But all these things are a pale, insignificant second to whether a person can be called a “criminal” before we throw them out?
And we can reply to such muddle-headed people that on the contrary, it’s perfectly possible for us as a society to take illegal behavior very seriously without criminalizing it.
Building code violations, as I mentioned earlier, are an example of serious illegal behavior that can get people killed, which we handle as a civil offense with citations and fines, rather than with criminal proceedings. Does that imply that “we, as a society, clearly don’t take that sort of thing seriously”? Of course not.
It’s possible for reasonable people to disagree on the issue of whether illegal border crossing ought to be a criminal offense. What’s not really possible for reasonable people to disagree on is the ridiculous proposition that an intelligent mainstream Democratic candidate who holds a different position from you on that issue thereby becomes a worse choice for POTUS than Donald fucking Trump.
Especially when you consider just how ineffective, counterproductive, impracticable, arbitrary and abuse-prone our current system of criminal proceedings for illegal border crossers is. You’re expecting us to take seriously the proposition that a Democrat who has the common sense to argue against this profoundly stupid and unworkable system somehow becomes worse than Trump. To which the only sensible reply is, once again: Fuck off, troll.
Aw. 
~Max
FWIW I don’t think your analogy holds when said person is fleeing violence or persecution and happens to land on your doorstep, neither do I think it holds if that person has been de facto living on your property and thinking they were doing so rightfully for most of their life. I would say you are within your rights to demand rent or back-rent, but forcibly ejecting them on the spot crosses the line into punishment, IMO.
ETA: Certainly, forcibly holding them in confinement until you decide whether to remove them from your property counts as punishment though…
~Max
Dear mods,
While you’re not banning Jim Peebles can you also please not ban EasyPhil?
The board needs some kind of comedy routine.
So, is this to be the default “Let’s defend Trump” thread?
If so, here’s a musical homage to Trump that just appeared in my Facebook feed.
You started this conversation in the Pit. Of course it’s happening here! You hijacked a thread to tell us all about how you are likely to vote for Trump over a particular immigration issue.
I guess that’s an argument, but it’s not a good one. Your argument is that, if decriminalize illegal immigration, some people will make a stupid argument that we should also legalize it. The counterargument is easy: We clearly did think it was important enough to make illegal. There is no reason to assume it would be a slippery slope.
Plus “not taking things seriously” is a lousy way to argue about policy. To argue policy, you need to argue the harm vs. the benefits. You might also throw in some issues of morality. I cannot think of any policy that has been enacted based on the idea that people didn’t take something seriously.
But, more importantly, none of this explains why this is such a priority for you. Apparently this one issue is more harmful that every other horrible thing Trump is, has done, and will do. Trump was so obviously awful to you in 2016 that you didn’t even have to explain it–you just said “look at Clinton’s competition.”
And none of this explains why borders are so important. You talk about sovereignty, but sovereignty in a democracy is just the ability to vote for one’s government. The idea is that the people are sovereign because we control who is in charge of us. That doesn’t change because hard up people cross a line.
You have just taken it back a step, back to what I said you needed to argue–why are borders so important? What is their purpose? What harm is caused when people cross those borders?
You keep going on about how this thing is obviously wrong and obviously so wrong that it dwarfs everything else. But you haven’t made a case for that. Not even the most people I know who hate illegal immigration the most argue it’s the single most important issue, and that nothing else matters.
And let me be more clear about what I’m saying you need. This is a policy argument. So you need to argue the harm that is caused versus any benefits. You need to show how that harm is a greater threat than Trump continuing in office.
You also need to argue why you couldn’t just vote for a Democrat as president, but vote for a congressional representative who would not pass this change. Illegal immigration is a crime under the law, so only Congress could change that law.
Far more likely, the starting position of the president would be decriminalization, but the result would be reducing the abuses that are used now, adding more restrictions. Or, well, a big nothing burger because so little ever happens on immigration law. Our immigration law has been fucked up for years.
If you can’t do it, then I would suggest you question whether or not your belief that this is the most important issue does not stand up to scrutiny, and that you should change it.
