# @Mods -- PLEASE do not BAN Jim Peebles. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 18, 2020, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620 "2020-01-18T16:12:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/181 "2020-01-27T11:12:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Me too, you are just relying on ignorance so as to not to confront why is that your position is **also** wrong. I don’t follow; I’m looking to take a position on what policy would be best for the country, and you — seem to be saying I can’t confront whether I’m right or wrong about what’d be in the country’s best interests, unless I can answer a yes-or-no question about whether I happen to consider you a criminal? I genuinely don’t get it; seems to me that whether the policy would be good or bad for the country is a question that can be answered on its own. Like, if it’d be bad for the country, then it’d be bad for the country _regardless_ of whether I consider you a criminal; and, well, if it’d be good for the country, then it’d be good for the country _regardless_ of whether I consider you a criminal. So, in the same vein, I figure the question of how good or bad it’d be for the country can be addressed even if an irrelevant “I don’t know” swaps in for an irrelevant “yes” or an irrelevant “no”. As I’m posting in good faith, I’ll of course reply with whichever one is the honest answer — in this case, “I don’t know” — but I don’t see why any of those three answers would be incompatible with me being right or wrong about how good or bad a given policy would be for the country. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/182 "2020-01-27T15:29:21Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, flip that around for a bit: you said, a little while ago, that you are _“not aware of a significant voting base that would support that kind of policy even if it was put forward. So to a large extent, I believe your fears are unfounded, and I would go even so far as to call them irrational.”_ > > Since you mentioned that you’re not aware of a _significant_ voting base before you then talked of unfoundedness and irrationality, which seemed pretty “strong”, I of course asked you how well you think it’s polling — thinking that maybe you were saying you were aware of the numbers, but didn’t find them significant. > > You replied that you would have to do some research; and so I shrugged, because, hey, I figured that was true as well as _satisfactory_: if you don’t actually happen to know, then (a) okay; and (b) I wouldn’t characterize your reply as some kind of, uh, “pathetic dodge”: if you do feel like looking into it and then saying more, why, then, fine by me; but until and unless you bother, then I’m genuinely okay with what struck me as an honest answer. > > I gave **GIGObuster** an honest answer: I _don’t_ feel that I happen to know enough to weigh in on that question; and I don’t ask more of you — or him — than I give in return, by which I mean I don’t insist on getting or giving a binary yes-or-no answer whenever “I don’t know” happens to be the truth. It’s not clear to me what this has to do with the proposition I put to you regarding evaluating your own understanding of GIGObuster’s situation as an illegal immigrant. It is, however, clear to me that you want to avoid answering the question with any additional specificity, and I’m happy to accept an ‘I don’t know’, from you. I sense you see it as a risky proposition to reveal anything more than you already have, thus, we’re at an impasse. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/183 "2020-01-27T17:15:13Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > It’s not clear to me what this has to do with the proposition I put to you regarding evaluating your own understanding of GIGObuster’s situation as an illegal immigrant. > > It is, however, clear to me that you want to avoid answering the question with any additional specificity, and I’m happy to accept an ‘I don’t know’, from you. I sense you see it as a risky proposition to reveal anything more than you already have, thus, we’re at an impasse. Well, “risky” in that I don’t want to give an incorrect answer, I guess. In another sense, though, I saw the question as irrelevant, but — in hopes that he’s arguing in good faith — I of course _answered_ it instead of saying “that strikes me as irrelevant, and so I won’t say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ or ‘I Don’t Know’.” But since that doesn’t seem to satisfy the guy, put yourself in my shoes once more and see how this would look to me: I give an honest “I Don’t Know” to what looks like an irrelevant question, I get told we can’t move forward with the discussion about policy until I switch that to a “Yes” or a “No”… …and, okay, let’s say I read up and eventually come back with a “No” or a “Yes”, and then politely ask if we can now proceed to discuss what’s best for the country when it comes to folks who _haven’t_ received amnesty. What happens next? What’s to keep him from saying, oh, no, see, I already insisted you answer _one_ irrelevant question with a “Yes” or a “No” rather than an “I Don’t Know” before moving forward; you now have to answer _another_ irrelevant question before we can move forward, and I won’t accept an honest “I Don’t Know”; this is about waiting until you can give a “Yes” or a “No” a second time, understand? What’s to stop him from doing that a third time, and then a fourth time, and _every_ time he feels like making me jump