# @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:** 4
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/61 "2020-01-21T00:51:40Z")
I have a hard time believing someone who voted for Obama would really switch their vote for Trump so easily. Unless of course they thought voting for Obama was a mistake, in which case they weren’t going to vote Dem again anyway. ---
**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 21, 2020, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/62 "2020-01-21T01:01:09Z")
I confess, it’s boggling my mind that somebody could be a single-issue voter on this border legalization thing enough to _disregard the unending torrent of criminality and deliberate destruction of government institutions_ that Trump has been engaging in. It’s like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/63 "2020-01-21T01:19:05Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I confess, it’s boggling my mind that somebody could be a single-issue voter on this border legalization thing enough to _disregard the unending torrent of criminality and deliberate destruction of government institutions_ that Trump has been engaging in. This. Sure, I can see having differences of opinion on whether illegal border crossing should be a crime (although AFAICT the impossibility of charging offenders with it consistently and fairly under our current system is not a matter of opinion). But to believe that having an opposing opinion on the issue of decriminalizing illegal border crossing literally makes a Democratic candidate _worse than Trump_ as a potential President? In what alternate reality does that make _any_ sense? > [@begbert2](#): > > It’s like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down. Except that in this analogy the security guard isn’t even accomplishing much in the way of keeping out tramps, since the criminal prosecutions for illegal border crossing are inconsistent, expensive, ineffectual, and waste money without providing an effective deterrent. It’s as if your hypothetical security guard spent a lot of money on expensive cages to keep a few of the tramps in while most of them go on trespassing on the property anyway. Oh yeah, and the property’s still burning down. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/64 "2020-01-21T01:23:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is nice, I did not say that, as pointed before that was the law already, what we got when Trump took over was a line in that law that was interpreted so as to be as cruel as possible and likely reaching illegal results. Very likely why he had to backtrack. It’s good that we can come to an understanding on some things. But here, I’m sorry, you have just made quite a leap from 1325(a) to family separations. 1325(a) defines a crime. Aliens who enter or attempt to enter the United States outside of designated border crossings commit a crime against the United States. But the penalty for 1325(a) is a fine or jail time - not deportation. You would need a conviction before sentencing an alien for violating 1325(a). Pretrial detention is a problem, but it shouldn’t be a problem here any more than in the general case. The family separations thing, as I understand it, is based off a different part of immigration law. When an immigration officer encounters an alien who has not been admitted to the U.S. and can’t convince the officer they have been physically present in the U.S. for the last two years, that officer “shall” order the alien removed from the United States, without further review unless the alien indicates an intention to apply for asylum or a fear of persecution. If such a claim is made, you get the asylum interview and credible fear determination. If there is a credible fear of persecution, the alien “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.” If there is not a credible fear determination, the Attorney General is required to issue regulations allowing the alien to request a prompt review of the determination by an immigration judge. Any alien subject to such a review “shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution”. 8 U.S.C. 1125(b)(1). ~Max ---
**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 21, 2020, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/65 "2020-01-21T01:35:23Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I confess, it’s boggling my mind that somebody could be a single-issue voter on this border legalization thing enough to _disregard the unending torrent of criminality and deliberate destruction of government institutions_ that Trump has been engaging in. > > It’s like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down. Specify; _what,_ exactly, is getting burned down in this analogy? You say that it’s government institutions; I take it it’s not about the Patent and Trademark Office? Presumably not the Small Business Administration? Possibly not the Coast Guard? Everything going okay at the Bureau of Engraving? If you want me to swap in a security guard who _won’t_ keep folks out, tell me what’s getting burned down. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/66 "2020-01-21T01:38:23Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I confess, it’s boggling my mind that somebody could be a single-issue voter on this border legalization thing enough to _disregard the unending torrent of criminality and deliberate destruction of government institutions_ that Trump has been engaging in. > > It’s like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down. Fear of The Great Replacement is a powerful force. ---
**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 21, 2020, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/67 "2020-01-21T01:52:23Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > It’s good that we can come to an understanding on some things. But here, I’m sorry, you have just made quite a leap from 1325(a) to family separations. Nope, it is you who is not following, the line of the law TOWP was pointing at was referring to the position politicians were alleged to have regarding how criminality was applied to likely refugee families. Indeed, not as what the right wing propaganda was implying all along. ---
**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 21, 2020, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/68 "2020-01-21T02:02:54Z")
IOW: It is clear that right wing media never bothered to explain precisely how nuanced the position Democratic politicians really had. TOWP and others just ignore how misleading their sources were and are. Democrats were accused to have extreme positions regarding how criminality was applied in general terms, when in reality was about the appalling draconian way a part of the rule was applied to likely refugee families. ---
