Just my personal impression from having lived in urban leftist areas. I’m not including anyone who’s keyed into politics, just the other 80%.
It’s generally unwise to base your arguments off of anecdotes.
We’re talking about illegals here, not normal immigrants.
There is little difference between the two. Both are human, both are trying to escape danger, etc.
When somebody’s very first act on American soil is to break the law, that person is a criminal with no regard for civility.
It’s a misdemeanor, so you are severely exaggerating the severity of the crime. And most often they do so because America has destroyed their country and are seeking refuge. If civility was important, perhaps the U.S. should have thought twice about destabilizing Latin American countries, destabilizing entire ecosystems, and sucking the natural resources of these countries dry.
Compassion is appropriate when they remain in their home countries, fighting against their oppressors.
That’s very easy for somebody to say who has never experienced what it is like to have your family and loved ones in danger for simply existing in one of the countries they are trying to escape from.
Legal immigrants, who I hope have been carefully vetted for American values, are welcome to share our blessed home and our Judeo-Christian values and rugged individualism. Illegal immigrants, otoh, are by definition not.
Legal immigration takes years and thousands of dollars, per person. How is that a reasonable expectation for a family who has nothing but the clothes on their backs, and are actively being hunted by cartels, loan sharks, etc? If it were me, I would do the same as them and cross the border illegally if it meant me and my family would be safe, and I suspect you would too unless you have no self preservation.
If your choices were between your child starving, and committing a misdemeanor, the right thing to do is to feed your child. Just because a law exists doesn’t mean it is moral. Jesus knew that.
It’s generally unwise to base your arguments off of anecdotes.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Most of what we know is from our own personal experiences. It’s important to be transparent that an anecdote is just an anecdote, but there’s nothing unwise about basing an argument off one, provided the anecdotal source is transparent.
There is little difference between the two. Both are human, both are trying to escape danger, etc.
There’s a world of difference.
A legal immigrant generally comes to the US because they’re a Christian escaping persecution, and they believe “liberty or death” — American values. They are the kind of people who are law-abiding, and patriotic.
Illegals are a different type altogether. They’re willing to break the law either because they’re hardened criminals or because they come from a society with such lawlessness that they have no real conception of law.
I think many Americans on the Left fail to grasp this difference because they don’t own ANY American flags, and they willfully break the law frequently — smoking pot, speeding when they drive, jaywalking, etc. The conservative personality type that’s actually a law-abiding Christian is completely foreign to the stereotypical leftist. So if that’s your perspective, you don’t see a difference because you’re not an American at heart.
It’s a misdemeanor, so you are severely exaggerating the severity of the crime.
Anyone willing to break the law is a criminal. Someone willing to break into another country and break the law there, is the bottom of the barrel. I don’t care what category of crime it is. If you think some laws are okay to break, you’re absolutely wrong. (Edit: I take it back in the case of resisting tyranny.)
[…] because America has destroyed their country […]
Cry me a river. I don’t support US military aggression overseas, but at the same time people need to stand up and fight in their own country instead of running away. Cowards have no place in American culture.
That’s very easy for somebody to say who has never experienced what it is like to have your family and loved ones in danger for simply existing in one of the countries they are trying to escape from.
I have some Jewish ancestors who died in the holocaust. If they’d been armed, and fought back, they’d have died respectable deaths, and there’d have been no concentration camps. I find it hard to sympathize with any man who doesn’t fight like a man.
Legal immigration takes years and thousands of dollars, per person. How is that a reasonable expectation […]
If I had it my way (and let us both be grateful that American policy is not solely in the hands of any single individual like myself), the US would grant legal immigration to less than ten people per year, maximum. The borders would be completely shut down, and once you leave you can never return. Anyone trying to enter the country (except those ten or fewer legal immigrants) would be deported by means of a catapult.
Just because a law exists doesn’t mean it is moral. Jesus knew that.
Every person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Now to be fair, there’s also Acts 5:29, which says:
But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
But that only applies to scenarios in which God has directly commanded someone to break the law of man. Show me a case of an illegal immigrant claiming God specifically ordered him to do something requiring illegal entry into the US, and I’d advocate for asylum. I’ve never heard of that particular scenario, but sure there’s a non-zero chance it could happen.
Most of what we know is from our own personal experiences.
And that’s good for day to day living, but not for policy. The standards of evidence for policy need to be high.
A legal immigrant generally comes to the US because they’re a Christian escaping persecution, and they believe “liberty or death” — American values.
That applies to most migrants that cross illegally. And not all legal immigrants are christian. A lot of them are non-christian, about 40% to be exact:
They’re willing to break the law either because they’re hardened criminals or because they come from a society with such lawlessness that they have no real conception of law.
As somebody who’s been to Latin American countries, that’s simply not true.
I think many Americans on the Left fail to grasp this difference because they don’t own ANY American flags, and they willfully break the law frequently — smoking pot, speeding when they drive, jaywalking, etc. The conservative personality type that’s actually a law-abiding Christian is completely foreign to the stereotypical leftist. So if that’s your perspective, you don’t see a difference because you’re not an American at heart.
This is just a sweeping generalization, to the point that it’s almost a joke.
Anyone willing to break the law is a criminal. Someone willing to break into another country and break the law there, is the bottom of the barrel.
