That is exactly what we are talking about. What you propose is evil.
Call it what you want. Make whatever excuses you want for forcible labour and holding families as hostages.
When it’s all said and done and you’ve spent uncounted billions on the wall and related costs, caused irreparable damage to America’s reputation and economy - your plan still does not accomplish what you initially proposed: Mexico still has not paid for the fucking wall.
What now, genius?
How can it ‘bring back’ slavery? By your ‘logic’ slavery never went away because last time I checked we have loads of prisoners who by your definition must be slaves… but no one calls inmates slaves. Dramatic hyperbole… but not factual.
Can you think of a better way to build the wall and get Mexico to pay for It? How would you accomplish these two goals. My solution may not be the most elegant - but I’m certainly open to alternate ideas on how to achieve these two goals. It’s easy to complain - but try making a proposal of your own that accomplishes the goal of a wall and having Mexico fund it.
We’ll wait to hear your brilliant solution, since surely you have one.
Of course people call inmates slaves when they’re forced to work. That’s the correct terminology; anyone who doesn’t use it misunderstand the common usage of the word “slave,” for whatever reason.
So you’re correct: this wouldn’t “bring back” slavery. All it’d do is violate the eighth amendment (which you’ve never bothered to challenge, except to imply that you’d “change” it), and the bit about targeting family members would violate the sixth (same). All it’d do is result in a shittily-built wall that only kinda sorta fulfills a campaign promise, at the expense of undermining the bedrock civil liberties of our nation and almost certainly bringing about a civil war far bloodier than our last one.
But hey, I realize you started this thread, and changing your mind or admitting it’s a boondoggle of an atrocity would be, I dunno, shaming or something. So by all means, keep pretending like it’s not hideous and ineffective!
Tariffs. Sure, they’re not super-effective, and they’d hurt the US, and they’d result in international sanctions–but in all three respects your proposal would be far more severe.
How about this?..
Don’t propose to do things that will create exponentially bigger problems than those you’re trying to solve.
I think that’s far more elegant.
Indeed. If we’re not constraining ourselves to ridiculous hypotheticals and are instead trying to figure out a real-world solution to Trump’s stupid campaign promise, the elegant solution is to say “fuck that noise.” Doesn’t cost anything, doesn’t violate the bill of rights, doesn’t cause a civil war, doesn’t turn our country into an international pariah. Fighting the hypothetical is in every way a superior response to the hypothetical.
Idiotic ideas like “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” don’t have actual solutions.
There appear to be several. Of the ones I looked at this one seems the most successful.
https://www.gofundme.com/Funding-The-Border-Wall
The guy has raised $90 of $400m. Of course, he donated $60 of the $90 himself. But he got $30 somewhere, which is $30 more than any of the other Fund the Wall campaigns seem to have raised
Were one to go back and look at the Great Debates thread on the Straight Dope boards during the 1960s… I’m sure that when someone put forth the premise that we are going to the moon by the end of the decade - how do we do it? Others were there saying simply - don’t do it.
The premise is we are going to build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it. It is easy to simply say no… but what I’m far more interested in is how we achieve the goals in the best way possible. For those who say it can’t be done… that was said about going to the Moon and we did that. We can do anything if we set our minds to it.
If you think there is a way to accomplish these goals without going to the extremes I outlined… by all means go for it. If you think it can’t be done… I would just say that there are still probably a best way to accomplish these goals, even if the outcome is still worse than not achieving the goals.
Simply put - if you feel building the wall and forcing Mexico to pay for it is evil, but it has to happen… option a is my plan, option b is to bomb Mexico into submission until they agree to our demands. I think option a is better. If there is an option c that you feel is superior to both options a and b… and builds the wall and makes Mexico pay for it… you’re on!
Going to the moon did not require committing crimes against humanity.
Once again, with feeling; asked and answered:
As others have pointed out, forced labour is only permitted for people duly convicted of an offence for which that is a penalty. However, you’ve made it clear that your proposal doesn’t depend on a conviction:
So a conviction is simply optional, in your view. But that’s exactly what makes it unconstitutional: putting someone to forced labour without a conviction is what makes it slavery and a breach of the 13th Amendment:
[QUOTE=13th Amendment]
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
[/QUOTE]
As for your argument that you’re not talking about slavery, that is rebutted by your post here:
As soon as you say that a human being is property, you are talking about slavery.
Yes, laws can change. To change this law would take two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, coupled with passage by three-fourths of the states. I think that for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume this particular law is not going to change any time soon.
The presidential pardon power doesn’t apply to civil suits. Any government employee who is complicit in enslaving people can be the subject of a civil action, under the civil rights act passed following the Civil War (are you seeing a theme, here?). It’s currently found at 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
So anyone who is cracking the whip on the Mexican labourers, or standing in the guard towers training a gun on them (I wonder who builds the guard towers, which will be necessary for your construction methods?) could have their asses sued, and there’s nothing the president could do about it.
Yeah, that really sums up all of the problems with your proposal in one easy sentence.
Plus, the evil.
Why not just go with Trump’s plan? That’s obviously going to be the smartest and most thoughtful, well crafted plan. MAGA will take care of everything.
A tariff is imposed on the importer of goods. That would be the American company that’s importing goods from Mexico. That’s still not making Mexico pay for the wall.
Export taxes are paid by the exporter (in this hypothetical, the US company that’s trying to sell its goods to someone in Mexico). So, still not being paid by Mexico.
There is no way to impose an export tax on someone outside of the United States, because there is no way to enforce that tax in Mexico. So, still not being paid by Mexico.
And then, there’s the breach of the World Trade Organization’s prohibitions on tariffs targeting another nation.
Has it occurred to you that there is no way to make Mexico pay for the wall? That the promise to make Mexico pay for the wall is just one more con from Don the Con?
Okay, let’s say that’s valid. It still doesn’t excuse unlimited or arbitrary suffering, because the 8th Amendment prohibits those. There are things we just can’t do to people.
To clarify… those put to work on the wall would be convicted for the crime of entering the country illegally. The penalty would be set to be wall duty. IF convicted of the crime THEN they face the prescribed penalty. I am not advocating enslaving people who are not first convicted of breaking the law.
Incidentally, orphans are also owned by the State and can be made to do manual labor. Just think of this as another sort of Boys Town. Again, anyone who doesn’t like it can simply choose not to enter the country illegally in the first place. Slavery is by its very nature involuntary… inmates put to work on the wall will have made the choice to do so by engaging in an unlawful action with a prescribed penalty.
Orphans are not owned by anyone! People are not owned by anyone.
Jeez, can’t you just stop digging?!?
Alzarian, your propositions are morally repugnant, or to put it a single, simple, easy to understand word: evil.