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’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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Immigration policies aside, what ‘other metrics’ are you using to compare/contrast Trump’s vs. <Dem Nominee here>? Surely you don’t need an actual name to provide your evaluation metrics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
: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.
Although you are not taking away the accusation of being a criminal.