I’m not seeing any real point here, so I will move on.
is the bottom of the barrel. I don’t care what category of crime it is. If you think some laws are okay to break, you’re absolutely wrong. (Edit: I take it back in the case of resisting tyranny.)
So breaking the law to resist tyranny makes you bottom of the barrel? That doesn’t make much sense.
Cry me a river. I don’t support US military aggression overseas, but at the same time people need to stand up and fight in their own country instead of running away. Cowards have no place in American culture.
Families are not soldiers.
I find it hard to sympathize with any man who doesn’t fight like a man.
And that is one of the root problems of conservatism, there is no empathy in an ideology which says that every problem to ever exist is a personal failure.
If I had it my way (and let us both be grateful that American policy is not solely in the hands of any single individual like myself), the US would grant legal immigration to less than ten people per year, maximum. The borders would be completely shut down, and once you leave you can never return. Anyone trying to enter the country (except those ten or fewer legal immigrants) would be deported by means of a catapult.
This has to be a troll, lol
I offer you Romans 13:1-2:
That doesn’t dismiss my point.
But that only applies to scenarios in which God has directly commanded someone to break the law of man. Show me a case of an illegal immigrant claiming God specifically ordered him to do something requiring illegal entry into the US, and I’d advocate for asylum. I’ve never heard of that particular scenario, but sure there’s a non-zero chance it could happen.
It’s not worth my time to aim for such a ridiculous goal post.
The standards of evidence for policy need to be high.
I do agree with that.
about 40% to be exact
Wow, that’s super interesting. About halfway down the page it says:
Of the approximately 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2011, an estimated 9.2 million (83%) are Christians, mostly from Latin America.
So USCIS exhibits values that misalign with my own, but that’s not entirely surprising. What is surprising, to me at least, is that my personal values are more closely aligned with illegal immigrants than legal immigrants. I’m going to have to digest that fact for a while.
As somebody who’s been to Latin American countries, that’s simply not true.
Well being that I value anecdotes, go on and tell me more please.
So breaking the law to resist tyranny makes you bottom of the barrel? That doesn’t make much sense.
Sorry, no, that’s not what I meant. I meant:
Breaking the law is generally a bad thing to do, whether it’s a misdemeanor, felony, or whatever.
Breaking into a country to break that country’s law is what I called “bottom of the barrel”.
Breaking the law to resist tyranny is where I make an exception, and side with the American founders that “resistance to tyranny is obedience to God”.
Families are not soldiers.
All able-bodied men between 17 and 45 are part of the militia, according to 10 USC §246. Now I understand we’re discussing other countries and other cultures here, but men everywhere protect women and children — that’s one of the roles of a father in a family. If that means standing up to a tyrant, so be it.
And that is one of the root problems of conservatism, there is no empathy in an ideology which says that every problem to ever exist is a personal failure.
How’s that a problem? It’s built on fundamental beliefs in equality of opportunity and the principle that everyone has the ability to succeed. It also recognizes that we all fail in life, while some of us are motivated to learn from our personal failures and turn them into stepping stones to success.
This has to be a troll, lol
I wasn’t trolling, honest. I was expressing a genuine opinion while recognizing it as a bit extreme, and acknowledging that I wouldn’t want any individual to set policy by personal preference. I meant it, honestly.
That doesn’t dismiss my point.
How doesn’t it? The words of God are the words of God.
Well being that I value anecdotes, go on and tell me more please.
What do you want me to tell you? The people there aren’t hardened criminals. The crime rate between the U.S. and Latin American countries is about the same once you take into account the effects of poverty and organized crime. Most Latin Americans are law abiding christians.
Sorry, no, that’s not what I meant. I meant:
I understand what you meant, but what you mean is self contradictory, hence the lack of sense. People who break an unjust law (resisting tyranny) cannot be both bottom of the barrel (unacceptable) and acceptable.
Now I understand we’re discussing other countries and other cultures here, but men everywhere protect women and children — that’s one of the roles of a father in a family. If that means standing up to a tyrant, so be it.
Not every situation is one you can stand up to. Fighting for your family, for your women and children, it often involves simply moving them out of danger.
How’s that a problem?
Empathy is a critical component to a functional society, and a good member of society.
It’s built on fundamental beliefs in equality of opportunity and the principle that everyone has the ability to succeed.
And it fails to address the fact that there is no such thing as equality of opportunity when there is a systemic problem with society.
I was expressing a genuine opinion while recognizing it as a bit extreme
What you’ve said is beyond extreme. And also shortsighted given that immigrants are incredibly beneficial for the economy, and on average commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens:
Well the people who choose to live there are a bit different from the ones who choose to illegally come to the US. How would you describe that difference? What kind of mentality does it take to knowingly break into another country uninvited? It’s like people who break into houses, who usually make the news when the homeowner shoots them. Who does that? Who thinks it’s a grand idea to go break in where they don’t belong?
People who break an unjust law (resisting tyranny) cannot be both bottom of the barrel (unacceptable) and acceptable.
Oh, so do I understand correctly that you mean US immigration laws are tyrannical? Please explain.
it often involves simply moving them out of danger.
Well, yes, that’s a decision many people do indeed make. I view it as cowardice. It’s honorable to stand and fight, and to die in battle; it’s dishonorable to flee.
