saying either way, but this:

The undocumented men said they researched the best methods for crossing the border and had received the address of “the Barn” as a place they could receive food and water, according to the complaint.

“After finding their way to ‘the Barn,’ Warren met them outside and gave them food and water for approximately three days,” according to the complaint.

seems to counter the defense argument somewhat.

I dunno. Maybe the Feds are lying. Wouldn't be the first time. But it does seem a little odd that the man just happened to show up at a place where illegals went for assistance and just happened to have 3 days worth of food and water for 2 men with him. 12

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by E-DUB

.............only criminals will be humanitarians?

Damn you ! That was MY line ! 13

[Pleonast]

Every time someone talks about voting Christian values, I point to stuff like this. Jesus was very clear about how to treat those in need, especially travellers.

Laws that forbid moral behavior should never be enforced. 14

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

There should be opportunity for a grand compromise. Migrants are granted admittance once they have secured private funding and they and their descendants are prevented from securing transfer payments.

Why are their descendants to be second-class citizens based on what their forebears did or didn't do? Do you advocate any other categories of people being punished for the wrong doings of a separate group of people?

Do you not see that this is morally wrong? 15

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

I dunno. Maybe the Feds are lying. Wouldn't be the first time. But it does seem a little odd that the man just happened to show up at a place where illegals went for assistance and just happened to have 3 days worth of food and water for 2 men with him.

Wow.

I mean, I have effectively unlimited water from my tap at home, not to mention a variety of other beverages, and usually have enough food on hand to feed surprise guests for a day or two. Do I deserve to be prosecuted, too? Are we going to limit how much food people keep in their homes now? 16

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by Pleonast

Every time someone talks about voting Christian values, I point to stuff like this. Jesus was very clear about how to treat those in need, especially travellers.

Laws that forbid moral behavior should never be enforced.

We are not really talking about the moral behavior. Lets be clear on that.

If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.

The behavior that is forbidden is being part of a network that helps immigrants skirt immigration law. 17

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Wow.

I mean, I have effectively unlimited water from my tap at home, not to mention a variety of other beverages, and usually have enough food on hand to feed surprise guests for a day or two. Do I deserve to be prosecuted, too? Are we going to limit how much food people keep in their homes now?

Strawman.

If I read the article correctly, they didn't come to his home. He took the supplies to them. And where he took the supplies was a known hub where illegals went for supplies. 18

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Why are their descendants to be second-class citizens based on what their forebears did or didn't do? Do you advocate any other categories of people being punished for the wrong doings of a separate group of people?

Do you not see that this is morally wrong?

Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished? 19

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

I guess the OP did not consider that Scott Daniel Warren may be lying and was trying to harbor them.

I ain't saying either way, but this:
seems to counter the defense argument somewhat.

I dunno. Maybe the Feds are lying. Wouldn't be the first time. But it does seem a little odd that the man just happened to show up at a place where illegals went for assistance and just happened to have 3 days worth of food and water for 2 men with him.

The feds are technically within the boundaries of the law, but it's a ridiculous application of the law, and it's not really in the same spirit of simply protecting borders or controlling immigration. Prosecuting people like Warren is in the spirit of authoritarianism and racism. 20

[Saintly Loser]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished?

If someone, by virtue of the circumstances of their parents' (or grandparents', etc) arrival in this country, is deprived of a right that you possess, yes, that's being punished.

And, by the way, are you not a descendant of migrants? I know I am. 21

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished?

If the only reason a person otherwise qualified to receive payments is not receiving payments is because of something his/her parent(s) or grandparent(s) did yes, that is being punished. It is unjust. 22

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

Strawman.

If I read the article correctly, they didn't come to his home. He took the supplies to them. And where he took the supplies was a known hub where illegals went for supplies.

Please keep in mind that people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun.

Also that people who bear the proud title of Doper are held to a higher standard than most. 23

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Please keep in mind that people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun.

Please keep in mind that you’re wrong. 24

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished?

Can you explain what you mean by "transfer payments"? 25

[DrFidelius]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

We are not really talking about the moral behavior. Lets be clear on that.



If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.



The behavior that is forbidden is being part of a network that helps immigrants skirt immigration law.

Pretty darn heavy penalties for assisting in a misdemeanor. 26

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.

The behavior that is forbidden is being part of a network that helps immigrants skirt immigration law.

You're acting delusional here. First off, I am not authorized or even capable of determining whether someone is legally present in this country or not. And if someone is dying of starvation or thirst, I would have to be a sociopath to even think about those things.

