• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I live in a country that puts babies in cages

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
glenn1 said:
That's because some rights are only applicable to citizens and immigrants don't have some of the same protections citizens do (see Harisiades v. Shaughnessy for example). And again this has very little to do with the very established principle that nations have the rights to control their borders and immigration. If you fear having your kids separated from you for being an illegal alien there's a very simple preventive measure for that.
Click to expand...
Note where I said, "whether they are illegal aliens or natural born American citizens."
I won't bother discussing the fact that rights are inherent.
 
Vic said:
Note where I said, "whether they are illegal aliens or natural born American citizens."
I won't bother discussing the fact that rights are inherent.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you exclude the rights they don't have (gun ownership, voting, travelling freely between states, etc.) then sure they have the same set of inherent rights. Which was kinda my point. And "the right not to be separated from my kids when on trial" isn't a right inherent for citizens and illegal aliens alike.
 
glenn1 said:
Sure, if you exclude the rights they don't have (gun ownership, voting, travelling freely between states, etc.) then sure they have the same set of inherent rights. Which was kinda my point. And "the right not to be separated from my kids when on trial" isn't a right inherent for citizens and illegal aliens alike.
Click to expand...

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Citizens at least have a right to a "speedy" trial .. .I assume that means like .. within a couple of minutes of their arrest.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
Hey some good news. They won't be keeping them all in cages. They have announced that they will be housing migrant children in a tent city they plan to build in Tornillo, Texas.

This is great for the kids. The outdoors. Sun on their face. 100+ degree weather all summer long. Good times.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...use-migrant-kids-tents-tornillo-texas-n883281
Click to expand...

So status quo ante from the lifestyle they were accustomed to previously most likely.
 
IJTSSG said:
Was this happening under the Obama administration?
Click to expand...

If it was it wasn't right. Now back to the people in charge currently.

I'm curious about the basis for separating children from parents at the border. Since these people aren't criminals (that's for courts to determine) what legal basis requires this treatment? Funny thing, I can't find anything at all. Sessions and Sanders ignored the larger point that in the US everyone has rights, and among them, one has to be convicted. Families are in a legal limbo until then and there is no requirement to remove parents from children. This is simply strategic cruelty upon families with no legal mandate.

That Sessions appealed to the Bible may earn him a special place for this after he departs this world.
 
hal2kilo said:
Romans was used to justify slavery too. Got to follow the stupid laws of man.
Click to expand...

Every kind of evil has been justified by the willing even when what they quote is inapplicable. There is no biblical or legal mandate to separate these families. Sessions is relying on a false narrative regarding a law that has not been violated until a judge convicts.
 
Maybe we should start re-configuring some of these facilities so that families can stay together but that will take time. It may also encourage more illegal immigration. The number of unaccompanied minors in these facilities exceeds 90% so they are needed. Just because someone requests asylum doesn't mean they're eligible for asylum and they shouldn't be allowed to roam the country while that gets figured out. This has been happening a long time and now that someone is actually enforcing immigration law, we're seeing the flaws in the system.
 
IJTSSG said:
Maybe we should start re-configuring some of these facilities so that families can stay together but that will take time. It may also encourage more illegal immigration. The number of unaccompanied minors in these facilities exceeds 90% so they are needed. Just because someone requests asylum doesn't mean they're eligible for asylum and they shouldn't be allowed to roam the country while that gets figured out. This has been happening a long time and now that someone is actually enforcing immigration law, we're seeing the flaws in the system.
Click to expand...

The primary flaw is that progressives don't want the laws enforced, complaining about the "how" of that is a means to an end akin to complaining about how lethal injections are 'cruel and unusual punishment' is a means to an end of desiring to end capital punishment. lt's far more difficult to have an honest and useful discussion with someone who isn't willing to admit their true motivations. For example I've repeatedly asked @Jhhnn is he supports open borders because that's what his desired policies are in effect and yet he refuses to come out and just say it. It's like they think they need some kind of fig leaf of saying they support the law even though they actively oppose any enforcement of it and don't want people deported. I don't see why they feel the need to obscure their intent, I've already stated my support for effectively open borders (raising immigration quotas to effectively meet demand).
 
Someone needs to remind Mr. Sessions that God's Law supersedes man's law.

Leviticus 19:33-34
33 When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
 
glenn1 said:
The primary flaw is that progressives don't want the laws enforced, complaining about the "how" of that is a means to an end akin to complaining about how lethal injections are 'cruel and unusual punishment' is a means to an end of desiring to end capital punishment. lt's far more difficult to have an honest and useful discussion with someone who isn't willing to admit their true motivations. For example I've repeatedly asked @Jhhnn is he supports open borders because that's what his desired policies are in effect and yet he refuses to come out and just say it. It's like they think they need some kind of fig leaf of saying they support the law even though they actively oppose any enforcement of it and don't want people deported. I don't see why they feel the need to obscure their intent, I've already stated my support for effectively open borders (raising immigration quotas to effectively meet demand).
Click to expand...
They're not obscuring their intent, you're just incapable of critical thinking and see issues only in their black and white extremes.
 
