Oh, Major…
So, the first time that someone trespasses on your property in order to escape from their house fire, you would be nice enough to warn them that if they do it again, then you shoot them dead.
They are trying to escape from an intolerable situation. They aren’t coming for shits and giggles, they are coming in order to not be killed or tortured, or see their children kidnapped and pimped out by gangs.
No one is grinning here. Except the xenophobes who get to watch the suffering of others, anyway.
It is notable that you compare a bureaucratic issue to violent crime. Do you really think that they are the same, or do you just think that they should be treated the same? Do you think that jaywalkers should be sentenced to hard labor, what about people that talk in the movie theater?
They are claiming asylum. By international law, by our own law, we should let them in in order to make their claim. We are violating the law by forcing them to cross illegally in order to make the claim.
I’ve never been a fan of slavery period and don’t think the purpose of a criminal justice system should be about getting vengeance for breaking the law, but I’m curious as to whether you can understand the difference between crossing a line on the ground without explicit permission, and rape and murder. It seems as though you really want to equate them for some reason.
I agree that it is a seperate issue. It’s just that I like to point out that the crisis is largely our making in the first place. When people try to say that we should just leave them to rot, or brutalize them if they dare to come here, then it should be reminded that the reason for them coming in the first place is largely on us. We broke it, and demand that they buy it.
Not that an appeal to rationality works any better on xenophobes than an appeal to humanity, but I do see it as just one more reason why we should show compassion to those who seek refuge, rather than hatred.
Right, but since the border was closed to asylum seekers, you have lumped the former in with the latter. When you speak of one group, due to the actions of the republicans, you are speaking of both groups.
Is that something you were unaware of? If so, now you know.
The first time, you would just warn them. The second time, you would sentence them to hard labor.
No, any time they’re doing it to escape a house fire, I’m okay with giving them a pass. And any time they’re doing it just to help themselves to my stuff, after getting fair warning and everything, well, I’d sure like to look into getting them sentenced to hard labor.
Hey, again, I’m happy to grant that some of them are seeking asylum. I just add that some of them are here for — well, you said “shits and giggles,” but I’ll go with ‘something other than asylum’. If you want to discuss what’s to be done about the folks seeking asylum, I’ll have that conversation with you. I also want to discuss what’s to be done with folks who aren’t coming here seeking asylum, and I hope you’ll discuss that, too.
How about this? Like I’d said, if someone isn’t escaping a house fire or whatever, and can maybe even get off with a warning at first, and then gets told in no uncertain terms, hey, if you enter that guy’s house again — or, if you like, if you march into the Capitol again — and then nods and does it again, then, sure, hard labor should be on the table.
Which I guess answers the movie theater question: if they’re within their rights to ask a theatergoer to leave — not a guy escaping a house fire, you understand — and he doesn’t leave, then call in the cops and have him removed, and explain stuff to him; and if he decides to again march back in, let’s start talking about what we should sentence him to.
Some are. Some aren’t. I’m talking about sentencing the latter to hard labor; you don’t need to convince me not to do that to the former, I agree with you about not doing it to the former.
I equate them — and pickpocketing, and mail fraud, and a whole bunch of other stuff — in the sense that I want them to be illegal, and in that I want the option of locking folks up and sentencing them to hard labor in those cases; and I’d sure rather dissuade people from engaging in any of that by letting them know in advance what consequences are on the table — but if they know exactly what criminal sentence they’d be facing, and they mull it over before nodding and going right ahead, then I’ll roll my eyes and say, I really wish you hadn’t accepted that offer.
Er, no, I’m not. If someone shows up and says they’re seeking asylum, I’m all ears; and if they don’t, I’m not. They sure do seem to be separate groups, and I sure don’t see that I’d have to lump one in with the other.
So, whenever a migrant is trying to escape from intolerable conditions within their home country, you’d be okay with giving them a pass?