**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 21, 2020, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/69 "2020-01-21T02:13:39Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > IOW: It is clear that right wing media never bothered to explain precisely how nuanced the position Democratic politicians really had. TOWP and others just ignore how misleading their sources were and are. > > Democrats were accused to have extreme positions regarding how criminality was applied in general terms, when in reality was about the appalling draconian way a part of the rule was applied to likely refugee families. How do you figure? I was watching the Democratic debate when they got asked the following: _“Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense, rather than a crime, to cross the border without documentation.”_ I didn’t get that from some other source at a later date, and I didn’t extrapolate a particular specific to the general case; I just watched their hands fly up in response, is all. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/70 "2020-01-21T02:39:41Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Specify; _what,_ exactly, is getting burned down in this analogy? You say that it’s government institutions; I take it it’s not about the Patent and Trademark Office? Presumably not the Small Business Administration? Possibly not the Coast Guard? Everything going okay at the Bureau of Engraving? If you want me to swap in a security guard who _won’t_ keep folks out, tell me what’s getting burned down. Well, assuming you’ve been more or less keeping up with the more highly visible disasters in foreign policy, emergency management, environmental policy, health care and the like, here are some reports from the trenches in lower-profile areas: [Science Under Attack: How Trump Is Sidelining Researchers and Their Work](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html) > [@](#): > > In just three years, the Trump administration has diminished the role of science in federal policymaking while halting or disrupting research projects nationwide, marking a transformation of the federal government whose effects, experts say, could reverberate for years. > > Political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change, which President Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus. […] > > “The disregard for expertise in the federal government is worse than it’s ever been,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, which has tracked more than 200 reports of Trump administration efforts to restrict or misuse science since 2017. “It’s pervasive.” > > Hundreds of scientists, many of whom say they are dismayed at seeing their work undone, are departing. […] > > “Regulations come and go, but the thinning out of scientific capacity in the government will take a long time to get back,” said Joel Clement, a former top climate-policy expert at the Interior Department who quit in 2017 after being reassigned to a job collecting oil and gas royalties. [The Trump Administration Is Launching Stealth Attacks on Veterans](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/president-trump-cfpb-military-lending-act-veterans-mulvaney-attack-va.html) > [@](#): > > But veterans’ cultural cachet is a double-edged sword for the GOP. The conservative movement exists to undermine the notion that the federal government has an obligation to safeguard the well-being of working-class Americans. And veterans are both largely working-class and disproportionately likely to rely on public programs and public-interest regulations for their well-being. […] > > All this presented the Trump administration with a stark choice: It could either show deference to the interests of one of its core constituencies, or maximize its cronies’ ability to profit off of deregulation and privatization (at considerable political risk). > > It’s now clear that president Trump has opted for door No. 2. […] > > Meanwhile, the Trump administration has handed its veterans’ health-care agenda over to three dues-paying members of the president’s Florida golf resort. […] This “troika” played a leading role in ousting David Shulkin from the VA, and orchestrating the administration’s push for privatizing veterans’ health care. […] > > In sum: The Trump administration believes that kneeling during the national anthem is a grievous insult to the men and women who risked their lives fighting for America, but using political power to help payday lenders bury service members beneath unpayable debts — while allowing one’s billionaire friends to override veterans’ preferences for health-care policy — is not. [The Trump administration is waging a quiet war on education](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/14/trump-betsy-devos-education-quiet-war) > [@](#): > > The Trump/DeVos vision of American education? Unshackle the rich and let them turn a profit at the expense of working-class students > > Perhaps nothing illustrates the perverse nature of Donald Trump’s administration better than his approach to the regulatory state. In Trump’s America, those most zealously dedicated to unraveling federal oversight are in charge of the government, racing to shred laws as quickly as they can. > > Although it rarely draws the outrage of his latest unhinged tweet or foible abroad, it is in the president’s Department