This gets into a huge discussion of whether a moral person should participate or support the enforcement of immoral laws. I don’t think you can do that and remain moral, but I know others disagree; however, it’s such a huge discussion that I don’t think we can hash it out here.
Wow. This shit is actually indicative of Trump’s pro-diversity views? MAGA! That was some outstanding reasoning right there, I tell ya.
We are *not *letting in one fewer Norwegian for every Salvadoran refugee. :dubious:
Again: Where are you getting these alternative facts from?
Yeah, I fucked up there. My apologies.
A statement that some of the persons in question are suspected of committing crimes would certainly be true. A blanket statement applying to all of them would be false, because we know that some of the detainees presented themselves at ports of entry and requested asylum. Unless they subsequently did something irrational like attack a guard, they’ve committed no crimes.
This has been my contention all along. The other side has responded that, no, they are simply presenting themselves and claiming asylum. You do not get arrested for that. From my understanding all of the people in these camps were arrested because they were attempting to cross the border illegally.
If that shouldn’t be a crime, then petition Congress to change the law. Until then, I fail to see the outrage of arresting people on suspicion of committing a crime. And when you do so with your children in tow and there are no relatives to take the children, the government takes custody of them. Further, this crime is being committed at such a massive level that jails will not hold everyone. The government is handling a situation that is not its fault. This idea of concentration camps and human rights violation is absurd.
Indeed, Trump is ending the policy and children can now stay with their parents. But, but why are we imprisoning children when they did nothing wrong?
Okay, please, guys let’s have the real argument we need to have. You all support opening the borders and allowing all of these people to live in the United States. Let’s have that debate.
I think that in a democracy, assuming laws are decided upon consistent with what they public wants and consistent with constitutional principles, the laws are moral by definition. I’m sure some people want immigration enforcement because they don’t want brown people here. For most though, there is a legitimate national interest in deciding how many new entrants we take in and under what conditions. That’s going to involve enforcement and as with any law, people will get hurt. There are many people who hate IRS agents for the same reason. IRS agents destroy the lives of people you know who you believe to be good people but made an honest mistake, or maybe even a dishonest mistake that didn’t really hurt anyone. But if the tax laws aren’t enforced, we end up like Greece, where tax evasion is a national pasttime.
We can debate about why so many people use the excluded middle fallacy. How about that one?
Common response to the open borders accusation. Middle ground still involves enforcement. What enforcement measures do you support?
So, tell me what your position is in this excluded middle? From my observation, those on your side oppose each and every policy that stops illegal immigration.
We have 12 million illegal immigrants here. We have turned away 100,000 in the last 15 months. So many are coming that we are dealing with 2,000 children over a six week period.
What steps, in your opinion, can we take to solve this problem, or indeed is it even a problem in your mind? Should we just open up the gates and let them all in?
We can start by *not *blaming the families bringing their children for being forcibly separated from them.
We aren’t going to have a useful discussion if you’re going to base your positions on alternative facts.
Well, I would hope that we can all agree that Trump’s attempt to use family separation as a deterrent is deeply immoral. That does not mean it should never be done, nor does it imply blame for the families beyond making bad decisions.
When *should *it be done?
What decisions exactly are bad? Be specific.
We can start by not pretending that the Dotard’s policy of taking the children hostage in exchange for his wall has anything to do with the practical and ethical problems to be solved.
…it appears the Trump Regime have decided to do exactly that.
When you implement policy stupidly, with no guidelines, no studies, no planning, no consultation, with no effective chain-of-command, no logistics, no systems in place then you end up with the shit-show that we’ve seen play out over the last couple of days.
It should be done in cases where border crossers do not have documentation. They do not come from the Stone Age. All of these countries document their citizens. If they don’t bring documentation, they are hiding something. And the kids may very well not be theirs.
It should also be done in cases where they have documentation and they are attempting reentry, which is a felony, or a check reveals they are criminals(non political) in their home country.
It is a very bad idea to ever illegally cross into a country you are not authorized to be in. The world has standards for asylum cases: you apply in the first safe country you reach, and you will be allowed to remain there while your case is being adjudicated. Initial entry must be by legal means.
Is it blaming the families to suggest quite truthfully that they are committing a
misdemeanor crime?
I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t blame the families in the sense that if I and my family were in there position, I would likely try to come to the United States illegally as well.
What “alternative facts” am I using?
Want to correct you on that. You probably would not attempt to illegally enter the US. 99% of Central Americans are not trying to enter any other country illegally. Chances are, you would also not make such an attempt.
I’ve asked before, I’ll ask again:
What was going wrong prior to Trump imposing these new policies? How is it better now?
Not just an assertion of some illegal people coming into the country but a showing that there was a serious problem prior to Trump and that Trump has fixed it.
It is really asinine to continue saying this while the facts are showing that Trump was turning all the standards into shit.
The world has a refugee problem at the moment. There absolutely should be a national discussion about what more the US can do to help asylum seekers, however this thread is about a different issue. This thread is about Trump’s policy shift of 6 weeks ago where he directed his administration to shift from handling those who crossed the border illegally in civil deportation hearings to referring all of them for criminal charges. His new executive order does not change the essential problem he has created by “zero tolerance”.
Furthermore, his new executive order doesn’t comply with the series of rulings on Flores. Perhaps a lawyer can tell us whether courts have to rule again on the matter before Trump’s changes can be put in place.
Finally, if the normal access points for those seeking asylum are blocked, isn’t that a subversion of our process as well? If people can’t even petition, and are forbidden from even trying, isn’t that broken too?