I think that the overwhelming vast majority are seeking asylum. I think that the rules that we have in place too narrowly restrict asylum, and so there are going to be a substantial number who seek asylum that are turned away for not fulfilling those narrow criteria. They are still seeking asylum, even if we are not willing to give it to them.
If there is a gang that wants to kidnap your 7 year old daughter and pimp her out, and threatens to kill you and your family if you do not, then that doesn’t actually meet the criteria that we have put in place to gain asylum. Do you think that, because they do not meet those criteria, they are actually just here for shits and giggles? Would you put a family into slavery because they are fleeing for their lives?
To turn the focus away from those to those few who may have nefarious motives is to ignore the problem entirely. We can have a conversation about those who come here in order to smuggle drugs, engage in sexaul slavery, or to join violent gangs, and that’s a brief enough conversation. They should either be turned back or they should be imprisoned here.
Now that we’ve had that conversation, are you willing to have the conversation about what to do with those who come here in fear of their and their family’s lives?
Other than the fact that I think that hard labor should never be on the table, as that is just seeking vengeance, I have no problem with those who are coming here for nefarious purposes to be prosecuted. I just think that this conversation is meant as a distraction in order to avoid the conversation as to what to do with the vast majority of those who come to our border.
Okay, well, that is the overwhelming vast majority of those who are crossing the border. So, why are you so focussed on the small minority?
It’s been well documented that criminals very rarely care about the consequences of their actions. Increasing the sentence to something less humane does little to dissuade those who would break the law. If it’s not about deterrence, then it’s just about vengeance, and I don’t think that the justice system should be in the business of meeting out vengeance.
Then why do refuse to talk about the vast majority of those who cross the border, those who seek asylum, and only want to discuss the few who come for other purposes?
Hypothetical, you are the immigration advisor to the Queen of May, and what you say goes here. A family shows up, two parents in their late 20’s and two children. They say that a gang threatened them with violence if they did not pimp out their children and give the gang the proceeds. What do you do with this family?
Dog Training | New Skete Monasteries
maybe it is time to call in the monks…
He’s a rescue, and he’s being subjected to a number of different environments and people.
A dog does not have to be vicious in order to snap when they are timid or frightened.
He’s still on the young side. Some training could certainly help. But some training with his handlers would also be of use.
Maybe that dog just shouldn’t be at the White House.
I’m not sure the analogy is helping, but: if someone breaks into my house for shits and giggles, or to help themselves to my stuff, or for rape or for murder or for anything else I find objectionable, then I want prosecution on the table. But, see, if they explain that, oh, hey, it’s not like that, I only came in here to escape a house fire, then — well, let’s be clear: they still don’t get to live in my house for the rest of their lives from that day on; but after they’re no longer in my house, it makes all kinds of sense to talk about giving them a pass in the sense of not prosecuting them.
Interesting. Any numbers to back that up?
Because this seems to be the basis of your argument — as you later say, ”Okay, well, that is the overwhelming vast majority of those who are crossing the border. So, why are you so focussed on the small minority? — so, y’know, cite?
Again, if you’re going to make assertions about the numbers, then I’d like to see those numbers; but I want to make sure of something else, too. You go on to briefly discuss “those who come here in order to smuggle drugs, engage in sexaul slavery, or to join violent gangs”, and you then go on to ask “about what to do with those who come here in fear of their and their family’s lives” — but I also want us to discuss a group I’m not sure you have in mind in between: people who aren’t coming here to commit crimes involving drugs or sex or gang violence, and who aren’t coming here seeking asylum while fleeing persecution, but it’s just that, well, they’d rather be here, is all.
Going back to the “house fire” analogy: someone might break into my home bent on rape or murder or whatever, and someone else might come in to, y’know, escape a house fire — but what about someone who breaks in just because he thinks he’d like it better there?
Again, if your argument involves one group being “the vast majority”, then I’d like to see your math.
Again: cite?