Empathy is a critical component to a functional society, and a good member of society.
I do agree with this. I just don’t think it applies to people who are outside of our society, or to people who broke into our home.
there is no such thing as equality of opportunity when there is a systemic problem with society.
I reject that premise as certified hooey. There’s no systemic anything. It’s absolute nonsense, rooted in a deranged rejection of western civilization. Sorry, I know that’s rude, and I’m not trying to offend you personally. I appreciate how generally respectful this interaction has been. I just reject this notion out of hand.
immigrants are incredibly beneficial for the economy, and on average commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens:
Maybe they lay low because they’re afraid of getting deported? Honestly I don’t care how good they are for the economy. I mean, slavery was extraordinarily good for the southern economy, if you don’t count the slaves as people. So it’s not an argument I find compelling. Some things are good for the economy, or great for the economy, and yet I still oppose them. (There are other things in this category, like Chinese imports.)
Well the people who choose to live there are a bit different from the ones who choose to illegally come to the US. How would you describe that difference?
I would not describe one. They’re the same people. The former are just the people who still have the means to get by, the latter are the ones who do not.
What kind of mentality does it take to knowingly break into another country uninvited?
It’s the mentality of somebody who’s life is in danger, or who is trying to provide for their family any way they can. And in case you didn’t know, roughly 50% of all illegal immigration occurs through legal methods of travel, as in, people overstay their welcome when traveling but were otherwise granted legal access into the country.
It’s like people who break into houses
People who break into houses do so because they are greedy. People who break into countries (generally) do so because they are trying to escape or provide for their family.
It’s honorable to stand and fight, and to die in battle; it’s dishonorable to flee.
It’s not a battle, it’s suicide. Until some major things change, cartels will always exist due to the black market demand for them. Even if you somehow successful destroy one another will fit its place overnight because of how incredibly profitable it is. Fighting a cartel will have no effect other than to end your own life.
There’s no systemic anything.
Why not? When black WW2 vets were denied low interest housing loans on the basis of race, and white WW2 vets were given them freely, how was that not a systemic inequality in opportunity?
Maybe they lay low because they’re afraid of getting deported?
It applies to all kinds of immigrants, legal and illegal. So reducing the influx of people who commit fewer crimes than the general population is short sighted.
Honestly I don’t care how good they are for the economy. I mean, slavery was extraordinarily good for the southern economy, if you don’t count the slaves as people.
These are people. And they are making the choice to move here and set up businesses of their own free choice. Comparing this to slavery is quite frankly silly.
That strikes me as an overly broad generalization, but maybe you’re right.
It’s the mentality of somebody who’s life is in danger, or who is trying to provide for their family any way they can.
I suppose I understand that. But that doesn’t excuse the behavior.
Say you were starving, and you encounter a man with food. You ask him to share it with you, and he rudely declines. Are you justified in slaughtering him to take his food? Of course not. What if it’s to feed your family? No, that’s still murder.
Now we’re not really discussing murder here, but my point is that an immoral action is inherently immoral, and no amount of suffering or danger can justify an immoral action, nor warrant sympathy for one who commits it.
And in case you didn’t know, roughly 50% of all illegal immigration occurs […]
I did know that! It’s an interesting fact. And I wish it was more common knowledge. It’s why building the wall is absolutely not enough, though I’d like to see it built anyway as a preliminary baby-step.
Until some major things change, cartels will always exist due to the black market demand for them.
Some major things like what? I’d love to know how to end market demand, but that’s a very hard problem to solve.
Fighting a cartel will have no effect other than to end your own life.
I dunno. If one dude goes up against a cartel army, sure, that’s suicide. But if an entire country organizes into a strategic war on the cartels, I think the ensuing bloodbath would be the end of all cartels in that country.
When black WW2 vets were denied low interest housing loans on the basis of race, and white WW2 vets were given them freely, how was that not a systemic inequality in opportunity?
Racist behavior is despicable, and I think we agree on that. But the word “systemic” generally means invisible and imagined. You gave a great example of actual racism, and that sort of thing hasn’t happened in a very long time in the US. Today’s so-called racism is “systemic”, meaning you have to have a rather active imagination to believe it exists. (Edit: I take this back, as colleges were openly racist before the SCOTUS banned it, and woke corporations are still doing affirmative action. That’s not systemic though, it’s just actual racism.)
Comparing this to slavery is quite frankly silly.
Yeah, I didn’t mean it like that. I meant the argument that it’s “good for the economy” doesn’t convince me, just as someone could argue that slavery is good for the economy, and many economists argue that Chinese imports are good for the economy. I don’t care. We can tank the economy for all I care. I don’t find the argument compelling.
Some major things like what? I’d love to know how to end market demand, but that’s a very hard problem to solve.
OK, so to end the market demand for these drugs you first have to understand why they’re used at all. Everybody knows they are harmful and addictive, nobody starts using them without knowing that it will harm them. So why do they use them? Primarily it is because of isolation and poverty, which are the two biggest indicators of crime and drug use. Humans have a built in need for socialization, and without that we have to cope in some way. Poverty is very similar, when we do not have stability in our life, a good source of food and shelter, when our well-being is in bad shape, just like with isolation we need some way to cope. Often times that method is drug use.
