# @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:** 11
**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, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/201 "2020-01-28T04:08:50Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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”](https://theintercept.com/2018/06/28/trump-tps-shithole-countries-lawsuit/) as Trump calls them. That will increase thanks to inaction from the Trump administration regarding global warming. [https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2019/6/18/refugees-international-president-trumps-guatemala-plan-an-astonishing-distortion-of-us-asylum-law](https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2019/6/18/refugees-international-president-trumps-guatemala-plan-an-astonishing-distortion-of-us-asylum-law) > [@](#): > > 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. > **[Under Trump, 26% of Climate Change References Have Vanished From .Gov Sites](https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzmmwe/under-trump-26-of-climate-change-references-have-vanished-from-gov-sites?utm_source=reddit.com)** > > A new report documents two years of science being scrubbed from government websites. > [@](#): > > 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. > **[Trump admin ignored evidence of climate change's impact on migration](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-ignored-its-own-evidence-climate-change-s-impact-n1056381)** > > EXCLUSIVE: An internal report obtained by NBC News showed migration surged from those areas where climate change is hurting crops and farmers. > [@](#): > > 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. > **[The evidence of Trump's crimes against humanity is piling up](https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/the-evidence-of-trumps-crimes-against-humanity-is-piling-up)** > > There may come a time when top officials of the Trump administration, including the president himself, will no longer be able to travel abroad without fear of arrest by international authorities. Every day now, evidence accumulates that Trump and his... > [@](#): > > 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.) ---
**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, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/202 "2020-01-28T09:51:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > [@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? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/203 "2020-01-28T10:37:49Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/204 "2020-01-28T13:29:06Z")
> [@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.) 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?!! ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/205 "2020-01-28T13:33:47Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 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! ---
**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 28, 2020, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/206 "2020-01-28T13:39:18Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/207 "2020-01-28T13:46:53Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/208 "2020-01-28T14:09:46Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > 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?) ---
**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 28, 2020, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/209 "2020-01-28T14:59:16Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/210 "2020-01-28T17:06:10Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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/](https://joebiden.com/immigration/) > [@](#): > > 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: > [ul] > [li]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.[/li][li] 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. [/li][li] 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. [/li][li] 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. [/li][li] 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. [/li][li] 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. [/li][li] 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. [/li][li] 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.[/li][li] 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.”[/li][li] 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.[/li][li] 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.[/li][/ul] 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) > **[A Welcoming and Safe America for All | Bernie Sanders Official Website](https://berniesanders.com/issues/welcoming-and-safe-america-all/)** > > Bernie believes we must stand up for our values and accept refugees, asylum-seekers, and families who come to the United States in search of the American Dream. > [@](#): > > 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. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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… ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2020, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/211 "2020-01-28T21:22:06Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > 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) ---
**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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/212 "2020-01-28T21:40:24Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/213 "2020-01-28T22:35:38Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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. > [@Kearsen1](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/214 "2020-01-28T23:44:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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? > [@](#): > > 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?_ ---
**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 29, 2020, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/215 "2020-01-29T00:31:33Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > 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. ---
**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 29, 2020, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/216 "2020-01-29T00:32:44Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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? > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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! 🙂 > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > “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. ---
**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 29, 2020, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/217 "2020-01-29T00:43:26Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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. ---
**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 29, 2020, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/218 "2020-01-29T01:08:31Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > 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. ---
**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 29, 2020, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/219 "2020-01-29T01:14:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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? > [@](#): > > 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. ---
**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 29, 2020, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/220 "2020-01-29T01:20:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620.md?page=12)