Have them apply to immigrate legally, I suppose. In the same spirit, here’s a hypothetical right back: a guy shows up at the border and says hey, I’m not fleeing persecution or anything; it’s just that I’m not as well off as I’d like, and, uh, compared to my current situation, I sure think I’d have it better if I came in without permission. What do you do?
The analogy of a country to a private residence remains total bullshit. Countries aren’t private residences, and aren’t private property. Might as well compare countries to oranges… the rights of migrants to enter my house has no more bearing on a discussion of immigration into the US than the rights of migrants to enter my orange.
I’m happy to try it without analogies to private residences, but then — what? Someone shows up at the border; maybe I don’t want to let them in, but maybe you do; and maybe we could take votes, and write laws about who will and won’t be allowed in, and then — what?
I know my response; I don’t need to resort to some analogy to a private residence to make it. (And, come to think of it, I likewise don’t typically need to resort to some analogy about a border to frame my on-its-own-terms response if someone wants to illegally enter my house; I can talk about either without an analogy to the other.)
Probably not, as no analogy is perfect. But you are claiming personal ownership over this property upon which you do not wish trespassed, so it
makes more sense than trying to say that it is your country.
I don’t disagree with that, not sure what your point is.
And that is one of the ways that you overextend the analogy. They have to be in some house, there is no “outside” here, and they can’t go back to theirs. By definition, they have to be in someone’s house.
Slightly better analogy, you have an enormous mansion, with thousands of unused rooms. It is subzero temperatures outside. They are willing to help to upkeep your mansion, to cook and clean for you, as long as you don’t throw them back out into the cold.
To further this analogy, you are not the owner of this property, but only one of many residents, and you are demanding to the owners what should be done with those seeking shelter from the cold.
To start with, those who are a subject of this part of the thread are specifically those who are seeking asylum, many of whom are children. By making your demand here, you are once again avoiding the question as to what to do with the people that we are actually talking about, and diverting the discussion to those who are outside the scope of who we are talking about.
And, as I’ve said, our asylum criteria is overly narrow, and so many who are seeking refuge don’t bother to try the system they know will reject them, so any official numbers will not reflect those who are fleeing intolerable conditions. True, not all of them are fleeing specific violence, some are simply fleeing starvation, or living in a ramshackle hut without access to clean water.
People don’t just up and leave everything that they know, leave everything behind, they don’t walk thousands of miles and cross mountains and deserts on a whim. It’s not a grass is greener situation, it’s that their grass is dead.
Let’s say that someone lives in the inner city of Baltimore, and their neighborhood has fallen to crime. They are not safe, even if not specifically threatened, their schools have shut down, there are no stores to shop at, and no jobs to be had either. If you could, would you deny them the ability to move somewhere more prosperous? If not, then why does a national border make a difference? Are they not still human beings if they were unfortunate enough to be born in a different country?
I would say that it is on you to provide a cite for the number of people who are coming here for nefarious purposes, and show that that number is high enough to demand that the conversation focus on them. If you want to start enslaving people, then you should probably have a better reason than just wanting people to have to suffer where they are, rather than try to live a better life.
You mean people on vacation?
The legal way for them to do so is to show up at our border and request asylum, which is exactly what they have done. This is what we are talking about. What do you do when they have done so?
Not really, as you didn’t actually answer the question I posed to you.
Your hypothetical is stupid, as you are saying that they are asking permission to come in without permission. That just doesn’t make any sort of logical or rational sense.
But in case you just worded it poorly, and what you meant is to say is, " hey, I’m not fleeing persecution or anything; it’s just that I’m not as well off as I’d like, and, uh, compared to my current situation, I sure think I’d have it better if I had permission to come in.
Then I would ask them if they want a job.
Then we talk about the actual situation that we face.
Well, that’s how it actually works. What do you mean “then — what?”?
It’s a democracy, we try to convince eachother of our positions, then we vote on the outcome. I’m trying to convince you that the economic benefits outweigh the benefits that xenophobes get from trying to keep our country “pure”, and you are trying to convince me that it is better to contribute to a humanitarian crisis than try to alleviate it. While I do not have a great deal of hope in convincing you otherwise, I still hope to convince enough of my fellow citizens to outvote your viewpoint.
