Friday, June 22, 2018

I once argued against open borders. I got this rebuttal

Here. 

206 comments:

1 – 200 of 206   Newer›   Newest»
Dave Duffy said...

I will be opposed to mass immigration as long as the left and the Dem's force identity politics on the rest of us. As long as my kid's universities have separate (but equal?) tax payer funded student unions, I'm against the BS racket. There ought to be one place where students gather, like my corporation's break room, where we all eat, talk, and sort things out. What the left and the Dem's are doing to us is genuinely evil (to borrow a term from Bob/Star). I'm partial toward the United States as a place where we can all be Americans.

Yea, Yea, I know a lot of evil things happened in past. The whole past is filled with evil, Trump and Obama are Hitler or Stalin, got it. Perhaps we can still figure out a way to be Americans together.

Legion of Logic said...

I don't know about the link between immigration and identity politics, but the latter is definitely a huge problem.

Hugo Pelland said...

"...identity politics, but the latter is definitely a huge problem."

Why? What are the hugely problematic consequences exactly?

Joe Hinman said...

what's the deal with separate student unions? From waht I;ve sen identity politics is just right wing's excuse for racism. It's just a leel to dismiss criticism

Joe Hinman said...

"I will be opposed to mass immigration as long as the left and the Dem's force identity politics on the rest of us."

As long as we disvalue racism? Since illegal immigration and slowed to trickle before Trump then how can path to citizenship and visiting worker program be mass immigration?

Hugo Pelland said...

"Perhaps we can still figure out a way to be Americans together."

That's great. What are the basic values; Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness?

Legion of Logic said...

"Why? What are the hugely problematic consequences exactly?"

For starters, do you agree with MLK's dream? If so, please reconcile it with judging people based on their demographic checkboxes. If color blindness is considered racist, then I have no choice but to be racist no matter what I do.

For a decent general analysis, which covers some of the material I've been following for some time now:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/01/how-americas-identity-politics-went-from-inclusion-to-division

Joe Hinman said...

For starters, do you agree with MLK's dream? If so, please reconcile it with judging people based on their demographic checkboxes. If color blindness is considered racist, then I have no choice but to be racist no matter what I do.

I think you have a lot of anecdotal stories with propaganda value and can;t get specific about any thing,

Dave Duffy said...

Being Americans together means we have borders and within those borders we elect people to make laws governing the best interest of the people within those borders. We also, hopefully, share a few values, like there shouldn't be separate lunch counters at restaurants based on race. Ditto student unions or any other public place. The people who advocate for this have always been, and will always be wrong.

Immigration policy should be discussed like any other policy between citizens, like the speed limit on the freeway. Somehow, you can't have an opinion without crazies like Joe calling you a racist. I would like to get personal about this racism accusation, but when you ding in with the crazies, you end up crazy.

Most of the people coming here illegally come from democracies. I would like some of our reporters to go to the district where they are from, stick a microphone in the face of their representative and ask them "what the hell are you doing for this citizen you were elected to represent?" instead of asking my representative who is paid to represent people in my district (for crazies like Joe: a district has a border, not based on race).

Chad Handley said...

"For starters, do you agree with MLK's dream? If so, please reconcile it with judging people based on their demographic checkboxes."

There's no inherent conflict between identity politics and MLK's dream. To suggest that recognizing the unique challenges faced by different marginalized groups in some way contradicts MLK's vision is just to fundamentally misunderstand everything about the man.

There is no conflict in judging a black man by the content of his character while still recognizing that the color of his skin can carry with it social and political consequences that negatively affect his life. I can judge an individual white person by the content of his character while still recognizing that white privilege exists and needs to be better understood. I can judge an individual gay person by the content of his character and still recognize that they face unique challenges in living openly with their sexuality.

" If color blindness is considered racist, then I have no choice but to be racist no matter what I do."

This presumes a false dilemma about race, where one has to either 1) become a racial determinist, whereby everyone is fated by their race to have certain immutable characteristics, or 2) become a racial atheist, who insists that race now has absolutely no significance on a person's outlook or prospects.

There's a sensible middle ground, where we see people as individuals who have a significant degree of control over their own lives, but recognize that social forces exist that present unique challenges to certain groups of people in exercising that control.

Chad Handley said...

"Being Americans together means we have borders and within those borders we elect people to make laws governing the best interest of the people within those borders. We also, hopefully, share a few values, like there shouldn't be separate lunch counters at restaurants based on race. Ditto student unions or any other public place. The people who advocate for this have always been, and will always be wrong."

You're missing a big distinction here, Dave, which is that there is not now and never has been a problem with SELF SEGREGATION. If individuals CHOOSE to have a place where they can primarily or exclusively socialize with other people in their identity group, that's perfectly fine. It's only problematic when they are FORCED BY LAW to only operate within an identity group that is assigned to them by the government.

Black student unions aren't any more problematic than Catholic Churches. Catholics prefer to worship with other Catholics. They have specific religious beliefs and interests and it helps them to be able to celebrate and express those beliefs, and explore problems particular to Catholics, within the confines of their own Church, exclusively with other Catholics.

Similarly, Black students might want a place where they can go, particularly on majority white campuses, to speak to other Black students about issues they face as minority students, and to do so exclusively or primarily with other Black students who can understand and commiserate with the challenges they face. Lots of Black students going to college come from inner-cities and have never been in a majority white school before. They may have trouble socializing. There's no problem with having somewhere where they can go to help them get acclimated to a multiracial environment.

There are white student unions as well, even though these are usually divided by specific nationality (Russian, German, etc). These aren't mean and usually don't end up being permanent enclaves. Just a place you can go if you're homesick.

It's just a false moral equivalency in the extreme to compare people choosing to make places to socialize with others with whom they have common interests with people not being allowed to use public accommodations.

Again, the proper analogy to student unions isn't a segregated lunch counter, it's separate denominations for churches.

bmiller said...

Hugo, Joe, Chad,

Are any of you in favor of open borders? (Hugo for open Canadian borders).

If not, why would you restrict anyone from any other place American citizenship?

Chad Handley said...

No sane person, in the world, in the whole actual world, is in favor of open borders. No one.

When conservatives talk like that, it just reveals they have absolutely no idea what liberals think, have never actually talked to a liberal about the issue, and only get their ideas about what liberals believe from outright propagandists.

I want all illegal immigration to stop. I want a path to citizenship for people who are already here. I don't want mixed families broken up, where half the people in a household can stay and half have to be shipped out. I don't want people deported who have lived here their entire conscious life. Being cruel to people serves no purpose. I want legal immigration to be sufficient to meet labor demands. I want employers who hire illegals face criminal penalties.

Unfortunately, we can't take everyone whose life would be better here. We're going to have to turn some away. The criteria for accepting people is already in place. They have to face real, actual persecution in their country of origin. They have to be in reasonable fear for their lives. Conservatives who ask liberals for their personal criteria for asylum are like liberals who ask conservatives why we don't ban fully automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons have been banned for decades and the criteria for legally seeking asylum in America have been settled for decades. I don't have any problem with the criteria as they exist.

But even when all that's perfectly in place, illegals are going to get in. There's no perfect legal system that gets rid of murder, no perfect law that gets rid of theft, and there won't be some magic immigration policy that totally eliminates illegal immigration. People are going to try to get in illegally and no policy will stop them all. That being the case, there is no reasonable humane alternative to catch and release. Even Trump's zero tolerance policy is technically catch and release, it's just the most expensive possible version of catch and release, where instead of just deporting them, we put them through the massive expense of a months' long trial and then deport them.

The only real solution to illegal immigration is helping to make other countries in our hemisphere safe and prosperous. People with good jobs and safe streets don't walk a thousand miles to come to another country.

bmiller said...

The only real solution to illegal immigration is helping to make other countries in our hemisphere safe and prosperous. People with good jobs and safe streets don't walk a thousand miles to come to another country.

I've thought the same thing for a long time. But the question is "how do help make that happen?". Unfortunately, we haven't done a very good job of that.

Dave Duffy said...

Chad,

I read your thoughts.

Thanks.

SteveK said...

"and only get their ideas about what liberals believe from outright propagandists."

Those propagandists are liberals telling us they want these things. They might be relatively fewer in number, but they exist and are a political force.

Starhopper himself said he wanted open borders and he didn't return to clarify that he was joking.

Joe Hinman said...

Immigration policy should be discussed like any other policy between citizens, like the speed limit on the freeway. Somehow, you can't have an opinion without crazies like Joe calling you a racist. I would like to get personal about this racism accusation, but when you ding in with the crazies, you end up crazy.

Dave you misunderstood.I am not calling you a racist,I expressed what i was trying to say in provocative manner. My experience of people who are upset about PC is that they have tended to be covering racism,

Most of the people coming here illegally come from democracies. I would like some of our reporters to go to the district where they are from, stick a microphone in the face of their representative and ask them "what the hell are you doing for this citizen you were elected to represent?" instead of asking my representative who is paid to represent people in my district (for crazies like Joe: a district has a border, not based on race).

For simpletons like Dave.I'e been to Central America. I've talked to refugees. and people who came here to flee death squads and saw thier whole village slaughtered by the Guatemalan army. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are badly in need of some basic education on Central America. I know a guy who went to El Salvador as part of a human rights commission an they found a human leg on their step.

For starters on basic info about central America and the things taught go on there,(although it is out of date, but it shows long trends):

Cry Of The People:Penny Lernoux 1982

Joe Hinman said...

Simple Dave So they are Democracies hu? then nothing it's pretty safe hu?

This starts talkimg about a masacre wheretheAr,my murdred hundreds ofwomen andchildren as well as villain men at El Mozote

"It was the worst atrocity committed during the 12-year-long war between leftist guerrillas and El Salvador’s right-wing government, in which some 75,000 Salvadoreans died. No one has been punished for the massacre, and almost no one has been held to account for any other human-rights crime committed during the conflict. An amnesty law in 1993 shielded perpetrators on both sides from prosecution, and helped make a political settlement possible...."

thisis from tahtcrazy left wing ragThe Ecnonmist,

"Some human-rights advocates argue that impunity for war crimes is one reason why El Salvador has the world’s highest murder rate, although other factors, such as the lack of economic opportunity, undoubtedly also play a role. “The same system that was incapable of investigating human-rights violations has found itself incapable of confronting post-war violence and crime,” says David Morales, El Salvador’s Human Rights Ombudsman." Human rights in El Salvador
Digging for justice Dec 30,2015

Joe Hinman said...

SteveK said...
"and only get their ideas about what liberals believe from outright propagandists."

Those propagandists are liberals telling us they want these things. They might be relatively fewer in number, but they exist and are a political force.

Starhopper himself said he wanted open borders and he didn't return to clarify that he was joking.

Most of where you hear this stuff is from talk radio echo chamber, you hear it all day long, they create in your mind a preconceived image of of what liberals mean and want, Maybe Starhopper said he was for open boarders but he did in;t goinot a lot of details. You don;t know if he means the same thing by that that you mean,

Joe Hinman said...

Excellemt post Chad, You are rational and insightful.

Joe Hinman said...

Lest I create the wrong impression I find sources saying El Salvador isa sciuess sotry in the end the stark human right;s violations sence the 1990s. But not so for Guratemala,alothoguhsome progress has been made.


Human Rights Watch
https://www.hrw.org/americas/guatemala

In recent years, Guatemalan prosecutors have made progress in cases of extrajudicial killings and corruption, due in significant part to support the Attorney General’s Office has received from the United Nations-backed International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Yet efforts to promote accountability for atrocities committed during the country’s internal armed conflict – which ended in 1996 – have had mixed results, and impunity for human rights abuses remains widespread. Threats and violence against human rights defenders, trade unionists, and journalists remain a major concern. Gang-related violence is an important factor prompting people, including unaccompanied youth, to leave the country.

Joe Hinman said...

On Metacrcok's bgo part 1of three part discussion of ethical naturalism or scientifically based ethics,I argue it wont work. part 1 deals with E.O.Wilson and Churchland.

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/06/ethical-natualism-and-value-systems.html

One Brow said...

Chad Handley said...
No sane person, in the world, in the whole actual world, is in favor of open borders. No one.

Many Libertarians are in favor of open borders. However, it would be a mistake to describe Libertarians as liberals or conservatives.

SteveK said...
"and only get their ideas about what liberals believe from outright propagandists."

Those propagandists are liberals telling us they want these things. They might be relatively fewer in number, but they exist and are a political force.


You linked to a libertarian website, not a liberal website.

Chad Handley said...

"Those propagandists are liberals telling us they want these things."

As One Brow points out, that's not a liberal website. The page you link to actually has this disclaimer:

The Open Borders website is not a political lobbying group or organization and does not have formal ties with any such organization

However, it does appear that most of the articles are written from a libertarian perspective and I admit I didn't know that libertarians advocate for literally open borders. I'm going to have a look around that website so thanks for the link.

"They might be relatively fewer in number, but they exist and are a political force. "

Again, I don't know of a single relevant political figure on the left who actually advocates for open borders. Jill freakin' Stein didn't advocate for open borders.