of Education that this spirit of cruel nihilism is best on display. […] > > For all the ways Trump has shattered the norms of democracy, it is his emboldening of the worst, already existing elements of American culture that will do the most short-term damage to the country. Trump did not pioneer climate crisis denialism and the energy industry’s relentless attacks on environmental regulations, but he did turn the Environmental Protection Agency and interior department over to energy lobbyists. He did not invent profit-seeking bureaucrats, but he set free Elaine Chao, his transportation secretary, to boost the profile of her family’s powerful shipping company. > > Education, too, is being pursued in consummate Trump style. For-profits are liberated, regulations are eviscerated and students are left to fend for themselves – drowning in debt so industry pals of DeVos and Jones can live to fight another day. [The Trump Administration Has a Huge Number of Federal Agency Vacancies](https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a27722762/trump-administration-vacancies-agency-heads/) > [@](#): > > […] the Center For Economic Policy Research reminded me on Tuesday that one of my original mental images of Camp Runamuck was of hundreds of telephones ringing plaintively and unanswered in hundreds of government offices, because the new administration was too lazy, or ignorant, or deliberately negligent to fill the positions, thereby lazily, or ignorantly, or deliberately and negligently crippling the administrative functions of the national Executive. The CEPR regularly reports on this very real phenomenon, concentrating on the more obscure agencies and departments. […] > > > [@](#): > > > > Many of these agencies’ boards are statutorily designed to be politically balanced. […] This President, however, has chosen to break with precedent and has consistently put forward nominations for Republican seats without a corresponding Democratic partner even when they put boards out of political balance. Oh, you asked about the [Coast Guard](https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/trumps-budget-cuts-13b-from-coast-guards-funding)? > [@](#): > > Trump’s Budget Reduces Coast Guard Funding by $1.3 Billion […] > > The administration’s budget proposal also calls for the Coast Guard to eliminate its top counterterrorism unit, the Maritime Security Response Team, and all of its regional Maritime Safety and Security Teams. In addition to other duties, the Coast Guard small-boat units provide the waterborne security detail for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach during presidential visits. > > “It’s nonsensical to pursue a policy of rebuilding the Armed Forces while proposing large reductions to the U.S. Coast Guard budget,” wrote Representatives Duncan Hunter and John Garamendi, leaders of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, in a letter to the president dated March 2. The cuts “serve to the detriment of U.S. national security and create exposures that will most certainly be exploited by transnational criminal networks and other dangerous actors,” they added. “These proposed cuts . . . will guarantee negative consequences.” There are hundreds of similar reports on the way the Trump administration’s combination of incompetence and deliberate “malign neglect” is damaging the ability of agencies and departments across the federal government to do their jobs. For someone who’s not (yet) a Trump supporter, **TOWP** , I’m astonished at your apparent lack of awareness that [this is what his administration has been fundamentally about from the get-go](https://billmoyers.com/story/dig-deep-overthrowing-oversight/). I mean, have you just not been paying attention? > [@](#): > > A war on government is unfolding. As Steve Bannon held court at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in February [2017], he boasted that President Trump’s Cabinet heads were chosen for “deconstruction of the administrative state.” > [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > If you want me to swap in a security guard who _won’t_ keep folks out We’ve already pointed out to you several times that criminalizing illegal border crossings doesn’t actually have a useful effect in “keeping folks out”. You’re getting the property set on fire **without** even any significant improvement in anti-trespasser security to show for it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/71 "2020-01-21T02:53:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, it is you who is not following Well, we can agree on that point too. :S ~Max ---
**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 21, 2020, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/72 "2020-01-21T03:32:57Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > How do you figure? I was watching the Democratic debate when they got asked the following: _“Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense, rather than a crime, to cross the border without documentation.”_ I didn’t get that from some other source at a later date, and I didn’t extrapolate a particular specific to the general case; I just watched their hands fly up in response, is all. Well thanks for showing that Democrats did remember how the civil law is. Again, the link you presented was about how far Trump changed priorities so as to justify separating families. And that goes once again to the item that is the issue: Why do you support that? ---
**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 21, 2020, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/73 "2020-01-21T03:51:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > We’ve already pointed out to you several times that criminalizing illegal border crossings doesn’t actually have a useful effect in “keeping folks out”. You’re getting the property set on fire **without** even any significant improvement in anti-trespasser security to show for it. :rolleyes: Take it up with **begbert2** , who described it as being “like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down.” I