All of American history is about immigrants entering territories without permission, or on false pretenses. Here are the original inhabitants of your continent on the left, fleeing the tide of European invasion.
How in the world would this be better than just arresting and deporting them, with a side of asylum-request opportunities for those who are refugees legally entitled to asylum?
That is the process that Democratic politicians are advocating and implementing. No mainstream Democratic politician is saying that we shouldn’t do our best to enforce reasonable immigration laws and humanely deport undocumented immigrants who don’t have a good case for being allowed to stay. All we Democrats are saying is that we as a nation shouldn’t be straight-up murdering undocumented immigrants before we figure out by due process which ones are okay to come in.
There is nothing about your sadistic/paranoid fantasies of mowing down desperate people with indiscriminately applied “lethal force” that would in any way improve the border-security procedures we have at present. However imperfectly constructed and implemented the present procedures admittedly may be.
Sheesh, dude. It’s breaking the law for pedestrians to cross the street against the traffic lights, too. Do you likewise advocate for posting anti-jaywalking snipers on city buildings so that they can stop those lawbreakers with “lethal force”? Are you likewise upset with Democratic politicians because they’re not doing that?
I’d say the comparison to jaywalkers is inapt. I’d say the comparison — well, no; not comparison; the thing itself — is summed up here: “A majority of Americans see an ‘invasion’ at the southern border, NPR poll finds”. And I, as it happens, agree with the majority on this one.
You say that we, as, a nation, shouldn’t be straight-up murdering undocumented immigrants before we figure out by due process which ones are okay to come in; I say, make it clear to them that they can apply to come in via a legitimate process, or that they can follow the example of invaders who’ve shown up at the border and gotten killed upon disregarding the equivalent of a warning shot — and that we recommend the former, but that it’s their choice if they want to choose Option B — and if they decide to enter the Do Not Enter Or You Will Be Shot area, shrug with indifference and honor their choice.
And if children die avoidably in the process (which has already happened, IIRC), sociopaths like yourself will shrug and honor that choice. You’ve made your personal moral character quite clear here.
Quite. And I would, in turn, advise adults not to so cross the border, and I would sure as heck advise them not to bring children along while they’re doing it. And if they do choose to bring a child along, I’ll say, well, you’ve made your personal moral character quite clear, here.
If you make a serious attempt to seek out every potential adult, personally, who might make this decision, and ensure they have this information, rather than relying on conduits that appear very unlikely to reach everyone, then I will reevaluate my assessment of your character. Otherwise, it’s clear you don’t actually care.
What’s it like being so indifferent to the avoidable deaths of children? For sociopaths, presumably it’s nothing at all.
@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper Let’s try this. Currently it’s against the law in both the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China for a citizen of the former to leave North Korea without permission from both NK and the PRC. Those people fleeing NK are seeking asylum, but since China refuses to even consider granting that status to them, the asylum seekers must continue to another country, all the while hiding from the Chinese authorities. If the Chinese authorities do catch the NK asylum seekers, the seekers are returned to NK to face horrific punishment, something they likely were fleeing from in the first place.
You agree with the PRC and DPRK governments on how to treat such persons, right?
I don’t believe so. “China refuses to even consider granting that status to them,” you say? No, I don’t agree with doing that.
Hypothetically, if you were in uniform manning an official guard tower with a rifle, would you take the shot yourself?
Of course; it’d be pretty damned hypocritical of me to ask someone else to do it if I were unwilling to do it myself.
Avoiding hypocrisy in the service of murdering children is not the virtue you seem to think it is.
In other words, you think the comparison to jaywalkers is “inapt” just because of the strength of popular feeling on the issue? If Republican politicians were ginning up hysteria and paranoia about jaywalkers to a similar extent that they are about undocumented immigrants, then you’d be okay with anti-jaywalking snipers using “lethal force”?
Dude, I really think it’s part of your responsibility as a citizen to limit your indiscriminate-massacre fantasies to recreational virtual environments such as FPS games.
As human beings and as a civilized nation, we simply cannot treat the United States border as a “Do Not Enter Or You Will Be Shot area”.
“Do Not Enter Without Appropriate Authorization Or Justification Or Else You Will Most Likely Be Apprehended And Arrested And Probably Subject to Deportation”, sure. It’s entirely reasonable for civilized nations to enact and enforce reasonable and humane restrictions on entry.
But just shooting people for attempting unauthorized border crossing? No.
It’s obvious that on some level even you and your fellow massacre-advocates do recognize how indefensible such a policy would be, because you keep trying to (falsely) reframe the situation in terms of military attack. Somebody who insists on referring to ordinary undocumented immigrants, who are trying to cross a national border in search of employment and/or fleeing from danger, as “invaders” committing an “invasion” is wilfully disregarding reality.
Maybe an analogous situation in another current crisis will help you regain a more realistic perspective on the difference between “invaders” and “illegal border crossers”:
Here are some invaders illegally crossing the Russian border in order to invade Ukraine.
Note the presence in the latter group of tanks, artillery, and other military hardware characteristic of actual invasion attempts, which is absent from the activities of the illegal border crossers in the former group. Does that help clarify the distinction?
Out of curiosity - if you think razor wire that can drown is a valid deterrent that you support, how far would you go? Surely a torturous death would be an even more effective deterrent - would you support, say, skinning alive those who choose to cross, as long as there are signs to notify them of this possibility? How about sending drones and kill squads to execute their families? That would be an even more effective deterrent, wouldn’t it? Would you support that? If not, why not?
No, I said — as you quoted me saying — that, as it happens, I agree with the majority. I didn’t reach my conclusion because a majority agrees with it; I reached that conclusion, and then noticed that a majority agrees.
I would say you’re incorrect about the first, and would say that we have the option of going with the second or the first or something else entirely. I’d say it’s our call as to whether we think we can get the job done sufficiently with the second, or whether we should try something else.
No. If it were that simple, an invader could simply foil all of our efforts by showing up at the border with no such large hardware when entering without permission.
The border wall of TOWP’s dreams,
I’d say no, because, to me, the deterrent effect isn’t the point; the deterrent is secondary. The point is to stop the person from illegally crossing the border, which could be done by simply killing them with no warning — but, I’m saying, offer the warning, in hopes of stopping that person by letting them know that they’re about to choose to walk into a Will Get Stopped situation.
There’s no reason to torture them by skinning them alive, or to hunt down and kill yet other people: the point is stopping this person right there, which we can do right then — and if that then deters others, which I figure it would, then that’s a positive; but it’s not the goal.
But you could keep the razor wire, and add the other options as additional deterrents if they cross successfully but are later caught. Why wouldn’t you be in favor of that?
!!!
Oh, come on, troll. Do you seriously expect other posters to believe that you seriously think we as a nation are obliged to treat illegal border crossers like military invaders, because otherwise we might get fooled by military invaders pretending to be just illegal border crossers?! Who just happen to be showing up in suspiciously large and well-organized although mysteriously weaponless groups?
Ha ha, very funny. Well, the one silver lining about being fooled by a troll is that it tends to stick in the memory, so you know not to pay serious attention to what they say in future.
If the U.S. had torpedoed the M.S. St. Louis then Canada might not have been invaded by the refuges passengers invaders on the Hikawa Maru.
AmIright TOWP?
Fortunately the board doesn’t moderate based on content, so we get to be subjected to these fantasies of mass child murder. Board policy has never been stronger.