Is there any downside to allowing anyone to enter the country?
You mean, having a genuine open-border policy that would do away with border control altogether? Yes, I think there are definite downsides to that.
Like almost all other Democrats, I think it’s reasonable and desirable to have and enforce rules about who can and cannot enter a country. But I think that needs to be combined with rational recognition that the vast majority of people who enter a country, even those who enter it illegally, aren’t actually trying to do anything bad, and we don’t accomplish anything useful by pretending that they are.
How do you enforce the rules? What does that look like?
It looks like border controls and detention and deportation of (most) entrants who illegally elude the controls. Like we have now, but with a more sensible and effectual policy that doesn’t waste time and money on unnecessary criminal-justice proceedings when the goal is just to sort out and remove the people who have no justification for being here.
:dubious: Is this an elephantinely subtle attempt on your part at a Socratic argument hoping to ultimately demonstrate that we actually need to legally mandate criminal-justice proceedings against illegal border crossings? Because if so, you can give up now: it’s a bullshit argument, as you’d know if you actually read the discussions and cites in the preceding part of the thread.
Once again, the idea that a rule against illegal activity necessarily requires criminalizing the activity in order to be effectively enforced is nonsense. For example, many forms of building code violation are similarly illegal but not criminal. We still enforce building codes by requiring building permits, inspecting for compliance, and issuing citations and fines to violators.
Seriously? You post the following: “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,” and follow up with a crack about being “just sick and tired of the underlying dishonesty about it”; and then you breeze back in with this, with nothing else in between?
Put yourself in my shoes “for a second” and ask how you’d react.
I mean, yeah, I’ll of course give you the benefit of the doubt and answer you in good faith, because, well, I’m honest and obliging, is all — and I’ll do it by noting that it’s not all that hard for a Democrat to appeal to me; I’m pro-choice, I’m in favor of gay rights, I’m a big fan of marijuana legalization; there are plenty of issues I look at; if those three aren’t enough for you, you can of course ask me about three more and I can of course shrug and tell you where I happen to stand.
Correct me if I’m wrong: did Clinton support decriminalization? And: do various of the current Democratic candidates?
For the record, that was me quoting, word-for-word, a poster in this thread describing my position as “glaringly, monumentally, blatantly stupid”. I still marvel at the fact that this discussion is taking place in the Pit instead of in Elections, but so long as it’s here I’m just trying to obligingly follow suit.
Uh, okay: if illegal border crossings are decriminalized, then people can note that folks who’ve illegally crossed the border have thereby committed no crime. They can argue that we, as a society, clearly don’t take that sort of thing seriously enough to treat it as a crime: that we asked ourselves how serious it is for someone to enter our country without our permission, and we decided “well, it’s not serious enough for us to treat it as a criminal matter.” And why are we talking about deporting folks who committed no crime by doing stuff we don’t see as meriting criminal punishment?
I do see it as meriting criminal punishment. I see our ability to grant or withhold permission with regard to crossing our borders as a matter at least as serious as the stuff of criminal offenses. If we aren’t going to take illegal border crossings that seriously, if right at the outset we’re automatically taking even the possibility of criminal punishment off the table, then that’s what it means to say “no” to people who then enter our country anyway: that, hey, disregarding our sovereignty isn’t something we treat as seriously as a misdemeanor; the question of who controls a given territory isn’t that big a deal.
This, here, is what concerns me: you refer to them as “these innocent people” by glossing over the crime: saying they “haven’t done anything (else) wrong”. If you’re already this close to arguing against kicking them out — by treating their offense as a mere parenthetical — then I sure as hell don’t want that weakened any further beyond parenthetical. I want our ability to grant or withhold that permission treated seriously, and you already seem nowhere near “seriously”.
Are you implying that deportation is or should be considered a criminal punishment?
I ask in part out of a genuine want to understand you, and in part to seek validation (I think deportation should be considered a criminal punishment).
~Max
They can, but as others showed, that is what Republicans would like you or the ones that ignorantly note that to believe. Republicans are using very stupid arguments as the use of the criminal statutes were used before by Democratic presidents, and they will continue to be used in the future, it is just that it should not have been used against refugees or to separate families, drop on dreamers, and other many etc’s that show the gross exclusion of the middle that you are relying on.
We are then discussing why inhumane results of using the law in extreme ways by the Trump administration should be a reason for giving him support.
And people that eventually get legal residency thanks to reforms are not likely to become criminals.
I’m not trying to imply that; after all, while I think what they’re doing is and ought to be classed as a crime, I’ll of course still want to be able to deport folks who illegally cross the border even if — heaven forbid — decriminalization ensues.
And, to add to that, let me run for a moment with the most-overused analogy in this debate: as I understand it, if someone is trespassing on my property, that can lead to criminal punishment for them — and I’m glad of that, I like that society takes that so seriously as to put criminal charges on the table for that sort of thing.
But the fact that — regardless of whether the trespasser also winds up getting fined or locked up or whatever — he does get, y’know, escorted right back off my property? Is that, strictly speaking, a punishment?