"Starhopper himself said he wanted open borders and he didn't return to clarify that he was joking."

He can speak for himself but I assume he was speaking out of exasperation at Trump's zero tolerance policy. I don't think, outside of that spectacle, he would literally think that just letting everyone waltz across the border would be a good idea.

Regardless, the point is, from speaking to you and other obviously otherwise intelligent conservatives on this blog, it's pretty clear you are being misused by whatever sources you are getting your news from. The picture that gets painted for you of liberals by these sources is pretty frickin' far from the actual truth. You should all be happy to learn that liberals are nowhere near as crazy and evil as you've been led to believe. (Well, outside of college campuses, at least ;))

Chad Handley said...

"Excellemt post Chad, You are rational and insightful."

Thank you, Joe.

bmiller said...

Here's an article from the Atlantic written by a Peter Beinart, a self-described liberal.

He implies that there is also a lot of pressure from the liberal side for unrestricted immigration and not only from libertarians and conservatives.


Chad Handley said...

"Here's an article from the Atlantic written by a Peter Beinart, a self-described liberal.

He implies that there is also a lot of pressure from the liberal side for unrestricted immigration and not only from libertarians and conservatives."

Not only is there not a single sentence in that article that suggests that liberals should promote unrestricted immigration, the liberal author of the article had this to say:

The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero.

Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda...

What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same?

Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.


Does that sound like someone advocating open borders? Pretty much kinda exactly the opposite, right?

As that article points out, Obama deported TONS of people, to the point he got criticized by some pro-immigration groups. And I know there's dispute as to how to count those he deported and whether his deportation numbers were inflated, but anyway you slice it, he CLEARLY did not believe in open borders. And Hilary Clinton was to the right of him on the issue.

I don't know why or how conservatives got so psychologically committed to their conception of liberals as lunatics, to the point that when a liberal goes out of his way to deliver the good news that we are not as crazy as you have been led to believe, you can't accept and go looking for something to disprove it.

The most that article says is that national Democratic candidates, to appeal to Latino voters, have removed LANGUAGE REFERRING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION from their platform. It does not in ANY WAY EVEN SLIGHTLY SUGGEST that any Democratic candidate ACTUALLY FAVORS open borders.

No major candidate of the Democratic party, so far as I am aware, actually supports completely open borders. If you're a rational person who doesn't need his hatred of liberals to get him through the day, this should be reassuring to you. However, if learning that liberals aren't as crazy as you thought makes you feel somehow displaced, lost, unanchored, then you, my friend, have become too dependent on who you hate to tell you who you are.

To a certain extent, I think this is becoming more true of all Americans and I think we all need to resist it. I don't need to hate conservatives or think they're evil or racist to vigorously disagree with them. And you don't need to hate liberals and think they're evil or crazy to vigorously disagree with us. We all want what we think is best for our country, we just disagree on how to get there. There's no need to demonize anybody.

The real difference, generally speaking, between conservatives and liberals on this issue comes down to what to do with illegals who are already here and who have put down roots. Conservatives tend to favor deporting them and liberals tend to favor a path to citizenship. And I guess liberals want higher limits on legal immigrants and for us not to favor Western countries over Eastern or Southern ones. But that's pretty much as far as it goes. No serious politician wants to just let absolutely everyone in, including drug dealers and sex traffickers.

bmiller said...

@Chad,

You didn't read what I wrote, but you certainly read a lot into what I wrote.

Me:
"He implies that there is also a lot of pressure from the liberal side for unrestricted immigration and not only from libertarians and conservatives."

Not only is there not a single sentence in that article that suggests that liberals should promote unrestricted immigration,

I didn't say there was.

Does that sound like someone advocating open borders? Pretty much kinda exactly the opposite, right?

I didn't say the author advocated open borders. It's clear he thinks that's the wrong way to go. That's why he wrote the article.

I don't know why or how conservatives got so psychologically committed to their conception of liberals as lunatics, to the point that when a liberal goes out of his way to deliver the good news that we are not as crazy as you have been led to believe, you can't accept and go looking for something to disprove it.

Dude. It was implied that while libertarians favored open borders, liberals didn't. I was curious so I googled "open borders liberals" and that article was the first one that came up. It was by a liberal so I thought it would represent a valid view from within the liberal camp and I read it. I'm sorry if you consider it deranged to do a simple google search on a disputed topic to see what one side is saying. I don't.

What I got out of the article is that he thinks the "Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration". As an example, he wrote that Bernie Sanders was pressured to back off from his open borders criticism by liberal organizations. That was what I was referring to in my quote above.

You're snarking up the wrong tree.

Chad Handley said...

Okay, sorry. I overreacted.

bmiller said...

Promise not to yell at me when you see me in a restaurant? ;-)

bmiller said...

Of course that was meant to be a joke not a jab. Hope you took it that way.

Starhopper said...

"No sane person, in the world, in the whole actual world, is in favor of open borders. No one."

I am. I must then be insane.

"Starhopper himself said he wanted open borders and he didn't return to clarify that he was joking."

I was not and am not joking. My position is that all national borders worldwide need to be eliminated. State borders are just fine, since they are no impediment to movement and encourage experimentation. So let's convert all nations into states. Yes, I am now officially a "One Worlder" (with massive local autonomy).

Chad Handley said...

So, we shouldn't even check to see if a person is a drug smuggler or a sex trafficker or a terrorist? Or say several thousand people try to cross our border wearing the uniform of a foreign army traveling in tanks, and they decide they're going to set up shop surrounding a large american city. That would also be fine to you?

There's a reason folks in places like France and Poland and the Ukraine are a little fussy about border security.

Chad Handley said...

"Promise not to yell at me when you see me in a restaurant?"

I promise. I will just have the manager ask you to leave. :P

bmiller said...

I promise. I will just have the manager ask you to leave. :P

I'm OK with that as long as he let's me keep wearing my sheets ;-)

Starhopper said...

Hmm.. since I eat out maybe once every 3 months or so, they'd have to be pretty alert to throw me out of any restaurant.

Even when I'm on the road (which is quite a bit), I generally stop at grocery stores to get stuff to put my own meals together.

Dave Duffy said...

Thanks for your thoughts crazy Joe. You have no idea of my experience either. But, there is something likable in about craziness.

bmiller said...

@Chad,

"No sane person, in the world, in the whole actual world, is in favor of open borders. No one."

I am. I must then be insane.


I feel for you. You give an excellent defense for liberals not being crazy, and just as soon as you're done a loonie breaks from the pack and goes streaking naked across the field.:-)

Starhopper said...

Being sane is so 2015.

Dave Duffy said...

"Being sane is so 2015."

Bob, this did make me laugh. Reminds me of my father who grew up in the 50's.

bmiller said...

Got to keep the loonies on the path

Chad Handley said...

"I feel for you. You give an excellent defense for liberals not being crazy, and just as soon as you're done a loonie breaks from the pack and goes streaking naked across the field.:-)"

It's like herding cats with these people...

Starhopper said...

"You give an excellent defense for liberals not being crazy"

To start, there's (at least) one problem with bmiller's comment - I am not a liberal.

bmiller said...

But since you're crazy, it's makes it difficult to tell.

Joe Hinman said...

Part two of my discussion ethical naturism, basing ethical values on science,

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/06/ethical-naturalism-and-value-systems.html

Joe Hinman said...

No sane person, in the world, in the whole actual world, is in favor of open borders. No one.

Many Libertarians are in favor of open borders.


no contradiction there

However, it would be a mistake to describe Libertarians as liberals or conservatives.

right

Joe Hinman said...

Chad Handley said...
Okay, sorry. I overreacted.

June 25, 2018 3:07 PM
Blogger bmiller said...
Promise not to yell at me when you see me in a restaurant? ;-)

June 25, 2018 6:28 PM
Blogger bmiller said...
Of course that was meant to be a joke not a jab. Hope you took it that way.


Darn! I was going to ask if I don;t promise do i get to yell at you?

bmiller said...

@Joe,

I wouldn't know it was you if you didn't yell. :-)

Starhopper said...

As for being "liberal" or "conservative", I honestly do not know what to call myself.

I would like to see all guns removed from the public sphere, but believe the way to go about that is not through legislation, but through education.

Same thing goes for abortion.

As to the environment. I believe that if we all followed the words of Laudato Si', the world would be a far better place. (Or, at least, we'd be on the right road.)

I believe government has a vital and irreplaceable role to play in nearly every aspect of our lives, from regulation to infrastructure to law and order to promoting a just and fair society.

Culturally, I am quite conservative. I prefer old movies to newer ones, and "classical" music to contemporary. As to religious practice, I attend Mass as often as I can (sometimes 4 times in a week), I pray the rosary and divine mercy chaplet daily, and pray privately in Latin (or Polish). I have no respect for what passes nowadays as biblical scholarship. (I regard the Gospels to be literally true, and written by the people whose names they are called by.)

I do not consider same sex marriage to be marriage and consider transgenderism to be a psychological illness. On the grounds of freedom of speech and artistic freedom, I believe that photographers and bakers and florists, etc., can pick and choose the projects they wish to work on.

I am a huge supporter of scientific research and believe it is essential that we colonize the solar system as rapidly as feasible. I accept global climate change as settled science, and would like to see all governments in the world to act decisively to mitigate its sadly inevitable effects. On the other hand, I am quite skeptical about evolution - or, at least, how it is popularly understood.

Over the decades (I cast my first vote in 1972) I have pretty much voted for an equal number of Republicans and Democrats (the Dems have a slight edge), with the occasional independent thrown in the mix.

I do not agree with asking Sanders to leave that restaurant, but I heartily approve of publicly shaming her whenever possible.

So what does that all add up to? Liberal, conservative, or something else?

Legion of Logic said...

"I do not agree with asking Sanders to leave that restaurant, but I heartily approve of publicly shaming her whenever possible."

I love the Christian theme of publicly expressing hatred against people of differing political views when they are out in public with their young children.

Starhopper said...

"expressing hatred"

Not "hatred" but outrage. I feel no hatred towards Sanders - I pity her.

I have a bumper sticker on my car which reads "No hate in 21228" (my zip code). It was put out by a local immigrant support organization and picked up by churches of nearly every denomination. I see cars with that sticker on all the time (several per day, sometimes 10 or more at once in a parking lot).

And as to your "Christian theme" of expressing one's outrage publicly, have you never read Matthew, Chapter 23?

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

have you never read Matthew, Chapter 23

Then you shouldn't be a religious hypocrite should you? Your religion obliges you to work for just laws including abolishing abortion, but you claim there are more important things.

You claim to work for laws for "promoting a just and fair society," but don't lift a finger to protect the most vulnerable and innocent from unjust murder. Woe to you!

Chad Handley said...

Starhopper, I agree about 90% with what you wrote, and I call myself a liberal.

I'm pretty socially conservative myself, but only enough to think that young, college-aged liberals are crazy and weird, not enough to actually base my vote on that feeling.

Starhopper said...

bmiller,

You're a one trick pony, aren't you?

I think we've already dealt with this issue. There's nothing more to say, other than to repeat ourselves.

Legion of Logic said...

"Not "hatred" but outrage. I feel no hatred towards Sanders - I pity her."

While it is admirable, and to be expected, that you would control your temper in such an encounter, I'm thinking more of what Maxine Waters is encouraging, and the sort of people who agree with such dysfunctional behavior. These lunatics would not watch their behavior or language simply because her children were present. I opposed the harassment of Obama officials in public, and I oppose the harassment of Trump officials in public. The families aren't to blame, and frothing protesters aren't known for discernment.

I re-read Mat. 23, and I did not see anything about expressing outrage at secular authorities via attempting to lock them out of every aspect of life that involves stepping out of their house.

Starhopper said...

"attempting to lock them out of every aspect of life that involves stepping out of their house"

No such attempt is being made (or shouldn't be). BUT, our current lobbyist culture in congress, our (inexplicable to me) habit of appointing judges who have no real world experience, and our chief executive surrounded by armored phalanxes of the Imperial Guard mean that the common citizen (who, remember, is supposed to be in charge here) has no means of making himself heard by those supposedly representing him.

Do you then wonder that citizens, out of desperation, have resorted to shouting? How else can they be heard?

For myself, if I ever crossed paths with anyone in the Trump administration (not bloody likely), I would not miss the chance to sound off.

Legion of Logic said...

"our chief executive surrounded by armored phalanxes of the Imperial Guard mean that the common citizen (who, remember, is supposed to be in charge here) has no means of making himself heard by those supposedly representing him."


I certainly understand the frustration, but I find a curious juxtaposition between the frustration of being removed from those "in power", as it were, and your advocacy for open borders, which would require an even further-removed layer of authority beyond the United States federal government to oversee - one that we as citizens would likely have no ability whatsoever to influence. And as we know, once an authority is established, it doesn't tend to voluntarily relinquish power. Quite the opposite, in fact.

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

I think we've already dealt with this issue. There's nothing more to say, other than to repeat ourselves.

But you keep repeating your hypocritical position on abortion and justify your actions based on the Bible. You continue to support people who murder the innocent. I'm obliged to point out your hypocrisy.

