The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Einherjar86]

My bad. I meant any additional*. I think targeting places like Iraq and Yemen is completely reasonable. I would quibble with having Iran on there and not Saudi Arabia, but nothing about this is "beyond the pale".

I disagree. But let's not race around in circles.

You had quoted my comment about finding it interesting but not put any text to go with the quote, that's all. I figured you had meant to respond.

I did mean to, but I basically said everything in my last response (i.e. above). I think I understand what the graphic means, but I'm not sure what my reaction is supposed to be. You could shed some light on why you posted it...

 

[Dak]

I did mean to, but I basically said everything in my last response (i.e. above). I think I understand what the graphic means, but I'm not sure what my reaction is supposed to be. You could shed some light on why you posted it...

This is what I meant regarding the conservative vs liberal perspective on relations and obligations. I can't find anything specific regarding a theory that relates to this rough model but it does have at least some overlap with Bronfenbrenner's social ecology model which you may have (or should have) been exposed to in undergrad.

This model provides structure to relations and delineates levels of obligation. I have greater obligation to my wife than my brother, I have greater obligation to my brother than you, and I have greater obligations to you than someone in Yemen. In fact, by the time we get to some person in Yemen, I'm already more or less tapped out, unless there is no need anywhere between myself and that person (which is basically never the case).

 

[Einherjar86]

None of that refutes anything I've said.

And no, I don't know Brofenbrenner.

 

[CiG]

Yes, you have.

Nope.

let's not forget that the Obama admin broke the record for deportations

False. Under Obama the definition of a deportation came to also include being turned away at the border.

The more time and energy you waste attacking law abiding undocumented immigrants living here, the longer its gonna take to deport the people who actually shouldn't be here.

This is an epic piece of mental gymnastics. There is no such thing as a law abiding illegal immigrant and by definition they are the people who actually shouldn't be here.

I think you have a good point about the impracticality of the situation though, with backlogs of court appeals etc. They should focus on the more dangerous criminal illegal immigrants.

 

[Dak]

"law abiding people who broke the law" I don't know why I don't have cf on ignore.

 

[CiG]

This Trump travel ban is a clusterfuck holy shit.

 

[Dak]

This Trump travel ban is a clusterfuck holy shit.

Yeah there's this greencard issue about which there are differing opinions, but it does seem that if indeed this is an actual intended prohibition that's a serious oversight.

 

[CiG]

I don't really see how Trump can't or won't immediately roll this back. I don't understand why he had to go all-out North Korea with this issue, rather than perhaps going Israel which in comparison to what he's doing right now seems damn near open border-esque.

What a massive fuck up.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Nope.



False. Under Obama the definition of a deportation came to also include being turned away at the border.



This is an epic piece of mental gymnastics. There is no such thing as a law abiding illegal immigrant and by definition they are the people who actually shouldn't be here.

I think you have a good point about the impracticality of the situation though, with backlogs of court appeals etc. They should focus on the more dangerous criminal illegal immigrants.

I'm really not into this sort of use of semantics to try and blanket all undocumented immigrants as criminals. As someone who lives in a city full of undocumented immigrants, it just comes off as so damn useless, other than to give conservatives a hard on.

First, if you want use that line of reasoning the vast majority of Americans are criminals for doing illegal drugs, driving under the influence, and committing other common crimes. Most people have made at least one dumb as fuck decision in their lives, whether they were caught or not.

Second, I would argue that even if you want to take your stick-up-the-ass-dictionary-definition of a criminal, many undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children (and I would argue weren't in a position to give or not give consent) are undocumented but aren't criminals.

On your second point, we're in agreement.

 

[Dak]

One-off instance = constant state of existence. Hey false equivalence!

 

[CiG]

First, if you want use that line of reasoning the vast majority of Americans are criminals for doing illegal drugs, driving under the influence, and committing other common crimes.

The obvious difference is that being an illegal immigrant is not a static crime, unlike drugs, which are isolated acts. If you're in a country illegally, every second you're there you're breaking its laws.

Edit: Dak beat me to it.

stick-up-the-ass-dictionary-definition of a criminal

Things have meanings, nothing to do with sticks and asses.

many undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children (and I would argue weren't in a position to give or not give consent) are undocumented but aren't criminals.