through yet another hoop, all while I (a) keep saying it strikes me as irrelevant, and (b) obligingly answer anyway, and (c) note, in passing, that as far as I can tell “I Don’t Know” is an honest answer — but, okay, once again I’ll try and shift it to a “Yes” or a “No” if you insist? Not sure I’d call that “risky”, but I’d get concerned that it’s going nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/184 "2020-01-27T17:21:32Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t follow; I’m looking to take a position on what policy would be best for the country, and you — seem to be saying I can’t confront whether I’m right or wrong about what’d be in the country’s best interests, unless I can answer a yes-or-no question about whether I happen to consider you a criminal? I was not born yesterday, while your justification for thinking about voting for Trump was born a week ago: 🙂 > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > For one: is the candidate in favor of decriminalizing illegal border crossings? That strikes me as specific and plausible, and it’d incline me to vote for Trump instead. Again, the evidence showed that the decriminalization the Democrats were talking about was on point, about how criminal statutes should not be used against refugees, families fleeing violence or dreamers. We know then what logically follows from that: you already think that I’m a criminal. I was just waiting to see the levels you would reach to ignore and deny what you had said before. All the going back and forth shows that you are unwilling to consider any exceptions and when confronted with what should be an exception to your early say so, you equivocate now. The reality is that Trump is removing all humane exceptions that were there in past. Exceptions that Republican and Democratic administrations used before in a bit of restrain about when criminal statutes were used. Your solution here is to still avoid confronting that real life does include exceptions that do not go away just to fit your hard position, a position that then [Trump uses to break other laws. ( **yet another item that you are willfully ignoring on the way to thinking that it may be a good idea to vote for Trump** )](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/khurypetersensmith/the-real-criminals-at-the-border) One reason why you continue using ignorance to support the idea of voting for Trump comes up clearly based on your replies, you are ignoring exceptions because it will make your early criminalization point to be as ignorant and reckless as it looks for others in the discussion. So now you fall for fake ignorance about what you told us early. There is that, and going a bit meta: You are wrong also about thinking that you are doing ok about falling for a silly “I don’t know” position. The trouble is that by now the evidence presented shows that you continue to ignore what the Democrats were specifically complaining about; you are also ignoring examples and history about the exceptions that basic humans think should be there that does not require us to use the criminal statutes. To then still continue to use the no decision position does not show wisdom but reaching for a lousy decision. > **[Why no decision may be the worst decision](https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2014/07/28/decision-may-worst-decision/13243769/)** > > There are rarely “perfect” decisions, but the goal is to make the best choice. > [@](#): > > “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing and the worst thing you can do is nothing.” - Theodore Roosevelt. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/185 "2020-01-27T18:43:43Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > It’s not clear to me what this has to do with the proposition I put to you regarding evaluating your own understanding of GIGObuster’s situation as an illegal immigrant. One thing to clarify though, I was undocumented before in the 80’s, but thanks to Republicans with a conscience, I got legal residence and then became an American citizen in the 90’s. And while there is a lot of dislike for immigrants now, as seen coming from some posters here, since I’m not a criminal or ruined the nation 🙂 I have to report that I have been paying taxes, following the law (and working in education sacrificing a lot), just like the vast majority of immigrants end up doing too. And while I’m not likely to get thanks or understanding from many Trump voters. It will be OK by me to know that my taxes will help in their retirement or with programs that benefit them too. To them I will continue to say “You are welcome” even if they ignore what we really are and do. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/186 "2020-01-27T21:02:04Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > What’s up with these newcomers? Russian trollbots??? Just spitballing. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/187 "2020-01-27T21:33:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > One thing to clarify though, I was undocumented before in the 80’s, but thanks to Republicans with a conscience, I got legal residence and then became an American citizen in the 90’s. > > And while there is a lot of dislike for immigrants now, as seen coming from some posters here, since I’m not a criminal or ruined the nation 🙂 I have to report that I have been paying taxes, following the law (and working in education sacrificing a lot), just like the vast majority of immigrants end up doing too. And while I’m not likely to get thanks or understanding from many Trump voters. It will be OK by me to know that my taxes will help in their retirement or with programs that benefit them too. > > To them I will continue to say “You are welcome” even if they ignore what we really are and do. Well, one immigrant to another, I came over to the US from Canada to do IT jobs Americans didn’t want to do. “You are welcome, eh!” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/188 "2020-01-27T21:48:52Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, “risky” in that I don’t want to give an incorrect answer, I guess. > > In another sense, though, I saw the question as irrelevant, but — in hopes that he’s arguing in good faith — I of course _answered_ it instead of saying “that strikes me as irrelevant, and so I won’t say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ or ‘I Don’t Know’.” But since that doesn’t seem to satisfy the guy, put yourself in my shoes once more and see how this would look to me: I give an honest “I Don’t Know” to what looks like an irrelevant question, I get told we can’t move forward with the discussion about policy until I switch that to a “Yes” or a “No”… > > …and, okay, let’s say I read up and eventually come back with a “No” or a “Yes”, and then politely ask if we can now proceed to discuss what’s best for the country when it comes to folks who _haven’t_ received amnesty. What happens next? What’s to keep him from saying, oh, no, see, I already insisted you answer _one_ irrelevant question with a “Yes” or a “No” rather than an “I Don’t Know” before moving forward; you now have to answer _another_ irrelevant question before we can move forward, and I won’t accept an honest “I Don’t Know”; this is about waiting until you can give a “Yes” or a “No” a second time, understand? > > What’s to stop him from doing that a third time, and then a fourth time, and _every_ time he feels like making me jump through yet another hoop, all while I (a) keep saying it strikes me as irrelevant, and (b) obligingly answer anyway, and (c) note, in passing, that as far as I can tell “I Don’t Know” is an honest answer — but, okay, once again I’ll try and shift it to a “Yes” or a “No” if you insist? > > Not sure I’d call that “risky”, but I’d get concerned that it’s going nowhere. To anyone of the very liberal crowd here, voting for Trump is anathema, so from their perspective no one could ever vote for Trump for any reason therefore your position (whatever it is) is wrong. That’s why Gigo refuses to take “I don’t know” as an answer and why he is saying that you are arguing from ignorance. Because clearly ANY position that doesn’t align with his is WRONG. And it isn’t just him. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/189 "2020-01-27T22:57:20Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But if one candidate takes it seriously enough to say that criminal prosecution should be on the table, because it matters that much — and the other says, _er, no, don’t be silly, it’s not even the least of misdemeanors?_ Try as I might, I can’t bring myself to give the latter candidate the benefit of the doubt. > > I’d have the same concern about various posters in this thread. Take **begbert2** : > > _I can’t give **begbert2** the benefit of the doubt on kicking those people out._ Were **begbert2** a presidential candidate who declared for decriminalization but claimed to be against open borders — who claimed, even, to be on the same page as me when it comes to deporting folks who’ve crossed the border illegally — I’d say to myself, well, possibly that’s true; maybe this is someone I could vote for… > > …but framing it in terms of kicking out specifically innocent people who haven’t done anything (else) wrong? No, that’s not someone I trust on this; on a spectrum from ‘Open Borders’ to ‘Trump’, I have reason to believe that **begbert2** isn’t really on the same page as me at all. Doesn’t see them as having done anything wrong, except maybe as a _parenthetical_ — and jettisons even the parenthetical, when describing it as kicking out “specifically innocent people”. > > _That’s what **begbert2** is thinking when talking about ‘decriminalization’._ I don’t know, can’t know, what other folks are thinking when they say it; maybe they take illegal border crossings seriously enough to deport to my heart’s content, but maybe they’re merely pandering to folks like me while thinking like **begbert2**. > > If candidates give me reason to believe they think the way **begbert2** does, then I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt. I can’t ignore my concerns, and cast that vote, and if they go all wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, say, _oh, yeah, I’d hoped they were serious about the border; but, y’know, gun to my head, I’d have come down on figuring that they weren’t, that they were way too cavalier about it. When they talked readily about decriminalization, I admitted it was possible they were in favor of deportations; but that wasn’t the way I’d have bet._ > > Instead, the way I’d bet _is_ the way I’ll vote. Since you’re calling me out, I’ll just point out that you still have no fucking clue how I think, and are completely wrong about it all, probably due to a level of reading comprehension that has been ravaged by erroneous preconceived notions. I think that we can (and should) make the legal reaction to unauthorized people who enter this country be to: 1. Assess whether they should be allowed in. This would be an assessment based on their refugee status, their attempted mode of entry, their medical status, their level of acclimatization, and whether the person trying to throw them out is just a fucking racist. In the meantime they should be held at the border (if caught while crossing), or put on a frequently checked monitoring program which attempting to elude it fast-tracks them on the “throw them out” track. If we’re holding them we should process them in reasonable time, and not let Republicans run the holding facilities because they’re fucking racists. 