Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Sorry....that should have said "not killing babies vs killing babies". That's not the decision they are making....In my experience most people understand that. Also, in my experience, the ones trying to frame it that way have little interest in a good faith discussion on the topic. It's far more complex than that.
Evangelicals.BladeRunner said:
"Evil" is a strong word. In my experience, lots of Evangelicals thought he was the less bad of two bad choices.
I think taking children, even some babies, from the parents of asylum seekers is Evil.
in our criminal justice system, do we normally put children of parents charged with a crime in jail with them?
I think you're making a incorrect assumption. You can still care about not wanting abortions and still be against contraceptions. One does not necessarily mean the other.
the Obama administration was putting families together in cages whereas Trump introduced a no tolerance policy for illegal border crossings (since rescinded).
They are if they are not going to an official port of entry. If they are crossing the border illegally then that would be a crime.
Seriously, though, I couldn't believe BladeRunner had not been taken yet. I had been wanting to use that name forever in every forum I've ever been in but it's always been taken.
One could easily argue killing unborn babies is moreso evil, but I’m guessing you’re ok with the pro-choice stance of candidates.
These people didn't commit a crime. In fact they were doing what was legally required to try and get admittance to the country and had their children taken and thrown in jail.
My mother had me when she was 18. Based on that information make some more assumptions about how I feel about abortion
If they were crossing the border illegally then they were not doing what was required to get admittance to this country. That is why they were being thrown in jail in the first place. Had they come through an official port of entry that would be a different story and not a criminal act.
I'm not sure if you're not reading through all the posts first before you respond, but this is already been addressed and most eloquently by myself.
And since they only want to shame people--they're actually happy that the Republicans they vote for don't make any policies.
@Mario Kart
Perhaps...or perhaps they tried and were stranded still fearing for their safety due to restrictions at the legal port of entry (due to current administration policy of making it even harder to come here legally). Also, crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor...
Well, yeah, that's what happens when the government of a country sets the laws which is absolutely within their right to do so. Just because they make it difficult doesn't make it legal to cross the border illegally. There's a reason it was called zero tolerance. You come through an official port of entry or you don't come at all.
It’s not that we can’t do it, it’s whether it not we should.
Correct...we put them in foster care. The obvious problem here is seeking asylum isn't a crime so I'm not sure why you're bringing that element to the discussion.BladeRunner said:
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
BUT THEY SOUGHT ASYLUM IN THE WRONG LOCATION!!!!!11111
It absolutely is if you're not coming thru an official port of entry. It's an illegal border crossing.
Like jaywalking.It absolutely is if you're not coming thru an official port of entry. It's an illegal border crossing.
Why do you guys keep twisting things and saying "asylum" isn't illegal?
If you want serious conversation, then provide serious answers. People crossing into our country illegally is serious business and is not even comparable to "jaywalking".
Honestly many of us don’t think it is. Neither does the law. We disagree with you about this premise.
If someone crosses the border illegally for the sole purpose of turning themselves in to border agents to declare amnesty, I don’t think that’s much of a crime. Much different than trying to illegally cross the border to illegally stay.
Especially considering the measures that have been taken to muck up the official points of entry.
It's not a level of crime that justifies child separation. Yesterday, you justified your argument by comparing it to American children who are put in foster care when their parents are charged with a crime. However, you conveniently omitted the fact that we only do this when a parent is charged with a felony or when there is an imminent safety risk from a parent -- two factors that are not present with most asylum seekers. Further, you torpedoed your own argument when you used the phrase "foster care" -- if the Trump administration actually went to the effort of placing all migrant children with legitimate foster care families (as Obama did), then it's likely that the scandal never would have happened.It absolutely is if you're not coming thru an official port of entry. It's an illegal border crossing.
Why do you guys keep twisting things and saying "asylum" isn't illegal? We're talking about crossing the border at a point other than an official port of entry, which absolutely is illegal.
I phrased poorly...apologies. Crossing the border illegally is a "crime" like a parking ticket is a "crime". I'm good with treating those "crimes" in a similar fashion. Knowing the level of "crime" here, border agents have given TREMENDOUS latitude historically in terms of asylum seekers. Meaning, because its a misdemeanor, they typically give the asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt and point them to the right place to file the official paperwork rather than writing them a ticket. That's why I said "seeking asylum isn't a crime". That is technically incorrect.It absolutely is if you're not coming thru an official port of entry. It's an illegal border crossing.
Why do you guys keep twisting things and saying "asylum" isn't illegal? We're talking about crossing the border at a point other than an official port of entry, which absolutely is illegal.
According to the law, it's very similar
Abstinence only is the least natural thing on this planet. It is our evolutionary prime driver to procreate. Our bodies literally change and start pumping out hormones and pheromones when we reach sexual maturity to drive this behaviour. And so we (or rather you Americans) tell our (your) teenagers to "just say no" and "it's bad".
Super interesting and thanks for sharing.
Definitely smart to court the Hispanic evangelical vote, which is a growing demographic. Around the morning coffee, a Honduran medical assistant, whose husband was a regular attendee of Maldonado's church had some bad things to say about him - money hungry for a new prayer building, the church ignored her husband when he was unable to contribute money, and he lives in a mansion, etc. But she acknowledged that Maldonado is popular because he has "big tongue".
I'm really not sure if any of that is true. Seems like a pretty myopic view of history. The entire history of British colonialism for instance? How different were any of the other countries that experienced genocide of native populations for incoming settlers? The concept of American exceptionalism does us more damage than good in my opinion although obviously at least in the 20th century one could make many good arguments for it.timschochet said:
You - and others - keep calling them "asylum seekers". That is incorrect. They are criminals illegally crossing the border if they are not coming thru an official port of entry - regardless of how difficult it is. I get that you're trying to paint that ALL immigrants coming to our country as "asylum seekers" to garner a sympathy vote, but that's simply not the case.
