Correcting a line in my previous post to TOWP:
And when I remember about all the ones I have seen before that ignore a lot, 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.
No really, it is you the one who is not getting that the Democrats are not supporting the elimination of the criminal penalties, only that you are unwilling to see that the context is about doing the humane thing and propose exceptions to some of those undocumented people.
Yes, because you are missing the forest for those trees that you insist are the whole thing. Civil law indeed does not allow for the implications Trump and their goons are making about the Democrat candidates.
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.
Fuck off, troll.
Yes, they are. You’re getting this wrong. I don’t know why or how you’re getting this point wrong, but various Democrats who are currently in the presidential race have in fact taken that exact position on this exact issue. I’m actually kind of amazed that no one else here is correcting you on this point.
They do, as pointed many times before, hence pointing at the factcheck early that shows that, funny that you pretended that that was not relevant.
The civil law does take it seriously, thank you very much. Problem was to apply the criminal part in inhumane ways.
Good thing we have fact checkers to figure that out, but if you want to continue to be a willful ignorant…
Because I pointed at the context of your cite. It shows that they were taking a position on one statute (again, not the whole criminal law) because of the inhumane way Trump was using the rules. They are not correcting me because I also pointed out that Trump himself has made their concern about family separation a moot point.
And hence a moot reason why to consider voting for an abuser of the law as shown in post #77
Not nearly seriously enough, thank you very much. (Out of curiosity: are there any other crimes that you think should instead be civil offenses, because in your opinion that’d be serious enough?)
They were asked whether they think it should be a civil offense rather than a crime. They proceeded to answer that question — not some other question about whether it should remain a crime but get used in a less inhumane way.
That’s why the link says “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” — though I of course didn’t need to learn this or that from the link; I knew it right when I saw hands get raised.
@ The Other Waldo Pepper — Sincere thanks and kudos for posting your opinions here, despite knowing that some opinions will be very unpopular. Your detractors seem relatively civil despite that this is the Pit. You’re welcome to continue using this thread, which I started, for your discussion.
I highly compliment you on your calmness and sincerity, in sharp contrast to other Trumpists here.
But frankly I think it would be more appropriate to start an IMHO thread titled "Ask me why I’d prefer Trump as President over Warren." Substitute for “Warren” whichever specific top Dem front-runner you are least happy with. Instead of IMHO post the thread in MPSIMS perhaps, but probably not the Pit, just to avoid name-calling.
Better than a debate over a single issue (e.g. illegal border crossings), an “Ask me why I prefer Trump for President over {Hickenlooper}” thread would get a fuller range of opinions and counter-opinions on display. (Again, “Hickenlooper” is just a place-holder here. Please choose your least favorite from among the front-runners. I’d prefer you NOT pick Sanders: At least make it a Democrat.)
I do have sympathy for your viewpoint here. I know Americans who have spent long months or even years and $1000’s on lawyer fees hoping to comply with U.S. Immigration laws. It’s a slap in their face to tell them they’d be better off flying to Juarez and hiring a coyote. But it’s a very complicated and difficult issue. There should be other, even more interesting, issues that can be discussed when you start the “Ask me why I prefer Trump for President over {Specific Name}” thread.
Thank you.
Don’t leave us waiting - how serious a matter IS it? What is the average result of said illegal border crossing, aside from the illegal border crossing? Is it more, or less, serious than law enforcement failing to confiscate illegally owned weapons, or people being caged then put back in situations that are leading to their deaths at the hands of American-funded drug cartels?
Uh, yeah; but, as I’ve said, I figure the right time for that will be — well, when the Dems pick a candidate. I’m not sure why you’re keen on narrowing it down to one specific name before even the upcoming stuff in Iowa and New Hampshire; I’d sure prefer to debate the question once the Dems have narrowed it down to one.
Well, thanks for repeating what I said, read I’d again. You seem to have a problem that someone is aware already of how they raised their hands, and is also aware of how that does not omit the context, no matter how much you want it.
As someone that also did that bit about $1000s of fees to get my wife to the USA, I can then say that that is a very shallow point of view.
The big reason why that apparent “gotcha” that TOWP is shallowly and inhumanely depending on, came to be because Trump decided to stop using civil law and more the criminal one, and the revolt there was because what Trump did resulted in family separations. The cruelty and very likely breaking of laws still continues as shown in post #77
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.
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.
I’m still having a hard time grasping the concept of “I don’t want poor border crossers to break the law, so I will vote for a President who has repeatedly broken and continues to break the law himself and hires others who have done and are doing the same”, but I suppose everyone has their priorities.
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 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.
Figure that’s consistent.
I guess that counts as a good result for you. /s
Only that that is relying on weapon’s grade ignorance.
And as far as research shows, you are ignorant on this one too.
Well, that makes perfect sense as long as one accepts your gross exaggeration of the damage done by illegal immigrants and the gross minimization of the damage being done by this administration. I mean, there have been many studies showing that illegal immigrants actually provide a net benefit to the country; conversely, the Republicans are currently openly undermining the rule of law, the judiciary and the electoral system with the support of foreign governments. But if you squint just the right way and very very carefully select your criteria and which evidence you’re willing to consider vs which evidence you handwave away, then the thing you’re worried about is definitely a bigger threat to the country.