2. If we decide to deport them, then deport them promptly, while noting who they are and whether we want to let them try again. That’s it. Now I fully expect this to be completely misinterpreted, because of course it will be. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/190 "2020-01-27T23:03:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > All the going back and forth shows that you are unwilling to consider any exceptions and when confronted with what should be an exception to your early say so, you equivocate now. I think you have my position exactly backwards. As far as I can tell, there are Democratic candidates who believe crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime — period, no exceptions. That I disagree doesn’t mean _I’m_ “unwilling to consider any exceptions”. If someone says a given offense shouldn’t be a crime _at all,_ if they’re already taking criminal punishment off the table _one hundred percent of the time,_ then a guy can disagree by saying “well, no, I think we should have that option, and exercise it at least some of the time; I’m willing to consider exceptions”. A guy can also disagree by saying “oh, no; we should exercise criminal punishment literally every time; no exceptions” — but don’t assume the latter and work backwards; don’t flatly _state_ that I’m an Unwilling-To-Consider-Any-Exceptions guy; just _ask_. You ask if I consider you a criminal, and you state that I’m unwilling to consider any exceptions. Why the heck didn’t you just ask _whether I’m unwilling to consider any exceptions?_ That could’ve killed this whole misunderstanding from the start! ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/191 "2020-01-27T23:10:24Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > To anyone of the very liberal crowd here, voting for Trump is anathema, so from their perspective no one could ever vote for Trump for any reason therefore your position (whatever it is) is wrong. That’s why Gigo refuses to take “I don’t know” as an answer and why he is saying that you are arguing from ignorance. Because clearly ANY position that doesn’t align with his is WRONG. > > And it isn’t just him. You’re full of shit. His arguments aren’t being called stupid merely because they lead to a terrible outcome. They’re stupid _period_. If your position is that you’re a racist fuck who thinks that Trump is most likely going to be worse for brown people than a liberal option, then there’s nothing wrong with that argument. If your position is that you’re insanely, 0.01 percentile rich and you think that Trump is going to spearhead policies that allow you to keep more of your money, and you have legitimate reasons to believe that you’ll be protected when the Obama economy finally wears off and everything else crashes, then there’s nothing wrong with that argument. It’s entirely possible to have solid arguments for voting for Trump. Admittedly most such arguments can only be hewn to by sociopaths, but they’re still solid. This idiocy based on misunderstanding how immigration control works isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/192 "2020-01-27T23:34:23Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > To anyone of the very liberal crowd here, voting for Trump is anathema, so from their perspective no one could ever vote for Trump for any reason therefore your position (whatever it is) is wrong. That’s why Gigo refuses to take “I don’t know” as an answer and why he is saying that you are arguing from ignorance. Because clearly ANY position that doesn’t align with his is WRONG. > > And it isn’t just him. You’re Welcome, Mr. **Kearsen1** … 😛 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2020, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/193 "2020-01-27T23:39:57Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I think you have my position exactly backwards. > > As far as I can tell, there are Democratic candidates who believe crossing the border illegally should be a civil offense rather than a crime — period, no exceptions. That I disagree doesn’t mean _I’m_ “unwilling to consider any exceptions”. > > If someone says a given offense shouldn’t be a crime _at all,_ if they’re already taking criminal punishment off the table _one hundred percent of the time,_ then a guy can disagree by saying “well, no, I think we should have that option, and exercise it at least some of the time; I’m willing to consider exceptions”. A guy can also disagree by saying “oh, no; we should exercise criminal punishment literally every time; no exceptions” — but don’t assume the latter and work backwards; don’t flatly _state_ that I’m an Unwilling-To-Consider-Any-Exceptions guy; just _ask_. > > You ask if I consider you a criminal, and you state that I’m unwilling to consider any exceptions. Why the heck didn’t you just ask _whether I’m unwilling to consider any exceptions?