You just read what I just posted. You’re replying to it here. It specified a “violation of immigration law” in the context of the “more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the US”. You don’t actually need to connect the dots from “unauthorized” right back through “violation of immigration law”. You don’t really need to ask these questions. You already have the answers.
Man, I wish I’d thought of that when I was getting asked questions that involved a contrived hypothetical where I was born in Romania and illegally taken into the US by my parents; could’ve maybe saved me a lot of time. Kudos.
This also comes down to the idea that in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they’re not.
In theory, enforcing immigration rules are a good thing, we have rules, they should be followed. In practice, we need to examine what’s being done to enforce those rules.
Like the trespassing example, in theory people have the right to protect their property from intrusion. In practice, if this means a child who goes on to your property to retrieve a wayward frisbee gets a savage beating, we need to re-examine our support of the theory.
WRT the border, when we have someone who comes in and doesn’t have approval to immigrate, what do we do with them? Not, “we enforce the law”… what do we do, how do we treat them? We’ve gotten into the habit of treating these essentially harmless people like walking sacks of garbage. We make their trip into the country deliberately hazardous so that the deaths of immigrants serve as a warning to those planning to come. If enough of them die in the water or in the desert, others will stop coming. We tell them that there are homes and jobs waiting for them when there’s nothing but an empty bus depot at the end of their journey.
Then we complain that there aren’t enough people willing to work low skilled jobs, and change the law so that 16 year olds can work jobs usually reserved for adults.
That doesn’t answer my questions. They’re not complicated. Why are you unwilling to answer them in your own words?
Here, again: 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?
Of course it does. Of course it fucking does. You’re back to wasting my time with play-dumb bad-faith questions that I’m to answer by rehashing what’s already been rehashed.
How does it work, you ask. I’m telling you they’re here in violation of the law. I’m telling you: that’s what “illegal” means. I know you already know that’s how I think it works. You say you reject my premise that “undocumented” implies criminal behavior, and I tell you that, no, that’s not actually my premise — laying out a whole thing about how being unauthorized is a violation of law without being criminal — and then you promptly go into your ‘here, again’ act of asking whether I consider them criminal. You ask how I can consider them illegal aliens right after you see the bit about being unauthorized in terms of being in violation of the law. That’s the illegality — not criminality, illegality — in question. That’s, as you say, how it works.
You had all of this information already. You’ll still have it if you ask again. You’re wasting time by playing dumb. You’re arguing in bad faith. You’re making it obvious.
I’m a humanitarian at heart, but I’m also a firm believer in logic.
From Google: " There is still some uncertainty about the full volume of glaciers and ice caps on Earth, but if all of them were to melt, global sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (approximately 230 feet), flooding every coastal city on the planet."
The brutal fact is that accepting an unlimited number of refugees over an indefinite amount of time is not sustainable. It is not a solution; it is a stop gap measure. Not only does it create severe stress on our infrastructure, it also creates social instability.
We’re early on in this process, and the social backlash is already creating problems. On ABC7 news last night, it was announced that a facility designated for refugees has been canceled out because a number of programs serving the community would have been lost along with the loss of the facility. As the number of refugees increases and the need for more and more space and services increases, the situation is only going to get worse.
Who is unauthorized, specifically? How do you know? What is the illegality, specifically? How is this determined, specifically?
Also, which ones do you hate? Are any children included in the ones you hate?
I’m asking because I want to know your own thoughts, not the definitions of others. I want to know how hateful bigots justify and rationalize their hatefulness and bigotry in their own minds.
You know, the quote from that bit on CNN — again, via the link that someone else in this thread helpfully posted — crisply states that “there are more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the US,* when referencing the “penalty for this type of violation of immigration law”. When you ask how I know, and I’ve already pointed at what I take to be a reliable cite, I’m genuinely not sure what more you want: for me to point at a second cite? For me to point at the first one again?
Heck, I pointed you to that Pew bit, which specifies that “The U.S. unauthorized immigrant population rose rapidly from 1990 to 2007 before declining sharply for two years and stabilizing at 10.5 million in 2017” — and I take that to be a valid cite, such that you should be asking them these Who Is Unauthorized Specifically questions. I quoted Obama as noting a point in time when “we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America” — and I took his claim seriously, such that you should be questioning him about Who Specifically, I suppose. And I showed you the bit at whiehouse.gov mentioning “the nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants” hereabouts under the current administration — and I take no issue with that, and can only wonder why you don’t ask them your Who Specifically questions.
And, since none of that seemed to satisfy you, shucks, I guess I could’ve just asked you to take a look at a footnoted Wikipedia entry that casually mentions “The illegal immigrant population of the United States peaked by 2007, when it was at 12.2 million and 4% of the total U.S. population.” Because, well, once I tell you I see no problem with that cite either, I’d figure you could ask the folks there the What Specifically questions.
