Prioritize the greater threat.
Yes, but you are saying they did something illegal, when they haven’t had their day in court… the Biden Administration isn’t doing that. His administration is doing the opposite of that, changing the way we refer to these people to reflect the government’s required position, that they are simply accused, suspected of having done something illegally.
We aren’t supposed to punish people who haven’t had their day in court. We’re not supposed to put them in prison, separate them from their families, drive them to a far off land and drop them off on the sidewalk with no home or job. We’re not supposed to drown them or deny them water in the desert, or make them crawl over razor wire.
But we do that, even when we know (as you know) the enormous majority of them aren’t hurting anyone by being here, they’re not making Americans unemployed, they’re not failing to contribute to taxes, they’re doing productive work. Huge swaths of this country want to hurt them for the sake of hurting them.
WOW!
You are an absolute vile piece of shit! Anyone that places such a great value on the luck of where you are born is categorized the same. Any so called religious person such as “Christians” that hold this view are also what is wrong with this world.
Cite? I thought that unauthorized immigrants are noncitizens who generally have entered the United States without inspection, overstayed a period of lawful admission, or violated the terms of their admission — and that the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States is sometimes referred to as undocumented migrants, illegal migrants, or aliens in immigration law. You know, such that the wording doesn’t matter; the same illegality is being referenced even when the word “undocumented” is being used.
Me. (that is “what”)
As usual, you ignore not only history that shows how ignorant you are, but that you are such an idiot that you continue to fear that what Reagan did was to help me, and many others, become productive citizens of the US.
Citizens that are willing to pay taxes, so you will get Social Security and other help when you get old.
You are welcome, you Wanker.
Even if you will continue to deny that Reagan did make the right call.
And really, it is you the one that knows better already, but never mind that, uh? Just continue to show others who is the willful ignorant here. That is not my problem but yours.
Hold on. Placing razor wire on the border isn’t punishment. At least not in the conventional sense of the word. And deportation isn’t technically allowed without a hearing. Even detaining people on suspicion of illegal entry, they have to have a hearing within 48 hrs.
I was following you until this point.
P.S. the Biden administration promulgated rules effective this March which generally create a presumption of ineligibility for asylum for anybody crossing through Mexico. CFR 208.33, Reuters story.
~Max
Oh, this should be good…
In what way, pray tell, is being caught in razor wire not a punishment?
What "legal fiction? Until you are actually convicted you are, if fact, not guilty of anything.
The fiction is that your presumption has even the slightest weight in reality.
In what way, pray tell, is setting up a device that you now know is lethal not the crime of setting a ‘mantrap’?
Of course this is Texas we’re talking about. A place where human life isn’t exactly valued above things like property.
I knew Max_Shit wouldn’t be able to resist the temptation forever.
So which ones do you hate?
What is the crime, specifically, for being undocumented? Please cite. I reject your premise that “undocumented” implies criminal behavior.
Oh, that’s just silly. If you weren’t arguing a point in this thread, you’d of course have no trouble understanding someone who says “I committed the crime, but they haven’t convicted me yet.” The whole point of saying “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” is that it’s a perfectly intelligible proposition — much like saying that someone got away with murder by explaining that he was presumed innocent in court regardless of whether he was in fact guilty, and then adding that he was in fact guilty.
But which one are guilty? How many? And how do you know?
And millions of the accused are children. Are all or most of these children criminals? Do they deserve to be called “illegal…”? If you don’t consider them criminals, do you still consider them “illegal aliens”? If so, how does it work that one can be an “illegal alien” without having committed any crime?
is the act of killing someone always the crime of murder?
Your reading comprehension needs work, as that’s not my premise; the opposite has already been pointed out, repeatedly, by me, after a link was provided upthread by another poster, which helpfully specified the following:
“Under federal law, it is a crime for anyone to enter into the US without the approval of an immigration officer – it’s a misdemeanor offense that carries fines and no more than six months in prison. Many foreign nationals, however, enter the country legally every day on valid work or travel visas, and end up overstaying for a variety of reasons. But that’s not a violation of federal criminal law – it’s a civil violation that gets handled in immigration court proceedings.”
And: “The penalty for this type of violation of immigration law is deportation, and according to the ACLU, “civil removal proceedings far outnumber criminal prosecutions and remain the primary manner in which the federal authorities enforce the immigration laws.”
And, it of course goes on to conclude: “although there are more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the US, they haven’t all committed a crime just by being in the country.”
No. Is it a perfectly intelligible proposition that a given killing was a murder committed in fact by a guy who was found not guilty in court?
If the state cannot present sufficient evidence to justify a conviction then, by definition, a murder did not occur.
I’m curious: imagine Guy A gets killed by Guy B — who gets found not guilty of murder in court, and then gets sued for wrongful-death civil damages by Guy C. Your point, of course, would be that not every killing, and not every wrongful death is murder, which is correct; but imagine, too, that C refers to B as a murderer, and describes what B did to A as murder, and so on. And, heck, imagine too that C wins that civil suit by blandly asserting the same fact pattern that was at issue in B’s murder trial.
So long as we’re imagining, could B then sue C for slander, only to lose when C points out that, er, no, I’m just telling the truth; you in fact murdered him, see? Would that, again, be a perfectly intelligible series of events?
So no crime, specifically, then. Rather, case by case, and many of them probably have not committed crimes. It’s good that you appear to acknowledge this, though it further weakens your justification for including them all in the “illegal…” category when many haven’t committed any crimes at all.
And millions of the accused are children. Are all or most of these children criminals? Do they deserve to be called “illegal…”? If you don’t consider them criminals, do you still consider them “illegal aliens”? If so, how does it work that one can be an “illegal alien” without having committed any crime?
I’m not following you down this stupid rabbit hole.