After all, you advocate confronting people even when they're merely eating out and not publicly expressing evil intent. Why should you deny me the chance to sound off when that is what you advocate? And why should I get tired of speaking out against evil anyway?

bmiller said...

Looks like we're getting a new Supreme Court Justice.

Chad Handley said...

Legion, your selective outrage is very telling. Trump has actually encouraged violence against people with whom he disagrees (citations available on demand, but I assume we've all seen the quotes by now). There's never been any hand-wringing on the right about any of that. But Maxine Waters makes a much tamer suggestion, and all of you have the vapors and are about to faint and spill your mint juleps.

From what I've seen, I don't find anything egregious in Maxine Waters comments. Unlike Trump, she didn't suggest doing anything violent to anyone, she just said to let your displeasure be known to any Trump official anytime you see them. I think that's fair.

As long as they're not being violent, harassing people on their property, or breaking any laws, people are operating within their rights as citizens to protest however they see fit. And that includes shouting people down in the street.

And if you don't want people yelling at you in front of your kids, don't lock other peoples' kids in cages. I just can't stomach a "but think of the children!" defense from anyone in the Trump administration or anyone who has defended the family separation policy.

Legion of Logic said...

"Legion, your selective outrage is very telling."

That would be true, if I had selective outrage. Trump does not excuse Waters.


"There's never been any hand-wringing on the right about any of that."

And we are all a big monolithic group that thinks the exact same thing, right? So naturally if you aren't aware of any hand-wringing from the right, I must not care either, despite my consistent trashing of Trump. I'll just head over to Fox News to find out what I should think from bootlicker Hannity, like the good Trump supporter the left is doing its best to turn me into.


"From what I've seen, I don't find anything egregious in Maxine Waters comments"

Because calling together a left-wing mob for protesting never gets violent.


"As long as they're not being violent, harassing people on their property, or breaking any laws, people are operating within their rights as citizens to protest however they see fit. And that includes shouting people down in the street."

Civilized people might disagree. I suspect the next time Democrats are in power, if the right engages in this behavior the left won't find it quite so acceptable.


"And if you don't want people yelling at you in front of your kids, don't lock other peoples' kids in cages."

And if you don't want your kids locked in cages, don't break another country's immigration laws by waltzing across the border with your kids in tow. Ultimately the responsibility is on those parents, so I'm curious why no one on the left is angry at them for putting those kids at risk. Probably because they don't have (R) after their name or aren't named "Trump".

And again, nothing - not one thing - that Trump or anyone else in his administration has done would justify tormenting the families of those people. That's one of my least favorite things about what politics does to people, the ugly things they will happily rationalize as acceptable collateral damage so long as it is against the correct target. If you incite mobs against officials in public, their families WILL be exposed to it. That's unacceptable, and all decent people should be opposed.









Legion of Logic said...

"Looks like we're getting a new Supreme Court Justice."

Wonder if the Democrats will try to emulate the Republicans with refusing to even consider Garland, or if they even can now that the nuclear option got played with Gorsuch.

Starhopper said...

"for putting those kids at risk"

Actually, what they're doing is the precise reverse. They are fleeing risk (gang violence, etc.). Staying home for most of them would be putting their kids at risk.

Hugo Pelland said...

Wow Legion....
"And if you don't want your kids locked in cages, don't break another country's immigration laws by waltzing across the border with your kids in tow."
Are you really that disconnected from the facts of what happened with the children being separated from their parents?

"Mothers and fathers who arrive with their children at an official port of entry to lawfully seek asylum are being forcibly separated from their children."
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/blog/asylum-seeking-families-too-are-being-separated

"Amnesty International recently interviewed 17 asylum-seeking parents who were forcibly separated from their children, and all but three of them had entered the USA legally to request asylum."
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/06/usa-family-separation-torture/

"But none of these legal developments requires the Trump administration to separate children from their families. Instead, separations are rising in large part because of a “zero tolerance” policy implemented by Attorney General Jeff Sessions."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/30/fact-checking-immigration-spin-on-separating-families-and-1500-lost-children/?utm_term=.8ae1dcb12dfe

And even if it were completely illegal crossing; the asylum seekers are still just that, asylum seekers, not smugglers or otherwise criminal folks. I am not saying open the borders completely, and Chad responded very well to that point above, but it's just so cruel to punish these people, people who crossed the border in a desperate, and clearly ill-informed, decision. Ignorance is not an excuse to break the law, but it certainly is something to take into account when treating the law breakers. Intent and context are crucial when applying the law!

SteveK said...

If you leave your home in Guatemala for Mexico, did you flee the violence back home or does that only happen once you cross the Rio Grande?

Chad Handley said...

"And if you don't want your kids locked in cages, don't break another country's immigration laws by waltzing across the border with your kids in tow. Ultimately the responsibility is on those parents, so I'm curious why no one on the left is angry at them for putting those kids at risk. Probably because they don't have (R) after their name or aren't named "Trump".

And again, nothing - not one thing - that Trump or anyone else in his administration has done would justify tormenting the families of those people. That's one of my least favorite things about what politics does to people, the ugly things they will happily rationalize as acceptable collateral damage so long as it is against the correct target. If you incite mobs against officials in public, their families WILL be exposed to it. That's unacceptable, and all decent people should be opposed."

The lack of self-awareness in these two paragraphs should be studied for generations.

In the first paragraph, when the parents are (or are championed by) Liberals, "Logic" says that we should blame the parents for what happens to their children, not an official.

In the second paragraph, When the parents are (or are championed by) Conservatives, "Logic" says we should blame the officials for what happen to children, not their parents.

You say this just moments after claiming you don't have selective outrage.

Apparently, consistency is not required for "Logic" anymore.

Since you asked, I'll explain why I'm not mad at the parents. It's so gobsmackingly simple and obvious, I'm a little embarrassed to have to explain it, but we're here now so let's just get one with it.

The parents aren't to blame for the family separation because the parents had no idea it would happen.

Yes, they took the extreme risk of moving their children several thousand miles through difficult conditions. So, just imagine how horrible their lives at home must have been to motivate such a desperate choice. But the only risk they thought they ran was being sent back home. It's not like they knew they were risking never seeing their children again. And pretty obviously, since they had no ability to foresee that this separation could be a consequence of their actions, they are not blameworthy for it. That's a pretty simple principle of moral justice.

On the other hand, the administration knew that their policy would separate parents from their children. They knew they didn't have the ability to adequately take care of these children, they knew they couldn't keep track of them, and they knew they weren't prepared to reunite them with their parents in a timely fashion, or indeed, at all. But they still separated them anyway.

To summarize, one party acted with no foreknowledge of the consequence of family separation, the other party acted with full foreknowledge of the consequence of family separation.

So who in this situation is more blameworthy for the separation?

Hint 1: the answer is not their parents of the children.

Hint 2: the answer is the Trump administration.

bmiller said...

@Chad,

The parents aren't to blame for the family separation because the parents had no idea it would happen.

since they had no ability to foresee that this separation could be a consequence of their actions, they are not blameworthy for it.

Do you have some evidence for this claim? It seems that they would try to contact people they know in this country to get reliable information before making such a dangerous journey and putting their family in further peril. You could be right, but I'd like to see your sources.

bmiller said...

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

She's very charismatic. Is she the first shock in a shake-up of the Democratic party?

bmiller said...

Wonder if the Democrats will try to emulate the Republicans with refusing to even consider Garland, or if they even can now that the nuclear option got played with Gorsuch.

Sounds like the new SC Justice will be approved before November 6th.

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper: "They are fleeing risk (gang violence, etc.). Staying home for most of them would be putting their kids at risk."

Not saying it's the greatest risk compared to what they are leaving. But crossing a country's border illegally isn't a risk-free endeavor anywhere in the world that I know of. Perhaps these parents really weren't aware such a thing could happen, but I find that an amazing lack of knowledge. I don't need to know a country's immigration laws to know not to enter illegally.


Hugo: "Are you really that disconnected from the facts of what happened with the children being separated from their parents?"

Entirely within the realm of possibility, as I haven't heard about those at legal points of entry also being separated (if it's been discussed here, I missed it or misunderstood). Fully agree that this is inexcusable and not remotely the fault of the parents. They tried to do the right thing.

To you and Starhopper both: I appreciate the mature discourse. Moving on.


Chad: "The lack of self-awareness in these two paragraphs should be studied for generations."

You compare a lunatic congresswoman telling people to form angry mobs and confront Trump administration officials anywhere in public - even if they have absolutely nothing to do with ICE or the Border Patrol - to parents who knowingly break immigration laws with their children. In the first, the parents are not to blame for the irrational congresswoman or the equally irrational mobs that would actually try and do what Waters asks them to do.

In the second, the parents brought them here illegally - even if fleeing danger, they are still the ones who did it. Yes, that matters. If I rob a bank to pay for life-saving medicine for one of my kids, I still go to jail regardless of my intent. So, a ludicrous comparison on your part, but not as ludicrous as you vainly attempting to define this alleged lack of self-awareness as being based upon whether the victim is "championed" by my side. I even stated above that I opposed the harassment of Obama officials, which is not "my side". You are again stuck in this monolithic mindset, and it's failing you every time. I'm actually the only one here who has expressed concern for both sides. If anyone isn't being biased, it's me.

I'm on record saying that I do not, in any way, shape, or form, support the separation of children from their parents who cross the border illegally (let alone the asylum seekers at official ports of entry, which I was not aware of until this evening when I read Hugo's post, and is utterly outrageous). I'll affirm that opposition again now. I also do not want angry mobs running around harassing people, particularly when innocents might get targeted. How about you?

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

Are you an American citizen? Or Canadian?

Chad Handley said...

"Do you have some evidence for this claim? It seems that they would try to contact people they know in this country to get reliable information before making such a dangerous journey and putting their family in further peril. You could be right, but I'd like to see your sources."

What? What are you talking about? Some of them had to travel a thousand miles or more ON FOOT. The policy of family separation didn't begin until April. Most AMERICANS weren't aware of it until about a month ago! What, do you think they were getting text alerts from Reuters and AP on their iphones? On their 1000 mile long journey with nothing but the clothes on their back?

Why do you require evidence for obvious things? This was a drastic change in US policy that wouldn't have even begun until MOST of the people now in custody were well into their journey.

My god. I'm sorry, but the deliberate, willful ignorance it takes to be a conservative on some issues just stuns me.

Starhopper said...

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, or indeed with this entire blog, but my ancestral genes are so proud of Poland's victory today over Japan in the World Cup, despite their being simultaneously knocked out of the tournament.

If you have to leave, then do it with style!

SteveK said...

They weren't aware of the times it was done in the past and couldn't foresee the *possibility* of it being done again, especially in light of the news that Trump is literally Hitler. You ignore the warning signs and head toward the arms of Hitler anyway? Okay.

Chad Handley said...

"You compare a lunatic congresswoman telling people to form angry mobs and confront Trump administration officials anywhere in public - even if they have absolutely nothing to do with ICE or the Border Patrol - to parents who knowingly break immigration laws with their children"

Except Maxine Waters actually never said any of that. Inflate your vacuous claims much?

Here's what Waters actually said:

"She said that there should be "no sleep, no peace" for the people responsible...for the separation of children from their parents that was part of the recent "zero tolerance" immigration policy.

Waters finished with a call to action: "If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. You push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!"


Emphasis mine. She VERY SPECIFICALLY LIMITED the targets of protests to people responsible for the family separation policy, yet you claim she declared open season on all Trump officials.

And again I say, the people who are responsible for this policy deserve whatever non-violent, peaceful, law-abiding protests they get. They didn't break any state law, but they broke a pretty fundamental moral law, which is that you don't deliberately harm the innocent. The way Jeff Sessions and others openly talked about this policy as a deterrent makes it pretty clear that family separation isn't some side effect of the zero tolerance policy, it was the goal. To make crossing the border such a terrifying and traumatic experience that it would scare people out of attempting it. That means the harm they're inflicting on these children is INTENTIONAL, and thus UTTERLY IMMORAL.

"In the second, the parents brought them here illegally - even if fleeing danger, they are still the ones who did it. Yes, that matters. If I rob a bank to pay for life-saving medicine for one of my kids, I still go to jail regardless of my intent. "

Only a monstrous person believes that breaking the law justifies any punishment. Sure, you go to jail for robbing a bank, because robbing a bank is a felony. Crossing the border illegally is a MISDEMEANOR. We don't put people in jail for months, and put their children in cages 22 hours a day, possibly to never be seen again, for a friggin' MISDEMEANOR.

That would be like if the Trump administration decided, overnight, to enact a zero tolerance policy on speeding. You, unaware of that policy, get caught speeding on your way to work. You then end up in a prison cell in Texas, while your children end up in Seattle, where they are housed in cages 22 hours a day. You have no contact with them, don't know where they are, and, as far as you know, may never see them again.

Now, you knew you were breaking the law, but you did so because you thought the most that could happen to you was that you'd get a ticket. You in now way thought it possible that you'd be put in prison and have your children shipped a thousand miles away, to some cage where they'd have no contact with you.

Now, in that kind of situation, what kind of absolute monster would blame YOU for what happened to your children?