glenn1 said:
The primary flaw is that progressives don't want the laws enforced, complaining about the "how" of that is a means to an end akin to complaining about how lethal injections are 'cruel and unusual punishment' is a means to an end of desiring to end capital punishment. lt's far more difficult to have an honest and useful discussion with someone who isn't willing to admit their true motivations. For example I've repeatedly asked @Jhhnn is he supports open borders because that's what his desired policies are in effect and yet he refuses to come out and just say it. It's like they think they need some kind of fig leaf of saying they support the law even though they actively oppose any enforcement of it and don't want people deported. I don't see why they feel the need to obscure their intent, I've already stated my support for effectively open borders (raising immigration quotas to effectively meet demand).
Click to expand...
So you want to enforce sodomy laws as well, right?
 
I think it's probably ingrained in their DNA after decades of being labeled weak on law enforcement, weak on defense, weak on immigration, etc.
Democrats:
1. We're for a strong military but here's a budget that won't allow the .mil to complete missions or even do basic maintenance ( all through the 90's). And don't you dare insist our "allies" pay their fair share.
2. We want strong borders but we won't enforce existing immigration laws. Sanctuary cities for the win.
3. We don't want to repeal the second amendment but here's a list of firearms that should be outlawed basically making it illegal to own anything more lethal than a fly swatter.

The list goes on.

To call them passive aggressive is short selling it by a few orders of magnitude.
 
mect said:
So you want to enforce sodomy laws as well, right?
Click to expand...

(A) SCOTUS already invalidated them
(B) Those weren't federal statutes
(C) The way you deal with bad laws is by repealing them, not just randomly enforcing them at times and not others. Doing so both degrades the rule of law and is immoral because you're effectively engaging in operant conditioning.
 
glenn1 said:
(A) SCOTUS already invalidated them
(B) Those weren't federal statutes
(C) The way you deal with bad laws is by repealing them, not just randomly enforcing them at times and not others. Doing so both degrades the rule of law and is immoral because you're effectively engaging in operant conditioning.
Click to expand...

So...when will the party that controls both houses of Congress put a bill together? I've heard all talk from Ryan/McConnell, but no action. Meanwhile President "Not my Problem" is blaming Democrats for his Justice Department policies today. Weaksauce.
 
IJTSSG said:
I think it's probably ingrained in their DNA after decades of being labeled weak on law enforcement, weak on defense, weak on immigration, etc.
Democrats:
1. We're for a strong military but here's a budget that won't allow the .mil to complete missions or even do basic maintenance ( all through the 90's). And don't you dare insist our "allies" pay their fair share.
2. We want strong borders but we won't enforce existing immigration laws. Sanctuary cities for the win.
3. We don't want to repeal the second amendment but here's a list of firearms that should be outlawed basically making it illegal to own anything more lethal than a fly swatter.

The list goes on.

To call them passive aggressive is short selling it by a few orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...
And the straw men never end. For people who claim to believe in freedom, conservatives sure do like to dictate to other people what their ideas and beliefs are.
 
Maybe we should talk about conservatives' claim to be for fiscal responsibility and against budget deficits, but want unrestrained military and law enforcement spending while refusing to pay the taxes necessary to cover it, thus leading to perpetually skyrocketing deficits and debt. Or how they claim that hating government is patriotic yet insist that anything less than the veneration of certain government employees as gods is somehow unpatriotic.
Or maybe how they claim to want small government, but insist that government get involved in (other peoples') personal matters, like the sexual preferences of consenting adults, or imprisoning people for drug use that doesn't harm anyone (except to increase their Cheetos consumption).
Or, more on topic, how conservatives claim to be "strict constitutionalists," but are always trying to circumvent the 14th amendment guarantees of birthright citizenship and equal protection of the laws. We'll just ignore the usual conservative argument that the 1st amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion somehow doesn't apply to non-Christians.
So yeah, just like their straw men, conservative hypocrisy never ends.
 
Vic said:
And the straw men never end. For people who claim to believe in freedom, conservatives sure do like to dictate to other people what their ideas and beliefs are.
Click to expand...
Those aren't strawmen. It's your inability to do critical thinking, or thinking of any kind for that matter that's tripping you up here.
 
IJTSSG said:
Those aren't strawmen. It's your inability to do critical thinking, or thinking of any kind for that matter that's tripping you up here.
Click to expand...
My critical thinking skills are just fine. I'm just calling out your bullshit for it is.

I'll even address your points. As a liberal, I'm...
1. not for a strong military if it costs nearly a trillion dollars a year, is rife with corruption, and does more to protect the government's interests than it does to protect the American people,
2. not for borders so strong that the enforcement interferes with commerce and trade, and results in violations of rights of legal citizens and legal immigrants, and..
3. I am absolutely for the private ownership of guns as an individual right but against the unrestrained buying and selling of firearms that results in guns ending up in the hands of criminals.
Make sense to you yet?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top