Ah, there’s the rub. But those persons are breaking the law on their way to seek asylum, aren’t they? Okay, so you disagree with the PRC government. But you surely agree with the DPRK government’s actions against such seekers, right? After all, they’re DPRK citizens and broke DPRK law, and apparently there’s no mystery in that country what will happen to such law-breakers. So, “yes” or “no”: they have it coming to them?
Because “additional deterrents” isn’t my goal. You’re leading off with them already having been caught; for my purposes, if they’re already been caught, it’s like they’ve already been killed: the goal isn’t to deter them, it isn’t to torture them, it’s to just stop them from being here — and, if we’ve caught them, we can stop them from being here; and, if we shoot them for advancing after they’ve been warned, we can stop them from being here, too; and if people are thereby deterred, that’s great; but that’s not the goal.
You’re gunning them down before they get a chance to apply for asylum.
You don’t HAVE to be, you know. I’m OK with never seeing this guy’s posts again.
Okay. That such actions are unconscionable and beyond inhumane didn’t even play a part in your reasoning further cements your lack of human decency.
hear! hear!
NPR also reports (so as to put into context) that what you believe about immigrants being invaders is that:
The word invasion has a long history in white nationalist circles. For years, it was used widely by supporters of the “replacement theory” — the false conspiracy theory that says Jews or elites are deliberately replacing white Americans with immigrants and people of color. Until recently, you rarely heard it from Republican officeholders or candidates.
Seems that The Other Wanker of Popper, does not see the evidence of how racist (or Republican) is that.
I’m not sure where you got that I didn’t understand that?
This is such a fascinating frame of mind to me. To remind everyone, the crime a person commits by illegally crossing a border is essentially failing to fill out the proper paperwork. That’s the difference between an illegal immigrant and a legal one. If you fill out the paperwork you can get a visa. If you don’t, you can’t. For this most heinous crime, the clear solution is immediate death.
What other paperwork-related crimes might be addressed with immediate death? It’s estimated that 11 million people drive without proper license or registration, ten times as many as enter the country illegally every year. Shooting illegal drivers would certainly discourage this practice, but of course like you said deterrence isn’t the point. The point is killing people who don’t respect the rule of law. I bet a lot of those illegal drivers are also illegal immigrants, that’s two birds with one bullet right there.
For the record, you could walk onto the most secure US military facility and not expect to get shot. Oh, sure, there’s plenty of signs saying you’ll get shot, but unless you’re an obvious immediate danger you’re not going to actually get gunned down. Military sentries have to adhere to rules of engagement. They will go out and arrest you and try to figure out what the fuck your problem is. You’ll probably be charged with some crime but you won’t get immediately killed because there’s nothing so important inside that unauthorized people have to instantly die as soon as they step across the boundary.
It’s possible in the same way that getting a handgun in cities with gun control, or marijuana stamps in states where it was illegal at the state level. Why didn’t people with handguns or weed just fill out the proper paperwork? If they filled out the application, they certainly would have been permitted.
I don’t follow this logic. There is a proper legal process to enter the USA. There is no proper legal process to possess a handgun or marijuana in a location where owning such is illegal. My best guess is you seem to believe I am understating how easy it is to fill out the paperwork required to enter the country legally. Are you aware that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are not people who crossed a border illegally, but people who applied for a temporary visa and then remained after their visa expired?
Legally, or morally?
Legally, it’s trivial to note that it’s slated to happen. Morally, I’d say they don’t deserve it; I’d say that’s a bad law, and I’d say it should be changed.
No, they can apply for asylum at another location. I’m telling them: don’t do it at this location.
If it is an invasion — and, AFAICT, it meets the dictionary definition — then I’m going to conclude that it is. Just as I didn’t reach the conclusion that’s it’s an invasion because a majority of Americans did, I’m not going to abandon it just because anyone else reaches it. I’m going to reach that conclusion, or not, on its own merits, is all.
How does it meet that definition? As far as I can tell, there’s a literal definition, which it does not meet, and a common metaphorical extension of that literal meaning, which it does meet. The metaphorical extension, which it does meet, takes advantage of the strongly negative connotations and other things that are informed by a political position or other interpretive lens. “Invasion” is only accurate if you accept those negative connotations.
Why. The law states people have the right to apply for asylum no matter how they entered the United States. Many would argue this is a human right under natural and international law, but it is also a statutory right under federal immigration law. Shooting aliens on U.S. soil on the basis of unlawful presence alone is not only unconscionable, but also a direct violation of immigration law.
Quote, 8 U.S. Code § 1158 paragraph (a),
“Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.”
I hope this information changes your outlook.
~Max
You are not very bright, are you?
You really make the baby Karl Popper cry.
I don’t think my post #206 was ‘defending the indefensible’. Certainly not for shits and giggles. I responded to iiandyiiii and Cheesesteak’s posts when I personally disagreed with something they wrote. I’ve been giving own opinion.
I’m not white-knighting for The_Other_Waldo_Pepper in this thread.
This was me white-knighting for The_Other_Waldo_Pepper: Trolls R Us Resurrections - #10231 by Max_S
~Max
Now this is pure trolling from you. You’ve asserted that legally certain persons should not even be in the United States and thus it’s permissible to actually fire upon them in their attempt to enter the United States. Legally, certain persons (the entire population of the DPRK, in fact) are required to remain in the DPRK, but when called out on their government’s position, you blather “Oh, that’s a morally bad law and should be changed.” That’s your line in the sand? How can you not see the immorality of your position in this debate regarding migration into the United States?
Picayune semantic arguments about the exact definition of “punish” are exactly that. Especially when they’re fundamentally wrong (seeing as some people were literally pushed back into the wire).
The right thing to do here is to say “I was wrong, it does look like the barbed wire is being used as a punishment. And in any case, I realise now that focusing on arguing the semantics of a single word in a rhetorical statement like that in the BBQ is dumb even if I had been right. Which I was not.”
Not “Well, if they can see a few strands of murder-wire above the water on a bright cloudless day, then they did it to themselves, really…”.
The latter is the tactic of an inhumane asshole. We can see which you chose.
That’s not how the law works, and it obviously is not how the concept of asylum could ever possibly work. The whole point of asylum is that you are fleeing somewhere that is too dangerous to stay.
Asylum seekers 100% come to the country first, then get adjudicated on whether they qualify.