Chad Handley said...

Sorry, forgot to add the source for that Waters quote:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/25/maxine_waters_god_is_on_our_side.html

Starhopper said...

"Trump is literally Hitler"

I'm glad you brought this up. Too many people dismiss analogies to Hitler, invoking Godwin's Law or some other such nonsense, to dismiss all such. But it would be more profitable to look back on the sad example of Nazi Germany to see just how frighteningly easy it is for such horrors to appear in the most seemingly enlightened nations. After all, Germany was (is) one of Christendom's great cultural treasures, the home of countless saints, magnificent cathedrals, great art, and arguably the best music ever composed. Yet it fell to the worst dictatorship in world history almost overnight.

There is no guarantee that a similar fall from grace could not happen here in America. We may actually be seeing it occur before our very eyes right now, at this very moment. Invoking Godwin's Law may be nothing more than closing your eyes to reality.

It can't happen here!

Chad Handley said...

"They weren't aware of the times it was done in the past and couldn't foresee the *possibility* of it being done again, especially in light of the news that Trump is literally Hitler."

Except it's never been done before, except in the cases where it was thought that the children were in danger. Previously, if your kids weren't bruised up or you weren't a man in his 30s crossing the border with a dozen 16 year old girls and claiming they were all his daughters, you would not be separated from your family.

By the way, I love how you were super-serious at first, but now that you realize your argument is utterly hopeless, you've been reduced to troll-snark.

SteveK said...

Starhopper: My prior question was directed to you as it relates to fleeing violence. In case you missed it...

Me: "If you leave your home in Guatemala for Mexico, did you flee the violence back home or does that only happen once you cross the Rio Grande?"

Chad Handley said...

I have to admit, while I still think the Hitler comparisons are overblown, seeing seemingly intelligent, seemingly well-meaning people like Logic and StevenK justify/tolerate shipping CHILDREN a thousand miles from their parents and housing them in CAGES for 22 hours a day gives me pause. I would never have thought that people who identify themselves as Christians would even passively tolerate such an utterly evil policy so quickly.

Trump is definitely not Hitler. He's not even close. But your average Republican is a lot closer to your average German citizen circa the late 1930s than I would have thought. Most German citizens at that time definitely would not have approved of the full-blown Holocaust, if they had known about it. But they were definitely willing to look the other way at all the incremental steps towards the Holocaust.

Maybe, when Jews were taken away from their families for not wearing the Star of David, some well-meaning Germans blamed the Jews for breaking the law.

bmiller said...

@Chad,

What? What are you talking about? Some of them had to travel a thousand miles or more ON FOOT. The policy of family separation didn't begin until April. Most AMERICANS weren't aware of it until about a month ago! What, do you think they were getting text alerts from Reuters and AP on their iphones? On their 1000 mile long journey with nothing but the clothes on their back?

Got it. You don't have any evidence and are trying to bluff by faux outrage to a reasonable question.

SteveK said...

You're a moron, Chad. When have I justified "shipping CHILDREN a thousand miles from their parents and housing them in CAGES for 22 hours a day"? Quote me please. Quote Legion please.

You are so agitated and so emotional that you are finding words and intentions that aren't there. Sad!

Legion of Logic said...

"people like Logic and StevenK justify/tolerate shipping CHILDREN a thousand miles from their parents and housing them in CAGES for 22 hours a day gives me pause."

The reason it gives you pause is because that is the exact opposite of what I said, which is clear from a fair reading of what I said. You are apparently desperate to twist my words into meaning what you want them to mean so you can attack me.

Once again, my opinion of progressives sinks. Big surprise.

Chad Handley said...

"Got it. You don't have any evidence and are trying to bluff by faux outrage to a reasonable question."

bmiller, how would they have known?

Most of them who arrived in America between April and June would have left from home around December or January, 3-4 months before the policy was in effect. I would think it obvious that the first few hundred people who were caught in April, only DAYS after the policy was in effect, wouldn't have known about it, correct?

Those coming a few weeks later presumably would not have had much contact with anyone in America over the course of their journey, and again, even if they did, most Americans weren't aware of this policy until it became headline news about a month ago.

So, let's say neither of us can prove the exact state of knowledge the immigrants had. What's more reasonable to believe? That indigent people, who don't speak or read English, and have little to no access to the internet or cell phone technology, knew about an American policy four months ago that most Americans only became aware of a month ago?

But of course, the point isn't to believe the most reasonable thing. The point is to believe the thing that lets you preserve your perception of innocence, the thing, however implausible, that lets you keep looking the other way.

Chad Handley said...

"The reason it gives you pause is because that is the exact opposite of what I said, which is clear from a fair reading of what I said. You are apparently desperate to twist my words into meaning what you want them to mean so you can attack me."

When you blame the parents for a punishment they could not have foreseen, a punishment that far outstrips the crime, you are the definition of "passively tolerating" an evil policy.

That's all I accused you of, and that's bad enough to shock me. I would not have believed, a year ago, that American Christians, so-called "family values" Christians, would be doing anything but completely repudiating a policy that, for all they know, might be permanently breaking families apart.

Legion of Logic said...

"When you blame the parents for a punishment they could not have foreseen, a punishment that far outstrips the crime, you are the definition of "passively tolerating" an evil policy."

Not even close. It is absolutely possible and rational to be completely against the practice of separating children from their parents for crossing the border illegally, while also recognizing that no one in the world should think that crossing the border of any country illegally will go well. Border Patrol didn't cross over the border and take kids from parents, did they? Or is that something else I missed?

They are not mutually exclusive propositions. Don't take kids from their parents. Don't cross a country's borders illegally. Absolutely our laws, or at least our procedures, suck big time if asylum seekers can't even go to a legal port of entry to seek asylum. But that is a separate issue from thinking things will go well crossing a border illegally. Even if you can't foresee that particular eventuality, deportation is still a very real consequence that anyone with even basic civic awareness would know is a risk. That wouldn't do their family any good, either.

Starhopper said...

"Don't cross a country's borders illegally."

Legion,

You may not have been following the news closely. Many, if not most, of the families separated in recent weeks did not cross over "illegally". They showed up at designated crossing points, presented themselves to the proper authorities, asked for asylum, and were immediately separated from their children.

Chad Handley said...

"When have I justified "shipping CHILDREN a thousand miles from their parents and housing them in CAGES for 22 hours a day"? Quote me please."

Okay. In the previous thread, on the subject of family separation, you said the following things:

"If a person commits a crime and goes to jail for life, the family is separated for life. I don't see a problem with this."

"Separating families isn't a problem for Christianity."

"Whether it was 10% in the past or 100% today, the point is that separating families at the border

(a) is not an invention of the Trump administration
(b) is allowed under current law"


When I asked whether it mattered if 20 children were thrown in internment camps or whether 2000 were, you responded, incredibly:

"In terms of Christian principles, the numbers are irrelevant."

Then there are all the times, on the previous thread, where you essentially argued that because there was no law prohibiting family separation at the border, that family separation was therefore fine:

"I'm curious to know what bothers people the most?

- the people that voted to pass the law that allows the separation of families at the border

- the people that decided to take advantage of this legal option"

"He(Trump) doesn't have to (separate families). That's obvious to everyone. It's allowed under the law..."


parentheticals mine.

And then there was that time you said quasi-racist things that seemed to justify a preference for Western Christians in immigration policy:

"I’m talking about people who are preferably Christian but at minimum not hostile to it, preferably from a Western culture but not hostile to it, and not hostile to American democracy.

Progressives are hostile to all of these things. Many immigrants are too."


So, yeah, you said a lot of things that seemed to indicate at least a passive acceptance of a horrific policy.

Again, a year ago, I would have believed that this would have been a line American Christians would not cross. I would have thought, once they saw what was actually happening, every American Christian would have said that, regardless of the state of immigration, the United States cannot be a country that ships children thousands of miles from their parents and puts them in cages, full stop. No hemming and hawing, no asking what share of the blame the parents face, no saying "but separating families is allowed within the law, and who cares if it's 20 kids or 2000 kids?" I wouldn't have expected any such equivocations from Christians.

Chad Handley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveK said...

Chad: You purport to be a thinker but you are failing miserably due to emotional blindness.

Accepting the separation of families in the general sense and accepting that happening under the current policy are two different things.

I support the first because it's not *necessarily* a problem for Christian's to support. I support *some* instances of it happening in the second, but likely only a few cases. I stated that my preference would be to deport everyone and detain nobody (except asylum seekers).

I said nothing about shipping children a 1000 miles or confining to cages for 22 hours. That was YOUR emotionally agitated invention, and THAT was what I objected to.

Chad Handley said...

"It is absolutely possible and rational to be completely against the practice of separating children from their parents for crossing the border illegally, while also recognizing that no one in the world should think that crossing the border of any country illegally will go well."

Again, IT'S A MISDEMEANOR.

Illegally entering America is a MISDEMEANOR.

It's the same level of crime as driving without insurance, or going 15 miles over the speed limit, or being publicly intoxicated, or firing a gun within city limits, or marijuana possession.

If someone you knew got arrested for marijuana possession, and as a result, his children were taken away from him, put in a cage where he had no contact with them, and he wasn't sure he would ever see them again, would you say to him: Well, you shouldn't expect committing a misdemeanor to go well?!"

If so, fine. We don't need to discuss things any further. You're just kind of a monster and there's nothing I can do about that. But if you wouldn't say that to your frined, if you'd instead say "the government has gone completely friggin' crazy to do such cruel things to people over such small transgressions!," then you're starting to see how you're coming across on this issue, and why your comments, particularly in light of the fact that you are a Christian, are downright shocking.

No country in the world does anything more to illegal immigrants than to deport them back to their country of origin. So while no one should expect to be welcomed with open arms to a country they entered illegally, they also should in no way expect to be perhaps permanently separated from their children.

The punishment for breaking some laws is so draconian that it's unreasonable to blame the offender for what happens to them, and this is of course OBVIOUSLY TRUE when the offender was unaware of the scope of the punishment.

"Even if you can't foresee that particular eventuality, deportation is still a very real consequence that anyone with even basic civic awareness would know is a risk."

Okay, but you're not in this thread blaming parents for being deported with their children. You're blaming them for their children being taken thousands of miles from them and being put in cages. Something they could not have foreseen.

Chad Handley said...

"Accepting the separation of families in the general sense and accepting that happening under the current policy are two different things. "

But you DID accept what is happening under current policy. I quoted you several times arguing, essentially, that because what Trump is doing is technically legal it's therefore fine. Yes, you did say you disagreed with it, but you never said it was immoral or wrong. Even after you were told what the policy entailed, you still insinuated that it wasn't illegal and therefore it wasn't immoral. Just that level of defense of a policy so obviously harmful to children from a Christian is way beyond where I thought we would be at this point even under a Trump administration.

"I said nothing about shipping children a 1000 miles or confining to cages for 22 hours. That was YOUR emotionally agitated invention"

No, THAT'S WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING. When you're defending Trump because technically what he's doing is allowed within the law, that's what you're defending.

But if I'm wrong, just say that, inasmuch as the Trump policy IN PRACTICE sends children thousands of miles from their parents and puts them in cages 22 hours a day, the Trump policy is therefore completely morally indefensible. It must be ended and reuniting parents with their children in a timely fashion must be a top priority of the Trump administration.

That seems like a reasonable and frankly morally obligatory thing to say, right?

So say it.

If I'm wrong about you, say it.

SteveK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SteveK said...

Chad: Because you cannot think straight, you think "it's legal to separate families" equates to me saying "it's morally justified to do it in EVERY case AND in EVERY way that it's currently being practiced".

You're an emotional train wreck. I suggest you take a break from the internet.

(edited for clarity)

Chad Handley said...

"Because you cannot think straight, you think "it's legal to do this" equates to me saying "it's morally justified to do it in every case". "

No, I think if someone says to you that an action is immoral, and your response to that specific comment is "but it's legal," then you are saying the legality of the action in some way ameliorates the immorality of the action. And you are, in any event, defending the action, otherwise, why bring up the fact that it's legal?

Because you cannot think straight, you equate my saying that you are passively defending/tolerating Trump's policy with my saying you said it was "morally justified... in every case." I never said that. I know you aren't gung ho in favor of this policy, I know you'd prefer a different policy, but you are also defending/tolerating the policy, and that's monstrous enough.

I'm thinking very clearly, thanks for your concern.

SteveK said...

Which immoral action did I say was moral because it was legal?

Legion of Logic said...

Starhopper,

I made it clear that, regarding those seeking asylum at legal ports of entry and then getting separated anyway, it is utter garbage that is indefensible in even the loosest sense. Nothing I have said regarding those who cross illegally is directed at those cases.

Chad,

I've learned how futile it is to convince a progressive they are wrong about a person's position and motivations once they decide they've figured it out, but despite knowing better I will try one more time to allow you to figure out what I'm saying.

First and foremost, as I have repeatedly said in this thread, under no circumstances do I support parents being separated from their kids if they have not done anything beyond crossing illegally. Any attempt to declare otherwise is a lie and easily disproven by my own words.