So if we can tackle the things leading to this isolation and poverty, it can go a long way towards reducing people’s drug use. So lets look at the first of these source problems, and some solutions.
Isolation - Nowadays people have a great deal of difficulty maintaining communities. Part of that is poverty, but the largest part is how we structure our society. Here in the U.S. we don’t have any semblance of work-life balance. We are the most productive we have ever been and yet we work more than we have in almost a century. How can somebody be reasonably expected to have a social life when they must work two jobs to make ends meet? We also get far less time off than other developed nations, in large part because we have no guaranteed minimum time off. Other countries on the other hand get weeks of time off at a minimum. There is also the physical structure of our society, the city planning and infrastructure. Everything in the U.S. is car dependent. Do you want to go hang out with friends? Do you want to go to church? Do you want to volunteer? Doesn’t matter what activity you want to do, you are required to get their by car because no other valid options exist. We don’t have the freedom to travel to places through other means because all cities everywhere are built for cars and only cars. It is also just dangerous to travel by foot or by bicycle in the U.S. because so little thought is put into the safety of pedestrians. Even if something is technically within walking/biking distance, there may be no sidewalk, pedestrian barriers, or trees. We also do not have the density or mixed use zoning that is needed to allow people to make strong communities in our neighborhoods. Everything is built too far spaced out when it could easily be built with community in mind.
So to fix the isolation we need:
More mixed use & higher density zoning
Better public transportation support
Better pedestrian safety
Minimum time off requirements
U.S. GDP/Productivity rates need to be inversely tied to quantity of working hours without effecting wages
So that more or less covers the easy part, isolation. Poverty is a whole other monster.
Poverty - So this is a two part issue, a wage issue and a price issue. On the wage side of things, we as a society simply are not paid enough. Productivity rates have grown massively, but wages have not. And all that extra wealth that is being created is going directly to the rich. As a result people are impoverished. CEOs, company owners and shareholders take home extreme levels of wealth while your average Joe takes home crumbs at best. CEOs currently get paid somewhere on the order of 670 times as much as the lowest paid workers. CEOs are not working 670 times harder than any other worker out there. Our country has plenty of wealth to make sure everybody has a stable food source and secure housing, but the wealth is distributed such that it always goes to the rich. Part two of the poverty issue, is the price issue. Whether it is for pharmaceuticals, college, housing, or just groceries, the prices of everything have gotten completely out of hand. And that’s not because these things take much more to manufacture/maintain. The cost to manufacture insulin is about $6 a vial yet it is sold for $300 at least for example. Colleges waits shit loads of their money on administration and sports. Housing is intentionally kept scarce to keep prices up, etc. Corporations and landlords are extracting every single ounce of wealth out of us as they possibly can, and it has immensely damage our society through poverty.
There is a lot more to it than that, but I think you get the gist. So to fix this, some of the things we will need to see is:
Wages need to match productivity rates
Minimum wage should return to being a living wage as it was originally intended to be, and to keep it that way it needs to be tied to inflation
Regulation must stop CEOs & the rich from being paid at such high rates. I think a limit of 10 to 1 would be reasonable, as in for every 1 dollar the lowest paid employ is paid, the highest can only be paid 10. And that should include all methods of payment/benefits.
Regulation for price gouging needs to be tightened to stop pharmaceutical companies from continuing their robbery of our citizens
Housing needs an overhaul, I’d personally recommend georgism, massive investments in market rate housing construction, and zoning overhauls to allow for higher density housing & mixed use zones
Education needs an overhaul as well. We ought to catch up with the rest of developed nations to have free higher education, but that is also it’s own massive topic.
Healthcare, same as education, we need to catch up with the rest of the developed world to have medicare for all. Our for-profit healthcare system has utterly failed us, again it’s own massive topic.
And so that covers largely the source reasons why people start drug use in the first place. But there is still more to it. The third main category of fix for the cartels would be ending the war on drugs. It’s been ~50 years of trying to get rid of drugs and we are no closer to doing so. It’s clear that it isn’t working. Drugs are more potent, dangerous, and available than they ever have been. If we were to decriminalize use of them we would save billions of dollars that could instead go towards the above fixes, and it would also reduce the profitability of the cartel’s trade. If somebody is addicted to a drug, they should have a harm reduction program to help them through it. If the drugs on the street are more expensive, dirtier and riskier than what a free prescription can get them, then cartels would evaporate as they would have no customers. Other nations have tried this approach, and study after study shows that it is the most effective way to help people stop using drugs off the street, and to stop using drugs all together.
First of all, the thing that fried my brain. What on earth does owning flags have to do with who commits crimes?
Second of all, this is one of the most hateful, vile things I have ever read. Very unchristian of you. I thought you said Christians were inclusive and accepting, clearly you aren’t. Repent you heathen Satan worshiper. Literally condemning people to death and feeling proud of yourself for being a ‘high and mighty Christian.’ Isn’t pride a sin, cause ego goes along with pride, and you sir. Are full of it.
I’m sorry, what’s hateful about what I wrote? You could have at least explained that before ranting about it.
Sorry for “frying your brain”. Patriotic Americans own flags, hoist them, and fly them, showing respect for our neighbors and law and order. It may seem unrelated to being a law-abiding citizen if you’re not part of the culture.
