That's odd...I thought we were a nation of laws?

[Brian37]

Or does that not matter when you have the magic R next to your name? I have said it time and time after time and i will say it again; this man is getting some dangerous ideas in his head
Trump: Deport without 'judges or court cases'

This is  not the first scary thing that sick fuck has Tweeted, but it is chilling and adds to all the other dangerous vile crap he has said.

He has praised Un, Putin and authoritarian China's communism. This is not politics as normal, he is not a defender of western pluralism. He is a despot wannabe.

[RoadRunner79]

Now for those who think that morality is subjective, it is difficult to rationalize or provide a foundation for any rights, not already provisioned by the government.  I would think that saying that they don't "deserve these rights" would be more in line with this view. However; I find that most who say that morality is subjective are inconsistent with there views.

[henryp]

I think the idea is to treat people who enter the country illegally as though they were trying to enter legally at the border.

If you are denied asylum at the border, you just can't come in. You don't get to lawyer up, and get a number of hearings/appeals.

If you try to enter the country at the border and you're not allowed, you just can't come in. They don't let you in, give you a court date, and then a request to deport, and then maybe they'll come and grab you in a few years or decades. And then maybe you'll be deported.

The better option for a lot of people is to enter the country illegally. I think preferring people come in legally is fairly universal. You can want to change the process or increase/decrease the number of legal immigrants, but doing it above board is a no-brainer. And that's just never going to happen with the way the system is setup now. It's certainly not going to happen if coming in illegally is the better choice.

This is a half-ass idea by Trump. But the idea of treating people entering illegally the same treatment that they would have gotten at the border has some merit at the root of it.

[RoadRunner79]

I like to think that I expose myself to varying points of view (I'm here aren't I).

However I don't see people saying that those outside of the U.S.  don't deserve those rights described in the constitution as inalienable and given by creator.   The very phrasing, is meant to describe something which is not given by, but only recognized by the governing body.  

We can talk about immigration policy, and if they should be changed.  I don't think that unrestricted immigration is a good idea, and that we should have laws concerning immigration (most countries I believe do).  And really what is being talked about is those who circumvent proper immigration procedures.   I would say that for the majority of people, it is dishonest to try to ascribe to them, that having immigration restrictions as equal to them saying that others don't deserve basic human rights.  If you are arguing that these countries are such shit holes, then do you think that those left in those countries don't deserve these rights as well? Should we start over throwing governments in these places?

I'm not trying to be a douche, but that was sort of the argument for holding people indefinitely without trial at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graibh. Of course, that wasn't enough so they had to go with the enemy combatants thing.

It seems to me, that this is another specialty matter all together (enemy combatants).    In any case, I believe it's a stretch to go from this to saying that those outside of the U.S. don't deserve basic human rights.

[Brian37]

Now for those who think that morality is subjective, it is difficult to rationalize or provide a foundation for any rights, not already provisioned by the government.  I would think that saying that they don't "deserve these rights" would be more in line with this view. However; I find that most who say that morality is subjective are inconsistent with there views.

Bullshit. Slavery was moral at one point. The part you are not getting is we are NOT being inconsistent in saying it is still wrong. Times change and the goal should be to do the least harm, not go with a majority.

Point of view is what what we are pointing out. Moral to one may not be moral to another, but that does not mean just because you think something is moral means the one being harmed by it thinks it is.

WE are not being hypocrites or inconsistent. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate has always existed, it is still up to us what we choose.

Just because history has, or just because we can, does not mean we always should. 

Morality IS subjective, and I am damned glad there have been those in the past who have challenged social norms so that we ended slavery and segregation and that women could vote, and that LGBT have more rights today.

Your problem, and I see this with every religion worldwide, bar none, is that humans far to often attach their local religions, traditions and social norms as being that source of morality. 

I think MOST HUMANS are very capable of empathy and compassion, and that is where more of the world needs to be. Where I disagree is where they think morality is coming from. It is not coming from above, or from a holy person or a holy writing, but has always been in us.  <---None of that is saying to value dictators or lawlessness. 

Morality comes from the same place these elephants did what they did. 





And why this cat did what it did.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Now for those who think that morality is subjective, it is difficult to rationalize or provide a foundation for any rights, not already provisioned by the government.  I would think that saying that they don't "deserve these rights" would be more in line with this view. However; I find that most who say that morality is subjective are inconsistent with there views.

Bullshit. Slavery was moral at one point. The part you are not getting is we are NOT being inconsistent in saying it is still wrong. Times change and the goal should be to do the least harm, not go with a majority.

Point of view is what what we are pointing out. Moral to one may not be moral to another, but that does not mean just because you think something is moral means the one being harmed by it thinks it is.