Two, the US government is not going to other countries and taking kids away from parents. Nor are these families waking up one day, discovering that somehow they have been unknowingly transported to the US, and then have the government show up and split the family. Even if they don't know how bad it can get, anyone and everyone knows it is not a good idea to enter any country on earth illegally. They take that action willingly, and thus the scenario is set up.

(Reminder of Point 1: This is not justification for removing kids from parents, and any other interpretation of my words is a lie. The whole progressive notion of "victim blaming" is a detriment to rational thought.)

Three, the US government has the right (and duty) to police its borders, deport illegals, and to discourage illegal immigration. On the flip side, it has the right and duty to make its immigration laws just. There's no reason to deny someone seeking asylum unless for some reason it can't be verified that their story is even plausible.

(Reminder of Point 1: I don't support taking kids from parents.)

So, to review: It is unacceptable to take kids from their parents for something like crossing the border illegally. It is not wise to cross a country's borders illegally. The US government should have a secure border and deport those here illegally, but its immigration laws should be fair and uncumbersome. It shouldn't take years to process.

If you have a problem with any of that, I'll simply have to chalk it up to irrationality. I literally see nothing problematic, certainly in the way you've tried to twist my position into something I don't even recognize. Lying isn't a very Christian behavior either.

Chad Handley said...

Why did you bring up the question of legality?

SteveK said...

Chad: I tolerate US policies that in practice involve a lot of immoral activities. The policies themselves don't state in writing the immoral practices that are occurring, which is why I can support these legal policies in good conscience.

I support the legality of separating 100% the families at the border for the reason that criminals cannot be housed with innocents. Makes sense to me. Happens all the time. Innocents should not be locked up with those under arrest.

There is no detail in the policy that is *necessarily* immoral - so yes, I support the policy as written. In practice, I don't support some of what's happening.

Chad Handley said...

"I've learned how futile it is to convince a progressive they are wrong about a person's position and motivations once they decide they've figured it out, but despite knowing better I will try one more time to allow you to figure out what I'm saying."

Didn't you just complain that I was making conservatives out to be monolithic by lumping you in with them, Legion of Inconsistent, uh I mean Legion of Special Pleading... uh, I mean Legion of Hypocrisy... uh, I mean Legion of "Logic?"

Your decision to be bigoted against Progressives is on you. It has nothing to do with me.

And this is pretty rich for a guy who just got caught red-handed OUTRIGHT LYING about what Maxine Waters said. Pot-kettle much?

"First and foremost, as I have repeatedly said in this thread, under no circumstances do I support parents being separated from their kids if they have not done anything beyond crossing illegally."

But you also said:

"...if you don't want your kids locked in cages, don't break another country's immigration laws by waltzing across the border with your kids in tow. Ultimately the responsibility is on those parents..."

I come back again to the analogies you keep ignoring because they are completely devastating to your case. Saying the quoted above is exactly like saying any of the following:

"... if you don't want your kids locked in cages, don't smoke marijuana. Ultimately the responsibility is on those parents..."

"... if you don't want your kids locked in cages, don't drive 15 miles over the speed limit. Ultimately the responsibility is on those parents..."

"... if you don't want your kids locked in cages, don't buy firecrackers in a state where they're illegal. Ultimately the responsibility is on those parents..."


Can you not see how someone making the statements above would come across as insufficiently aware of the discrepancy between the severity of the transgression and the draconian nature of the punishment?

And of how a person who makes such a statement could be said to be demonstrating a shocking insensitivity to the people hurt by the situation?


Chad Handley said...

"I support the legality of separating 100% the families at the border for the reason that criminals cannot be housed with innocents. Makes sense to me. Happens all the time. Innocents should not be locked up with those under arrest. "

It doesn't happen all the time when the person is charged WITH A MISDEMEANOR. If you commit a misdemeanor, you get a ticket, or a citation, or more often than not, a warning.

People who commit the same level of crime as people crossing the border illegally don't generally get locked up at all. We never locked up 100% of people entering illegally before, and there's no reason for doing it now.

You and Logic aren't understanding where you're going morally astray. You are breaking the fundamental premise of justice that the punishment must fit the crime.

People aren't supposed to be locked in jails for months for misdemeanors. So the question of whether innocents should be jailed with those under arrest should never even come up. They shouldn't be arrested for such minor transgressions in the first place, particularly if you can FORESEE that a consequence of their being arrested will be possibly irreparable harm to their innocent children.

Again, you can no longer claim ignorance about what the PRACTICAL, REAL WORLD EFFECTS of this policy entail. So you can't with any intellectual honest or Christian charity claim to 100% support a policy in theory that you know will be UNNECESSARILY HARMFUL TO INNOCENT CHILDREN in practice.

SteveK said...

Chad: "It doesn't happen all the time when the person is charged WITH A MISDEMEANOR. If you commit a misdemeanor, you get a ticket, or a citation, or more often than not, a warning."

All true, but irrelevant.

"We never locked up 100% of people entering illegally before, and there's no reason for doing it now"

It's never justified to hand out tougher sentences for everyone involved? I'm not in that camp. "Because we want to deter a lot of that behavior" is a reason.

"You are breaking the fundamental premise of justice that the punishment must fit the crime."

I disagree.

"People aren't supposed to be locked in jails for months for misdemeanors"

Wrong. Immigration law allows jail time. Check your facts.

Are you equally morally outraged at the people that passed the law that allows jail time? I asked that before. You seem to be tolerating this law pretty well for some reason.

Chad Handley said...

"It's never justified to hand out tougher sentences for everyone involved?"

Not if the deterrent does more harm than the crime.

""Because we want to deter a lot of that behavior" is a reason."

It's not a morally sufficient reason, if the deterrent effect requires harming children for a relatively un-serious offense of their parent.

Yes, it's worth separating a child from his parent long-term, possibly permanently, if his parent is a murderer. Or a drug-trafficker. Or a sex-trafficker. Not if they're a border-hopper.

I said:

"You are breaking the fundamental premise of justice that the punishment must fit the crime."

You said:

"I disagree."

Apparently.

"Wrong. Immigration law allows jail time. Check your facts."

CONVICTIONS on immigration allows for months of jail time. (Six months for a first offense, to be exact)We don't keep people in jail FOR MONTHS if they're awaiting trial on a misdemeanor. Legally, they're only supposed to be held for AT MOST 30 days, but a person actually being in jail for that long awaiting trial for buying firecrackers or smoking a joint or something else of roughly the level of a misdemeanor is unheard of. There are people still locked up who were arrested in June. That's three months in prison, three times as long as the law allows, with no contact with their children, for a misdemeanor.

"Are you equally morally outraged at the people that passed the law that allows jail time? I asked that before. You seem to be tolerating this law pretty well for some reason."

I just don't share your belief that every single cruel, unwise, and absurd practice an administration could get up to has to be explicitly forbidden in law. There are any number of wise, just enforcement policies that are consistent with any law. So if someone enacts an asinine policy, the fact that it's not explicitly illegal doesn't bother me much. Just the fact that no one thought to expressly forbid shipping kids a thousand miles from their parents, because they thought no one would be stupid or cruel enough to do so, doesn't for me excuse the stupid, cruel people who do it.

No legal system can specifically delineate every stupid, evil away an administration could go wrong, so it's just irrational to expect that. I think it's more prudent to expect administrations to stick to generally understood concepts of decency and prudence rather than to try to write a million page law code that would be impossible to understand or enforce.

Now, on the specific question of whether I support jail time for illegal immigration, I do not. If you're problem with a person is that they're in your country, it doesn't make sense to punish them by allowing them to stay in your country, and to pay for their room and board and medical care while they're there. To paraphrase the old Chris Rock joke, "If you live in an old neighborhood in Nicaragua, a new jail ain't that bad." I don't think it's an effective policy or an effective deterrent.

I think the Trump administration knows this, and as a result, concocted the policy of family separation as the real deterrent. Jeff Sessions and other administration officials have been caught on record saying as much. Which means, as I've told you before, that family separation isn't an accidental side effect of the zero tolerance policy. It's the goal. It's not being arrested that's supposed to scare and deter illegal immigrants. It's the threat of losing your children.








bmiller said...

@Chad,

But of course, the point isn't to believe the most reasonable thing. The point is to believe the thing that lets you preserve your perception of innocence, the thing, however implausible, that lets you keep looking the other way.

What the heck? I asked a simple question because you made such an authoritative declaration I thought you had some data I could look at. Now you accuse me of some malevolent intent because you made a guess and didn't even wait to see if I agreed with you or not.

Since you told us you were against open borders I was hoping to have a rational discussion using data we could both agree on.

One last try. How would you close the border?

Legion of Logic said...

"Didn't you just complain that I was making conservatives out to be monolithic by lumping you in with them, Legion of Inconsistent, uh I mean Legion of Special Pleading... uh, I mean Legion of Hypocrisy... uh, I mean Legion of "Logic?""

You'd actually have a great point here, to the extent I agree I am indeed guilty of hypocrisy. I would point out, though, that you perfectly matched my preconception, while I was not conforming to yours. Less than mature delivery aside, though, thank you for pointing out my hypocrisy, and my apologies to the other progressives here.

"And this is pretty rich for a guy who just got caught red-handed OUTRIGHT LYING about what Maxine Waters said. Pot-kettle much?"

I am unaware of any lie I've told regarding Waters. I did scroll back up and see that I had missed one of your responses, and indeed she did specify that cabinet, so I acknowledge I was wrong. Now then, do you know the difference between a lie and a mistake?


"Can you not see how someone making the statements above would come across as insufficiently aware of the discrepancy between the severity of the transgression and the draconian nature of the punishment?"

Sure, I'll concede that I shouldn't have said "responsible" (though a charitable interperation would take into account my being on record multiple times as being utterly opposed to the kids getting separated under any circumstances, an interpretation you opted out of).

What I am getting at is, if I were to put my money in a box out by the street, and in the morning I find it has been stolen, it is not my fault that it got stolen, but I definitely engaged in behavior that set the stage when if, had I not done it, the money would still be with me. And any rational analysis of my money being stolen would not fail to include why it was in a box by the street. Why was the family in the country illegally, and was that instrumental in the separation? Doesn't justify the punishment, but certainly a wrong act that helped set the stage.

Chad Handley said...

" I would point out, though, that you perfectly matched my preconception, while I was not conforming to yours."

My preconception was that you never brought up Trump's incitements to violence on this forum, and to my knowledge you haven't.

"Less than mature delivery aside, though, thank you for pointing out my hypocrisy, and my apologies to the other progressives here."

Very gracious of you.

"I am unaware of any lie I've told regarding Waters. I did scroll back up and see that I had missed one of your responses, and indeed she did specify that cabinet, so I acknowledge I was wrong. Now then, do you know the difference between a lie and a mistake? "

Okay, it wasn't a lie; it was a mistake. But you have to understand how it looks that you (and bmiller, and StevenK) are making a lot of such mistakes. And a lot of the mistakes stem from just being uninformed about what's going on. And that lack of being informed is curious given that you seem to care so much about the issue of immigration. So, again, it starts to appear, rightly or wrongly, like you don't know some things because you don't want to know them and you are avoiding knowing them.

"Sure, I'll concede that I shouldn't have said "responsible" (though a charitable interperation would take into account my being on record multiple times as being utterly opposed to the kids getting separated under any circumstances, an interpretation you opted out of)."

I opted out of them, because almost every one of your denunciations of the family separation policy is quickly followed by you saying something like "but that was the risk they took." Which sounds to me like on some level you're making an excuse for an inexcusable policy.

If you had instead just consistently said what I think you actually mean, which is that the current policy is completely unacceptable but illegal immigration is also always wrong, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But the way you phrased it, perhaps unintentionally, made it sound like you were saying that on some level the separated families deserved what they got.

"What I am getting at is, if I were to put my money in a box out by the street, and in the morning I find it has been stolen, it is not my fault that it got stolen, but I definitely engaged in behavior that set the stage when if, had I not done it, the money would still be with me. And any rational analysis of my money being stolen would not fail to include why it was in a box by the street."

Okay, but losing your money because you left it in the street is a FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE of leaving your money in the street. Having your children taken from you, perhaps permanently, for crossing the US border is not.

What happened to the families caught in the zero tolerance policy mess is more like if you left your money in the street, and somebody kidnapped your little sister. You knew leaving your money out could mean you lost your money, but you had no idea it could mean you lost your little sister. And if you knew, you surely would have acted differently. And no rational analysis would say that you bear any responsibility for your sister being kidnapped, simply because you had no reason to believe your action could possibly lead to that consequence.

Starhopper said...

"if I were to put my money in a box out by the street, and in the morning I find it has been stolen, it is not my fault that it got stolen"

Ha! This brought to mind something that was common on Maryland's Eastern Shore about 20 years ago (but sadly no longer). We'd be driving home from a day at the beach and pass by unattended carts off the shoulders of the road, full of produce from a nearby farm - cantaloupes, tomatoes, corn, etc. And there in the cart would be an open box filled with cash that people had left to purchase whatever they wanted. It was totally an honor system. Take what you wanted, throw your money in the box, and don't steal what others had left behind before you.

