(July 16, 2019 at 3:16 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: That three year old had her hearing, into the box she goes!  It’s The Law!

Doing that to children is the worst yes, but even with adult women or men whom cannot speak English is bad too.

Lets say we travel overseas and get detained for whatever reason, we would want an interpreter and the ability to have council. 

OLB has simply bought the politics of fear. 

And like I said in a prior post, any human who is under threat of starvation, crime or war, is going to get to a point where they are going to flee. It is true we will always have a degree of people we have to turn away. But we cannot treat our fellow humans as a sub species or a separate species. 

Selling xenophobia is not the way to solve the issue. Scaring the shit out of migrants already here also is not the way to solve the problem.

The truth of "undocumented" migrants is most of the time they enter at established borders and simply overstay a legal entry. People from overseas do this too flying in airports,  so to single out migrants from Mexico and central America is wrong. And to claim it is not xenophobic why call on a Muslim ban too?

Malania while now a legal citizen, worked in America without a work visa. She broke the law too. 

Add to all this his constant attacks on minority politicians and minority sports stars whom are citizens, it is clear that that Trump is a bigot.

(July 16, 2019 at 3:38 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(July 16, 2019 at 3:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Well, now wait a minute. I thought your question was regarding US immigration enforcement policies. How did we go from that topic to the topic of decisions parents who live in non-U.S. countries make, and whether or not they’re morally correct? You’re deflecting. Gae gave you an honest response (and raised a valid point) with regard to the enforcement of immigration law in America. He deserves one back. That’s what you wanted to talk about, isn’t?

He made a response. He did not answer the question.

Big difference.

The question - should we deport those people who have been given a hearing - and were denied?

He did answer. One reason why we perhaps shouldn’t enforce them all the time is because they aren’t fair. Maybe instead of blindly enforcing them, we need to change them. Or, framed another way, why enforce laws that don’t accomplish what they were put in place to accomplish? That’s a perfectly reasonable, fair, and on topic answer to your question.

(July 16, 2019 at 3:41 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: @onlinebiker

You want to talk about the enforcement of immigration law. So, let’s talk about it. Is it a fair and reasonable law that allows toddlers to represent themselves at their hearings? You’d like to know what the point is of having these laws in the first place if they aren’t enforced. A valid counterpoint to that question is “are the laws fair in the first place”? Can you respond to that counterpoint without deflecting?

Using that sort of logic leads to - we better let everybody out of prison because innocent people sometimes end up in prison.

Sure - there are fucked up things that happen in an adversarial system of courts. But - until somebody comes up with something better - it' s what we are stuck with.

Now - I answered your question.

Answer mine.

Should people who have been given a hearing and were rejected be deported?

It’s not even an issue if “maybe”. We know they aren’t fair, but that’s the entire point if them- to be unfair. To provide the pretense of legal and constitutional protections while avoiding all that inconvenient business of actually providing them.

We did have something better, it was even better at catching the bad hombres and deporting them. As was already explained to OLB, the how and why of Obama becoming deporter in chief.

(July 16, 2019 at 3:48 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(July 16, 2019 at 3:41 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: @onlinebiker

You want to talk about the enforcement of immigration law. So, let’s talk about it. Is it a fair and reasonable law that allows toddlers to represent themselves at their hearings? You’d like to know what the point is of having these laws in the first place if they aren’t enforced. A valid counterpoint to that question is “are the laws fair in the first place”? Can you respond to that counterpoint without deflecting?

Using that sort of logic leads to - we better let everybody out of prison because innocent people sometimes end up in prison.

Sure - there are fucked up things that happen in an adversarial system of courts. But - until somebody comes up with something better - it' s what we are stuck with.

Now - I answered your question.

Answer mine.

Should people who have been given a hearing and were rejected be deported?

That's not the question people are wanting to answer.  What the hell are you doing expecting an answer to what you asked?

(July 16, 2019 at 3:45 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(July 16, 2019 at 3:38 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: He made a response. He did not answer the question.

Big difference.

The question - should we deport those people who have been given a hearing - and were denied?

He did answer. One reason why we perhaps shouldn’t enforce them all the time is because they aren’t fair. Maybe instead of blindly enforcing them, we need to change them. That’s a perfectly reasonable, fair, and on topic answer to your question.

I agree. We do need laws, but we cannot be so ridged as to hurt innocent people in the process.

An ugly truth about our history, America denied immigration of a boat full of 900 Jews during WW2 that was parked in Cuba. That boat was sent back to Europe and most of those Jews died.

We do not have a perfect system, and we will always have to turn a certain amount of people away. But how we do it matters and we cant simply use blanket solutions to force a utopia that will never exist.  Any  policy that targets entire groups of people is not a law, it is immoral.

(July 16, 2019 at 3:50 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(July 16, 2019 at 3:48 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Using that sort of logic leads to - we better let everybody out of prison because innocent people sometimes end up in prison.

Sure - there are fucked up things that happen in an adversarial system of courts. But - until somebody comes up with something better - it' s what we are stuck with.

Now - I answered your question.

Answer mine.

Should people who have been given a hearing and were rejected be deported?

That's not the question people are wanting to answer.  What the hell are you doing expecting an answer to what you asked?

Lol. Yup.

They don't want open borders and they are unwilling to deport anyone......


No contradiction there, eh?

(July 16, 2019 at 3:50 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: That's not the question people are wanting to answer.  What the hell are you doing expecting an answer to what you asked?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I actually do want open borders. : shrugs :

It’s good for law enforcement, especially interdiction.

Though you haven’t really given any reason why we’d need to have open borders if we decided not to do any of the number of shitty things we’re doing.

(July 16, 2019 at 3:55 pm)Cecelia Wrote:

(July 16, 2019 at 3:50 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: That's not the question people are wanting to answer.  What the hell are you doing expecting an answer to what you asked?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

If I ever get a wife...pretty unlikely...I'll try not to start beating her so that I have to stop.

That's not on topic...and won't be moderated.  So be it.  Rah, fucking rah.