• emotions are high at border over Trump's order to National Guard
    41 replies, posted
I hate to interrupt the pissing contest but Falsely equating one crime with another conceals the fact that the law is enforced unequally depending on the crime being committed and the person committing it. Likewise justifying a law's existence simply on the basis that "it's the law" makes it harder to distinguish just laws from unjust laws. In the case of the U.S. immigration system, simply existing within U.S. borders without documentation is a crime in itself. Just as police raid certain (poor) neighborhoods where drug activity takes place while ignoring other (privileged) neighborhoods where drug activity also takes place, immigrants are often prosecuted disproportionately compared to other, far worse crimes that are committed by U.S. citizens. To justify this pattern of disproportionate prosecution by saying "well the broke the law" is to turn a blind eye to the unjust laws, and discriminatory enforcement, that is the essence of our broken immigration system.
We are a nation of laws and just because your political motivations view these foreign persons as innocent children does not change the fact that they are violating immigration laws.
america needs more stable geniuses like yourself
Yes. The reason we don't sentence illegal immigrants to life in prison is the same reason we don't sentence someone who got in a bar fight to life in prison. Each crime has a sentencing structure, and judges take other factors into consideration (such as other crimes committed, remorse, attitude, etc.). It's called discretion. Never did that. Immigrants are prosecuted for breaking the law, the same as other US citizens. The difference is that immigration is basically an open and shut case. You are either here legally or illegally, whereas other crimes committed rely on proving things like intent beyond the shadow of a doubt. Crimes that are easy to prove are also going to have the highest prosecution rates. You might think the laws are unjust, but they are still law, and laws should be enforced. What is your suggestion until the law can be changed?
"You might think the laws are unjust, but they are still law, and laws should be enforced." I feel like you are failing to grasp the concept that American citizens, particularly wealthy citizens, routinely escape prosecution for crimes that are far worse than an illegal border crossing. Wall Street executives, for example, crashed our economy and destroyed thousands of lives in 2008, and yet not a single person went to jail. Whites and blacks consume drugs at roughly equal rates, and yet blacks are charged and sentenced at a massively disproportionate rate. The president of the United States and his staff have evaded prosecution for offenses that would have an average citizen in handcuffs. Meanwhile, our immigration system is literally tearing families apart. Families who are otherwise working, contributing to our economy, paying taxes, and (on average) committing crimes at a far lower rate than U.S. citizens. It's not a question of "discretion." The reality is that our justice system simply concerns itself with certain crimes committed by certain individuals, while ignoring others.
Justifying the existence of a law, and acknowledging that it is a law and should be enforced, are two completely separate arguments. I can think that a law is unjust and want to change it, but still agree that until it's changed, it should be enforced. That's not justifying it's existence, but merely acknowledging it. Sounds like you have an issue with laws not being enforced (as do I for the record). But doesn't wanting laws enforced go against what you are saying? That sounds like an issue with the way the law is written (which I agree). See the second point above. You can't have an issue with laws not being enforced, but at the same time say that laws shouldn't be enforced. You're contradicting yourself. I'm familiar with it. You can see above for my response.
No, you can't–not as a private citizen at least. The only way to change an unjust law is to oppose it. I want the law to be enforced equally, and I want laws that are obviously unjust to be repealed. That's not a contradiction, that's the essence of justice.
Yes, I can. I can say "I don't support this law the way it is, but it is law, and laws should be enforced until it gets changed." and I can vote for representatives that share my views on getting the law changed. Everyone wants this. Honestly, what even is your point here? You keep moving the goalposts and changing things up so much it's hard to keep track.
For a conservative, you sure love throwing money at stupid shit that wont solve your original problem. A wall isn't going to stop the majority of immigrants from crossing the border, having feds raid law abiding people just to waste money and throw them through the grinder of the court system and throw them out 85% of the time is a waste of resources and time, and cartels will just find other ways to get around the border and it's security. To me if you are guilty of a violent crime or an felony, then you have every right to throw the person out, but majority of the people who get tossed aside are just like you and me, wanting to better themselves and their family by becoming hard workers for the country. Isn't that the american dream afterall?
Than what you're saying is essentially meaningless equivocation. If you oppose a law on principle but support its enforcement, you are not fighting against injustice, you are perpetuating it. If you can't understand how opposing unjust laws and demanding equal justice under the law are not mutually exclusive, and that sometimes the former is the only way to ensure the latter, nothing else I say will convince you.
I never claimed to be fighting against injustice. You are the one claiming that. There are injustices in the system, and I support removing them. But I also understand that we can't just stop enforcing laws we don't agree with. You just flat out refuse to acknowledge that someone can oppose a law, yet still think that it should be enforced as long as it's law. You're goal is centered around enforcing the laws you want enforced, and not enforcing the ones you think are unjust. My goal is to have ALL laws enforced, and the unjust ones either removed or made just. We have the same end goal. My method just makes rule of law stronger, not spits in it's face.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.