SteveK said...

Not if the deterrent does more harm than the crime.

I'm not convinced that it will produce more harm. The effects are unforeseen.

"CONVICTIONS on immigration allows for months of jail time. (Six months for a first offense, to be exact)We don't keep people in jail FOR MONTHS if they're awaiting trial on a misdemeanor. Legally, they're only supposed to be held for AT MOST 30 days"

Good to know. If the law isn't being followed then that's a problem.

"Yes, it's worth separating a child from his parent long-term, possibly permanently, if his parent is a murderer. Or a drug-trafficker. Or a sex-trafficker. Not if they're a border-hopper."

I don't think we are separating people permanently. I'm not sure what 'long term' means here. What sentence can a judge hand out?

"I just don't share your belief that every single cruel, unwise, and absurd practice an administration could get up to has to be explicitly forbidden in law."

I don't believe it's possible either.

"Just the fact that no one thought to expressly forbid shipping kids a thousand miles from their parents, because they thought no one would be stupid or cruel enough to do so, doesn't for me excuse the stupid, cruel people who do it. "

Here we go again. I never said that I approve of this. I said this isn't part of the Trump zero tolerance policy as it's stated - and because that is a fact I support the policy. If this was part of the policy then I'd be arguing your side.

Chad Handley said...

And I think it's important to say here, that I am not alone in this. I talk to a lot of people of color, a lot of liberals, and a lot of Never Trumpers. And they are shocked by how quickly and completely White Christian Conservatives have accepted this policy.

And keep in mind, these are, for the most part, people who do not think much of White Christian Conservatives or Trump Voters in the first place. And they are shocked that a president could put tear children from their mothers, ship them a thousand miles away, throw them in cages 22 hours a day, and still have an almost 90% approval rating among Republicans.

To their credit, many prominent Republicans have completely left the party over this policy and the rank and file acceptance of it. George Will and Steve Schmidt spring to mind. So it's no use just pretending it's ultra-liberal snowflakes who are shocked by this. Lifelong Republicans with conservative credentials exceeding anyone in this conversation are also shocked and alarmed by it.

Do you understand how scary that would be for a minority to see little Mexican children being treated just a little bit better than Jews were treated early on in Hitler's regime, and yet the President treating them so badly has UNPRECEDENTED APPROVAL within his party?

Sometimes, learning how other people see you can help you see yourselves. And quite frankly, I think some of the people on your side of the aisle need to take a good hard look at themselves. You are headed in a VERY, VERY, VERY bad direction. And as the old Chinese proverb says, "If you don't change your path, you will end up where you're headed."

Chad Handley said...

"I'm not convinced that it will produce more harm."

So you're just going to conduct an experiment on live human subjects, children no less, in order to find out? And if children have to be scarred for life to satisfy your idle intellectual curiosity, well you can't make an omelette without breaking up a few families?

Perhaps simple human decency and Christian morality require that you be convinced BEFORE you start harming children?

"I don't think we are separating people permanently. I'm not sure what 'long term' means here. What sentence can a judge hand out?"

Here we go again with the willful ignorance and the deliberate not knowing.

As has been widely reported, despite their claims, there is substantial evidence the government has not been keeping track of where the separated children and parents are, and has made no provision for reuniting them. Some parents are being deported back to their home countries while their children are still here, and there is no mechanism in place for reuniting them.

So if you have a mother in Guatemala somewhere and her daughter is in foster care in Seattle, and they don't know where each other are and neither does anyone in the US government, how are they ever supposed to be reunited?

Link: https://www.salon.com/2018/06/28/for-many-immigrant-families-the-fight-for-reunification-is-just-beginning_partner/

"I said this isn't part of the Trump zero tolerance policy as it's stated - and because that is a fact I support the policy. If this was part of the policy then I'd be arguing your side."

Again, you are misinformed. Several members of the Trump administration, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, said that the family separation was the entire point of the policy. They said that separating the families was the part of the policy that was supposed to act as the deterrent.

Admittedly, once people got wind of the fact they were saying this they tried to deny it and walk it back, but there's substantial evidence that family separation is the goal of the policy.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/19/here-are-the-administration-officials-who-have-said-that-family-separation-is-meant-as-a-deterrent/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.180ebfcd7a0f

Family separation is not a bug. It's a feature.

Legion of Logic said...

"But you have to understand how it looks that you (and bmiller, and StevenK) are making a lot of such mistakes. And a lot of the mistakes stem from just being uninformed about what's going on."

I am only judged by my own mistakes. In my case, it simply did not register that she has specified. Wouldn't be the first time I skimmed right over a relevant detail. And, in my defense, it would not be the first time she acted like a nutjob.

bmiller said...

@Chad,

But you have to understand how it looks that you (and bmiller, and StevenK) are making a lot of such mistakes.

You don't have a good record of actually reading what I actually wrote. You do have a good record of raging against what you thought I wrote.

SteveK said...

"Family separation is not a bug. It's a feature.

Yes, I know. I already told you I'm okay with Trump's new policy that hands out tougher sentences for everyone involved.

I also told you I'm okay with the existing policy that separates those under arrest from those who are not under arrest.

And finally, I also told you I'm not okay with shipping children a 1000 miles away from parents, however since this is not a stated element of Trump's new policy it doesn't cause me to reject that new policy.

SteveK said...

"As has been widely reported, despite their claims, there is substantial evidence the government has not been keeping track of where the separated children and parents are, and has made no provision for reuniting them. Some parents are being deported back to their home countries while their children are still here, and there is no mechanism in place for reuniting them."

This is not part of Trump's new policy. It wouldn't surprise me that this is happening but it's not part of a new policy directive.

SteveK said...

"Under my new immigration policy we will separate children from their families by 1000's of miles and not keep any records so that it will be more difficult to reunite them at a later day."

Signed,
"Literally Hitler" Donald J. Trump

Chad Handley said...

"And finally, I also told you I'm not okay with shipping children a 1000 miles away from parents, however since this is not a stated element of Trump's new policy it doesn't cause me to reject that new policy."

So it doesn't matter that the policy ACTUALLY harms children, it doesn't matter that the policy was INTENDED to harm children, it only matters that this INTENDED ACTUAL HARM to children was carefully hidden in the documents?

You were born 80 years too late and about 7000 miles too far West. You've got a bright past behind you.







Hugo Pelland said...

bmiller said...
"@Hugo,
Are you an American citizen? Or Canadian?
"

Canadian, why?

Chad Handley said...

"I'm not going to explicitly order an inhumane clusterf*ck that will mostly harm very young children, I'm just going to enact a policy so shortsighted and wrongheaded, and with such little preparation, that an inhumane clusterf*ck that will mostly harm very young children is a guaranteed result."

Signed
"Metaphorically Hitler" Donald J. Trump

"I approve this plan."

Signed
"Literal Metaphorical Hitler Supporter" SteveK

Starhopper said...

The apologists for Trump's immigration policies resemble the (historically nonexistent) people who argued how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Whatever the theory or legal justification, the reality is pain and anguish. It is babies crying for their mothers, and mothers, like Rachel in the Scriptures, "weeping for her children."

I care not for all this legalistic bullshit. I will be out there this Saturday with hundreds of thousands of others, protesting the descent of our nation into barbarism. If you happen to be in Baltimore on the 30th, look for me wearing my "Veterans for Peace" T-shirt amongst the crowd.

Chad Handley said...

"You don't have a good record of actually reading what I actually wrote."

In the previous thread on the issue, you repeated the Trump administration propaganda that his new policy was required by the Flores agreement. You even went so far as to say that Trump's EO stopping family separation was possibly against the law.

These claims have been debunked so gosh darn hard and so gosh darn completely that only someone who is deliberately avoiding reading up on the issue could still be making them.

Over and over again, either myself or Starhopper or Hugo have had to correct some very fundamental misconceptions on the part of you or Logic or SteveK. Misconceptions that have been widely debunked... basically everywhere the story is being reported on.

You guys speak as if immigration is a very high priority for you, yet you remain remarkably uninformed about basic facts about the biggest immigration story in 20 years. I can't explain that except to assume you've made the decision, perhaps subconsciously (or overtly, in SteveK's case) to look the other way where cruelty to immigrants is concerned, so long as you get the end result you want.

SteveK said...

"I'm going to read things into policies that aren't there and then rely on a strawman to blame others of supporting policies that intend to do the things that I imagined - because I'm a dishonest person"

Signed,
Chad

Hugo Pelland said...

Great summary again Chad. To be fair, I don't think there are evil intentions from anyone here, especially not from Legion who did concede some details were just unknown, and really bad.

But I do sense an imbalance between compassion and an us-vs-them combative attitudes. Both are justified, depending on the context. It's not all black&white, sometimes we need to be tough, sometimes we need to be compassionate. So that's why I say there is an "imbalance" here, not just a flat out lack of compassion.

But, it's frustrating sometimes, because universities with excessive political correctness tendencies are seen as some sort of Marxist existential threat, while the office of the POTUS is just doing its job fairly, with perhaps some missteps here and there, just some illegals anyway, nothing big, move along... oh and forget about the attacks on the press, the removal of net neutrality, the insane increase in military spending... it's those dam SJWs!! We got to do something about those guys. They are destroying America.

bmiller said...

@Chad,

In the previous thread on the issue, you repeated the Trump administration propaganda that his new policy was required by the Flores agreement. You even went so far as to say that Trump's EO stopping family separation was possibly against the law.

What is wrong with you?

You're frantically searching for something I posted on a different thread to desperately find something you can accuse me of "wrongthink"? That's pitiful.

I linked to the US government's DHS site and asked a question to start a discusion (how long ago...a week? and no one responded...notably not you).

Also I am an guilty of going "so far as to say that Trump's EO stopping family separation was possibly against the law."

Sorry Commisar Chad, but the "open borders" advocates will sue and most likely win.

Why don't you answer my question regarding what you would do to "close" the borders?

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

Are you for "open borders"?
And are you a Canadian Citizen?

You have not answered either of these questions.

Hugo Pelland said...

Sorry bmiller I did not answer the first one directly, true, but I did state that I agree with Chad's response to that question above. I did answer just a few minutes ago that I am Canadian and was curious to know why you're asking?

Legion of Logic said...

Chad: "You guys speak as if immigration is a very high priority for you, yet you remain remarkably uninformed about basic facts about the biggest immigration story in 20 years. I can't explain that except to assume you've made the decision, perhaps subconsciously (or overtly, in SteveK's case) to look the other way where cruelty to immigrants is concerned, so long as you get the end result you want."

I see you are still misrepresenting me. Is there a particular reason why?

Joe Hinman said...

on metacrock's blog a little thing by an evangelical about some people connected with sojourners being arrested at the white house in protest,over the kids. I welcome comments on the blog.

Metacrcok's blog

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

When was the last time you attended a pro-life rally to protest the murder of the innocent?

Starhopper said...

Does Mass count?

bmiller said...

Is the protest you're going to on the 30th a Mass?

And by the way, don't you consider it rather contradictory to wear a "Veterans" shirt when you've renounced your citizenship?

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

It's rather obvious why your nationality matters in a discussion about American laws isn't it? Not only don't you have any skin in the game, Canada has different laws and doesn't face the same situation as the US.

Do you know what Canadian laws are wrt to immigration and refugees? That would be a useful discussion point.

Starhopper said...

I will be going to Mass immediately afterwards. Our Lady of the Holy Rosary is right down the street from the rally's location. That was my parish church when I lived in Baltimore (before moving to Catonsville). It will be good to be "home" again.

SteveK said...

“I'm not going to explicitly order an inhumane clusterf*ck that will mostly harm very young children, I'm just going to enact a policy so shortsighted and wrongheaded, and with such little preparation, that an inhumane clusterf*ck that will mostly harm very young children is a guaranteed result."

See also: the human trafficking that results from a catch and release policy

Starhopper said...

"don't you consider it rather contradictory to wear a "Veterans" shirt

Hmmph..I've earned the right to wear whatever shirt I choose, and to attend whatever rally I wish to. Have you?

Hugo Pelland said...

@bmiller,
I have been living in the USA for 7 years and will probably be a citizen by the 2020 POTUS election. By far, most of my friends are immigrants too, and some are second-generation citizens. I personally know people who have families who cannot come visit because of the travel ban...

Plus, Canada, because of the climate in the US and misinformation, also saw some impact with waves of immigrants leaving the US. They had to house over 6,000 asylum seekers at the Olympic stadium in Montréal last year.
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/mobile/olympic-stadium-no-longer-a-shelter-for-asylum-seekers-1.3576337

And the main issues I'm concerned about here are human rights. The USA should decide who can enter or not, that is not what I see as problematic today. What other countries do is thus irrelevant as far as I can tell, but maybe you do have a reason to ask more specifically about Canada?

bmiller said...

@Starhopper,

I was referring to your proclamation that you are no longer a of the country known as the United States of America.

Countries have borders and you've explicitly said you oppose borders and do not consider the federal government legit.

bmiller said...

Should have been "that you are no longer citizen a of the country "


bmiller said...

