• Armed vigilantes are detaining asylum seekers at the US/Mexico border
    81 replies, posted
Christ on a bicycle you’re not even trying to understand what I said. Please adjust your eyes.
It’s terrible that we don’t have a solution but sometimes no solution is better than a terrible one. I don’t want people with guns with zero accountability acting as law enforcement. I don’t want to hear about a border camp massacre because a group picked a fight with a group that would rather fight than be killed than forced to return to their original country.
Unless I'm missing something, that NYT article points out those militias are breaking the law because crossing the border to seek asylum is not a crime? Therefore those militias shouldn't be making any arrests. That seems pretty cut and dry. https://i.imgur.com/QwRs1R0.png
So the big issue here is that refugees walk through these guys' fields or technically private wilderness? Or is it that people tend to raid their stuff to get food and supplies? If it's the latter then the logical answer is to do what Joey said left-wing militias do and simply resupply them themselves, this would probably cost less and be more helpful than arming yourself and behaving like some Gestapo dick-sucker. Considering refugees tend to have lower crime rates than the general population, the bad apples spiel doesn't really hold any water. It would lower the average crime rate, if anything. Considering your immigration system is unfair by design, I don't think that's a valid point. And I've already explained why that question is pointless. If we had control over immigration authorities, the obvious solution would be to stop them from violating human rights. But the whole point is that we have no control over them and they have no oversight. In that context, yes, "nothing" is a valid response, even if you don't defend open borders. In fact, it's the only valid response when the alternative is sending people to HR-violating institutions. And if the ATF commits the atrocities you mention in a systemic manner, like immigration authorities do, then yeah, by all means do advocate for their shutdown.
I have zero doubt one of these militias will open fire and massacre people once climate change ravages the global south, or some time shortly before then. What we see now is them under “normal conditions,” When the tide of immigration becomes a tsunami, people who have been conditioned their entire lives to see it as a red dawn scenario will eventually attack.
Come to think of it, a citizens arrest requires you to see the crime happen does it not? These "miltias" have no authority to ask for someones documents so I really fail to see how they have justification for their citizens arrests. The only thing they can really get them on is trespassing if they cross over into a ranch's land.
If they are deployed on the border and see someone illegally crossing, they can detain them. It really depends on the jurisdiction though.
Crossing the border is illegal, even if you're seeking asylum. Applying for asylum is a defense against deportation after you are taken into ICE custody.
No you’re intentionally misconstruing what my question was. I’m asking WITHOUT violating human rights but short of doing absolutely nothing, what would be an appropriate border policy? It’s not a fucking black and white decision between A. Commit human rights violations B. Do absolutely nothing to enforce border security. @zukriuchen was saying “There is a whole lot of room between open borders, and opposing armed vigilantes performing arrests with zero oversight, little to no accountability, in remote areas, in service of an immigration system that also has gigantic problems with oversight and accountability and has produced numerous human rights violations...” But based on your answers so far, it really sounds like I was correct in assuming that people who say they aren’t advocating for open borders are really just dancing around semantics to avoid calling it that. Basically “I’m not advocating for an open border policy, I just don’t think we should enforce immigration law in any capacity whatsoever.” People are free have the opinion that enforcing border security isn’t worth the effort, but don’t try to pretend that saying “the authorities should just not enforce immigration law in any capacity” without providing any alternative options isn’t advocating for open borders. Maybe we should also get rid of background checks for gun owners while we’re at it since they tend to commit crimes far less than the general population? No this is stupid because without any form of screening, you can’t tell the difference between a refugee or a felon no matter how small the number of felons may be. There needs to be some form of checks, otherwise you get sensationalized stories from conservative media outlets about the two or three illegal migrants with several previous criminal convictions who slipped through and ended up murdering some cop or innocent bystander. Then it will be used to paint the entirely of immigrants and refugees as “murders and rapists”. Then we’re back to square one where random groups of people arm themselves and hunt for border crossers because they don’t think the government is doing enough to ensure their safety, regardless of whether or not their motives are reaffirmed by bad experiences with illegal migrants or pre-existing racism. This shit cycle has been going on for years and eventually there’s going to be a breaking point.
This is literally "well ok you've got a point, but what do other people think?" like, what do you expect from me dude
Start.
I never denied what you just said. Albert only said "in favor of open borders", implying we're talking about defending open borders in general. My whole point is that you can support open borders as the lesser of two evils in this situation even if you don't advocate for them in a normal situation. I don't understand how you missed that. What you said in response to zukriuchen was: While potentially untrained civilians detaining migrants is certainly not the best solution, what do people actually think the authorities should be doing about it (short of open borders) in the meantime while we wait for politicians to get their heads out of their ass and actually pass some immigration reform? So your question wasn't about border policy at all. In fact, you explicitly asked what should be done until immigration reforms are passed. So you really shouldn't accuse me of misconstruing your point because you're the one who shifted the topic of the conversation and I actually answered your question: Until reforms are passed to hold immigration authorities responsible for their actions and enforce respect of human rights, precisely nothing should be done to help them detain immigrants. I'd even argue people should shield refugees and help them evade BP if that's what it takes to avoid children being raped and people being treated like sub-humans down the line. By the way, you really ought to drop this bad habit of baselessly accusing the people you debate with of hiding some sinister ulterior motive. It's not very constructive and it ends up biting you in the ass when you're shown to be the one who didn't pay attention, makes you look much more like a fool than if you argued in good faith and made an honest mistake.
