Because your stupid argument is coming from right wing fantasy world, and propagandized also by the guy you want to vote for, funny how that works…
But why do you add that second step? I consider the first step problematic; I don’t need for them to commit “other crimes in addition to unauthorized entry”; the law already allows for the option — the option, mind you — of pressing criminal charges, and I may want to exercise that option; and, to the best of my knowledge, you’re not in favor of decriminalization on this front too.
That’s an interesting point. I’ll think about it.
Well thanks for showing all that you will willfully ignore the context so as to still consider voting for the one that has decided to criminalize all, no exceptions. By the way this is about the 4th time that you repeat that while ignoring that the ones who raised hands did not have a chance for nuance, and a lot of what you get from that is an exaggerated position, an exaggerated item thanks to right wing propaganda that depends a lot on wishful thinking, the reality is that a lot of what you infer from what some Democrats gestured is not going to take place thanks to congressional oversight, while at the same time what Trump did was to make big lies about “Democrats wanting open borders” while causing people to die or break families with his Draconian moves.
**
That is what you still consider voting for. **
Suuuuure, just like it is obvious that you are not seeing the ones that [del]trespassed into your yard[/del] came undocumented before like me as criminals… /S
Again, I’ve asked whether they’ve walked it back since. I grant that it’s possible they had a context in mind, and could come forward to helpfully clarify that, no, despite the wording of the question, they don’t really want no-exceptions decriminalization; has Buttigieg done that? Has Yang?
Not likely that they will be selected, and again others did not, like Biden; and I explained (with cites) that the ones that do pointed at the statutes Trump was abusing as the reason.
Of course what this show is that besides obtuse you are going in circles, you do want to justify voting for Trump for a few Democrats reacting to the abuses Trump is committing.
Nice racket.
What Trump is going are not gestures in a debate, what he does is contrary to what you already told us you are against. :dubious:
As I’ve said, this discussion will presumably be more interesting and useful once this narrows down to the Democratic nominee; I’ll still be honest and obliging then; I just figured I’d be honest and obliging now, too, is all.
::shrugs:: If the eventual Democratic nominee takes a stand against no-exception decriminalization, you and I will presumably be able to discuss the specific merits of that policy versus Trump’s at that point; I could then be convinced to vote against Trump, if the specifics strike me as sensible enough. But I’m telling you now: if that candidate gets asked about decriminalization and says, well, yeah; this isn’t some implied thing about context; I don’t believe that crossing the border illegally should actually be a crime at all, no exceptions, and you may quote me — why, then, I’ll presumably still be making the same points then that I am now.
Again, besides obtuse you are going in a circle, you do want to justify voting for Trump for a few Democrats reacting to the abuses that Trump is committing.
A very vicious circle.
I, for one, do not find it at all unreasonable to desire prosecution for those who enter the country illegally. Where do I stand? I don’t know. Recall that I’m a radical centrist: I often sympathize with both sides of an issue and have trouble making up my mind. (But, boy when I do make up my mind you’ll hear about it!)
THEREFORE, I am very disappointed that a debate on whether a vote for Trump might be sensical has degenerated into a discussion in which both sides have merit.
Even without leaving the subject of immigration, I’d hope to direct the debate into more productive areas. Let me ask Mr. Pepper some other questions:
(a) How do you feel about separating young children from their parents?
(b) How do you feel when you hear Trump speak of shooting refugees?
© Border police shut down bridges; then arrested refugees who attempted to approach border stations by alternate routes. Was this clever? Or wrong?
(d) I read that several Iranians with valid student visas have been deported on arrival at U.S. airports. How do you feel about that?
As opposed to what? Let’s say a guy gets charged with any other crime, and is put behind bars; maybe he’s awaiting trial, maybe he’s already been convicted. How do I feel about separating young children from him while he’s locked in that cell? Tell me what you propose for a kid in that situation — where the guy is incarcerated for any other crime — and I’ll struggle to reach the least bad decision.
(In the same vein: say illegal border crossings do wind up getting decriminalized; but, as folks in this thread have kept noting, deportation can of course still result just like one would expect. So spell this out: what do you figure should happen if a parent is to be deported for a civil offense rather than a crime? You’re asking about separating the children; again, as opposed to what?)
The first time I heard him say anything along those lines, it was limited to migrants who were throwing rocks at American personnel. The second time I heard anything of the sort, he apparently (a) suggested shooting migrants in the legs, (b) got told it was illegal, and (c) dropped it and moved on to something else. I’ve heard worse.
I don’t think that’s enough info to go on. Can you give me a specific?
You read that? Okay: did you read why they were deported? Did you read that others weren’t deported, but should’ve been? Once again, the specifics seem like they’d be doing all the heavy lifting in this story; what are they?
WHEREAS, I am mildly nonplussed that a facetious defense of Jim Peebles posted in the Pit degenerated into a debate on whether a vote for Trump might be sensical.
As opposed to just letting them go. What’s the point of a criminal justice system that causes more injustice than it prevents?