@Hugo,

I asked you about Canada because you are a Canadian.

I think the US laws are broken. No one here seems interested in discussing how to fix those laws. Oh well.

bmiller said...

Should have been "that you are no longer citizen a of the country "

OK, last try:

"that you are no longer a citizen of the country "

Starhopper said...

What you should have written is that I dream of the day when neither I nor anyone else is a citizen of any country, but rather that we are all equally members of an united humanity, and that wherever I or anyone else finds himself, we are home.

That day is sadly not here yet. Until then, we remain citizens of various countries. But not forever! If not in this world, then most certainly in the next, we will all be one (despite the lunatic ravings of a former poster to this site). I would love nothing more than to see it in this life. May it be so!

Starhopper said...

Make that "a united humanity".

SteveK said...

”May it be so”

Have you read the New Testament? Have you read Revelations? Not gonna happen.

Legion of Logic said...

Just imagine what the people in power over a world government would be like, given the smaller-scale examples we have. Would be rather apocalyptic...metaphorically of course.

bmiller said...

Just imagine what the people in power over a world government would be like, given the smaller-scale examples we have. Would be rather apocalyptic...metaphorically of course.

It would be just like my HOA! Egads!

bmiller said...

@Bob,

Leave the hate behind. #Walkaway

Starhopper said...

You mean, don't respond to any more of your comments?

bmiller said...

I really don't think you can avoid the temptation :-)

Starhopper said...

I know. Sinful man that I am, I am a champion succumber.

But seriously, why do you equate protesting a manifestly evil policy by one's own government with hatred? ("leave the hate behind") Were the civil rights marchers of the 60s marching out of hatred? Did the anti-war protesters during Vietnam protest out of hatred? Do participants in contemporary pro-life rallies do so out of hatred?

By the way, what is #Walkaway? Is that a twitter thing? I'm not on Twitter, and wouldn't know how to get to it. (I'm not a big "social media" person. I'm not on facebook, instagram, pinterest, linkedin... in fact, I'm not on anything except various blogs like this one.)

bmiller said...

I really didn't pay much attention to what it was that you were going to protest. Which evil policy is it? Family separation is over so it can't be that right?

There was a lot of violence and hatred in the 60's and from the rhetoric I'm witnessing (even here) we're in for round 2. I'm afraid this time around it's going to be worse since 90% of the Democrats think the president is an evil dictator and 60% of the people think there is going to be a civil war. What we are moving toward is horrible. Unless of course you're Russia and want to see America tear itself apart (they are here to help that along you know).

You haven't sounded much like a "give peace a chance" type of protester to me with all your talk of demons and evil. It seems you've become very animated now that you can find an object to hate. By the way, Pluto is not a planet. It says so at Lowell Observatory. (Hint: that was a test)

The hashtag is for youngsters who got tired of the hate.

Hugo Pelland said...

"I'm afraid this time around it's going to be worse since 90% of the Democrats think the president is an evil dictator and 60% of the people think there is going to be a civil war."

Huh?
What would be some more realistic numbers here? Some people would fit, but not 90-60% respectively.

bmiller said...

I posted the ~90% number link before and recently saw the ~60% number wrt to civil war.

If you have different numbers, let me know.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

Sorry I remembered wrong. 1/3 of Americans think there will be a civil war soon. 59% think that anti-Trump folks will commit violence.

Hugo Pelland said...

Recently, where? Just went through the 46 mentions of your name here...
But it makes no sense anyway. What were the questions exactly? 90% disaprove of Trump maybe? Even then...

Hugo Pelland said...

Oh ok, so a lot of people are afraid. Makes more sense.

bmiller said...

Ok, torture of the innocent in the US has gone too far.

Is there NO humanity left?

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

Look in this topic:
"Why Opposition to Trump is so intense, or do we all want the same things?"

SteveK said...

@bmiller
Barry Manilow, he writes the songs that make the whole world...eh, cringe. If it works maybe we should play his stuff at the border.

bmiller said...

@SteveK,

It's inhumane I say!

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

Sorry. Mis-remembered again. It was 48% of Democrats that think Trump is more dangerous than #2 Putin.

Hugo Pelland said...

Okk ya, found it
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/06/11/americans-perceptions-of-threatening-world-leaders-infographic/#4a52a66442ce

Kind of far from what you originally said... but you caricatured the right way. These respondents exaggerate in my opinion.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

As far as most dangerous world leaders, where do you think Trump ranks?

Hugo Pelland said...

I don't think he's dangerous enough to be high ranked on such list. But he's worse than average for sure.

bmiller said...

Who do you think is most dangerous then?

bmiller said...

Trudeau?

Hugo Pelland said...

Yes, Trudeau for sure.

bmiller said...

Probably listens to Manilow too. I knew it!

Starhopper said...

Hey, there's nothing wrong with listening to Barry Mug-a-lunch! (That's what my brother in law calls him.) But if you (voluntarily) listen to rap... well, then. You're the very spawn from hell!

Legion of Logic said...

"But if you (voluntarily) listen to rap... well, then. You're the very spawn from hell!"

Oh come now, tell the truth. We all know that when you mentioned walking down the streets of Baltimore and hearing all the different ethnic music, what you really meant was Snoop Dog and Jay Z.

Starhopper said...

A couple of years ago, I was playing a Wynonna Judd CD in my car, wearing a plaid shirt with the windows down. I pulled up to a red light, and right next to me was an African-American driver in suit and tie, playing rap music, also with his windows down. We looked at each other and started laughing uncontrollably! It was so stereotypical.

Chad Handley said...

"I'm going to ignore the fact that Chad already provided links with quotes demonstrating that family separation WAS THE CLEARLY EXPRESSED INTENT of at least some of the people responsible for the policy. I'm also going to ignore the fact that many of the problems with the current policy, if not intended by the policy, were at least EMINENTLY FORESEEABLE consequences of the policy, and so therefore will not hold the administration responsible even for the harm caused by their willful sloppiness incompetence. I'm also going to quite responding to the devastating attacks on my position provided by Chad in favor of these snarky little quotes, because at least I have a chance of APPEARING to keep up with the conversation this way."

Signed
SteveK

Chad Handley said...

"What is wrong with you?"

I pointed out your lack of understanding of basic issues involved in the controversy. That requires that there be something "wrong" with me? What's wrong with you that light criticism sets you off this much?

"You're frantically searching for something I posted on a different thread to desperately find something you can accuse me of "wrongthink"? That's pitiful."

I'm not accusing you of wrongthink. I'm accusing you and SteveK and Legion of being DRASTICALLY UNDER-INFORMED about the SPECIFICS of a HUGE case about an issue you purport to care a great deal about. I'm saying, the disparity between your knowledge of the issue and your stated passion for the issue is perplexing under normal assumptions.

One could fairly say I'm accusing you of "suppressing knowledge of the truth," but accusing me of accusing you of groupthink is just utterly wide of the mark. It's not the fact that you disagree with me that set off red flags for me, it's the fact that you don't seem aware of the fact that you are repeating arguments that have been COMPLETELY DEBUNKED in all the press coverage surrounding the issue. That indicates you aren't paying much attention to what's actually going on.

"I linked to the US government's DHS site and asked a question to start a discusion (how long ago...a week? and no one responded...notably not you).

Also I am an guilty of going "so far as to say that Trump's EO stopping family separation was possibly against the law."

The law in question being the Flores agreement, there is no reasonable possibility of this, as has been WIDELY COVERED in every news media outlet apart from one.

Trump's zero tolerance policy is not required by any law, so him dropping it will not break any law.

"Sorry Commisar Chad, but the "open borders" advocates will sue and most likely win."

Sue for WHAT? Win WHAT? What are you talking about?

"Why don't you answer my question regarding what you would do to "close" the borders?"

First and foremost, because I don't work for you and I have the right to ignore irrelevant questions if I want to.

Secondly, because a critic is not required to have a working alternative before he can criticize and obviously disastrous policy.

Thirdly, I'VE ALREADY GIVEN MY VIEWS ON IMMIGRATION, in which I CLEARLY STATED that I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS a humane way to "close the border." No matter the policy, illegals will get in. We catch as many of them as we can when they come and we deport them. Catch and release (where we "release" them back into their own country) is as good as we can get as long as we are committed to humane options.

This is now the second time I've answered a question that is neither relevant nor required to my case or the issue being discussed. I can't wait for you to ask me to answer it again.

Chad Handley said...

"I see you are still misrepresenting me."

Legion, in that post, I didn't mention your position, I only mentioned that you seemed not to know some very basic facts about the case. I could be accussed of misrepresenting your motives, but not your position. But you'll whine about this in lieu of a substantial response no matter what I say, so keep going. Maybe you'll fool somebody.

SteveK said...

Chad: If you'd put down whatever you're smoking and read what I wrote you'll discover that I'm not ignoring what you think I am. This is getting old, quickly.
---------

You: "Family separation is not a bug. It's a feature."

Me: "Yes, I know. I already told you I'm okay with Trump's new policy that hands out tougher sentences for everyone involved.

I also told you I'm okay with the existing policy that separates those under arrest from those who are not under arrest.

And finally, I also told you I'm not okay with shipping children a 1000 miles away from parents, however since this is not a stated element of Trump's new policy it doesn't cause me to reject that new policy.

Chad Handley said...

"See also: the human trafficking that results from a catch and release policy"

This is the kind of fact-free, widely-debunked, ignorant propaganda that leads me to repeatedly and credibly say that you guys have not actually bothered to stay informed about this policy.

The entire ORIGINAL POINT of the family separation policy, as it was practiced under OBAMA, was to prevent human trafficking of children. Children who were suspected of being harmed by their parents or of not having a familial relation with people suspected of being their parents WERE NEVER RELEASED TO THE PEOPLE CLAIMING TO BE THEIR PARENTS.

They were "released" ONLY back to other more credible family members or to the foster system.

How does (did?) Trump's policy fair any better on this regard? I mean, I guess you could prevent human trafficking of children in a certain population if you just took all children away from all of their adult companions. But how is that a long term solution? It's like preventing traffic accidents by permanently impounding everyone's car.

At any rate, to repeat a fact that anyone who actually cares about immigration, human trafficking, or the current Trump policy should already know: the "catch and release" policy under Bush and Obama did EVERYTHING THAT COULD LEGALLY AND HUMANELY BE DONE to prevent human trafficking. The human trafficking that remains is not a foreseeable and unintended consequence of the POLICY, it is just a reflection of the reality that no crime prevention policy is 100% successful.

Chad Handley said...

"I don't think he's dangerous enough to be high ranked on such list. But he's worse than average for sure."

I completely disagree, and it has nothing to do with his politics.

Did you see his North Dakota rally, in which he just rambled incoherently about his personal greatness for about two hours?

He's an utterly unhinged lunatic, and he's utterly amoral. And he INDISCRIMINATELY wields an ENORMOUS amount of power. As the Muslim ban, transgender military ban, and zero tolerance policy demonstrate, he has a tendency to put out wide-ranging policy without ANY forethought as to how those policies will be implemented. (Whatever you think of the legality, morality, or constitutionality of any of these policies, that they were a clusterf*ck at the ground level is indisputable. Anytime you have thousands of government employees with no actual idea what they're supposed to be doing from one day to the next, you have a serious problem.)

When you combine his mental instability, moral degeneracy, governing incompetence, and the power he wields, I think there's a very near unimpeachable case to be made that Trump is the most dangerous world leader in quite some time.



Chad Handley said...

"If you'd put down whatever you're smoking and read what I wrote you'll discover that I'm not ignoring what you think I am. "

You never responded to my response to these quotes. Let's recap:

1. You said that if the kind of arduous family separation we're seeing was intended, you wouldn't support the policy.

2. I responded by giving you quotes from the architects of the policy that the separation was intended, and that it was intended to be long term and arduous, so as to produce a deterrent effect.

3. You responded that this doesn't matter, because they didn't actually write any of that down in the policy documents.

4. I asked: "If you know that the architects of the policy INTENDED the family separation, then how is the fact that this intent is not OVERTLY STATED in the policy documents remove this intention?"

And you have never answered this question.

*whistles Jeopardy theme as he waits*

Starhopper said...

Well, I'm back from the rally in Baltimore. About 700 of us showed up. I understand tens of thousands participated in the Washington, D.C., event and almost as many for the one in NYC. And there were upwards of 600 more such rallies across the US in all 50 states. That means close to a million people protested this administration's immigration policies today. Considering the 90+ temperatures outside and the 21st Century reticence about actually showing up to a non-virtual event, that probably translates into a critical mass of anti-administration votes this November.

Favorite sign (worn by a dog): "I will pee on your wall".
Saw many, many variations of "I really do care. Why don't you?" painted on T-shirts.
Met some honest to God commies. Made me wish I had brought my (genuine) Soviet banner. Maybe next time. (Yes, I do have one.)
Saw at least one Catholic priest in attendance.
Wore my "Veterans for Peace" T-shirt but carried no sign. I figured, "No Justice, No Peace," and nothing else need be said.
Learned once again that African-American preachers make the best speeches. Must be something about the cadence.
All in all, the rally lifted my spirits quite a bit. Nice to know that I am not the only sane one around.

