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” as Trump calls them. That will increase thanks to inaction from the Trump administration regarding global warming.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
One clear thing: you are willfully ignoring that Biden did not support decriminalization, however:
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)
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…
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
Your turn now for a cite now, who is not making any exceptions?
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!
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.
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.
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:
Unauthorized person enters your property.
They do nothing that you consider problematic.
They are detected by somebody in authority.
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.
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?
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.
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.