Regardless of the outcome, we will still continue to discuss the topic. If you get your way, and those who seek refuge from intolerable conditions are made into slaves, then I will continue to petition against that. If I get my way, and they are treated like fellow human beings, then you will continue to petition against that.
A democracy is an ongoing argument, and it only fails if one side “wins”.
Right, I know your response too. To give people a choice between suffering and slavery. To see their children starve or to see their children in shackles. To laugh at those who fear violence in their homeland, and to offer them even greater brutality if they dare to try to escape it.
I am trying to convince you that that is not only inhumane, but also not in your own personal best interest either. We could have people come here, help us build things, maintain things, serve eachother. They can be productive consumers of the goods and services that we have to offer, and they can help us to produce those goods and services.
Or they can serve only to provide delight to those who want to see others suffer. I disagree that the latter is preferable, and will continue to work to try to convince others of that position as well.
Would you two be so kind as to continue this hijack elsewhere?
The discussion is what Biden should be doing, and one of the major issues of this administration so far is what to do with the immigration issue. What he should do about the immigrants, those who are in detention, those who are at the border, and those who will show up in the future seems extremely relevant to the thread.
I’ll agree that condoning slavery is a bit outside the scope, but I’m arguing that Biden should not do that.
You know what this means, right? Not a single Justice will die or retire or step down until Republicans can block or ignore the following Democratic nomination again.
Hey, you made the claim: “the vast majority”, you said; “that is the overwhelming vast majority”, you said. All kinds of options: you can of course just leave that claim out there without a cite, or you could supply the requested cite, or you could withdraw the claim.
I never said a thing about him asking permission to come in. I said he declared that he thinks he’d have it better if he came in without permission, right as he shows up at the border. That’s my whole point: someone who isn’t going through any sort of application process — who doesn’t have permission, and who doesn’t ask permission — but who’d like to walk right in.
Then let them apply to be here legally. If folks make the case that, as you say, it’d be in our interest to grant permission — as they’d be productive members of society, what with all that stuff you just said about goods and services and building things — then we’ll presumably evaluate those claims on the merits, giving an enthusiastic thumbs-up of permission to some and a flat thumbs-down to others.
So my question, then, is (a) what’s to be done if someone who gets a thumbs-down instead of permission then tries to walk in anyway? And (b) what’s to be done if someone tries to walk in without going through the thumbs-up-or-down process? If they don’t have permission, but they just — want in?
Which brings me back to your point: in your hypothetical, they ask for permission to come in; and so we decide whether it makes it sense to let them in, and say ‘yes’ if we figure it does. What’s to be done with folks who don’t ask? What’s to be done with folks who ask, but then don’t take ‘no’ for an answer?
I suppose my point is twofold: as of right now, votes have already been taken and laws passed and so on as to who doesn’t have permission to enter the country and what should happen if they do so without permission, and so I’m asking (a) what, if any, changes should we make to the law going forward; and (b) what does it mean if someone enters the country without permission at present?
I’m not following you.
It’s my understanding that you don’t advocate for open borders: that you believe, as I do, that a national border does make a difference. If I have you confused with another poster, then, by all means, set me straight by declaring for open borders, so I can answer your question accordingly; but if you already think a national border makes a difference, then I’d like to hear what you think that difference is, so that I can frame my reply in terms of that.
I think that a better analogy, if it’s at all helpful for us to do analogies, would involve circumstances where the residents and owners sensibly vote to let some of the applicants live there — like you’d just said, the ones we think will help with upkeep and cooking and whatnot — while deciding against letting others in. And then some of the others decide they’d like to come in anyway, without permission.
Well, I don’t mean people who vacation here with permission, just like I don’t mean people who otherwise come here with permission. But I mean people who come here without permission, whether they’re vacationers or not.