Again, I applaud you for your honesty, for your willingness to post unpopular views, and for remaining polite and calm as you do so. Since this is a thread I started, I apologize for any insults directed at you.
N.B.: The above applause is sincere, not some satirical “schtick.” And comes from someone who remains severely disappointed that anyone would want to vote for Trump.
I still recommend that YOU start a thread in IMHO or Politics, perhaps titled “Ask me why I’d vote Trump over Warren.”
Obviously you’d be the one to start that new thread. One of us isn’t going to start “Ask TOWP why he’d vote Trump over Warren.” 
I’ve lost track. Between all of the “you said this” and the “I didn’t say that, you said that” I can’t tell who actually holds a position at this point.
I would like to know if anyone here would actually vote for Trump over Warren. That’s some stupid right there.
In the interest of finally, and for the first time perhaps, trying to understand how someone who claims to have voted for Obama (and Hillary, in this case), is seriously considering voting for Trump, I concede that I should not have been so outright hostile to your responses. Thus, I offer you my apology for not giving you sufficient opportunity to explain your reasoning.
It’s my understanding that immigration policy, specifically ensuring that illegal border crossing should be maintained as a criminal offense, is your key metric in evaluating who you will vote for in the 2020 election. I’m actually sympathetic to this issue. I think leaving the law as it currently stands is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as child separation and detentions under reported conditions are never permitted to happen again. Additionally, I can even see your point about the Dem candidates raising their hands to the decriminalization question at the debate. It was not a brilliant moment to a complex and nuanced issue. They should all have had the sense to call it out as such and not pander. What I think they were doing is to draw a stark contrast between themselves and Trump. But the optics didn’t really work out as well as they hoped.
Anyway, I hoped I’ve cleared the air sufficiently to ask you to reconsider addressing the issue I’ve yet to understand, which is: How is it that an intelligent poster like you can look at the totality of Trump’s actions and character flaws, and still consider voting for him based on the single issue of immigration, especially given your history of having voted for politicians who are so diametrically opposed in virtually every way (Obama, HRC)? Would you risk the furtherance of corruption, incompetence, bigotry and risks to America’s interests worldwide, including national security, in the hope that Trump’s policies on immigration will continue to line up with yours and that they are, in fact, effective, and not draconian and demonstrably cruel? Is there nothing more important to you, as an American, than immigration policy?
A couple of things to keep in mind here, the context of that was indeed the separation of families, what was going on with the Dreamers, and refugees being treated like criminals. It was also clear that it was pointing at an specific statute. Where I do agree is that the optics were bad, but it was not the choice of the candidates, but the questioner/moderator.
The other thing was that Trump then backed down or the courts intervened, so while the optics was bad, most were correct on protesting what was/is going on with the current administration.
There is that, and even on the current matter at hand one item should not be missed: TOWP did clarify about the shooting, but at the same time he never clarified if he still thinks that guys like me should be considered criminals. Also, while he did not say that he was in favor of shooting the undocumented, the reports did mention that staffers had to convince Trump that shooting at them was illegal. And TOWP is still thinking about who to vote for…
That, IMHO, should trump any bad “optics” that anyone is still hanging at the sight of candidates protesting with reason the exaggerated use of a criminal statute by Trump. A vote for Trump now is only a signal for him and his staff to find ways to deal with what he calls an infestation, dehumanizing immigrants in a way that justifies not only shootings but other ways to remove and eliminate what he sees as a sub human enemy.
I post the following, but still hope not to discourage our solitary Trump defender.
No matter how strongly someone (I or other) might want to see better enforcement of immigration violations(*), I would still find it extremely difficult to condone the relevant practices of Donald J. Trump: can one remain unperturbed by examples from GIGObuster’s post?
(* - BTW, was the Obama-Biden Administration noted for better immigration enforcement than Bush, or do I recall incorrectly?)
Fuck Trump, and fuck all the America hating freedom hating Putin loving fools and traitors who still support him.
Yes. A vote for Trump now, is a vote for everything that is wrong with this country. There is NO excuse this time either. Y’all can’t hide behind any “I didn’t know better” or “but he promised” lies.
So since we know Trumpies will and should be subjected to tons of abuse, here’s a preemptive “fuck you and fuck your feelings” in advance.
But I’m not arguing against kicking them out - that’s a persistent misunderstanding on your part.
The error on my part, I suppose, is imagining that your “it’s gotta be a full-on crime, seriously!” makes a lick of logical sense. Because seriously, we already plan to deport the people who we decide don’t belong here. I’m not opposed to deportation and nether are the democratic politicians. So, if everybody agrees that we can keep using civil procedures to deport people, what the hell is the goddamn point of dragging it into the realm of criminal court?
I can think of only three possibilities.
- You want to leverage the label of “criminal” to justify abuse and atrocities.
- You think that being put through the legal system will hold the lawmen to a higher standard and level of scrutiny and stop atrocities.
- You’re fundamentally confused about what effects decriminalization would have.
Do you feel that any of these describe you? If not, what do you think the point of keeping it criminal is?