quite being so damn disingenuous, the whole problem is not what SHOULD be done but rather what IS being done. border security is fine but not when the people caught get sent to internment camps to have their children molested and their lives ruined. either the government does "NOTHING" (read: stops raping kids) or long-term reform and oversight will be the only way to fix their thinking, demolish the camps, and prosecute the people responsible. there is no band-aid fix to masses and masses of asylum seekers being exploited, trafficked and abused on an industrial scale with orders coming from the absolute top of the government, and it's people like you who piss and moan for a quick fix now who have made immigration into the absolute clusterfuck before you. because if it's not done on the same timescale as my fucking microwave breakfast burrito then why even try?
Glad you edited the post to make it more than this, because damn, even when discussions get confrontational, I don't just start giving singular commands to people I'm arguing with as if I was entitled to a response I mean seriously, tf is this, giving us both 24hrs or else, what? You'll be very disappointed? Gee I don't want that to happen As for the question, it's nonsense. I said there is a whole lot of room between wanting open borders and opposing armed ideologues who believe they're in some sort of war. I don't want open borders, and I oppose these guys, so I fall squarely within that room. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about this. Do you want me to expand on the lack of specificity in citizen's arrest laws? It just sounds like you're grasping at straws to find a way to pin me as a hypocrite
I find it odd that people consider others to be in support of unregulated open borders, due to the fact they just want a more civil approach and a lot less racial/xenophobic bullshit done to illegal and legal immigrants. Like it shouldn't take much to realize having complete open borders with no regulation will create an absolute logistical and administrative cluster fuck. Like that's all we want. We want regulated borders, but we don't want this asinine xenophobic/racist bullshit infecting the entire process of this. And these vigilantes don't give a fuck about actual governmental processes of Immigration and border security. They're just living out their power fantasies and finding excuses to torment innocent people for their own pleasure.
If you continue dodging the question then I’ll assume you’re full of shit when you say “I don’t want open borders”. If you think all border enforcement operations should be suspended pending immigration reforms like Axel suggested, then just fucking say so already.
This whole thing is nothing but you trying to squeeze some perceived hypocrisy out of me, failing, then proceeding to tell me what I believe. I never said anything about stopping border enforcement, you pulled this out of your ass anyway, and now you're running with it What even is the premise here, anyway? If this is about what I think they should do, I think they should stop human rights abuses. If this is about "stopping immigration enforcement" through legislation I assume I can also use that power to introduce reform... thus defeating the point of stopping it. Also, the question is predicated on there being a time gap between the two decisions, but why? That is, in what world would any American politician be able to whip up support for, and then introduce, functionally open borders? Let alone before they were able to introduce immigration reform? I profusely apologize for not falling within the neat little mold you have for the world, but I don't want open borders. Maybe at some point in the far-off future. If you want another try at exposing me, please go ahead, I can't wait to learn what other beliefs I hold
OR alternatively, you could just not waste people’s time when they want you to elaborate your position on what you think a government agency should be doing instead. For example by saying something like “I believe ICE/Border Patrol’s current policies are terrible, so INSTEAD they should go back to the previous catch and release policy where anyone who isn’t a threat to public safety or extreme flight risk is released, that way we can at least have some form of screening for border security in the meantime without family separations and shit.” But considering you weren’t willing to give a straight answer from the start, of course I’m going to be skeptical because this tells me either you didn’t have any suggestions for new policies (or even old policies which we could reinstate) to replace the current ones; or you just wanted to avoid answering the question for other unspecified reasons. Either way if you honestly weren’t low key defending the idea of dismantling immigration enforcement agencies without any follow up plan, I think you would have corrected me within your first two responses by pointing out which new or existing enforcement policies you’d still support being handled by an immigration authority.
There's no saving this shitshow by pretending it's healthy skepticism. Your first post's question was "what do people think" and you proceeded to act like I was hiding an ulterior motive for not answering something that wasn't even directed at me. Of course I wasn't going answer "what do people think" because I don't fucking know what these unspecified "people" think, you're expecting me to defend a position that's not mine. Then you demanded I explain my own position on the issue within 24 hours, because you can't believe someone would oppose these guys and open borders at the same time. Then declared that I do, in fact, want all enforcement to be stopped (do fucking quote me where I said that, please) and tried to shame me as a massive hypocrite. This isn't skepticism, it's confirmation bias taken to the point of insanity. I disagree that this is wasted time, it's actually plenty fucking useful for seeing how disingenuous you are
https://twitter.com/leftkist/status/1120475709787525121 https://twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/status/1120396209343139841 https://twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/status/1120399683908771848
"But if they arrested every Republican who threatened to kill Soros, who would be left to do the actual work in this country? Checkmate, lib-tards!"
Ding ding. Figured there was something bigger with this. Generally speaking, the FBI will not involve itself in simple cases of dealing with felons that have firearms, as that usually falls onto local police departments. The fact it took them this long to act on a pretty major fucking tip is a bit worrying though. From that sounds of it, they may have a mole/honeybee within the ranks that was giving information to the FBI to make a greater warrant.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.