Wow you guys are a bunch of heartless pricks. Do you really think a third grader wanted to come here? A THIRD GRADER. A NINE YEAR-OLD. And no undocumented child blames their parents, all their parents wanted for them was a better life for them, is that really so wrong? If you were in the same position I'm sure you'd do the same, or would you rather stay where you are and have them end up like you? Poor as dirt and with no economic or educational advancement? I hope you all take a look inside yourselves and actually put yourself in their shoes because it sure as hell isn't easy. Just so you know this is coming from an undocumented DACA student who came here at the age of THREE, and is hoping for some ray of hope, otherwise I'll end up in a place I've never even known away from the life and friends I've always known.
That's too bad, but a nation's first priority is to take care of itself. Giving free passes to criminals will only bring America down and take from it's citizens, born and naturalized alike.
Someone who's lived off hand outs may not understand, but nobody and no nation has any obligation to help anyone who isn't one of theirs. Especially not to the detriment of their own people.
I'm sorry your country is fucked, and I'm sorry your parents broke the law, but it is not my nation's problem, and it sure as hell ain't mine.
Punishing children and deporting them to a country they have never known because their parents broke a law years ago is cruel.
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
See, the thing is it doesn't matter if you think it's cruel or if I think it's just. It's the law.
Should we not enforce a law because "well the person had a really good reason to break the law so that justifies it?"
"I know he robbed a bank and threatened the people he'd kill them if they called police, but he was really just trying to pay for college. It'd be cruel to enforce the law."
"I know she ran over him twice with her car, but he was cheating on her so he deserved it. It'd be cruel to enforce the law."
Not enforcing the law for a group of people also violates the 14th Amendment: no person shall be denied "within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection also means equal application and enforcement. Playing favorites with enforcing the law is not something we should ever strive for.
You are equating a bank robbery and punishing a child who did literally nothing. Although it is the law, the law should he changed (not the murder part, the deportation part). I'm also much more open to immigration, so I doubt we'll be changing each other's minds.
"I know he robbed a bank and threatened to kill people if they called the police, but he was really just trying to put his kids through college. We shouldn't return the money and enforce the law, that'd be cruel. Think of the children" Fixed it.
Maybe the parents shouldn't put themselves in a situation they know is illegal and that will hurt their children in the first place.
No one should be rewarded for breaking our laws.
I'm not opposed to increasing our own immigration. But, if you think you can just skip that entirely by hopping across the border and demanding we take care of you AND that we don't enforce our laws, I've got no patience for that.
The difference between threatening to kill and robbing a bank and illegally immigrating is that immingrating harms no one. If they were made legal, they could pay taxes and we could enforce laws. They already give so much to the economy.
No killers amongst the illegals. No cartel, drug runners, gun traffickers, or fugitives.
Oh, wait...
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
Two things. One, banks are insured federally by the FDIC, and privately. So the people with money in the bank aren't harmed one dime (and I'd have to know more but I believe the bank isn't damaged either). So who's it really harming if we let him take the money for his kids college education? When they graduate they'll do so much for the economy.
2
deleted
· 7 years ago
Second, @famousone, that's a good thing. They're not harming anyone, no criminals, no crime. Good thing too. Cause if there were maybe thousands of guns would flow across a porous border and make it into the hands of criminals and cartels. Good thing that doesn't happen cause maybe those would be used to kill people. Maybe even border patrol agents like Brian Terry. Good thing that didn't happen.
Good thing there isn't any crime to hurt anyone because if there was maybe criminals would exploit and use "law abiding," illegal immigrants as drug mules across long distances as "payment." Good thing that doesn't happen otherwise there might be skeletons in Texas and elsewhere from those that didn't make it as far as they needed to. Good thing it doesn't happen cause maybe the young women and girls who do make it might find that their debt hasn't been forgiven and they have to work off the rest over the course of years as sex slaves.
So it's a good fucking thing that doesn't happen isn't it?
I was agreeing with you by pretending to disagree with you at the start. Apologies if I was unclear.
*maybe that's not the best way to phrase it. I was "joining," you in the sarcasm, if that makes more sense*
Too bad he brought drugs over the border, and his parents probably brought worse while giving a crap ton of money to the cartels (Considering that most cayotes are cartel affiliated).
Nevermind Carlos' cousin who's already executed four people for MS13 and is using the same means to get over the border.
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
I've asked a lot of questions. Apparently everyone thought they were all rhetorical, so let me ask just two here to see if anyone answers, and why I think no one has answered them yet.
1. Should we not enforce a law because "well the person had a really good reason to break the law so that justifies it?"
2. If a family is illegally squating in a mansion, only the parents should be made to leave?
IMO, if you think that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay you know you can't answer these questions.
If you say "No, we shouldn't enforce the law," and "yes, the kids should be allowed to stay," everyone in their right mind will tell you that is unsustainable. People have lots have "good reasons," to break the law and we'd be letting criminals off the hook left and right, plus we'd have parents breaking into every nice house they could find just so their kids could live there.