Second, there is no moral or legal obligation to report everyone you suspect may be breaking the law. I am not ICE. It is their job to find these people. I am not morally required to in any way to help them.

Third, the only people who are pushing "illegals" as a problem are the fascistic right that wants to blame problems on them. Immigration, legal or not, only helps our country. There's a reason not even Ronald Reagan, patron of modern conservatives, was for kicking them out. He gave them amnesty. He championed worker visas.

Even if these people were somehow the enemy, offering your enemy food and water is the right thing to do. Only a sociopath worries about allegiances when it comes to helping the sick and dying.

Hell, THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD. If you can't figure that out, then you need to shut up about morality, as you have the same morality as Trump.

And do, for the love of all that is good, shut off the Fox News and letting you brain be reprogrammed. You never used to act like this. 27

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by BigT

You're acting delusional here. First off, I am not authorized or even capable of determining whether someone is legally present in this country or not. And if someone is dying of starvation or thirst, I would have to be a sociopath to even think about those things.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the link says the prosecution's position is that they were not dying of starvation or thirst.

But prosecutors maintained the men were not in distress and Warren conspired to transport and harbor them at a property used for providing aid to migrants in an Arizona town near the U.S.-Mexico border.

My whole point, and some seems to have missed it, is that the matter not nearly as black and white as made out in the OP. 28

[BigT]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Please keep in mind that you’re wrong.

The term is listed as derogatory in any dictionary. It is deliberately dehumanizing, by removing any indication the individuals references are human. That is why it was coined.

And this is being directed towards people who are merely doing what they feel they need to survive, and have harmed no one. (No, not even our economy, since they actually help keep it functioning. Since they can't take in any services, they are only a net gain.)

It is punching down, at people worse off than the people who say it, and who haven't in any way harmed them.

Decent people don't do that. Decent people don't come in and try to figure out a way the guy giving aid to the dying was actually the bad guy.

And decent people don't come in and defend those people, either. 29

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by BigT

The term is listed as derogatory in any dictionary.

In any dictionary? Really?

Are you putting, like, any work at all into this? Right there in the first sentence, you’re already staking out an “in any dictionary” position — as if your go-to move, when trying to get taken seriously, is to lead off with that? 30

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

Not to beat a dead horse, but the link says the prosecution's position is that they were not dying of starvation or thirst.


My whole point, and some seems to have missed it, is that the matter not nearly as black and white as made out in the OP.

No. I specifically quoted what you said. You argued that the guy could not be moral because he gave food and drink to suspected illegal immigrants, but did not call ICE on them. You even went on a rant about how horrible "illegals" are, using a slur to attack them.

You may want to pretend you didn't say that garbage I quoted (and an additional post where you added more garbage). But you did say it, and it completely recolors everything.

We now know your true motivation was the hatred of "illegals," and not anything about the law. Same as when someone talks about women "asking for it" after saying that the accused rapist is "innocent until proven guilty."

You can't go back to that neutral stance once you reveal your true nature. 31

[manson1972]

Sorry man, but I don't see where he ranted about how horrible "illegals" are. Can you point it out? 32

[asahi]

Originally Posted by BigT

You're acting delusional here. First off, I am not authorized or even capable of determining whether someone is legally present in this country or not. And if someone is dying of starvation or thirst, I would have to be a sociopath to even think about those things.

Oh, but our good friend Typo Negative can tell just by looking at them. Shit, if a brown guy speaking Spanish asks for money to go buy a bottle of water within 200 miles of the Mexican border, you should know that he's probably an "illegal" and not a human.

Typo Negative...tests Cunt-o positive. 33

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

This means "punish immigrant's children for having the moral failing of being born to an immigrant."

I don't think it's fair to judge all of the children of immigrants by the moral failings of Donald Trump. 34

[BigT]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

In any dictionary? Really?

Are you putting, like, any work at all into this? Right there in the first sentence, you’re already staking out an “in any dictionary” position — as if your go-to move, when trying to get taken seriously, is to lead off with that?

I see you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post. Only a moron would rebut only the weakest argument if he could rebut all of them, so, unless you are a moron, I know you can't rebut the rest of my post.

You also didn't actually refute my claim. Asking whether I put "work" into something doesn't refute anything I said. Of course I'm not going to spend much time on it. I googled the term, saw that the results I got all referred to them as derogatory, and moved on.

You are of course aware that it is a derogatory term. That is why you play this game. That is also the reason you don't actually defend or repudiated what your fellow conservative on this matter said. 35

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

In any dictionary? Really?