That's a fair point, its the same as any child who benefits from the crimes of their parents (eg stolen goods) but does that mean they get to remain if their parents are removed or should they go too?

 

[Dak]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/...s-green-card-holders-wont-be-barred.html?_r=0

The one legit problem with the current EO is clarified/reversed. Nothing to see here.

Mr. Trump expressed sympathy for victims of the long-running civil war in Syria. “I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria,” he said. “My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as president, I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The obvious difference is that being an illegal immigrant is not a static crime, unlike drugs, which are isolated acts. If you're in a country illegally, every second you're there you're breaking its laws.

Wrong. Illegal entry is a crime. Unlawful presence is not a crime. You're not from this country, so I get you not knowing this.

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/F...ted_immigrants_issue_brief_PUBLIC_VERSION.pdf

That's a fair point, its the same as any child who benefits from the crimes of their parents (eg stolen goods) but does that mean they get to remain if their parents are removed or should they go too?

That's a key aspect of the DACA debate. You already know my answer.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

One-off instance = constant state of existence. Hey false equivalence!

Not false equivalence since the acts I mentioned are discrete crimes just like illegal entry. Unlawful presnece isn't a crime. If you are too ignorant to even know your own country's laws on immigration, keep your mouth shut on the issue.

 

[Nephilim96]

Anybody who thinks DeVos and Bannon are good choices is a fuckwit

 

[CiG]

Oh okay, so unlawful presence isn't a crime if you were born to illegal immigrant parents or the conditions of your stay are violated (Visa ran out, dropped out of school, etc).

This suggests that roughly half of all illegal immigrants are engaging in unlawful presence though, as it claims that roughly half of all illegal immigrants didn't enter legally.

Anybody who thinks DeVos and Bannon are good choices is a fuckwit

Intelligent argument. Congrats.

But seriously, besides the creepiness inherent in a media CEO joining the Whitehouse organisation, what do you object to with regards to Bannon?

 

[arg]

Illegal entry, unlawful presence, who gives a shit. The Trumphammer is coming down!

Restrict funding to sanctuary cities, welfare, healthcare and all social programs for illegals.

E-verify will make it near impossible for them to work.

Build the wall and empower border patrol to do their job as it was meant to be done.

As proven by his first week in office, Trump does what he says he will do. I am overjoyed that they are huddled in sheer terror as lefties cry for them.

 

[Dak]

Not false equivalence since the acts I mentioned are discrete crimes just like illegal entry. Unlawful presnece isn't a crime. If you are too ignorant to even know your own country's laws on immigration, keep your mouth shut on the issue.

So once I complete breaking and entering into your domicile, I'm an otherwise law abiding citizen as I lounge on your couch. You're a genius.

 

[Einherjar86]

Nope.

Yuh huh!!!

But more specifically, I think this line is what did it for me:

At this point, seeing cf, Ein, Baroque etc argue against an open borders policy would be more constructive, because from what I'm seeing you don't really seem to have any reason not to just support the dismantling of borders between America and Mexico.

This quote suggests that you were reading my argument(s) as supporting an increase of immigration from Mexico into the U.S., or that one of my reasons for opposing the wall is that it would prevent as many immigrants from coming here. Neither of those are the case.

But seriously, besides the creepiness inherent in a media CEO joining the Whitehouse organisation, what do you object to with regards to Bannon?

His association with Breitbart raises eyebrows.

He's also made some very questionable works of propaganda.

 

[CiG]

This quote suggests that you were reading my argument(s) as supporting an increase of immigration from Mexico into the U.S., or that one of my reasons for opposing the wall is that it would prevent as many immigrants from coming here. Neither of those are the case.

Okay, I actually wasn't implying that. I was trying to say that if allowing illegal immigrants to stay once they're in America because ethics, what actual justification do you offer for border policies even existing in the first place? Surely the more that enter and stay, the more you're achieving ethical milestones?

Sorry I'm bad with words, worse even than I am with thoughts!

His association with Breitbart raises eyebrows.

Why? Because it's a media company now with assumed presidential power behind it and all the assumed conflicts of interest implied therein or because you/those eyebrows don't like Breitbart for political differences?

He's also made some very questionable works of propaganda.

Is he a writer? I actually didn't know that. Any examples specifically of what is propaganda by him?