WE are not being hypocrites or inconsistent. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate has always existed, it is still up to us what we choose.

Just because history has, or just because we can, does not mean we always should. 

Morality IS subjective, and I am damned glad there have been those in the past who have challenged social norms so that we ended slavery and segregation and that women could vote, and that LGBT have more rights today.

Your problem, and I see this with every religion worldwide, bar none, is that humans far to often attach their local religions, traditions and social norms as being that source of morality. 

I think MOST HUMANS are very capable of empathy and compassion, and that is where more of the world needs to be. Where I disagree is where they think morality is coming from. It is not coming from above, or from a holy person or a holy writing, but has always been in us.  <---None of that is saying to value dictators or lawlessness. 

Morality comes from the same place these elephants did what they did. 





And why this cat did what it did.

---

Yes, in a view of subjective morality, you are saying morality and therefore rights are based on the subject (or perhaps a group of subjects). Therefore you cannot claim that something is immoral or more or less moral apart from that foundation. You cannot compare and say that something is more or less moral for another person or culture. Objective rights outside of the person or culture do not exist. It doesn't even make sense to say that they don't deserve these rights, under moral subjectivity. And merely having compassion or empathy doesn't work either in regards to morality and rights.

[Losty]

You must not get out much.

I like to think that I expose myself to varying points of view (I'm here aren't I).

However I don't see people saying that those outside of the U.S.  don't deserve those rights described in the constitution as inalienable and given by creator.   The very phrasing, is meant to describe something which is not given by, but only recognized by the governing body.  

We can talk about immigration policy, and if they should be changed.  I don't think that unrestricted immigration is a good idea, and that we should have laws concerning immigration (most countries I believe do).  And really what is being talked about is those who circumvent proper immigration procedures.   I would say that for the majority of people, it is dishonest to try to ascribe to them, that having immigration restrictions as equal to them saying that others don't deserve basic human rights.  If you are arguing that these countries are such shit holes, then do you think that those left in those countries don't deserve these rights as well? Should we start over throwing governments in these places?

I made no such argument. I only responded to your post. I didn’t make any argument about immigration or about the state of the countries people come here from.

I hear people all the time saying that people should be shot on the spot for crossing the border illegally. I feel like if you’ve never heard someone argue that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be afforded basic human rights you must be walking around with your fingers in your ears.

[johan]

The same people who will argue that rights are 'god given' will argue that people not born in the US don't deserve those 'god given' rights.  Funny how that works.

Actually I think for most their attitude is that they would fully expect to be deported without trial if they themselves tried to enter another country illegally. So yeah, in their minds they're for treating others the same way they'd expect to be treated. I'm not saying they're right. I'm just saying I don't think they're quite the hypocrites you hope them to be.

[RoadRunner79]

I like to think that I expose myself to varying points of view (I'm here aren't I).

However I don't see people saying that those outside of the U.S.  don't deserve those rights described in the constitution as inalienable and given by creator.   The very phrasing, is meant to describe something which is not given by, but only recognized by the governing body.  

We can talk about immigration policy, and if they should be changed.  I don't think that unrestricted immigration is a good idea, and that we should have laws concerning immigration (most countries I believe do).  And really what is being talked about is those who circumvent proper immigration procedures.   I would say that for the majority of people, it is dishonest to try to ascribe to them, that having immigration restrictions as equal to them saying that others don't deserve basic human rights.  If you are arguing that these countries are such shit holes, then do you think that those left in those countries don't deserve these rights as well? Should we start over throwing governments in these places?

I made no such argument. I only responded to your post. I didn’t make any argument about immigration or about the state of the countries people come here from.

I hear people all the time saying that people should be shot on the spot for crossing the border illegally. I feel like if you’ve never heard someone argue that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be afforded basic human rights you must be walking around with your fingers in your ears.

Well context is important to a conversation.  Sometimes I make the mistake of assuming that what someone is saying has to do with what is being talked about.

edit:  For the record, I don't agree with shooting people who are caught crossing the border, and I don't think that is on the table for any official policy.

[Losty]

I made no such argument. I only responded to your post. I didn’t make any argument about immigration or about the state of the countries people come here from.

I hear people all the time saying that people should be shot on the spot for crossing the border illegally. I feel like if you’ve never heard someone argue that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be afforded basic human rights you must be walking around with your fingers in your ears.

Well context is important to a conversation.  Sometimes I make the mistake of assuming that what someone is saying has to do with what is being talked about.

More like sometimes you like to put words into other people’s mouths.

What I said directly related to what I responded to. Which was that you’ve never heard the argument that illegal immigrants don’t deserve rights. I honestly don’t think you’ve been walking around blind and deaf all this time. I just think you’re being dishonest about having never heard such an argument. But that’s just my opinion.