Page 127 of 228 FirstFirst ... 2777117125126127128129137177227 ... LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,270 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1261
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    I would say implementing a ?zero tolerance? policy is a new policy since the result will always be separation. That is new and was not previously done. Does the policy follow a natural progression? Yeah I would agree with that. Doesn?t mean taking that next step was a moral or good idea. People in administration knew this would happen on a large scale level.

    Also crossing the border illegal the first time is a misdemeanor so your example is not quite on point.
    Misdemeanor is still a criminal offense. You're being pedantic in your argument. What you're advocating is to ignore the law because it's poorly written, which is pretty ridiculous. The executive order is the single policy that tries to reduce family separations, but could potentially be overturned because of the Flores settlement. All of this was likely made an inevitably due to Arizona vs the US. Again, in the analogy of a traffic citation (which also happens to be a misdemeanor), you still chose to speed and nobody is obligated to let you off easy.

  2. #1262
    Let's not try to have this debate devolve into pettiness again. You can accuse me of being pedantic, but that's how laws and criminal prosecutions work. There is always a level of discretion involved. The very law you cited earlier gives discretion by allowing the prosecutor to request a fine OR jail time for the offender. The simple fact is there is an extensive history of application of the immigration laws that goes directly against your statements. If you like Trump's policy and think its a more effective approach that's fine. But if you are going to hold the position that prior Presidents were somehow not violating the law because they weren't detaining every offender and charging them under the criminal code, that's just wrong.

    You also seem to think I'm advocating for a catch and release policy, with no consequences. I'm not. The people should still go through the immigration process to determine the legitimacy of their asylum claims and if they fail to meet the standards for asylum they should be deported back to their country of origin. You can keep track of them with ankle bracelets and home visits. You don't need to separate a family to achieve this, it's inhumane.

    As Josh mentioned early, the EO called for more administrative law judges and attorneys to hear asylum and deportation proceedings, which are under the civil code. That's a good step and is necessary.

  3. #1263
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    Let's not try to have this debate devolve into pettiness again. You can accuse me of being pedantic, but that's how laws and criminal prosecutions work. There is always a level of discretion involved. The very law you cited earlier gives discretion by allowing the prosecutor to request a fine OR jail time for the offender. The simple fact is there is an extensive history of application of the immigration laws that goes directly against your statements. If you like Trump's policy and think its a more effective approach that's fine. But if you are going to hold the position that prior Presidents were somehow not violating the law because they weren't detaining every offender and charging them under the criminal code, that's just wrong.

    You also seem to think I'm advocating for a catch and release policy, with no consequences. I'm not. The people should still go through the immigration process to determine the legitimacy of their asylum claims and if they fail to meet the standards for asylum they should be deported back to their country of origin. You can keep track of them with ankle bracelets and home visits. You don't need to separate a family to achieve this, it's inhumane.

    As Josh mentioned early, the EO called for more administrative law judges and attorneys to hear asylum and deportation proceedings, which are under the civil code. That's a good step and is necessary.
    That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying there is nothing evil with a zero tolerance policy. I'm also saying variable enforcement is ineffective. So, if you want conformance, zero tolerance is the only real way to go about it. Current law allows the families to be broken up so the right course of action is to revise the current laws and stop looking the other way. This is in no way evil, malintentioned or racist/xenophobic. In fact, I believe the pressure to act at the federal level was a forced hand.

    There are videos on YouTube showing just how easy it is to cut off an ankle monitor. If someone is here illegally, then why wouldn't they cut it off an move to a new city? I don't think your suggestion is practical.

    The entire pretense of this discussion was Gordon's idiotic statement that it all comes down to racism. So, do you agree with Gordon or not?

  4. #1264
    I said a few posts back I don?t think this policy is racist. How the policy has been promoted is racist.

  5. #1265
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    How the policy has been promoted is racist.
    Even with that modifier, that seems like a bit of a stretch. Which 'promotions' specifically that you have seen are racist?

    Small edit - so you are in agreement that Gordon's claims that the policy is racist is BS, right? That Trump didn't put into affect an evil plot to remove kids from their parents? Your position is that Trump is using Racism to promote a policy that in affect is the same as the Obama administrations, just larger in scope?
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-05-2018 at 08:08 AM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #1266
    Please go back and read my previous posts. The policy is not the same as Obama?s. I don?t think it?s a racist policy, but it is morally incorrect. I don?t think Obama?s policy was much better or cost effective.

  7. #1267
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    I don?t think it?s a racist policy, but it is morally incorrect.
    The policy itself is morally agnostic. If anything, it appears you're arguing the outcome is morally incorrect and, if you point back to policy, you're forced to acknowledge the EA was the only thing that tried to explicitly resolve the immorality (which could be in violation of Flores). Zero tolerance was a policy, in itself, likely necessitated by Arizona vs the US. So, circle back to the very beginning... There nothing fundamentally wrong/ immoral with the zero tolerance enforcement strategy, in fact, it is the only way to maximize compliance. Using the "victim-hood" of the outcome is a way of sneaking in a political ideology under the guise of compassion; this is the dangerous conflation that I find absolutely reprehensible. Had we stopped the "evil" virtue signaling at the beginning, then we can see that in the broader context there is an urgency for discussion of immigration laws which we'll never have with the 2 idiotic sides of extremism.

  8. #1268
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Again don't have a lot of time for debate so I'm going to throw some dynamite and run.

    You start out in 1954 by saying, *N*****, n*****, n*****.* By 1968 you can*t say *n*******that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states* rights, and all that stuff, and you*re getting so abstract. Now, you*re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you*re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.* *We want to cut this,* is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than *N*****, n*****.*
    -Lee Atwater, campaign consultant to Ronald Reagan

    https://www.thenation.com/article/ex...hern-strategy/

    Irony, with consideration to the above quote, what are the requirements for a policy to be "morally agnostic"? What makes all the border fearmongering different?
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  9. #1269
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Claiming his hands are tied by the law while enforcing it in a way it never has been before (and few if any other laws are) is pretty flimsy, to be generous.
    thats because its an absurd position. the exutive is constitutionally allowed to enforce laws as it deems fit, unless congress specifically puts it in a law that such and such needs to be done.

    its literally the ENTIRE job of the executive to sort these things out.



    trump got to choose. and if you don't believe that, then how was it one way before, a different way, and then another way now? because the executive can choose how to enforce the law. merely the fact that is has changed, proves that it can be changed, and thus was a trump choice to change it.

    trumps hands were not tied. he voluntarily implemented a new policy in regards to enforcing immigration law. great, weve come to the same conclusion as every legal expert and public official has already stated.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-05-2018 at 11:35 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #1270
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    The policy itself is morally agnostic. If anything, it appears you're arguing the outcome is morally incorrect and, if you point back to policy, you're forced to acknowledge the EA was the only thing that tried to explicitly resolve the immorality (which could be in violation of Flores). Zero tolerance was a policy, in itself, likely necessitated by Arizona vs the US. So, circle back to the very beginning... There nothing fundamentally wrong/ immoral with the zero tolerance enforcement strategy, in fact, it is the only way to maximize compliance. Using the "victim-hood" of the outcome is a way of sneaking in a political ideology under the guise of compassion; this is the dangerous conflation that I find absolutely reprehensible. Had we stopped the "evil" virtue signaling at the beginning, then we can see that in the broader context there is an urgency for discussion of immigration laws which we'll never have with the 2 idiotic sides of extremism.
    there is no right or wrong or moral choice about a zero tolerance policy?

    wow. there is no much to unpack there.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •