Trump on 60 Minutes

[TaraJo]

^FNM, do you agree with this analysis? If we're equating slaves trying to escape slavery, to non refugee foreigners trying to get into the US, then there shouldn't be a regulated border at all.

I don't think TJ's actually drawing an exact equivalence, but rather, using the Underground Railroad as an example to illustrate her point about the difference between legal and ethical.

Well, kinda.  Might also point out that in the realm of political debate, arguing that something isn't legal is exactly the point.  Yes, you're right, it is illegal for certain refugees to come into America.  And I think that's the problem.  It shouldn't be illegal because I feel like it's unethical to tell refugees to go back home.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think TJ's actually drawing an exact equivalence, but rather, using the Underground Railroad as an example to illustrate her point about the difference between legal and ethical.

What I'm saying is that if it's just as unethical to not allow non refugee foreigners to walk right into a country willy nilly, as it is to turn away people trying to escape slavery, then we shouldn't regulate borders at all. 

And from what I understand, FNM does agree that the border should be regulated.

The thing is that no one is saying those two things are equivalent. That renders your conclusion reductio ad absurdum.

[Catholic_Lady]

To be clear, I support refugees coming in. The discussion is not about refugees. At least not on my end.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh ffs...lol.  Replace the word refugees with immigrants and see if it makes a difference? Some of us consider those immigrants refugees, and many illegals -are- refugees...obviously not something you'd entertain, since you seem to be chiefly interested in defining them in ways that avoid any legitimacy or point of compassion as you see it.

Criminals, full stop. Get rid of em because they're criminals. Except the ones that you think might be -nice- criminals, you know, criminal families...criminal babies and such. Case by case, assessing all the criminals on "all of it".

[Catholic_Lady]

What I'm saying is that if it's just as unethical to not allow non refugee foreigners to walk right into a country willy nilly, as it is to turn away people trying to escape slavery, then we shouldn't regulate borders at all. 

And from what I understand, FNM does agree that the border should be regulated.

The thing is that no one is saying those two things are equivalent. That renders your conclusion reductio ad absurdum.

Ok. Well, in that case, I don't think it's unethical to regulate our borders, or to deport some people (not all).

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think TJ's actually drawing an exact equivalence, but rather, using the Underground Railroad as an example to illustrate her point about the difference between legal and ethical.

Well, kinda.  Might also point out that in the realm of political debate, arguing that something isn't legal is exactly the point.  Yes, you're right, it is illegal for certain refugees to come into America.  And I think that's the problem.  It shouldn't be illegal because I feel like it's unethical to tell refugees to go back home.

I agree. And I believe that given events in Mexico and Central America, with a brutal drug war that's killed tens of thousands of people, that many illegal immigrants should be regarded as refugees instead. And yes, to me that means I'm okay with an amnesty for many of them. It seems only humane.

[Catholic_Lady]

Well, kinda.  Might also point out that in the realm of political debate, arguing that something isn't legal is exactly the point.  Yes, you're right, it is illegal for certain refugees to come into America.  And I think that's the problem.  It shouldn't be illegal because I feel like it's unethical to tell refugees to go back home.

I agree. And I believe that given events in Mexico and Central America, with a brutal drug war that's killed tens of thousands of people, that many illegal immigrants should be regarded as refugees instead. And yes, to me that means I'm okay with an amnesty for many of them. It seems only humane.

I do not disagree with this^

[Thumpalumpacus]

To be clear, I support refugees coming in. The discussion is not about refugees. At least not on my end.

The problem is that in our national discourse on this topic, far too many people do not make that distinction. Hell, far too many don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, much less refugees. I take you at your word; you seem like a decent person. But as Rhythm pointed out earlier, on this topic talking about Platonic ideals is about as useful as a pinholed condom. Reality gives not one shit about our precious abstractions. And the reality is that for far too many folks, racism is the driving emotion underlying their own stance vis-a-vis immigration. I'm not saying that's the case with you; I do take you at your word.

I'm just not in the habit of ignoring 800-pound gorillas simply because I wish they didn't exist. They do, and only fools ignore them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The thing is that no one is saying those two things are equivalent. That renders your conclusion reductio ad absurdum.

Ok. Well, in that case, I don't think it's unethical to regulate our borders, or to deport some people (not all).

No argument here.

[Catholic_Lady]

To be clear, I support refugees coming in. The discussion is not about refugees. At least not on my end.

The problem is that in our national discourse on this topic, far too many people do not make that distinction. Hell, far too many don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, much less refugees. I take you at your word; you seem like a decent person. But as Rhythm pointed out earlier, on this topic talking about Platonic ideals is about as useful as a pinholed condom. Reality gives not one shit about our precious abstractions. And the reality is that for far too many folks, racism is the driving emotion underlying their own stance vis-a-vis immigration. I'm not saying that's the case with you; I do take you at your word.

I'm just not in the habit of ignoring 800-pound gorillas simply because I wish they didn't exist. They do, and only fools ignore them.

Tib already had made that distinction earlier on in the thread. Life/death situations are different for sure.