I’ve long since grown tired of jerks.
Dump em.
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?
Uh, yes; I am.
That said, I’m of course typing up a longer reply to your other question; there are a whole lot of folks tossing questions my way here, and I’m addressing ‘em as best I can; and you should get a big fine good-faith answer from me in short order.
What is it about removing that option that’s so important to you? Why the heck shouldn’t we have that option? You want to emphasize how often the option doesn’t get exercised; I merely want us to keep on having that option, and marvel at the fact that ostensibly serious candidates for office want to take that option off the table. Why get rid of it? Why not reserve the right to bring criminal charges against those who cross the border illegally? I don’t want them crossing the border illegally; if there’s ever a time when bringing criminal charges, or threatening to bring criminal charges, would be useful in stopping them from doing so — well, then, I’d (a) of course want that option to be available, and I’d (b) have considerable doubts about any presidential candidate who doesn’t see it that way.
4Chan’s over there, dude.
You get an Anti-Warning. Do do 
this again.
In fact, it’s not that important to me, as I think having the option and not exercising it is not effectively that different from not having it (except in that it’s more vulnerable to abuses; see below). I certainly wouldn’t consider refusing to support a Democratic candidate just for having a different opinion from me about it.
A) Because it would be logistically impossible to exercise the option consistently. Even trying to bring criminal charges against a small fraction of illegal border crossers is seriously overloading our courts. And I don’t approve of having laws that are only workable if most of the time we refrain from enforcing them.
B) There’s no evidence that criminal prosecutions actually have a deterrent effect on illegal border crossings. Why waste large sums of money ritually prosecuting and imprisoning illegal entrants, when we could use that money far more effectively in border control measures and civil deportation proceedings?
C) Criminal proceedings against illegal entrants have resulted in human rights abuses, such as separating minor children from their parents when the parents are charged with the crime of illegal entry.
In short, the law criminalizing illegal border crossing is unfairly harsh on families, serves no effective end as a deterrent to illegal behavior, cannot be implemented systematically and consistently without overwhelming our court system, and places significant additional burdens and expense on our courts and prisons, to no useful purpose.
Well, if there’s ever a time when a law that permits bringing criminal charges against illegal border crossers actually would be useful in stopping them, to the extent that its usefulness would outweigh its inconveniences, then we could choose to reinstate such a law.
In the meantime, I don’t believe in keeping stupid, ineffectual, impracticable, abuse-prone laws on the books just because there might come a time when they would somehow become useful.
But you, on the other hand, believe that any Democratic candidate who adopts that eminently common-sense attitude thereby becomes a worse choice for President than Trump. Ooooookaaaay.
Clearly you have forgotten the proven effectiveness of the Unicorn Control Act of 1911 in reducing the incidence of random stabbings by their horns.
There’s also the selective enforcement issue.
But I’m sure everybody here would be shocked - shocked - to discover there’s any evidence of racial or ethnic bias in how border crossing violations are enforced.
Just like I’m sure everybody here would be shocked - shocked - to discover there was evidence of racial bias in selective enforcement of literacy requirements to vote in Jim Crow America.
Yeah, so it is important for you to ignore that I also did cover what you claim I missed here in the next part of my reply that you omitted here, not helpful, here is again:
Of course everyone can see how omitting that was crucial in an attempt to mislead others:
Well, you know I did too, the other stuff was covering the possible ways you are being misled, and the last article does talk about how Ocasio Cortez (Not one of the candidates BTW you will still have to point out what candidate is doing that or your reason for voting how you think you will is indeed still for a very ignorant reason one) is one that has been talking about the overreach and expansion on the efforts to inhumanely criminalize what others have pointed already in this thread as very unethical or inhumane things. IOW just about what was going on before: that being arrested at the border will be still bad under a Democratic president, not just at the criminality levels that Trump and his henchmen wants it to be.
The question remains, why support those efforts that are based mostly on bigotry?
I’m honestly not seeing what you’re getting at.
Your quote is: “Context shows also that even the non candidates that would go for decriminalization are not even saying that, only that people fleeing violence, dreamers and others should not be declared to be criminals when they deserve better treatment than the one coming from racist Trump staff members that still remain in his administration.”
