Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 180: The Summit All Fears

(+) Yeah! (+)

redrocket posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Im not gonna call people monsters. No more dehumanization.

What about Nazis tho

Some, I assume, are good people.
---

There are such things as justifiable homicides. The law doesnt apply in those cases.

Just like there should be such thing as justifiable asylum-seeking
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Actually I retract what I said.

Im not gonna call people monsters. No more dehumanization.

People who support child internment camps have very troubling and heartless opinions

This is perhaps the issue Im most liberal on, and the one I have the hardest time understanding the other side on.

I thought I was most conservative on the issue of trade, but Trump turned that on its head.
---

redrocket posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Im not gonna call people monsters. No more dehumanization.

What about Nazis tho

They are the worst people, with the worst, most dangerous ideals that have ever existed.

But still people
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I never understood the rights attempts to paint Obama as weak on immigration, when he wasnt really more liberal than George W Bush and was in some ways more hardline.

I think it was more a comparison to Hillary's open borders private talks. That said, you can be further right as you see now. Obviously, I agree with what is going on now but would like for a non court stricken indefinite detainment for families during cases or for a more streamlined case system where it didn't take so long to finally get the proper outcomes made.

As someone has said (I think Trump), just because you have kids, you shouldn't be immune to immigration laws.

Do you understand why they are trying to immigrate to the US though? Why would they bring their kids here, in your opinion?

I get it. But if they want to come here then your option is to do it via proper ways. I get why people murder some people sometimes. Doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to them.

There is a difference between murder and attempting to cone to another country because your country is dangerous and you dont want your children to die. Not all laws are created equal, and Im more likely to forgive someone who jaywalked than someone who is a murderer.

This is particularly true when I think our own immigration system is too onerous, particularly for people seeking asylum.

Is there? What if a criminal threatened the life of your wife and child. Then you were out and preemptively murdered them for fear of your safety. Should the law not apply to them because the situation was dangerous and they wanted to provide safety for their family?

The law is the law. What is so hard with following the laws and if you dislike the laws, changing them the proper way instead of asking for them to be ignored as they should be?

I find it hard to believe every last place you could go is so dangerous besides the United States where the laws are out in place for a reason. Every country has laws in place for how they wish to do immigration. And they are to be followed. Not bent or broken when it is convenient.
---

Corrik posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

They control both houses. They forced their health insurance thing through. There's no excuse for this continuing.

And i strongly doubt that the law calls for the construction of a tent city for refugees. That's this administration's policy.

You ask me. It should be bipartisan. It isn't. And there is filibusters for less than 60.

There is a democratic bill in the Senate that has been rejected by "moderate" Republicans for being too broad. Hint, it really isn't.

But there's no need to be bipartisan here. All you're doing is pointing a finger. Republicans. Control. Both. Houses. They don't need bipartisanship. They can ram through whatever they'd like - as long as the president signs it. And there, buddy, is the crux of the issue. Trump wants this policy, no matter what junk you may have read.
---

Corrik posted...

Every country has laws in place for how they wish to do immigration. And they are to be followed. Not bent or broken when it is convenient.

And when those laws go against international treaties that the country signed, should the UN send a peacekeeping force?
---

Corrik posted...

I find it hard to believe every last place you could go is so dangerous besides the United States where the laws are out in place for a reason.

Well we did just slap tariffs on Canada of all places under the pretense that they are a threat to our safety
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

They control both houses. They forced their health insurance thing through. There's no excuse for this continuing.

And i strongly doubt that the law calls for the construction of a tent city for refugees. That's this administration's policy.

You ask me. It should be bipartisan. It isn't. And there is filibusters for less than 60.

There is a democratic bill in the Senate that has been rejected by "moderate" Republicans for being too broad. Hint, it really isn't.

But there's no need to be bipartisan here. All you're doing is pointing a finger. Republicans. Control. Both. Houses. They don't need bipartisanship. They can ram through whatever they'd like - as long as the president signs it. And there, buddy, is the crux of the issue. Trump wants this policy, no matter what junk you may have read.