I’m sorry, what’s hateful about what I wrote? You could have at least explained that before ranting about it.
You would rather people (and children) die than receive any kind of help through immigration. You are calling people bottom of the barrel for trying to escape from danger. You are dehumanizing people on the basis of a single non-violent crime. You are judging your political opponents as criminals for failing to hold a false idol to the same standard you do.
Gotcha. The flag’s not a false idol at all. Not sure where you live, but I’m in a fairly Christian conservative area, and it’s commonplace to see “kneel for the cross, stand for the flag” signs. Nobody worships the flag. It’s just a uniting symbol of our neighbors across the nation. When we say “love your neighbor”, the flag is the imagery that comes to mind for me. It’s not an idol at all, just a symbol of our fellow Americans, who we strive to love.
You don’t have to hate somebody to do something hateful towards them or say something hateful. Hate isn’t always intentional.
What a peculiar claim. Hatred is a feeling. I know what’s in my heart. You don’t. You can misinterpret my words, but you can’t rightfully ascribe feelings to my heart which I don’t feel.
The flag’s not a false idol at all. Not sure where you live, but I’m in a fairly Christian conservative area, and it’s commonplace to see “kneel for the cross, stand for the flag” signs.
They absolutely do, and you’ve done quite a bit of it yourself from what I have read from you. You treat is as a moral failure for not treating the flag with the utmost respect, and that is a form of worship.
What a peculiar claim. Hatred is a feeling. I know what’s in my heart. You don’t. You can misinterpret my words, but you can’t rightfully ascribe feelings to my heart which I don’t feel.
Hate can be a feeling, but it isn’t always a feeling. Hatred can be a cold unfeeling action, or speech. Granted, I think if this part of the conversation continues any further then it will devolve into semantics.
What is hateful about saying you don’t care that people die if they ‘don’t fight like a man.’ You’re seriously asking that. First of all, your sexism is showing, second of all, how about the woman and children who flee in fear of being murdered? And no sympathy for jews dying in the holocaust cause they weren’t armed, like that was their fault? Like you can just easily buy guns and ammo and fight back.
Please tell me how many wars you’ve fought in, you know, since you’re such a patriotic man.
Flags do not equal patriotic, people who use the American flag as a pseudo God can be insane, take Trump supporters for example, crimes were committed and flags were flown. Mhm, yes, really patriotic upstanding citizens.
If you can’t see the hate you’re spewing, you’re blind and a fool. But keep spouting your bullshit complete holiness and then acting like a psychopath.
Please consider 10 USC §246, which defines the US militia as all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45.
That may give you some background on my perspective. I expect able-bodied men to be soldiers, ready to fight and die to protect their families and neighbors at the drop of a hat. That’s why we Americans keep and bear arms. It’s not sexist to expect men to fight like men, and to find fault with cowardice.
It’s not sexist to expect men to fight like men, and to find fault with cowardice.
Have you ever seen liveleak videos of what cartels do to the people who stand up to them? Because I have. I’ve seen a guy get decapitated with a box cutter. If I were living in one of those countries, the logical thing for me to do is to get my family the hell out of there rather than to throw my life away in a failed attempt to take down a cartel.
The problem with what you’ve said isn’t sexism, the problem is that none of what you said has any sense of realism. You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no bootstraps.
What’s wrong with you, watching a video like that? I’m traumatized just reading your description of it. Are you okay?
I get your point, and I don’t think either of us can convince the other. The honorable man dies with his boots on. That’s my position, and I’m sticking to it.
But really, I’m concerned about anyone watching videos like that. That’s really disturbing.
What’s wrong with you, watching a video like that? I’m traumatized just reading your description of it. Are you okay?
4chan is a rough place and I will leave it at that. I only brought it up to point out how hopeless it is for any individual (and even governments) to stand up to cartels. You have an unrealistic expectation on how people should fight for the safety of their loved ones.
The honorable man dies with his boots on.
When the continental army was fighting the British, they were fighting tyranny illegally, and doing so with women and children and tow. Many of those soldiers died during retreating movements, without their boots on so to speak.
I don’t aim to convince you, I’m simply here to point out that the rational thing is to recognize that getting your family out of danger through any means necessary is the moral thing to do even if it technically breaks the law.
First of all, we were talking about people fleeing other countries and the Jews, not the US. Also, the US code subordinate to the constitution, and the constitution gives ‘the people’ the right to own guns. PEOPLE. Not just men, people. so no, it’s not just dur dur men.
Again, your sexism is showing. Men shouldn’t be expected to be ‘manly’. Men are people too, they can be however they like. I thought you were all for people being able to have freedom, yet you’re pigeon holing people into categories and defined characteristics. Which is sexist.
This is just so off-topic and lacking in understanding that I’m not going to continue arguing. Especially with that closing remark. God bless you, pixelfox.
It’s generally unwise to base your arguments off of anecdotes.
There is little difference between the two. Both are human, both are trying to escape danger, etc.
It’s a misdemeanor, so you are severely exaggerating the severity of the crime. And most often they do so because America has destroyed their country and are seeking refuge. If civility was important, perhaps the U.S. should have thought twice about destabilizing Latin American countries, destabilizing entire ecosystems, and sucking the natural resources of these countries dry.
That’s very easy for somebody to say who has never experienced what it is like to have your family and loved ones in danger for simply existing in one of the countries they are trying to escape from.
Legal immigration takes years and thousands of dollars, per person. How is that a reasonable expectation for a family who has nothing but the clothes on their backs, and are actively being hunted by cartels, loan sharks, etc? If it were me, I would do the same as them and cross the border illegally if it meant me and my family would be safe, and I suspect you would too unless you have no self preservation.
If your choices were between your child starving, and committing a misdemeanor, the right thing to do is to feed your child. Just because a law exists doesn’t mean it is moral. Jesus knew that.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Most of what we know is from our own personal experiences. It’s important to be transparent that an anecdote is just an anecdote, but there’s nothing unwise about basing an argument off one, provided the anecdotal source is transparent.
There’s a world of difference.
A legal immigrant generally comes to the US because they’re a Christian escaping persecution, and they believe “liberty or death” — American values. They are the kind of people who are law-abiding, and patriotic.
Illegals are a different type altogether. They’re willing to break the law either because they’re hardened criminals or because they come from a society with such lawlessness that they have no real conception of law.
I think many Americans on the Left fail to grasp this difference because they don’t own ANY American flags, and they willfully break the law frequently — smoking pot, speeding when they drive, jaywalking, etc. The conservative personality type that’s actually a law-abiding Christian is completely foreign to the stereotypical leftist. So if that’s your perspective, you don’t see a difference because you’re not an American at heart.
Anyone willing to break the law is a criminal. Someone willing to break into another country and break the law there, is the bottom of the barrel. I don’t care what category of crime it is. If you think some laws are okay to break, you’re absolutely wrong. (Edit: I take it back in the case of resisting tyranny.)
Cry me a river. I don’t support US military aggression overseas, but at the same time people need to stand up and fight in their own country instead of running away. Cowards have no place in American culture.
I have some Jewish ancestors who died in the holocaust. If they’d been armed, and fought back, they’d have died respectable deaths, and there’d have been no concentration camps. I find it hard to sympathize with any man who doesn’t fight like a man.
If I had it my way (and let us both be grateful that American policy is not solely in the hands of any single individual like myself), the US would grant legal immigration to less than ten people per year, maximum. The borders would be completely shut down, and once you leave you can never return. Anyone trying to enter the country (except those ten or fewer legal immigrants) would be deported by means of a catapult.
I offer you Romans 13:1-2:
Now to be fair, there’s also Acts 5:29, which says:
But that only applies to scenarios in which God has directly commanded someone to break the law of man. Show me a case of an illegal immigrant claiming God specifically ordered him to do something requiring illegal entry into the US, and I’d advocate for asylum. I’ve never heard of that particular scenario, but sure there’s a non-zero chance it could happen.
And that’s good for day to day living, but not for policy. The standards of evidence for policy need to be high.
That applies to most migrants that cross illegally. And not all legal immigrants are christian. A lot of them are non-christian, about 40% to be exact:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/05/17/the-religious-affiliation-of-us-immigrants/
As somebody who’s been to Latin American countries, that’s simply not true.
This is just a sweeping generalization, to the point that it’s almost a joke.
I’m not seeing any real point here, so I will move on.
So breaking the law to resist tyranny makes you bottom of the barrel? That doesn’t make much sense.
Families are not soldiers.
And that is one of the root problems of conservatism, there is no empathy in an ideology which says that every problem to ever exist is a personal failure.
This has to be a troll, lol
That doesn’t dismiss my point.
It’s not worth my time to aim for such a ridiculous goal post.
I do agree with that.
Wow, that’s super interesting. About halfway down the page it says:
So USCIS exhibits values that misalign with my own, but that’s not entirely surprising. What is surprising, to me at least, is that my personal values are more closely aligned with illegal immigrants than legal immigrants. I’m going to have to digest that fact for a while.
Well being that I value anecdotes, go on and tell me more please.
Sorry, no, that’s not what I meant. I meant:
All able-bodied men between 17 and 45 are part of the militia, according to 10 USC §246. Now I understand we’re discussing other countries and other cultures here, but men everywhere protect women and children — that’s one of the roles of a father in a family. If that means standing up to a tyrant, so be it.
How’s that a problem? It’s built on fundamental beliefs in equality of opportunity and the principle that everyone has the ability to succeed. It also recognizes that we all fail in life, while some of us are motivated to learn from our personal failures and turn them into stepping stones to success.
I wasn’t trolling, honest. I was expressing a genuine opinion while recognizing it as a bit extreme, and acknowledging that I wouldn’t want any individual to set policy by personal preference. I meant it, honestly.
How doesn’t it? The words of God are the words of God.
What do you want me to tell you? The people there aren’t hardened criminals. The crime rate between the U.S. and Latin American countries is about the same once you take into account the effects of poverty and organized crime. Most Latin Americans are law abiding christians.
I understand what you meant, but what you mean is self contradictory, hence the lack of sense. People who break an unjust law (resisting tyranny) cannot be both bottom of the barrel (unacceptable) and acceptable.
Not every situation is one you can stand up to. Fighting for your family, for your women and children, it often involves simply moving them out of danger.