was — in good faith — replying to that, not bringing it up. And while you’re taking issue with someone analogizing one part to “a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property,” I’m not seeing how the rest of what you posted makes for a terrific analogy to “burning the property down.” Do you figure I should disregard that as mere hyperbole, or do you think the stuff you’re on about is — in actual fact — the equivalent of burning it down? Or is it to be analogized to a _functional_ thing? Some kind of thing where there’s, like, a side analogy to be made to Dow Jones performance reflecting confidence? Something about what’d be in store, instead, if folks who’d decriminalize illegal border crossings applied _that_ approach to a bunch of other stuff? ---
**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 21, 2020, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/74 "2020-01-21T04:17:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well thanks for showing that Democrats did remember how the civil law is. Again, the link you presented was about how far Trump changed priorities so as to justify separating families. > > And that goes once again to the item that is the issue: Why do you support that? Why do I support _what?_ I’m against decriminalizing illegal border crossings, and I’ve pointed out that various presidential candidates shot their hands up when they got asked a remarkably straightforward question about it. And the link you mention leads off with a quick mention of the following: “Several Democratic candidates support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally.” Granted, it then goes on to mention Trump’s priorities — but that’s _my_ point, that a Democratic candidate who’s willing to keep it criminal can get my vote by differing from Trump’s priorities _inside that context_. But a candidate who, as per that link, declares for decriminalization _isn’t_ merely proposing different priorities inside that context. ---
**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 21, 2020, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/75 "2020-01-21T04:22:24Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Why do I support _what?_ If you vote for Trump you will support it. (and all the unscientific efforts of him and other crimes Trump will continue to do) As for keeping it criminal, it was usually just a civil crime, the criminal statute was for… well, criminals and it was employed against repeated offenders that crossed the border who did not get the hint, the problem I see you have is that you are still falling for the twisted version of events coming from misleading right wing sources. ---
**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 21, 2020, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/76 "2020-01-21T04:32:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > If you vote for Trump you will support it. (and all the unscientific efforts of him and other crimes Trump will continue to do) > > As for keeping it criminal, it was usually just a civil crime, the criminal statute was for… well, criminals and it was employed against repeated offenders that crossed the border who did not get the hint, the problem I see you have is that you are still falling for the twisted version of events coming from misleading right wing sources. What is this weird obsession you have with right wing sources? You clearly disagree with my position; why isn’t it enough to simply point out _why_ you disagree with it, instead of adding in this bizarre claim of falling for a version that comes from those sources, when I happen to know that, er, no, that’s not it? It just makes me stop thinking you might have a point, because I’m busy thinking, _oh, wait; does he just make things up? Just tosses stuff out there, willy-nilly?_ ---
**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 21, 2020, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/77 "2020-01-21T04:36:34Z")
BTW **TOWP** , It is clear that you have not figured out yet that even looking at your cites there is no intention by the Democrats to get rid of the criminal law, only that under some circumstances, like the immigrants showing real danger for their lives, should be taken into account as reasons why not to apply the criminal rules against immigrants, to not separate families, and for the administration to follow the law. Apparently that is too much to ask. > **[Trump administration appears to violate law in forcing asylum seekers back to...](https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-28/trump-administration-pushes-thousands-to-mexico-to-await-asylum-cases)** > > Under the "Remain in Mexico" policy, Trump Homeland Security officials have forced a record 35,000 asylum seekers back to Mexico in less than seven months, to wait for their U.S. cases in some of the world's most dangerous cities. In a special report... > [@](#): > > Under the Migrant Protection Protocols — better known as Remain in Mexico — Trump administration officials have pushed 37,578 asylum seekers back across the U.S. southern border in roughly seven months, according to Homeland Security Department reports reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. One-third of the migrants were returned to Mexico from California. The vast majority have been scattered throughout Mexico within the last 60 days. > > While their cases wind through court in the United States, the asylum seekers are forced to wait in Mexico, in cities that the U.S. State Department considers some of the most dangerous in the world. They have been attacked, sexually assaulted, and extorted. A number have died. > > In dozens of interviews and in court proceedings, current and former officials, judges, lawyers and advocates for asylum seekers said that Homeland Security officials implementing Remain in Mexico appear to be violating U.S. law, and the human cost is rising. Testimony from another dozen asylum seekers confirmed that they were being removed without the safeguards provided by U.S. law. The alleged legal violations include denying asylum seekers’ rights and knowingly putting them at risk of physical harm — against federal regulations and the Immigration and Nationality Act, the foundation of the U.S. immigration system. U.S. law grants migrants the right to seek protection in the United States. ---