But the point is: it’s all over the place. If you ask me how many such people there are, and I shrug and go looking at CNN and whitehouse.gov and Pew and Wiki and so on, that’s all I can point you at. How did the Biden Administration reach that determination? How did Obama? Ask them, not me.
Shit, if you asked me how many people there are in this country — or people over sixty, or people under sixty; or vegetarians, or whatever — what else could I do but point at what I take to be reliable cites from the White House on down, with them being the ones to field questions about Who Are They and How Did You Determine That?
Sure, you could say that that’s a dodge and a sidestep and so on; but if you asked me about people over sixty or under sixty or whatever, that’s what I’d do. I wouldn’t determine it; I’d go looking for what I took to be a reliable cite — from people to whom you could, if you wanted, put your Who and How Determine questions — because, well, that’s pretty danged reasonable, isn’t it?
I don’t believe any children are included. Since I’ve gone on and on about the difference between illegality and criminality — with little indication that you’re getting it, which makes me wonder whether you’ll follow this next bit — I guess we could make a start of it by ratcheting things up even more: how about those who take it a step further, into felony territory? I think I can describe what I feel for some of them as “hatred” without extending it to those who limit themselves to illegality short of criminality.
Doesn’t it reduce the stress on the infrastructure in the countries they are leaving. Isn’t the U.S. better able to absorb a few million people than the areas they come from?
It seems like a win-win if we let more in.
Then make your case, and have us put it to a vote: we’ll decide who gets permission, and who doesn’t — because that’s our call to make, and not theirs. Fair enough?
I don’t think anyone is arguing against changing the law to allow more legal immigration. It’s certainly more humane for the immigrants. Your point, as I understand it, is that until the law is changed, the current law should be severely enforced. There is some comfort in a world where all lines are black and white, and people driving 66 mph on the interstate are hauled off to prison. I prefer a more nuanced approach, trying to tailor the consequences to the harm.
Maybe I live too far north, but other than the suffering of the immigrants (which seems tragic and significant), I don’t see a “crisis” for the rest of us caused by illegal border crossings.
It’s the hatred I want to dig into. What is enough to warrant your hatred? Is it being categorized by Pew, or Wikipedia, or a certain government website, as being an undocumented immigrant? Is it another source? Is it a certain action taken, and do personal circumstances come into play?
Which migrants do you hate, which ones do you think deserve death by drowning, which ones have lives that matter less to you than citizens?
Except perhaps when directed towards genocidal killers, rapists, and those few other real monsters, hatred is a terrible and even dangerous emotion to feel towards other humans, and I’m interested in how someone can feel hatred for others who are, by and large, just trying to escape from awful circumstances to protect and feed their families, without hurting anyone else.
Ah, you’re back to putting on the playing-dumb act. I write out a whole thing for you explaining “the difference between illegality and criminality” — specifying that merely being an undocumented immigrant involves the former, and not the latter — and I close by mentioning that the hatred doesn’t extend to those who limit themselves to illegality short of criminality. And your reply is to ask whether being an undocumented immigrant warrants it.
And, well, that’s too dumb a reply from you.
It’s just not plausible.
If I told you I wanted you to hand me dimes but not pennies, and you replied by asking whether I wanted you to hand me pennies, the other posters in this thread would note that you’re overplaying your part. If I told you I’m more than five feet tall but less than ten feet tall, and you replied by asking whether I’m more than ten feet tall, the other posters in this thread would note that you can’t possibly be that stupid. But because you’re playing dumb about this subject, nobody else here is saying a word about how you’re clearly asking about stuff that’s already been answered, that just got answered, that got answered in the very post you replied to.
You can do better. You don’t have to ask the very question that just got answered; what the heck is my incentive to give you that same answer again right when you’re putting on a show of failing to see it while it’s already there? What the heck is my incentive to answer any of your questions when you’re playing the part of Guy Who Is Establishing, Right Now, That He Can’t Read The Answer To The Question He’s Asking?
Switch up your act; you’re not worth taking seriously like this.
Really trying to piece your posts together. Are you saying that, if someone enters the US without the approval of an immigration officer, you hate them, but if they overstay a work or travel visa, you don’t hate them?
I think I’ve gotten as far as I can. It’s clear his views on immigration are driven by hatred. He even admits the hatred, at least partially, but refuses to actually delve into the specifics of that hatred.
Hatred of immigrants is very common - there’s nothing special about this case. Like so many others, Waldo dresses up and rationalizes his hatred, but it’s the same xenophobia that has driven so many human conflicts for thousands of years. It’s sad that Waldo is probably incapable of even considering that he’s just carrying on a sad and harmful tradition of hating the other, but it’s not a new or unusual story.
What, you read the part about “a misdemeanor offense” and you read the part where I talked about going “a step further, into felony territory”, and you pieced together — that I was talking about the misdemeanor offense?