# @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:** 6
**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, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/101 "2020-01-21T15:45:53Z")
On a personal note: While I do follow the rules now (meaning that on even that TOWP got it wrong) as per my wife’s case, it was thanks to Reagan, Bush senior and humane Republicans later that I ended up becoming citizen of the USA. First I came to America because Reagan and the ugly Americans decided to prop up and support the military thugs in the old country that committed electoral fraud to remain in power causing civil war. (Why yes, TOWP and others, who is in the executive does matter) My family had to flee the conflict and come to America where we had some relatives. While some in my family had visas some like me had to cross the border illegally. Eventually the Republicans of then decided to support amnesty for many of the ones that were illegal then in the USA. Eventually I became a citizen, but I guess \*\*TOWP \*\*would had likely wanted me to be shot at the border or continue to think that I’m a criminal now. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/102 "2020-01-21T15:54:25Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Oh, that’s good. But for just a moment, flip it around: imagine what it’s like to hear someone tell me what they think of the millions of illegal aliens now in this country, and their opinion is, _oh, well, that shouldn’t actually be a crime; for those who are already here, and for those who want in, I support decriminalization_. I figure that’d soon enough be the ruin of this country — like unto burning down a property, one might say — and, if a Democratic candidate for president comes out in favor of that, while a Republican stands _against_ that, then you could say I’m “having a hard time grasping the concept” of those who side with illegal aliens suddenly acting like they care about the laws on the books; as far as I can tell, they’ll torch those laws just as soon as they get the chance to burn the whole thing down. I’ma just throw this in the pile of things that Republican voters pretend are dealbreakers until they suddenly aren’t, along with repealing Obamacare (it will single handedly ruin this country!), balancing the budget (unless I get a tax cut!), gay marriage (that’s old news!), and foreign wars (THIS time it’s for a just cause!). I think **Kimstu** has made a pretty convincing argument that decriminalizing border crossings won’t bring on the end times, and I would also bet dollars to donuts that prior to seeing that question at the debate you had no strong feelings one way or the other. Whether border crossings are a civil or criminal violation is almost the very definition of the minutiae of government, and I just can’t grok that this is a hill anyone would die on. But hey, you do you, we all believe your sincerity on this one. _wink_ ---
**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 21, 2020, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/103 "2020-01-21T16:05:56Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Oh, that’s good. But for just a moment, flip it around: imagine what it’s like to hear someone tell me what they think of the millions of illegal aliens now in this country, and their opinion is, _oh, well, that shouldn’t actually be a crime; for those who are already here, and for those who want in, I support decriminalization_. I figure that’d soon enough be the ruin of this country — like unto burning down a property, one might say — and, if a Democratic candidate for president comes out in favor of that, while a Republican stands _against_ that, then you could say I’m “having a hard time grasping the concept” of those who side with illegal aliens suddenly acting like they care about the laws on the books; as far as I can tell, they’ll torch those laws just as soon as they get the chance to burn the whole thing down. So you’re on board with draconian enforcement of laws and demonization of immigrants, and reject democrats who argue for humane treatment within the law. You forgive and excuse those who advocated and enforced child separation and cruel detention, but you think those who would like to see a more humane and sensible approach to illegal border crossing are trying to ‘burn things down’. It’s a familiar tune but it hasn’t improved with repetition. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I can say that I want the accusations against the president looked into: he’s been impeached, he now faces a trial, he can have his say on the matter, and maybe those who sit in judgment will let him stay put once a decision gets made about whether he should be convicted and removed, but maybe he’ll find himself in a position where criminal charges can be brought against him — and, if so, maybe he’ll eventually wind up doing prison labor — and, gosh, I’m all _for_ that process. > > And if you ask me about someone who isn’t here legally? Well, gosh: they can have their say, and we should pass judgment on whether it’s okay for them to stay put, and maybe they’ll wind up (a) convicted of a crime and (b) doing prison labor. You’re brave stance on something that doesn’t not stand a realistic chance of a snowball in hell of coming to fruition is admirable. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Figure that’s consistent. It’s consistent alright. Consistent with the deny, distract and obfuscate strategy of the smarter than average Trump supporter. It’s transparent and pathetic, but at most you can take refuge in the fact that you’re smarter and better spoken than most of the MAGAts that attempt to make a cogent argument in Trump’s defense. Oh, and I don’t believe for a second you voted for Obama. His presidency and policies were the antithesis of everything Trump says and does. Similarly, I don’t believe you didn’t vote for Trump last time around, given your very strong feelings about illegal immigration and where Trump clearly stood on the matter. Spare me the, ‘I don’t care if you believe me’ retort. I was hoping you’d be different, but it’s just more of the same old bullshit. Trump is indefensible and your support of him is deplorable. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/104 "2020-01-21T16:21:04Z")
Look, if people want to vote for Trump they can vote for Trump - that’s how democracy works. But I wish they’d spare us the handwringing “It’s the Democrats’ fault I voted for Trump!” bullshit. They should own their choices. ---
**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 21, 2020, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/105 "2020-01-21T16:26:50Z")
I’m not arguing for denying him his voting rights or choices. Like you, I’m just sick and tired of the underlying dishonesty about it. ---
**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, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/106 "2020-01-21T16:28:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > On a personal note: While I do follow the rules now (meaning that on even that TOWP got it wrong) as per my wife’s case, it was thanks to Reagan, Bush senior and humane Republicans later that I ended up becoming citizen of the USA. > > First I came to America because Reagan and the ugly Americans decided to prop up and support the military thugs in the old country that committed electoral fraud to remain in power causing civil war. (Why yes, TOWP and others, who is in the executive does matter) My family had to flee the conflict and come to America where we had some relatives. While some in my family had visas some like me had to cross the border illegally. > > Eventually the Republicans of then decided to support amnesty for many of the ones that were illegal then in the USA. Eventually I became a citizen, but I guess \*\*TOWP \*\*would had likely wanted me to be shot at the border or continue to think that I’m a criminal now. I think there’s been a misunderstanding: when I said “if they skip over the part about being evaluated, to instead go straight to shooting for illegal entry”, I meant that the would-be border crossers would “shoot for” illegal entry — you know, in the sense that illegal entry would be their _goal,_ not in the sense of someone else shooting illegal _entrants_. Maybe re-read it and see if it makes sense to you in that light. ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/107 "2020-01-21T16:39:17Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Oh, and I don’t believe for a second you voted for Obama. His presidency and policies were the antithesis of everything Trump says and does. Similarly, I don’t believe you didn’t vote for Trump last time around, given your very strong feelings about illegal immigration and where Trump clearly stood on the matter. The question isn’t where Trump stood; the question is where Hillary Clinton stood, and where Obama stood before her. To the best of my knowledge, neither of them stood for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, and so I could (a) judge them on other metrics and (b) wind up voting for them. This time around, the Democrats might once again put up a candidate who stands against decriminalization, and who can be judged against Trump on other metrics; if so, they may well get my vote, just like Clinton did and just like Obama did; that’s why, as I keep saying, I’d prefer to debate this after the convention. But if it’s one of those hand-raisers? _I don’t recall Clinton or Obama putting that in the mix_. ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/108 "2020-01-21T16:46:00Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Look, if people want to vote for Trump they can vote for Trump - that’s how democracy works. But I wish they’d spare us the handwringing “It’s the Democrats’ fault I voted for Trump!” bullshit. They should own their choices. It’s interesting; when people asked me why I voted for Hillary Clinton — I know not everyone believes me, but that’s irrelevant — my reply was, _hey, compared to the alternative, I figured Trump would be worse for the country_. If you want to say I didn’t own that choice either, that’s your call, I guess; but, as far as I know, I was simply _correct,_ and, uh, own the choice I made as a result. I plan on saying much the same thing after voting in 2020: I’ll consider first one candidate and then the other, and cast my vote, and say — again — _look, this is the choice I made, compared to the alternative, and I, uh, own it._ ---
**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 21, 2020, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/109 "2020-01-21T16:48:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I plan on saying much the same thing after voting in 2020: I’ll consider first one candidate and then the other, and cast my vote, and say — again — _look, this is the choice I made, compared to the alternative, and I, uh, own it._ If you don’t decide to vote for the Democrat opposing Trump, then you’re providing direct aid to white supremacism, bigotry, and hatred in America, in addition to rampant corruption and incompetence. There’s no Democrat that comes close to this. ---
**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 21, 2020, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/110 "2020-01-21T16:49:24Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The question isn’t where Trump stood; the question is where Hillary Clinton stood, and where Obama stood before her. To the best of my knowledge, neither of them stood for decriminalizing illegal border crossings, and so I could (a) judge them on other metrics and (b) wind up voting for them. > > This time around, the Democrats might once again put up a candidate who stands against decriminalization, and who can be judged against Trump on other metrics; if so, they may well get my vote, just like Clinton did and just like Obama did; that’s why, as I keep saying, I’d prefer to debate this after the convention. But if it’s one of those hand-raisers? _I don’t recall Clinton or Obama putting that in the mix_. Immigration policies aside, what ‘other metrics’ are you using to compare/contrast Trump’s vs. \? Surely you don’t need an actual name to provide your evaluation metrics. ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/111 "2020-01-21T17:02:21Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I think there’s been a misunderstanding: when I said “if they skip over the part about being evaluated, to instead go straight to shooting for illegal entry”, I meant that the would-be border crossers would “shoot for” illegal entry — you know, in the sense that illegal entry would be their _goal,_ not in the sense of someone else shooting illegal _entrants_. Maybe re-read it and see if it makes sense to you in that light. Ok, it does, you are a bit human. 🙂 Although you are not taking away the accusation of being a criminal. However, the clarification is still a bit appalling in the context that Trump, by financing a wall and not improving the asylum system, creates a lot of incentives for refugee families to go around the border checks. This is Trump’s favorite move that works well with guys like you, make the problem worse so as to get credit for “doing” something about the issue. [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/05/border-crisis-donald-trump-226573](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/05/border-crisis-donald-trump-226573) > [@](#): > > Yes, There’s a Crisis on the Border. And It’s Trump’s Fault. > > Instead of wasting his time on a wall, the president should fix the asylum system. > [@](#): > > Despite the administration’s attempts to shift blame for the chaos, make no mistake: It is Donald Trump himself who is responsible. Through misguided policies, political stunts and a failure of leadership, the president has created the conditions that allowed the asylum problem at the border to explode into a crisis. The solution to our current border troubles lies in reforming the U.S. asylum system and immigration courts and helping Central America address its challenges—not in a “big beautiful” wall or shutting down the border. Yet effective action on these issues has been missing. And the president has now so poisoned the political well with his approach that there is little hope of meaningful congressional action until after the next election. Unless the administration changes course, the immigration crisis will only continue to worsen. > [@](#): > > The president may want to implement harsh border security policies, but he has faltered on the basics of governing. The administration has failed at the fundamental tasks of coordinating its plans with the relevant agencies and working through the hard problems of implementation. For instance, the administration’s “zero tolerance” policy of prosecuting illegal border-crossers wasted scarce prosecutorial and detention resources and could never be operationally sustained. The family separation policy—a stain on America’s moral authority—was not vetted and coordinated within the government, leading to confused implementation that still has not been resolved. Instead, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, to preserve her position, has been reduced to a yes woman, kowtowing to every pronouncement the president makes. The enduring images of the secretary’s tenure have been her lame denials of a family separation policy and lockstep support of the president’s wall demands, even as many in her department worked without pay during the shutdown. The professionals who know what it takes to solve the problem are not consulted but rather relegated to following orders. > > Trump made stopping illegal immigration his signature issue. It is time to acknowledge that he has failed miserably—so we can start thinking about how to clean up the mess he has made. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/112 "2020-01-21T17:09:51Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If you don’t think that decriminalizing illegal border crossings is tantamount to effectively having an open border, then why are you so strongly against it? What is it about the mere legal **option** of being able to slap unauthorized entrants with a criminal charge—an option, I repeat, **that is not even exercised in the majority of illegal-entry cases and would wastefully overwhelm the court system if it were to be exercised consistently** —that is so important to you? The removal of such would allow the truth of what the Democrats have been saying for years to be true, that illegal crossings aren’t actually , you know, illegal. When in fact, they are. ---
**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, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/113 "2020-01-21T17:21:16Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > The removal of such would allow the truth of what the Democrats have been saying for years to be