You cannot cram an immigration bill through Congress with 51 Senate votes. Whoever told you that lied. Unless you are proposing a nuclear option.

That said, I don't know the Democrat bill and I only know parts of the moderate bill. I feel something will get done.
---

My argument is the law should change, particularly for immigrants seeking asylum from Mexico or South America as they are our neighbors.

Your argument is the law is the law, which isnt satisfactory to me because I was a value based assessment on why the law is the law.

Like in particular the argument from the right seems you to be but Mexican gangs are dangerous which, yes, true, but that is not the group I wanted admitted to the country. Particularly, it is because of these gangs that I want more women and children allowed into the country. I want our immigration laws fundamentally changed. So the law is the law isnt an argument I find persuasive.
---

Corrik posted...

What is so hard with following the laws and if you dislike the laws, changing them the proper way

are you seriously asking "what is so hard about changing the laws?"

brb i'm gonna change the law so that i get fined a maximum of 1 when i break the speed limit.
---

we know corrik is lawful neutral why are you still debating this
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

I find it hard to believe every last place you could go is so dangerous besides the United States where the laws are out in place for a reason.

Well we did just slap tariffs on Canada of all places under the pretense that they are a threat to our safety

Lol I suppose
---

Like I dont think anyone is a bad person for wanting immigration laws. What I dont understand is why we cant all agree these immigrants dont deserve a chance in our country and what danger they pose.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

My argument is the law should change, particularly for immigrants seeking asylum from Mexico or South America as they are our neighbors.

Your argument is the law is the law, which isnt satisfactory to me because I was a value based assessment on why the law is the law.

Like in particular the argument from the right seems you to be but Mexican gangs are dangerous which, yes, true, but that is not the group I wanted admitted to the country. Particularly, it is because of these gangs that I want more women and children allowed into the country. I want our immigration laws fundamentally changed. So the law is the law isnt an argument I find persuasive.

I understand it, but you fail to see where we agree. We both agree the law should change. I told you how I think it should. Until then, it needs to be enforced as is and hopefully it will spur that change.
---

Would you even be having this awareness of the issue without what is going on? I doubt it.
---

Conservatives: Breaking the law is bad!
If you cross into this country illegally, seeking a better life for your family--you should lose everything.
If you do a non-violent protest by kneeling during the national anthem you should LOSE YOUR JOB
If you sell marijuana? LIfe in prison, bitch!

Except of course...
If you hire illegal immigrants in your factory? That's cool. Lower prices for me.
If you sexually assault someone, you shouldn't lose your job.
If you drive drunk, you should get off light!
If you cause the subprime mortgage crisis? Eh, who cares?
---

Corrik posted...

We both agree the law should change.

Would you vote Democrat to help get that done? Or are you more concerned with your tax cuts?
---

Ashethan posted...

If you hire illegal immigrants in your factory? That's cool.

Nope

If you sexually assault someone, you shouldn't lose your job.

That isn't a law. You should be punished as the law states.

If you drive drunk, you should get off light!

You should be punished as the law states.

If you cause the subprime mortgage crisis? Eh, who cares?

Lol what
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

We both agree the law should change.

Would you vote Democrat to help get that done? Or are you more concerned with your tax cuts?

Depends on all the positions a candidate has.
---

Corrik posted...

Would you even be having this awareness of the issue without what is going on? I doubt it.

I miss the days where our government was not committing human rights abuses within its borders daily, yes.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik posted...

Would you even be having this awareness of the issue without what is going on? I doubt it.

I miss the days where our government was not committing human rights abuses within its borders daily, yes.

I miss the days when our laws meant something also regardless of convenience and we were not sitting here trying to justify breaking the law.

How awesome would it be to actually place the blame on the proper sources.