In other words, for many moral adult humans, the answer to the question “Are there any crimes that are not worth enforcing in specific cases if enforcement means causing irreparable emotional harm to a child” is a simple “yes.”
The harm caused by releasing a murderer outweighs the harm to that murderer’s child if you have to separate them. The harm caused by releasing someone charged with a misdemeanor border crossing is far outweighed by the harm caused to the border-crosser’s child if you have to separate them. It’s a pretty simple calculus for those with standard human emotions like “empathy.”
eta: I understand conservatives like to rephrase this “quandary” as a version of the trolley problem, wherein they’re not responsible for the emotional harm to the child because it’s the illegal border crosser who set the wheels in motion, but people with normal human emotions understand that the trolley’s actions are irrelevant when it comes to watching a child suffer.
You already were explained about Trump doingworseand ending making other issues like this one worse.
No wonder one hears a lot about people voting against their own interests.
I add this second step because there is already provision for dealing with a person who has entered your property without permission: have an authorized agent remove them. Note that the person doesn’t resist the removal - that would be a different analogy. This analogy is the situation where ICE (or a non-evil version of ICE) learns of an illegal immigrant, assess whether they should stay, and determines they don’t - and deports them, simple as that. Sure, if the person runs, resists, shoots a bunch of cops, or any such thing - that would be cause for separate criminal prosecution that might supercede the deportation.
But without the person doing any of that, the desire to reserve the right to levy additional charges against them for unstated and unclear reasons comes off as sadism. (And racism, of course. In the real world, in actual practice, it is always racism.)
Yeah - repeatedly coming back in is sort of another way of resisting/superseding the deportation order, and could be treated accordingly. This would not apply to people who are repeatedly attempting legal methods of gaining entry, of course.
@ The Other Waldo Pepper — Please read this article about a refugee immigrant, and give us your thoughts. Please read the entire article: I know you’d be more comfortable with reading that confirms rather than challenges your preconceptions, but I’m also sure that you want to demonstrate that you are open-minded enough to read a challenging article.
(If you’ve exhausted your free New Yorker articles for the month, use a different browser, or clear your ‘newyorker’ cookies.)
You know, if you were coming at this from a place of sincerity — if you blandly and straightforwardly wanted to bring this to the attention of someone you figured on then having a serious discussion with — you wouldn’t need to put things in terms of wanting to showily demonstrate that I’m open-minded enough to, uh, read a whole article. You can simply ask, and I can then demonstrate compassion for the guy and then demonstrate a fair-play concern for justice, and so on: not for the sake of demonstrative appearances, but as a natural side effect of honest answers.
But I’d then ask why — after you said you know I’d be more comfortable with stuff that confirms my preconceptions — you felt the need for that bit about challenging my preconceptions. Which preconceptions? My point is already that a candidate who points to what we can do better can have a shot at earning my vote, so long as they don’t call for across-the-board no-exceptions decriminalization for folks who cross the border illegally. So how is this link to this article — along with helpful tips for accessing it, in case I’d cluelessly need instructions for that — relevant?
I don’t get why you’re throwing in what seem like dickish asides; that seems at odds with the whole How-To-Talk-To-A-Possible-Trump-Voter vibe you’re presumably going for. But I also don’t get why you’re posting this here in its own right; it seems like a hell of a thing for another thread, but what’s it doing in this one?
So. Did you read the article or not? What did you think of it?
I did; everything there leads me to believe that he’s innocent, and that he doesn’t deserve such wretched treatment. The whole thing strikes me as disgraceful; once again, it seems like you should maybe start a thread about it, because I’m still not really sure what the heck it’s doing in this thread.
You (or anyone) is welcome to mention it elsethread.
What it’s doing in this thread is presenting to you the actual implementation of the policies you support by the leadership you support. It’s one thing to support hypothetical policies in a vacuum. But you are threatening to vote for a disgusting racist nincompoop. The story I linked you to exposes how his policies differ from yours.
Right, and decriminalization also differs from mine. A lot of policies would differ from mine. Give me a candidate who’d do right by the guy in the article, and who doesn’t back decriminalization, and, uh, come, let us reason together.
You are not going to find a candidate who supports charging people with a crime for unlawfully entering the country that also would do right by the guy in the article. You’re gonna have to choose.
As long as just the act of crossing the border without authorization can be considered to be a criminal act, that will be abused by racists to hurt those who are legitimate seeking refuge and asylum.
You want to say that bringing drugs across the border is criminal? Great. You want to make it a crime to smuggle weapons, people, or to cross for purposes of committing crime or terror? I agree entirely. You want to make it a crime to attempt unauthorized entry after already being kicked out? I’m behind that.
But, to make the mere act of crossing that arbitrary line subject you to criminal penalty, up to and including having your children taken from you to never be seen again is just asking for it to be used and abused by racists who will use it as a tool to prevent legitimate refugee and asylum seekers from entry. This isn’t hypothetical, this is exactly what is happening now.
So, for the sake of argument, you have two candidates, one of which will do right by the guy in the article, and one of which supports charging people with a crime for crossing the border. Assuming all else is equal, which would you support?