By all means, see decriminalization of illegal immigration as the wrong choice, and work against it. But I cannot even imagine a reason why it would be the most important thing for someone who thinks Trump is otherwise awful.
@The Other Waldo Pepper: Is it still your position that while women’s reproductive health (abortion) rights, gay (LGBTQ, I assume?) rights, and plenty of other (progressive/left, I assume) issues are important to you, they are not AS important as maintaining stamding criminal laws against illegal border crossing? Furthermore, is it still your position that Trump’s approach to illegal immigration has been so effective that you would be willing to forgo all the other progressive issues you outlined - issues Trump is demonstrably against - in order to ensure that immigration policies continue to be enforced in the manner they have been under this administration?
How do you reconcile and rationalize sacrificing one set of principles over the other, especially given your prior voting history for Obama and HRC?
I understand how difficult it must be to argue for a pro Trump position on this message board and I appreciate your willingness, as a long time member, to provide better insight than prior drive-by attempts from less well thought out posters.
Dammit! You forgot the death panels and the FEMA camps. You FAIL! 
What’s up with these newcomers?
You’re completely useless as a poster except for the comedy. If you want to be otherwise, then maybe considering upping the quality of your posts. It is the only reason I’ve not put you on ignore. You’re hilarious. Not quite Silver Lining levels of funny, but Silver Lining could be funny on multiple topics.
Oh BeepKillBeep, you hurt my poor little feelings.
…aaaaand, BANNED.
Fuck your poor little feelings, slEasyPhil.
Since you put it that way at the end, let me answer your question with a question: why, when I’ve been talking about decriminalization, have folks in this thread been so quick to draw a distinction between it and open borders?
I didn’t bring it up — and I’m not mistaking one for the other — but, for some reason, posters in this thread keep wanting to emphasize that one isn’t the other; that they support the former, but not the latter.
I’m curious: what if this were a debate about open borders?
Again, I realize it isn’t; but, in light of that last sentence of yours in that quote there: what if, when you asked about the importance of immigration policy, the options were Open-Borders-Candidate versus Trump?
If your answer is that open borders wouldn’t be all that bad, and so you’d still vote against Trump, then I fear we’re too far apart for the actual discussion to be useful. But possibly there’s a reason beyond mere accuracy why folks keep stressing that oh, no, no, this isn’t about open borders, this isn’t tantamount to open borders, surely you must be mistaking this for open borders: because it actually would be so awful a prospect, so ruinous to the country, that a candidate who gets something so big so wrong should spark a long talk about the lesser of two evils — because it’d ultimately make their other policy positions pretty much irrelevant, because there pretty much wouldn’t be a country left.
That’s how important immigration policy is to me.
If that is why the distinction keeps getting drawn, then let me now return to the actual point under discussion: I could be convinced to vote against Trump, if he runs against someone who generally agrees about the goal but who disagrees with him about best to accomplish it — and who agrees that illegally crossing the border is serious enough to count as a crime, but who disagrees about how often prosecution is the most sensible way to proceed.
But if one candidate takes it seriously enough to say that criminal prosecution should be on the table, because it matters that much — and the other says, er, no, don’t be silly, it’s not even the least of misdemeanors? Try as I might, I can’t bring myself to give the latter candidate the benefit of the doubt.
I’d have the same concern about various posters in this thread. Take begbert2:
I can’t give begbert2 the benefit of the doubt on kicking those people out. Were begbert2 a presidential candidate who declared for decriminalization but claimed to be against open borders — who claimed, even, to be on the same page as me when it comes to deporting folks who’ve crossed the border illegally — I’d say to myself, well, possibly that’s true; maybe this is someone I could vote for…
…but framing it in terms of kicking out specifically innocent people who haven’t done anything (else) wrong? No, that’s not someone I trust on this; on a spectrum from ‘Open Borders’ to ‘Trump’, I have reason to believe that begbert2 isn’t really on the same page as me at all. Doesn’t see them as having done anything wrong, except maybe as a parenthetical — and jettisons even the parenthetical, when describing it as kicking out “specifically innocent people”.