I forgot. The United States literally is forcing people to try and break these laws against their will. *Rolls eyes*

In fact, peaf, this question is solely for you. How do you believe we should go about completely enforcing our immigration law in this situation in which the current situation is happening? And, mean, in a way to properly enforce it and and not in a way in which you bend or break the law.

How do you propose to do it?
---

Refugees are not breaking any laws.
---

Where in "the law" did Congress demand that children be separated from parents and forced into a concentration camp? The executive branch decides how to execute the laws.
---

Didn't Sessions rewrite the rules around asylum seekers recently? Doesn't that make the entire laws can't be changed thing a bit of a joke?

Yeah, looking into it he's made domestic and gang violence no longer grounds for asylum or at least dramatically raised the bar for it.
---

NFUN posted...

we know corrik is lawful evil why are you still debating this

ftfy
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Where in "the law" did Congress demand that children be separated from parents and forced into a concentration camp? The executive branch decides how to execute the laws.

The law does not allow children to be detained indefinitely with those illegally crossing while their case is processed. Thus, causing the breaking of families.
---

I'm glad you ignored the understaffed concentration camps part.

And also the part where they don't even attempt to keep records as to whose child is whose.

And also the part where the strict rules forbid siblings from hugging one another.

And also the part where the children get two hours of outdoors time every day.
---

Corrik posted...

I forgot. The United States literally is forcing people to try and break these laws against their will. *Rolls eyes*

I dunno, you argue that unarmed people somehow force the police to murder them
---

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

My argument is the law should change, particularly for immigrants seeking asylum from Mexico or South America as they are our neighbors.

Your argument is the law is the law, which isnt satisfactory to me because I was a value based assessment on why the law is the law.

Like in particular the argument from the right seems you to be but Mexican gangs are dangerous which, yes, true, but that is not the group I wanted admitted to the country. Particularly, it is because of these gangs that I want more women and children allowed into the country. I want our immigration laws fundamentally changed. So the law is the law isnt an argument I find persuasive.

I understand it, but you fail to see where we agree. We both agree the law should change. I told you how I think it should. Until then, it needs to be enforced as is and hopefully it will spur that change.

Sadly I dont think were going to see eye to eye on this then because we have a fundamentally different viewpoint when it comes to the law and morality I think.
---

Corrik, are there any laws in history that you would have broken for moral reasons?

Would you have helped/turned a blind eye to the Underground Railroad, for example?
---

Corrik posted...

If you drive drunk, you should get off light!

You seemed to agree with this one a while ago...
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Corrik posted...

If you drive drunk, you should get off light!

You seemed to agree with this one a while ago...

I have never once said the laws should not he upheld. I said they should be adjusted.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik, are there any laws in history that you would have broken for moral reasons?

Would you have helped/turned a blind eye to the Underground Railroad, for example?

If they were breaking laws, they chose to do so with full knowledge that consequences would be had if found doing so.

Some people decide breaking the laws are worth the possible consequence. For example in the Duke destruction of the statue case.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik, are there any laws in history that you would have broken for moral reasons?

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

My argument is the law should change, particularly for immigrants seeking asylum from Mexico or South America as they are our neighbors.

Your argument is the law is the law, which isnt satisfactory to me because I was a value based assessment on why the law is the law.

Like in particular the argument from the right seems you to be but Mexican gangs are dangerous which, yes, true, but that is not the group I wanted admitted to the country. Particularly, it is because of these gangs that I want more women and children allowed into the country. I want our immigration laws fundamentally changed. So the law is the law isnt an argument I find persuasive.

I understand it, but you fail to see where we agree. We both agree the law should change. I told you how I think it should. Until then, it needs to be enforced as is and hopefully it will spur that change.

Sadly I dont think were going to see eye to eye on this then because we have a fundamentally different viewpoint when it comes to the law and morality I think.

Oh well of course we do. That is the nature of being on opposing sides. It does not mean however that we can understand each other's sides without labeling of names in regards to it.