_ That could’ve killed this whole misunderstanding from the start! Funny, that only shows that you did not check the cite you made. The context is still there, it was about the exceptions that Trump was/is rejecting now what the democrats protested there. I also shows that I was right, after considering the exceptions just like the Democrats did,… Why should you consider voting for Trump? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/194 "2020-01-28T00:22:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Funny, that only shows that you did not check the cite you made. The context is still there, it was about the exceptions that Trump was/is rejecting now what the democrats protested there. 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”. Some of them, who are still in the race, (a) raised their hands when asked _that_; and, (b) to the best of my knowledge _didn’t_ later say, ‘look, never mind my _actual_ answer to the question that _actually_ got asked; I had a specialized context in mind, see, and so I believe it should still be a crime that, y’know, at least sometimes gets enforced.’ That’s why the link, as far as I can tell, _doesn’t_ limit it to some context. _“Several Democratic candidates support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally.”_ Period. _“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.”_ Period. If any of them have walked that back, I’m all ears. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/195 "2020-01-28T00:33:13Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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”. Some of them, who are still in the race, (a) raised their hands when asked _that_; and, (b) to the best of my knowledge _didn’t_ later say, ‘look, never mind my _actual_ answer to the question that _actually_ got asked; I had a specialized context in mind, see, and so I believe it should still be a crime that, y’know, at least sometimes gets enforced.’ > > That’s why the link, as far as I can tell, _doesn’t_ limit it to some context. _“Several Democratic candidates support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally.”_ Period. _“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.”_ Period. If any of them have walked that back, I’m all ears. You have been repeatedly reminded that something doesn’t have to be a crime for deportation to happen as a result of it. How many times more will you have to be told that for it to penetrate your thick skull? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/196 "2020-01-28T00:54:00Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You have been repeatedly reminded that something doesn’t have to be a crime for deportation to happen as a result of it. How many times more will you have to be told that for it to penetrate your thick skull? 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.) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/197 "2020-01-28T00:57:54Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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.) Why? Seriously, why? Because if they do other crimes _while_ illegally entering the country, the noncriminality of the entry won’t stop us from prosecuting them for drug smuggling or gunrunning or jaywalking or whatever. Other crimes are still crimes. Which means your motivation must be to be able to lower a heavy boom on people for things that aren’t crimes. And seriously, I can’t think of an answer why you might want to do this other than some form or another of bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/198 "2020-01-28T01:04:21Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Why? > > Seriously, why? > > Because if they do other crimes _while_ illegally entering the country, the noncriminality of the entry won’t stop us from prosecuting them for drug smuggling or gunrunning or jaywalking or whatever. Other crimes are still crimes. > > Which means your motivation must be to be able to lower a heavy boom on people for things that aren’t crimes. And seriously, I can’t think of an answer why you might want to do this other than some form or another of bigotry. 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? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/199 "2020-01-28T03:17:33Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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. This is because you are willing to vote for him even though he will attempt to circumvent congress and the courts as he showed he did, not as he opinionated on the guidance of a moderator that looked for the weak tea you are still stupidly holding for. Point being that it is clear why you are thinking into voting for him. Because you really do think those abuses should be done regardless if it is illegal or inhumane. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/200 "2020-01-28T03:30:00Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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_. Cite for when that was not the case? **You have claimed that you do understand about the exceptions** , here you are ignoring the complete picture about why the Democrats protested the inhumane abuses of Trump. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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.) And as pointed many times before, they wanted no criminalization of refugees, their families or the dreamers or asylum seekers. A vote for Trump is precisely a vote to continue with inhumanity and illegal acts from Trump. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620.md?page=11)