Empathy is a critical component to a functional society, and a good member of society.
And it fails to address the fact that there is no such thing as equality of opportunity when there is a systemic problem with society.
What you’ve said is beyond extreme. And also shortsighted given that immigrants are incredibly beneficial for the economy, and on average commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens:
https://www.epi.org/publication/immigration-facts/
https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/immigrants-contribute-greatly-to-us-economy-despite-administrations
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014704117
Well the people who choose to live there are a bit different from the ones who choose to illegally come to the US. How would you describe that difference? What kind of mentality does it take to knowingly break into another country uninvited? It’s like people who break into houses, who usually make the news when the homeowner shoots them. Who does that? Who thinks it’s a grand idea to go break in where they don’t belong?
Oh, so do I understand correctly that you mean US immigration laws are tyrannical? Please explain.
Well, yes, that’s a decision many people do indeed make. I view it as cowardice. It’s honorable to stand and fight, and to die in battle; it’s dishonorable to flee.
I do agree with this. I just don’t think it applies to people who are outside of our society, or to people who broke into our home.
I reject that premise as certified hooey. There’s no systemic anything. It’s absolute nonsense, rooted in a deranged rejection of western civilization. Sorry, I know that’s rude, and I’m not trying to offend you personally. I appreciate how generally respectful this interaction has been. I just reject this notion out of hand.
Maybe they lay low because they’re afraid of getting deported? Honestly I don’t care how good they are for the economy. I mean, slavery was extraordinarily good for the southern economy, if you don’t count the slaves as people. So it’s not an argument I find compelling. Some things are good for the economy, or great for the economy, and yet I still oppose them. (There are other things in this category, like Chinese imports.)
I would not describe one. They’re the same people. The former are just the people who still have the means to get by, the latter are the ones who do not.
It’s the mentality of somebody who’s life is in danger, or who is trying to provide for their family any way they can. And in case you didn’t know, roughly 50% of all illegal immigration occurs through legal methods of travel, as in, people overstay their welcome when traveling but were otherwise granted legal access into the country.
People who break into houses do so because they are greedy. People who break into countries (generally) do so because they are trying to escape or provide for their family.
It’s not a battle, it’s suicide. Until some major things change, cartels will always exist due to the black market demand for them. Even if you somehow successful destroy one another will fit its place overnight because of how incredibly profitable it is. Fighting a cartel will have no effect other than to end your own life.
Why not? When black WW2 vets were denied low interest housing loans on the basis of race, and white WW2 vets were given them freely, how was that not a systemic inequality in opportunity?
It applies to all kinds of immigrants, legal and illegal. So reducing the influx of people who commit fewer crimes than the general population is short sighted.
These are people. And they are making the choice to move here and set up businesses of their own free choice. Comparing this to slavery is quite frankly silly.
That strikes me as an overly broad generalization, but maybe you’re right.
I suppose I understand that. But that doesn’t excuse the behavior.
Say you were starving, and you encounter a man with food. You ask him to share it with you, and he rudely declines. Are you justified in slaughtering him to take his food? Of course not. What if it’s to feed your family? No, that’s still murder.
Now we’re not really discussing murder here, but my point is that an immoral action is inherently immoral, and no amount of suffering or danger can justify an immoral action, nor warrant sympathy for one who commits it.
I did know that! It’s an interesting fact. And I wish it was more common knowledge. It’s why building the wall is absolutely not enough, though I’d like to see it built anyway as a preliminary baby-step.
Some major things like what? I’d love to know how to end market demand, but that’s a very hard problem to solve.
I dunno. If one dude goes up against a cartel army, sure, that’s suicide. But if an entire country organizes into a strategic war on the cartels, I think the ensuing bloodbath would be the end of all cartels in that country.
Racist behavior is despicable, and I think we agree on that. But the word “systemic” generally means invisible and imagined. You gave a great example of actual racism, and that sort of thing hasn’t happened in a very long time in the US. Today’s so-called racism is “systemic”, meaning you have to have a rather active imagination to believe it exists. (Edit: I take this back, as colleges were openly racist before the SCOTUS banned it, and woke corporations are still doing affirmative action. That’s not systemic though, it’s just actual racism.)
Yeah, I didn’t mean it like that. I meant the argument that it’s “good for the economy” doesn’t convince me, just as someone could argue that slavery is good for the economy, and many economists argue that Chinese imports are good for the economy. I don’t care. We can tank the economy for all I care. I don’t find the argument compelling.
OK, so to end the market demand for these drugs you first have to understand why they’re used at all. Everybody knows they are harmful and addictive, nobody starts using them without knowing that it will harm them. So why do they use them? Primarily it is because of isolation and poverty, which are the two biggest indicators of crime and drug use. Humans have a built in need for socialization, and without that we have to cope in some way. Poverty is very similar, when we do not have stability in our life, a good source of food and shelter, when our well-being is in bad shape, just like with isolation we need some way to cope. Often times that method is drug use.
So if we can tackle the things leading to this isolation and poverty, it can go a long way towards reducing people’s drug use. So lets look at the first of these source problems, and some solutions.