I just googled some dictionaries. All of them I've looked at so far list "person in a country illegally" as an alternate definition of the term, and ALL of them I've looked at so far note that the term is derogatory. There might be some dictionaries out there that don't make that notation (actually, I have a tree-book dictionary from 1978 that does not have that alternate definition) but for anything post 2010 and/or on line it would seem that yes, BigT and others have the right of it. 36

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by BigT

I see you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post. Only a moron would rebut only the weakest argument if he could rebut all of them, so, unless you are a moron, I know you can't rebut the rest of my post.

The first sentence was so silly that it seemed ridiculous to give you the benefit of the doubt as to — well, anything that followed, really.

You also didn't actually refute my claim. Asking whether I put "work" into something doesn't refute anything I said. Of course I'm not going to spend much time on it. I googled the term, saw that the results I got all referred to them as derogatory, and moved on.

Then say that. Just say the first two or three results you got referred to it that way. Heck, maybe do your absolutist bit of saying any ‘decent’ dictionary would refer to it that way. Or anything like that, instead of leading off with the laughable.

Why get it wrong right at the start? How does that make any sense to you? 37

[Monty]

Originally Posted by BigT

The term is listed as derogatory in any dictionary. It is deliberately dehumanizing, by removing any indication the individuals references are human. That is why it was coined.

I just checked three online dictionaries, one of which is Merriam-Webster. Yep, they all agree illegal as a noun is derogatory.

Besides behing dehumanizing, the term is a way to use negative language to generate hate against a particular group far out of proportion to their supposed crime. Those who use it to generate such hatred are manipulating other people. Try some critical thinking, TOWP. 38

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Monty

I just checked three online dictionaries, one of which is Merriam-Webster. Yep, they all agree illegal as a noun is derogatory.

And if I find one that doesn’t so classify it? Two? Three?

Near as I can tell, the original assertion is wrong at “one” — but since I honestly have no idea how anyone could get it so wrong in the first place, I honestly don’t know how many cites would be appropriate in the face of so much folly.

Besides behing dehumanizing, the term is a way to use negative language to generate hate against a particular group far out of proportion to their supposed crime. Those who use it to generate such hatred are manipulating other people. Try some critical thinking, TOWP.

What kicked off this whole digression? Someone responding to the use of ‘illegal’ as a noun by declaring that “people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun.” What was that meant to do? Why announce that the poster who just did so lacks human decency and doesn’t even aspire to human decency?

Why, it seems — dehumanizing? Seems like a — manipulative? — assertion that such people, no matter what else they do or say, flatly lack a human quality.

After all, why the heck else put that out there? 39

[BigT]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

The first sentence was so silly that it seemed ridiculous to give you the benefit of the doubt as to — well, anything that followed, really.



Then say that. Just say the first two or three results you got referred to it that way. Heck, maybe do your absolutist bit of saying any ‘decent’ dictionary would refer to it that way. Or anything like that, instead of leading off with the laughable.

Why get it wrong right at the start? How does that make any sense to you?

I didn't. I used a figure of speech.

You chose to interpret it literally to give yourself a way out of have to actually counter anything I said. You decided to be dishonest in your argument.

Again, YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY COUNTERARGUMENT. Even after I prodded you to do so with a second post. So it's clear that you don't have a counterargument.

And now you're desperately trying to steer everything away from the one thing you should have done if I was actually wrong. 40

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by BigT

I didn't. I used a figure of speech.

You chose to interpret it literally to give yourself a way out of have to actually counter anything I said.

Well, I look at it another way: my point is that your post, as written, shouldn’t be taken seriously — because, as worded, it’s merely incorrect. It starts off ludicrously wrong; I saw no reason to think it gets any better; I find what you note here to be a perfectly sufficient ‘counterargument’: how can I improve on the writer pointing out that, no, it doesn’t literally mean what it stated?

And now you're desperately trying to steer everything away from the one thing you should have done if I was actually wrong.

...you were. You were, actually, wrong. 41

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

I can’t help but wonder what the next ‘figure of speech, not literal’ dodge is going to be. The guy who stated “that people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun” — what, is he going to awkwardly explain that, er, well, no, of course some people who so aspire do use that noun, gosh, it wasn’t meant literally, there’s at least one exception, clearly, clearly, heh, heh? 42

[BigT]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

Why, it seems — dehumanizing? Seems like a — manipulative? — assertion that such people, no matter what else they do or say, flatly lack a human quality.

After all, why the heck else put that out there?