true, that illegal crossings aren’t actually , you know, illegal. > > When in fact, they are. It seems that you did not read the tread. Again, civil law still keeps it illegal, it is when an executive turns as corrupt or vindictive as Boss Hog that we get the more than abusive results we are seeing now. > **[Why The Trump Administration Treats Illegal Border Crossing As A Criminal...](https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736716115/why-the-trump-administration-treats-illegal-border-crossing-as-a-criminal-offens)** > > NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association about the section of the U.S. code criminalizing crossing the border between ports of entry. > [@](#): > > CHEN: Well, the real nub of this issue here is that the Trump administration has been using the illegal entry statute to target asylum-seekers. More than a year ago now, it announced a zero tolerance policy, that the administration would prosecute all asylum-seekers under this illegal entry statute for having entered between ports of entry. > > And once this is applied to a family and a parent is going to be prosecuted under it, what we see happening is that the Trump administration then put the parents into proceedings that require them to be separated from their children. And we then saw the widespread separation of parents from their children, children being detained on their own - lots of terrible conditions that resulted from that policy. > > SHAPIRO: Now, the Obama administration also used Section 1325 a lot; so did the George W. Bush administration. Is the difference that those prior administrations didn’t apply it to asylum-seekers? > > CHEN: That’s correct. The 1325 and 1326 prosecutions under illegal entry and reentry had been on the books for years. But the fact is the Trump administration has really used it now to target asylum-seekers. For years, we’ve seen the criminal justice system add more criminal laws and harsher penalties to the system, and we ended up with massively crowded jails and tax bills and horror stories of people being treated unfairly in the jails. > > Now that is exactly what’s happening with prosecutions for illegal entry, which has criminalized thousands of people simply for not having legal status. And that happened under the Obama administration and prior administrations, and it’s just now being applied to extreme levels by the Trump administration. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/114 "2020-01-21T17:35:00Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > The removal of such would allow the truth of what the Democrats have been saying for years to be true, that illegal crossings aren’t actually , you know, illegal. > > When in fact, they are. That is not what Democrats have been saying for years. It is what Republicans have been saying for years that Democrats have been saying, which is not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/115 "2020-01-21T19:01:46Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > That is not what Democrats have been saying for years. It is what Republicans have been saying for years that Democrats have been saying, which is not the same thing. Wait, was that before or after Democrats said they wanted to implement sharia law and force people to enter same-sex marriages? ---
**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 21, 2020, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/116 "2020-01-21T19:42:21Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Wait, was that before or after Democrats said they wanted to implement sharia law and force people to enter same-sex marriages? _Before_ sharia, _after_ banning all the guns. ---
**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, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/117 "2020-01-21T19:43:10Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Quite serious. Like, if the day ever comes when we’re debating whether to kick somebody out of the country, I don’t want to give anyone a reason to say, oh, well, it’s not like the guy committed a _crime,_ because this was just a civil matter and he’s already paid in full, so, really, how serious a matter IS it? And why are we turning people away at gunpoint if it’s only a civil matter? We’re not talking about a _crime,_ so, c’mon, how serious a matter IS it? > > I want to make clear exactly how serious this is: serious enough that I want to have criminal penalties on the table. If you want to kick people out of the country, then civil penalties are enough - those penalties include deportation. The only reason to insist on criminal penalties is if you want to _keep_ them - put them in american prisons for a few years, then release them back into the american populace to stay perpetually, sentence served. And, just to be _entirely_ clear, you’re insisting on keeping it a crime because otherwise you couldn’t punish these people that you’re trying to kick out - which means that you’re trying to kick out specifically innocent people who are good for the country and haven’t done anything (else) wrong. After all, if they’d done anything else wrong then they’d be on the hook for _those_ crimes and could be dealt with accordingly. Gee, what could you have against these innocent people? Hmm? > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m not interested in the average. If someone wants to make a case for why we should expect good results from letting _them_ cross the border, then let them do so, so we can evaluate it and maybe let them in legally — or, y’know, turn them away, if they come up short. And we need to be able to take appropriate action against them if they get turned away and _then_ try to come in illegally — or if they skip over the part about being evaluated, to instead go straight to shooting for illegal entry. “letting _them_ cross the border”, huh? With italics and everything? Are you _trying_ to sound racist? And that whole business about letting them get evaluated to come in legally would be more convincing if Trump hadn’t been trying to eliminate asylum. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/118 "2020-01-21T20:06:20Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > That’s just it; I’m honestly not sure they understand what borders _are_. I find their position to be — as you say — so glaringly and monumentally and blatantly stupid that I wonder whether they actually get the point of _having_ borders. The moment I saw those hands fly up in response to that question, I thought to myself, wait; do they genuinely not realize how serious a matter it is for someone to cross our border? > > I can’t give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who raised their hand in response to that question; I don’t know what _other_ idiocies they’re ready to raise their hands to, and I’m in absolutely no hurry to find out. If someone’s position was obviously wrong, you could easily provide a counterargument. The more obvious it is, the easier it is to explain how something is wrong. Your tactics here actually suggest the opposite. You can’t easily prove them wrong, so you have to go very far in on calling them stupid. Furthermore, you’re making excuses for why you can ignore them from now on. Think about it. Imagine someone made an argument for why God isn’t real. And my response was like yours. “I’m not sure they understand what God is!” “Not believing in God is so monumentally stupid that I wonder if they even understand the concept.” “I can’t give the benefit of doubt to anyone who is an atheist. I don’t know what other idiocies they’re willing to raise their hands to.” It’s a stupid tactic that people use because they think it makes them look more right. And maybe it does to those who only look at the aesthetics. But for anyone who looks at arguments, all it does is tell us that you don’t have a rebuttal. Not having a rebuttal doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong, but it does mean you don’t have a good reason to know you’re right. It means you just believe something as axiomatically true. You believe borders are important as a belief, not as something you’ve used logic to determine. Am I wrong? Then I invite you to do what you should have done in the first place: PROVE IT. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/119 "2020-01-21T20:43:08Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > It’s interesting; when people asked me why I voted for Hillary Clinton — I know not everyone believes me, but that’s irrelevant — my reply was, _hey, compared to the alternative, I figured Trump would be worse for the country_. If you want to say I didn’t own that choice either, that’s your call, I guess; but, as far as I know, I was simply _correct,_ and, uh, own the choice I made as a result. This is exactly what doesn’t make sense. Clinton’s position is exactly the same as that of the Democrats now, because it’s the same position that both Democrats and Republicans held before Trump. You don’t throw people in jail for crossing the border, you simply deport them. And you allow asylum seekers to come in, without incarcerating them and separating them from their children. Before you were willing to vote for Clinton despite her not wanting to put illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in jail. But now you won’t vote for the Democratic candidate if they don’t want to put illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in jail. The problem is that, if nothing else has changed, then you should still logically hold that Trump is worse. That you don’t means that you’re blaming the Democrats when it’s not really their fault. The best case scenario is that you misunderstood what “decriminalizing immigration” meant. You thought it meant that people could cross the border whenever they wanted. All it means is that simply crossing the border would not get you thrown in jail. Deportation would still be possible. The worst case scenario is that you have changed allegiance for shitty or emotional reasons, and need an excuse. The one that doesn’t work is that Clinton was better than Trump, but that Trump is better than all the current Democratic candidates. ---
**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, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620/120 "2020-01-21T23:31:40Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > The removal of such would allow the truth of what the Democrats have been saying for years to be true, that illegal crossings aren’t actually , you know, illegal. :rolleyes: Oh look, another idiot Trumper who doesn’t understand the difference between “decriminalized” and “illegal”. No, Einstein, _decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings would not mean that they would cease to be illegal_. It would still be illegal to enter the US without proper permission/authorization, and illegal entrants would still be subject to detention and/or deportation, **and Democrats are not trying to change that**. All that decriminalization would do would be to save us wasting time and money on unnecessary, ineffectual, abuse-prone, inconsistently applied **criminal proceedings** against unauthorized border crossers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-please-do-not-ban-jim-peebles/846620.md?page=7)