**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 21, 2020, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/78 "2020-01-21T04:38:40Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > What is this weird obsession you have with right wing sources? You clearly disagree with my position; why isn’t it enough to simply point out _why_ you disagree with it, instead of adding in this bizarre claim of falling for a version that comes from those sources, when I happen to know that, er, no, that’s not it? Because I wanted to think you were human… 🙂 . And as many I have found with many like you, you are not special when you claim that you figured this all by yourself. Fie to that, all humans do get their information from somewhere, it just so happens that some are aware of where it comes, while some are still telling themselves that they are an island. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > It just makes me stop thinking you might have a point, because I’m busy thinking, _oh, wait; does he just make things up? Just tosses stuff out there, willy-nilly?_ Just you thinking ignorantly, that is clear. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/79 "2020-01-21T04:45:04Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Take it up with **begbert2** , who described it as being “like hiring a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property, while burning the property down.” I already did, in post #63. > [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > And while you’re taking issue with someone analogizing one part to “a security guard who will do a great job of keeping tramps out of your property,” I’m not seeing how the rest of what you posted makes for a terrific analogy to “burning the property down.” Why not? Do you feel that only literal destruction of the US physical infrastructure is an appropriate outcome to warrant such a simile? If not, could you kindly clarify exactly what degree of non-literalness you’re willing to accept in an analogy? And I must say it’s a little bit…hmmm…that you’re taking exception to “burning the property down” as a metaphorical representation of the Trump administration’s frontal assault on governance, but have apparently no problem with “tramps” as a metaphorical representation of border-crossing immigrants and refugees. :dubious: I mean, seriously, **TOWP**. You read a mass of extensive cites about the various abnormally corrupt and venal ways that the Trump administration is sabotaging and exploiting the workings of the federal government for the benefit of grifting cronies and anti-democracy ideologues, and your reaction is merely to complain that the phrase “burning the property down” is too hyperbolic? You seriously still feel that all that shit— **besides** all the foreign policy, impeachable offenses, environmental, healthcare etc. major issues that I only mentioned in passing—is minor enough to warrant your picking Trump over any Democrat who advocates not continuing to waste federal time and money on arbitrary, ineffective criminal prosecutions of unauthorized border crossers? Because if so, then you have an extremely peculiar definition of “minor”. What, in fact, would you consider **non** -minor misconduct on Trump’s part? What sort of further atrocity would Trump have to commit in order for you to consider him a **worse** choice for President than somebody who holds this perfectly reasonable and practical view (even if it doesn’t entirely align with your own view) on decriminalizing illegal border crossing? FFS. We’re told all the time that we’re not supposed to call Trump supporters “stupid” because it alienates them and hurts their feelings. But what are we supposed to say when they’re deliberately advocating positions that **are** stupid? _“Hmm, yes, I see your very good point about Trump’s massive corruption and incompetence and dismantling of governance structures being **less** undesirable in a President than the reasonable opinion about immigration law held by a far more intelligent, informed and ethical politician. But have you considered…”_ :rolleyes: WTF fuck that noise. This is the Straight Dope, and this is the Pit, and your position is glaringly, monumentally, blatantly stupid. ---
**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 21, 2020, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/80 "2020-01-21T04:53:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW **TOWP** , It is clear that you have not figured out yet that even looking at your cites there is no intention by the Democrats to get rid of the criminal law, only that under some circumstances, like the immigrants showing real danger for their lives, should be taken into account as reasons why not to apply the criminal rules against immigrants, to not separate families, and for the administration to follow the law. Apparently that is too much to ask. No, that’s — wait, do you literally not get this? That a number of the presidential candidates _do,_ in fact, support the elimination of criminal penalties for entering the country illegally, and think it should be a civil offense rather than a crime to cross the border without documentation? Is _that_ what we’re arguing over? (And, again: why is the argument taking place here, and not in another forum?) > [@](#): > > And as many I have found with many like you, you are not special when you claim that you figured this all by yourself. Fie to that, all humans do get their information from somewhere, it just so happens that some are aware of where it comes, while some are still telling themselves that they are an island. I’m telling you, _I was watching the debate_; I heard the question get asked, and I then saw the hands go up in real time. Fie to that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620.md?page=5)