That’s what begbert2 is thinking when talking about ‘decriminalization’. I don’t know, can’t know, what other folks are thinking when they say it; maybe they take illegal border crossings seriously enough to deport to my heart’s content, but maybe they’re merely pandering to folks like me while thinking like begbert2.
If candidates give me reason to believe they think the way begbert2 does, then I can’t give them the benefit of the doubt. I can’t ignore my concerns, and cast that vote, and if they go all wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, say, oh, yeah, I’d hoped they were serious about the border; but, y’know, gun to my head, I’d have come down on figuring that they weren’t, that they were way too cavalier about it. When they talked readily about decriminalization, I admitted it was possible they were in favor of deportations; but that wasn’t the way I’d have bet.
Instead, the way I’d bet is the way I’ll vote.
(A side point: GIGObuster said I “never clarified if he still thinks that guys like me should be considered criminals.” Which is true; he said he’d crossed the border illegally, and then he added something about amnesty, and I don’t know enough to weigh in on the specifics. In the same vein, if someone flatly told me they illegally dodged the draft, and added that they later got amnesty under President Carter, I’d likewise be in no hurry to weigh in on criminality; the specifics seem to be doing all the work. Which, in turn, I guess brings me to BigT asking “why you couldn’t just vote for a Democrat as president, but vote for a congressional representative who would not pass this change. Illegal immigration is a crime under the law, so only Congress could change that law.” I guess the exact limits of power of the president to hand out amnesty-type stuff is one more item I’d like to err on the side of caution of, instead of shrugging up a benefit of the doubt.)
Thank you for that response, TOWP. On first blush, I think your concerns about “open borders” are unfounded for two reasons:
- There has been no serious Open Borders policy put forward by any Democratic candidate.
- I am not aware of a significant voting base that would support that kind of policy even if it was put forward.
So to a large extent, I believe your fears are unfounded, and I would go even so far as to call them irrational.
Nevertheless, you replied honestly so I want to spend some time considering this subject from your point of view to see if it has merit, specifically as it relates to the following key statement you made:
And good riddance.
Well thanks again for pointing out that you are thinking about supporting Trump by ignoring what he has accused others day in and day out.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/450375-trump-knocks-democrats-on-open-borders
BTW I pointed later that usually the ones that point at immigration when supporting Trump do so because of big lie items like that one (and BTW, items like big lies are part of the reason why people like me are against him), because I said before that ‘I was covering the bases’ and since you clarified that was not it, then going back to it is just useless pap, or as noticed here, just a demonstration that you do not care about big lies will from a candidate when you consider voting for him.
Fair enough; but:
- How well do you think it’s currently polling?
- How well do you think Miss-It-Pretty-Close would poll?
To elaborate on the first: someone who says “hell, yeah, open borders” — roughly how big a percentage of Americans, and how big a percentage of Democrats, do you figure that is?
And on the second: someone who’d say, “oh, no, not open borders; but, of course, decriminalization, plus a path to citizenship for anyone who’s already here and has committed no other crimes. But, hang on; what are we really talking about, here? Deporting someone who’s done nothing (else) wrong, but then got nailed for some petty misdemeanor? Is that justice? And if we’re letting folks who are already here stay, then who are we to kick out significantly similar folks who cross a border next week or next month? Is that fair? But don’t you dare call that Open Borders; no, if I had my way, they’d pay a steep price! A steep price! Make no mistake: I’m talking some nonzero figure! So they can’t cross a border willy-nilly; no, sir, it’s NOT nil! They want to come in, they’ll answer to ME!”
And this is once again insisting that willful ignorance is what will guide you, besides the reality that the context was to stop using the part of the criminal law against refugees or immigrant families there is the reality, willfully ignored, that there is very little chance that a president will change the laws.
More ignorance, because even under Reagan and Bush senior, amnesty was granted to the ones that had to pass several checks, like the cutoff date (and pass a few $ checks to the department of state IIRC to pay for the process, it was not free at all)
BTW I do remember that in one speech from Trump he did mention that even after all what he promised to some illegals would still remain, IIRC he did mention items like, well, those who remain already demonstrated that they had the means (for sure the more wealthy) and reasons to remain in the USA. So they would remain in the USA, meaning that Trump does not care much about your hangup.