That quote talks about “non candidates”. Why would I address that? I’m not talking about “non candidates”. I skipped over it because I had no idea why you mentioned it; I still have no idea why you mentioned it. My whole thing here is based around talking about the various presidential candidates who want to decriminalize this stuff, not about “non candidates” who want X or Y or Z.
I’m not out to mislead; try looking at your post from my perspective and see if you can figure out why the heck that mention of “non candidates” would lead me to do anything but shrug and get back to the topic at hand.
What? Various presidential candidates — not ‘non candidates’, not Ocasio Cortez, not any of these other people you for some reason keep bringing up — have, simply and clearly, declared in favor of decriminalizing illegal border crossings. Do you genuinely not know this? I mean, yeah, sure, again, this will be easier once there’s a single Dem candidate we can discuss; but, hey, if you need it, here’s a link that seems accurate.
That strikes me as begging the question; I’d like you to rephrase it.
Why? Because usually your say so’s are no different from the ones that do mislead others into making them think that Democrats are not doing some decriminalization to deal with inhumane conditions, guess what? It was not just for shits and giggles.
As you finally stumbled in, there was a reason why you needed to show examples of what the main candidates that are remaining said, and the context for your cite was precisely candidates proposing how to deal with the inhuman treatment of families at the border, (made moot BTW thanks to jet another Trump presidential act, but that you seem to miss too)
As per your cite, the point is that who is controlling the executive does matter, the intent of the law was twisted to justify the most inhumane results, (do you still support that?) so if one wanted to deal with the inhumanity one option was to propose removing or changing one section of the law, a section that still does not prevent any authority to catch the criminals that could try to get in.
In any case, per your cite: Biden was not willing to remove that section. And the other main ones concentrated on an specific rule (Yep, you did miss that, it was an specific section that affected families, there was no request to decriminalize immigrants that pose as refugees or fake their relations) Still, what they proposed was made moot by an executive order of the president, who was under pressure as it looked that the other branch, the judiciary, was going to go hard on him for his inhumane and very likely illegal moves on that issue.
I’m not a Trump supporter. Neither am I particularly interested in criminalization or decriminalization of people who illegally enter our country. But I do think detention under threat of deportation is punishment enough to warrant criminal procedure and safeguards, and so I lean toward support for the criminalization of illegal border entry.
On the other hand I am totally against detaining people for “civil” deportation proceedings, and totally for funding an immigration/refugee system that can efficiently process people’s applications.
~Max
Not much to rephrase, do you still want to ignore that many did report that what Trump did and is doing with immigrants is guided by bigotry?
To the best of my knowledge, I don’t much give a crap what “many did report that what Trump did and is doing” is guided by. If you can make out a case that a given policy is bad for the country, then by default I’ll be against it; I don’t see that I’d bother to ask what’s guiding it. And if you can make out a case that a policy is good for the country, then by default (a) I’ll be for it; and (b) I don’t see that I’d bother to ask what’s guiding it. With me, the policy stands or falls on its own merits.
What is guiding the policy change often affects how the policy is implemented. So if there is racist intent behind the change, odds are better that it will enforced against a certain subset of the population more than another.
For instance, driving with a broken tail-light is a citable offense for everyone, but data shows that more non-whites are pulled over for it than whites.
Well, look, if it should be a citable offense, then put me down as being in favor of changing the implementation — pulling over whites more often, say — rather than scrapping it as a citable offense. Do you believe it should be a citable offense?
What many conservatives and moderates are doing in this case is to miss one key item: the law was not changed, it is clear that who are the ones handling the execution of the law is crucial. The misleading info coming from Trump and goons is to still pretend that they do not have a choice on how they execute the law. They do.
As I understand it, enforcement of this particular law (8 U.S. Code § 1325(a)) has been shifty depending on who is in the White House. As I read the law it is pretty clear that 1325(a) describes a crime and provides no room for “priority enforcement” or other selective enforcement. It uses the word “shall”, as in such aliens shall be fined or imprisoned.
If you are advocating an interpretation of that law which allows immigration enforcement officers the discretion to simply ignore the law, I am very much against that. If there is a practical need for prosecutorial discretion, I would rather increase the resources available to prosecutors or change the law itself.
~Max
Precisely.
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.