I understand your side. I just think the greater issue of the laws being paramount and the breaking down of society, law, and order that happens if laws are subject to convenience of the whims or flavor of the month take.
---

GildedFool posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik, are there any laws in history that you would have broken for moral reasons?

Not without understanding and accepting the consequences that would come after being found in failure of breaking those laws.

For example, many people choose to speed. If you choose to speed and are caught and accept your punishment then so be it. if you are one of those ones who speed then freak out about being punished and argue how you shouldn't be and etc and so on. Then that is an issue.
---

Corrik posted...

I just think the greater issue of the laws being paramount and the breaking down of society, law,

Do you understand that we think society is already broken down, and the laws are a big part of what is causing it?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

I just think the greater issue of the laws being paramount and the breaking down of society, law,

Do you understand that we think society is already broken down, and the laws are a big part of what is causing it?

That is probably where our opinions differ at the base to form our opinions on issues.
---

"I want to be where I am headed faster," is not a moral reason, try again.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik, are there any laws in history that you would have broken for moral reasons?

---

Your question has been answered already. You can stop reposting it.
---

His answer was no, guys
---

I think what Corrik's trying to say is that most of the unjust laws in history would never have affected him, so why should he give a shit about the suffering of others. It's consistent with his mindset in other circumstances as well.
---

Corrik posted...

if you are one of those ones who speed then freak out about being punished and argue how you shouldn't be and etc and so on. Then that is an issue.

why?

if i speed, i will argue how the fine should be lower than it is and i'll point out that i don't agree with the way speed limit laws are constructed in my country. being critical of the law is a very healthy thing to do. slavishly following it is not.
---

No, I agree with Corrik. There are ways of getting (some) law changed that don't involve breaking it.

Speeding does nothing to change the law in and of itself. There, as I previously stated, is not a "moral" reason to speed.

If you have a moral objection to a law, than by all means break it while attempting to get it amended, but breaking a law that you don't like or agree with is not moral or right in and of itself. It's just illegal.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

slavishly

Surprising word choice.
---

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

My argument is the law should change, particularly for immigrants seeking asylum from Mexico or South America as they are our neighbors.

Your argument is the law is the law, which isnt satisfactory to me because I was a value based assessment on why the law is the law.

Like in particular the argument from the right seems you to be but Mexican gangs are dangerous which, yes, true, but that is not the group I wanted admitted to the country. Particularly, it is because of these gangs that I want more women and children allowed into the country. I want our immigration laws fundamentally changed. So the law is the law isnt an argument I find persuasive.

I understand it, but you fail to see where we agree. We both agree the law should change. I told you how I think it should. Until then, it needs to be enforced as is and hopefully it will spur that change.

Sadly I dont think were going to see eye to eye on this then because we have a fundamentally different viewpoint when it comes to the law and morality I think.

Oh well of course we do. That is the nature of being on opposing sides. It does not mean however that we can understand each other's sides without labeling of names in regards to it.

I understand your side. I just think the greater issue of the laws being paramount and the breaking down of society, law, and order that happens if laws are subject to convenience of the whims or flavor of the month take.

Hey I never called you names! I just dont think its worth decaying because I see where our fundamental difference lies and I dont think there is much we can do to sway each others opinions.
---

GildedFool posted...

There, as I previously stated, is not a "moral" reason to speed.

what if you disagree with the speed limit and you think the government fining you for driving at what you consider to be an appropriate speed to be immoral?
---

Why do Conservatives so often (yes, it's a generalization, but I've literally never heard this from a person the Left) conflate the law with morality?

Laws can be written based on morals, but laws are not inherently moral, and thus breaking them is not immoral.

Now if you do something immoral, like murder or steal, then you are being immoral, AND breaking the law.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

GildedFool posted...

There, as I previously stated, is not a "moral" reason to speed.

what if you disagree with the speed limit and you think the government fining you for driving at what you consider to be an appropriate speed to be immoral?

Speeding still doesn't change that, so you still don't have a "moral" validation to speed. What you have provided is a moral justification to not pay your fine.
---