SteveK said...

Chad: "1. You said that if the kind of arduous family separation we're seeing was intended, you wouldn't support the policy."

The new policy doesn't intend this. The policy intends to deter people from crossing the border illegally. It intends to achieve this goal by the means of arresting people at the border. The separation of those who are arrested from those who are innocent is already baked into the legal cake (not new), but it isn't the intent of the policy. Deterrence of behavior is the intent of the policy.

"2. I responded by giving you quotes from the architects of the policy that the separation was intended, and that it was intended to be long term and arduous, so as to produce a deterrent effect.

Nope. Deterrence of behavior is the intent. From your link:

“Are you intending for parents to be separated from their children?” a reporter asked. “Are you intending to send a message?”

“I find that offensive,” Nielsen replied. “No. Because why would I ever create a policy that purposely does that?”

“Perhaps as a deterrent,” the reporter said.

“No,” Nielsen said.

“The attorney general said it was a deterrent,” the reporter noted.

Nielsen replied, “That’s not the question that you asked me.”


SteveK said...

Arresting a man for murder and ultimately separating him from his child is a feature of the current legal system, not a bug. Every law enforcement person knows this. The intent of the policy to arrest men for murder is not to separate families. The intent is to change behavior, administer justice and protect innocent people.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

These respondents exaggerate in my opinion.

Still think so?
#Walkaway

Hugo Pelland said...

@bmiller
I don't get it; what do you mean?

Hugo Pelland said...

Actually, I googled #Walkaway to see if that's a thing, so I think I know what you were referring to... I watched the first 6 minutes of that video for instance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEeiYQW_yFU
So empty, meaningless, out of touch, unintelligent...

Starhopper said...

Holy Cow, bmiller. I just watched that video that Hugo linked to. Do you actually not see the insanity that fills every second of that weird performance? If that's what you consider rational discourse, well... I'm speechless. There is truly no hope for our country if 30% (and that's all you are) actually believe such drivel.

SteveK said...

"Every second"?

You watched a 16 minute video in the 9 minutes since Hugo posted the link?

bmiller said...

Please Starhopper, take a deep breath.

I hadn't seen Hugo's video till sometime after he posted it so I don't know what drivel you think I believe or don't. I think I only watched a minute or 2.

This gay person started the twitter hashtag and it is trending. The reason I brought it up was to highlight that people are leaving the Democratic party because they think the party is only promoting hate, violence and intolerance. If people keep leaving the Democratic party, they will lose elections. I think Republicans would like that. I don't think you would. What are you going to do about it?

Now it doesn't matter if you think that isn't true when others do.

I'm for love, rational discourse and against hate. I'd like for Americans to have rational discussions to solve our problems, and maybe sometimes we can't convince the other side we're right and they're wrong...that's OK. It doesn't mean they are demon possessed.

I don't think anyone on this thread has made an attempt to have a rational discussion on immigration. I have seen a lot of emotional outrage.

Hugo Pelland said...

@bmiller, I really like what you said here:
"I'm for love, rational discourse and against hate. I'd like for Americans to have rational discussions to solve our problems, and maybe sometimes we can't convince the other side we're right and they're wrong...that's OK. It doesn't mean they are demon possessed."

But I think that this is absurd:
"...people are leaving the Democratic party because they think the party is only promoting hate, violence and intolerance."
Both in the sense that I don't believe this is happening, and if it does, these individuals are grossly mistaken. But I could be wrong, so I will take a few minutes to watch that 6-min video; I will paraphrase what I hear and comment:

'I used to be a Liberal'
Will he explain what that meant and how it could change so quickly?

'...because I thought I had found a tribe I can agree with'
Well that's a horrible start. If one says they are a Liberal because they fit a tribe, it means they are playing a form of identity politics where they accept ideas because of the people, instead of focusing on ideas and discussing them with people.

'I reject racism, marginalization because of a-b-c-d..., reject authoritarians who prevent free speech, reject junk science/superstition, reject hate'
Ok, obvious

'That's why I became a Liberal'
Absurd; not only Liberals agree with all that, and some Liberals accept a lot of junk science for example.

'And same reason I am walking away'
Just as absurd.

'Watched Left fall into [list of horrible things for a good 1 minute]'
There lots of people who do lots of stupid things; that's not a reason to change your positions on anything. He is clearly conflating groups and ideas, confirming why the first few seconds of the video seemed so off.

'They use labels to shame us'
Yes they do, and that's what THIS guys is doing by explaining what 'The Left' or 'Liberals' are. Doesn't he see the irony? Don't you see the irony bmiller?

'They will come for me. And then they'll come for you'
Geez... calm down buddy. Again, there are bad cases that happen all the time. Let's not ignore them, but anecdotes are easy to find, trends are not. Still waiting on something substantial and I am halfway through now.

'Worst of all, the party and MSM, embraced a cult ideology. I used to love them but they join the extreme Left. They think they know what the solutions are. The Left has decided...'
Again, he complained about labels and now is lumping giant groups of people together and labelling them as some sort of monolith of insanity. Now I will hit play again, and I know what's coming, he's going to mention the worst examples of policies that 'some' on the Left approve of. But he starts with 'The Left decided' as if he could read everybody's mind. Let's see...

'The Left has decided that the solution is more racism. The Left believes that attacking, insulting and demonizing one group of people, elevates another.'
Hum... that's what he's been doing for 3min 30sec now! He attacks, insults and demonize one giant group of people in order to elevate what is now his new group!

'The Left believes there is no boundary when telling lies, omitting the truth, or misreprenting facts, their ends justifies their means, only their point of view matter, they want to ban debates...'
More of the same generalization...

'The Democratic party has adopted...'
Ok, so now it's just the Democrats specifically from this point? Just politicians or anyone who voted/endorsed them? We'll see...

'...adpoted a deleterious belief system without skepticism.'
Oh so he can read people's minds too? What else do they believe?

Hugo Pelland said...

'...separating groups into identity.' (around the 4-min mark)
I stopped longer here because the image shown was interesting. It's a list of privilege in order. It looked like satire to me, or some crazy Leftists. Google revealed it's probably the latter but it's hard to tell. There is almost no mention of such list and it's just on some random forum post, one as old as 2013. Most are actually reposts to laugh at that list. Yet that dude in the video uses that to represent the Democratic party!? Come on... talk about misrepresentation. He's such a hypocrite after stating that he cares about facts and good reporting.

I will finish the last 2 minutes but I won't bother commenting in that much details because he lost me already. Let's see:
- Complains about victimhood complex. Ya, it happens, but he's generalizing.
- But he equates that with lying? That makes no sense.
- The MSM bombard minorities with false stores. He's falling into conspiracy theories now.
- He finishes with listing his values, great, but he's just lumping an entire party (and all of the Left?) as if they all oppose his values. That's useless rhetoric.

That was so underwhelming bmiller.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

Both in the sense that I don't believe this is happening, and if it does, these individuals are grossly mistaken.

So you don't believe the guy used to be liberal and left for the reasons he said. Interesting. Did you visit the #Walkaway twitter site too?

Honestly I don't know the extent of this sentiment, but I heard it was trending. I suspect it will get banned on Twitter soon.
But I do like the message of love rather than hate.

Legion of Logic said...

Chad: "Legion, in that post, I didn't mention your position, I only mentioned that you seemed not to know some very basic facts about the case. I could be accussed of misrepresenting your motives, but not your position. But you'll whine about this in lieu of a substantial response no matter what I say, so keep going. Maybe you'll fool somebody."


I said you misrepresented me. Misrepresenting anything about me is misrepresenting me. It's pretty easy to demonstrate, though ironically you have pre-misrepresented my response as whining and unsubstantial.

You said: "You guys speak as if immigration is a very high priority for you, yet you remain remarkably uninformed about basic facts about the biggest immigration story in 20 years."

I have never voted for a candidate based on their immigration policy. This is because immigration is a not a "very high priority" for me. Simply participating in a discussion and having an opinion is not indicative of something being a "very high priority", so the most likely explanation for being "remarkably uninformed about basic facts about the biggest immigration story in 20 years" is that I had not previously been closely following it. In fact I often participate in discussions of which I am not an "expert" because it's a relatively fast way to be exposed to things I didn't know. But no, you attempt to paint a different picture. I wonder why.

You said: "I can't explain that except to assume you've made the decision, perhaps subconsciously (or overtly, in SteveK's case) to look the other way where cruelty to immigrants is concerned, so long as you get the end result you want."

In this thread, I have said "cruelty to immigrants" is acceptable or justifiable exactly zero times. In this thread, I have condemned the separation of families at least a dozen times. When I say "X" twelve times and I say "Y" zero times, and you "assume" that my position is "Y", then one might rightly say that you are misrepresenting me. You even invoke "subconsciously", which can be easily asserted but not truly refuted. Well played.

It's not unusual behavior on your part in this thread. Ignoring my repeated condemnations of the separation of families. Calling a mistake an "OUTRIGHT LIE". Saying I only care about suffering if those affected are on "my side". Lumping me in with what SteveK said (who has expressed a much more hardline position than I) and then claiming I tolerated or justified separating families, which is the exact opposite of what I said. Misrepresentation.

I may make mistakes, poorly phrase things, or not know everything (gasp), but I have been honest in admitting when I made a mistake and even acknowledged unnoticed hypocrisy on my part, something that I have seen online from other people maybe once. Your conduct has been quite revealing, as well, and I'm having trouble dismissing it as mistakes, wording, or ignorance.

Hugo Pelland said...

@bmiller

Didn't you read my commentary on the video? I think it's pretty clear what I think of him, but to summarize:

It doesn't make sense to me to talk about " the guy used to be liberal and left". Leave what? His "tribe" as he said? But then he's just talking about groups of people he used to like and now doesn't like. So what? That doesn't tell us anything about his positions. He actually implies that his views have not changed much, given that he "joined" Liberals (again, whatever that means...) for the same reason that he left. So he is ALL about the group, ALL about the tribe, and NOT about ideas, facts, reasoning.

Regarding the hashtag, it's just that, a hashtag... what else can you infer from it? You said yourself that you don't know how popular it is, just that it's "trending". I tried to find some information and it doesn't look very popular actually. Most people who retweet it appear to be Trump supporters already, or I cannot tell. I saw literally 1 out of maybe 50 who said he used to vote Democrat all his life and will now vote Republicans because... of what they did to Bernie. So, not much of a Trump fan per se. So, it doesn't really tell us anything about how many people support that idea of switching side. And what would they do differently exactly? Is it just about not voting for Democrats this fall for example? Well, we have polls for that and then actual elections, so we'll see...

Finally, why would it get banned? Because you see some sort of anti-Right conspiracies from Twitter? I know they did stupid things in the past like banning individuals for no good reason at all. But banning a hashtag? What does that even mean? And something as benign at that... come on.

Finally, great, let's focus on love rather than hate.
But let's also focus on facts rather than hearsay.

bmiller said...

@Hugo,

I get it you disagree with him.
I was referring to part of your quote where you said you didn't believe this was happening that I found interesting. Wondering if you thought it was fake news.

So what?
So it means some people are turned off by the direction the Democratic party is going and are leaving. I linked an earlier article from a liberal from a liberal magazine complaining about the direction of the Democratic party wrt immigration so it seems to me that there could be some "there" there. Maybe not. But I do hope people avoid hate and violence.

You're right that a subject can't be banned. Individuals can be banned. I expect that to happen.

But let's also focus on facts rather than hearsay.

Not sure what you mean. #WalkAway is hearsay? All I've claimed is that it exists and promotes love over hate.

Hugo Pelland said...

-- All I've claimed is that it exists and promotes love over hate.

Cool! When you run into specific people explicitly against that, let me know.

bmiller said...

Cool! When you run into specific people explicitly against that, let me know.

How about when I spot someone promoting hate against a world leader? Because, let me think for a bit, but I could come up with some names.

Hugo Pelland said...

How is that promoting love over hate?

Hugo Pelland said...

(Flip that...)

bmiller said...

Huh?
Hate against a world leader is OK?

Hugo Pelland said...

Criticizing one person doesn't mean promoting hate over love. Even hating one person doesn't mean promoting hate over love overall. If someone sees someone as hateful, and they hate them for that, it's consistent with wanting to promote love over hate.

Hugo Pelland said...

And yes, hate against world leaders is completely fine. It's what people do about it that matters. What do they hate? Why? What actions do they take?

bmiller said...

Got it.

You are OK with people hating people.

Hugo Pelland said...

Oh come on, you're just trolling now!
Yes, hate is part of life... we should try to discourage hate, we should promote love. But we don't love everyone, and hopefully we get to hate as few as possible. The problem is that people like you are clearly trying to promote the idea that some people are that bad that they again and again promote hate. They're hateful people.

How is that not hate itself?

You need to really dislike a lot of individuals to think that the Left, or the Liberals, or whoever the heck it is you're talking about, promotes hate over violence. That's the problem with the video you posted, or the individuals that share that narrative. You're trying really hard to paint others as hateful. That is hateful...

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 206   Newer› Newest»