If you say "We should enforce the law," and "No, the kids shouldn't be allowed to stay," then you're (cont)
▼
deleted
· 7 years ago
being inconsistent with your reasoning AND you open up the door for me to say "WHY?! Don't you care about homeless American children as much as you care about illegal immigrants?! Wow, you're a bunch of heartless pricks. If you were in the same position I'm sure you'd do the same, or would you rather stay where you are and have them end up like you? I hope you all take a look inside yourselves and actually put yourself in their shoes because it sure as hell isn't easy." Credit to "guest," for part of that.
If you think that's a dumb argument because of fucking course you care about those people, I'd like you to know that's exactly how I feel when I'm accused of being cruel, or racist, or coldhearted, or mean-spirited for nothing more than being consistent.
When asked if I believe that the law should be enforced consistently, we should have exceptions that violate the 14th Amendment because "it's cruel in this instance," or if we just dispose of laws altogether, I choose consistency.
Being found guilty in the eyes of the law should not be inconsistent. However, the consequences of breaking the law are not consistent. That's why we have judges and juries that are charged with sentencing criminals. And while they have guidelines for what punishment will be, they also have discretion for things like age and motive etc.
deleted
· 7 years ago
The consequences of breaking the law are consistent. They are not the same, but they are consistent. It is when they are inconsistent that the public voices its opinion, often against too much discretion. Ethan Couch. Brock Turner.
They follow the guidelines, with mitigating circumstances playing a factor on the severity, not dictating the outcome.
Two murderers will go to jail. One for 10 years, one forever. But they will both go to jail.
Are you perhaps suggesting that instead of deporting them, we instead place the parents in jail for multiple years and send the children to a juvenile facility? Or would that be too cruel also? Or should we just fine them for screwing over the people trying to get here legally?
Someone who's lived off hand outs may not understand, but nobody and no nation has any obligation to help anyone who isn't one of theirs. Especially not to the detriment of their own people.
I'm sorry your country is fucked, and I'm sorry your parents broke the law, but it is not my nation's problem, and it sure as hell ain't mine.
Should we not enforce a law because "well the person had a really good reason to break the law so that justifies it?"
"I know he robbed a bank and threatened the people he'd kill them if they called police, but he was really just trying to pay for college. It'd be cruel to enforce the law."
"I know she ran over him twice with her car, but he was cheating on her so he deserved it. It'd be cruel to enforce the law."
Not enforcing the law for a group of people also violates the 14th Amendment: no person shall be denied "within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection also means equal application and enforcement. Playing favorites with enforcing the law is not something we should ever strive for.
Maybe the parents shouldn't put themselves in a situation they know is illegal and that will hurt their children in the first place.
No one should be rewarded for breaking our laws.
I'm not opposed to increasing our own immigration. But, if you think you can just skip that entirely by hopping across the border and demanding we take care of you AND that we don't enforce our laws, I've got no patience for that.
Oh, wait...
Good thing there isn't any crime to hurt anyone because if there was maybe criminals would exploit and use "law abiding," illegal immigrants as drug mules across long distances as "payment." Good thing that doesn't happen otherwise there might be skeletons in Texas and elsewhere from those that didn't make it as far as they needed to. Good thing it doesn't happen cause maybe the young women and girls who do make it might find that their debt hasn't been forgiven and they have to work off the rest over the course of years as sex slaves.
So it's a good fucking thing that doesn't happen isn't it?
*maybe that's not the best way to phrase it. I was "joining," you in the sarcasm, if that makes more sense*
Nevermind Carlos' cousin who's already executed four people for MS13 and is using the same means to get over the border.
1. Should we not enforce a law because "well the person had a really good reason to break the law so that justifies it?"
2. If a family is illegally squating in a mansion, only the parents should be made to leave?
IMO, if you think that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay you know you can't answer these questions.
If you say "No, we shouldn't enforce the law," and "yes, the kids should be allowed to stay," everyone in their right mind will tell you that is unsustainable. People have lots have "good reasons," to break the law and we'd be letting criminals off the hook left and right, plus we'd have parents breaking into every nice house they could find just so their kids could live there.
If you say "We should enforce the law," and "No, the kids shouldn't be allowed to stay," then you're (cont)
If you think that's a dumb argument because of fucking course you care about those people, I'd like you to know that's exactly how I feel when I'm accused of being cruel, or racist, or coldhearted, or mean-spirited for nothing more than being consistent.
When asked if I believe that the law should be enforced consistently, we should have exceptions that violate the 14th Amendment because "it's cruel in this instance," or if we just dispose of laws altogether, I choose consistency.
They follow the guidelines, with mitigating circumstances playing a factor on the severity, not dictating the outcome.
Two murderers will go to jail. One for 10 years, one forever. But they will both go to jail.
Are you perhaps suggesting that instead of deporting them, we instead place the parents in jail for multiple years and send the children to a juvenile facility? Or would that be too cruel also? Or should we just fine them for screwing over the people trying to get here legally?