Sigh. This isn't Alice in Wonderland. You cannot make words mean whatever you want them to mean. kaylasdad was not manipulative--he didn't trick anyone or coerce them into doing anything. It's simple logic. Decent people do not use 'illegals' as a noun Typo Negative used 'illegals' as a noun. Therefore Typo Negative is not a decent person.

This is, of course, understatement. He far worse than just indecent. But he is not ever referred to as less than human. So he was not dehumanized, either.

The purpose is obvious: to call out the guy for his bigoted little tirade, where he was so unhinged he used a slur. He is, at the very least, "not a decent person." I admire kaylasdad's restraint. 43

[kaylasdad99]

Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore (and thus never read your “retort” until now).It’s tied up with that higher standard that Dopers are held to. 44

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by BigT

Sigh. This isn't Alice in Wonderland. You cannot make words mean whatever you want them to mean. kaylasdad was not manipulative--he didn't trick anyone or coerce them into doing anything. It's simple logic. Decent people do not use 'illegals' as a noun Typo Negative used 'illegals' as a noun. Therefore Typo Negative is not a decent person.

This is, of course, understatement. He far worse than just indecent. But he is not ever referred to as less than human. So he was not dehumanized, either.

You’re leaving out a word, there; the phrase was “human decency”. The point was to emphasize that someone who uses that word as a noun doesn’t merely lack decency, but lacks human decency and doesn’t even aspire to human decency.

(You know, if he meant that literally — which, if he’s anything like you, ain’t at all a safe conclusion; it’s still possible he might try the same backpedal.)

The purpose is obvious: to call out the guy for his bigoted little tirade, where he was so unhinged he used a slur. He is, at the very least, "not a decent person." I admire kaylasdad's restraint.

You’re stopping short: you say the goal is to call him out; why? What’s he trying to accomplish by ‘calling him out’ when stating that he lacks human decency? 45

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore. It’s tied up with that higher standard that Dopers are held to.

Uh, okay. I sure do hope someone manages to relay to you that your flatly-stated claim remains factually incorrect; if you really do have some kind of fondness for high standards, maybe ‘accuracy’ can find its way into your posts. 46

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

And if I find one that doesn’t so classify it? Two? Three?

It would still be a minority interpretation of a common English world.

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

I honestly don’t know how many cites would be appropriate in the face of so much folly.

Or you could just admit you were wrong.

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

What kicked off this whole digression? Someone responding to the use of ‘illegal’ as a noun by declaring that “people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun.” What was that meant to do? Why announce that the poster who just did so lacks human decency and doesn’t even aspire to human decency?

Because referring to fellow human beings as being "illegals" is derogatory and dehumanizing and is a favorite tactic of those who want to scapegoat/demonize a group of people, treat them as second-class human beings, or worse. 47

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper

You’re leaving out a word, there; the phrase was “human decency”. The point was to emphasize that someone who uses that word as a noun doesn’t merely lack decency, but lacks human decency and doesn’t even aspire to human decency.

Well...no, people who refer to other human beings as "illegals" are not decent humans. It's despicable, really. It's a slur. The rest of what you're doing is hairsplitting and special pleading. 48

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

It would still be a minority interpretation of a common English world.

Or you could just admit you were wrong.

But that’s my point: if a minority of dictionaries list it that way, then I wasn’t wrong; the poster who stated that it’s listed as derogatory in any dictionary was wrong, and should’ve made some other claim instead.

If a guy says something that’s incorrect, and I reply that the statement is incorrect, and you feel like jumping in to ask me to admit that I was wrong, you should maybe stop to note that, no, my correct reply isn’t the problem; the incorrect statement was the problem, not the response that points it out.

Because referring to fellow human beings as being "illegals" is derogatory and dehumanizing and is a favorite tactic of those who want to scapegoat/demonize a group of people, treat them as second-class human beings, or worse.

Well...no, people who refer to other human beings as "illegals" are not decent humans.

It’s an interesting — and derogatory? — claim that you’re putting out there; I take it you mean I’m not a decent human, because no matter what else I do I refer to such people as ‘illegals’ instead of ‘illegal aliens’ or ‘people who are here illegally’ or whichever term you prefer? If so, then: if you had to guess, what percent of this country would you figure “are not decent humans”? 49

[Filbert]

This is some quality sov cit level arguing right there. The hypothetical existence of a dictionary that doesn't call a dehumanising slur a slur would be in no way relevant to the facts that a) it is one, and b) you were using it as one.

Everyone else isn't using a gold-fringed dictionary magically making this drivel have a point; if you think it's fine to use a slur to describe people, own it. 50