Isolation - Nowadays people have a great deal of difficulty maintaining communities. Part of that is poverty, but the largest part is how we structure our society. Here in the U.S. we don’t have any semblance of work-life balance. We are the most productive we have ever been and yet we work more than we have in almost a century. How can somebody be reasonably expected to have a social life when they must work two jobs to make ends meet? We also get far less time off than other developed nations, in large part because we have no guaranteed minimum time off. Other countries on the other hand get weeks of time off at a minimum. There is also the physical structure of our society, the city planning and infrastructure. Everything in the U.S. is car dependent. Do you want to go hang out with friends? Do you want to go to church? Do you want to volunteer? Doesn’t matter what activity you want to do, you are required to get their by car because no other valid options exist. We don’t have the freedom to travel to places through other means because all cities everywhere are built for cars and only cars. It is also just dangerous to travel by foot or by bicycle in the U.S. because so little thought is put into the safety of pedestrians. Even if something is technically within walking/biking distance, there may be no sidewalk, pedestrian barriers, or trees. We also do not have the density or mixed use zoning that is needed to allow people to make strong communities in our neighborhoods. Everything is built too far spaced out when it could easily be built with community in mind.
So to fix the isolation we need:
So that more or less covers the easy part, isolation. Poverty is a whole other monster.
Poverty - So this is a two part issue, a wage issue and a price issue. On the wage side of things, we as a society simply are not paid enough. Productivity rates have grown massively, but wages have not. And all that extra wealth that is being created is going directly to the rich. As a result people are impoverished. CEOs, company owners and shareholders take home extreme levels of wealth while your average Joe takes home crumbs at best. CEOs currently get paid somewhere on the order of 670 times as much as the lowest paid workers. CEOs are not working 670 times harder than any other worker out there. Our country has plenty of wealth to make sure everybody has a stable food source and secure housing, but the wealth is distributed such that it always goes to the rich. Part two of the poverty issue, is the price issue. Whether it is for pharmaceuticals, college, housing, or just groceries, the prices of everything have gotten completely out of hand. And that’s not because these things take much more to manufacture/maintain. The cost to manufacture insulin is about $6 a vial yet it is sold for $300 at least for example. Colleges waits shit loads of their money on administration and sports. Housing is intentionally kept scarce to keep prices up, etc. Corporations and landlords are extracting every single ounce of wealth out of us as they possibly can, and it has immensely damage our society through poverty.
There is a lot more to it than that, but I think you get the gist. So to fix this, some of the things we will need to see is:
And so that covers largely the source reasons why people start drug use in the first place. But there is still more to it. The third main category of fix for the cartels would be ending the war on drugs. It’s been ~50 years of trying to get rid of drugs and we are no closer to doing so. It’s clear that it isn’t working. Drugs are more potent, dangerous, and available than they ever have been. If we were to decriminalize use of them we would save billions of dollars that could instead go towards the above fixes, and it would also reduce the profitability of the cartel’s trade. If somebody is addicted to a drug, they should have a harm reduction program to help them through it. If the drugs on the street are more expensive, dirtier and riskier than what a free prescription can get them, then cartels would evaporate as they would have no customers. Other nations have tried this approach, and study after study shows that it is the most effective way to help people stop using drugs off the street, and to stop using drugs all together.
First of all, the thing that fried my brain. What on earth does owning flags have to do with who commits crimes?
Second of all, this is one of the most hateful, vile things I have ever read. Very unchristian of you. I thought you said Christians were inclusive and accepting, clearly you aren’t. Repent you heathen Satan worshiper. Literally condemning people to death and feeling proud of yourself for being a ‘high and mighty Christian.’ Isn’t pride a sin, cause ego goes along with pride, and you sir. Are full of it.
I’m sorry, what’s hateful about what I wrote? You could have at least explained that before ranting about it.
Sorry for “frying your brain”. Patriotic Americans own flags, hoist them, and fly them, showing respect for our neighbors and law and order. It may seem unrelated to being a law-abiding citizen if you’re not part of the culture.
You would rather people (and children) die than receive any kind of help through immigration. You are calling people bottom of the barrel for trying to escape from danger. You are dehumanizing people on the basis of a single non-violent crime. You are judging your political opponents as criminals for failing to hold a false idol to the same standard you do.
All of which is incredibly hateful.
Upvoted for a pretty good explanation, though I do disagree that any of that is hateful, and I don’t know what “false idol” you referred to.
I’ll tell you this: I don’t feel any hatred in my heart towards illegal immigrants, nor towards my political opponents. I mean that honestly.
So I take issue with your claim of hatred, as it’s factually incorrect.
The flag
You don’t have to hate somebody to do something hateful towards them or say something hateful. Hate isn’t always intentional.
Gotcha. The flag’s not a false idol at all. Not sure where you live, but I’m in a fairly Christian conservative area, and it’s commonplace to see “kneel for the cross, stand for the flag” signs. Nobody worships the flag. It’s just a uniting symbol of our neighbors across the nation. When we say “love your neighbor”, the flag is the imagery that comes to mind for me. It’s not an idol at all, just a symbol of our fellow Americans, who we strive to love.
What a peculiar claim. Hatred is a feeling. I know what’s in my heart. You don’t. You can misinterpret my words, but you can’t rightfully ascribe feelings to my heart which I don’t feel.
That fits the bill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry
They absolutely do, and you’ve done quite a bit of it yourself from what I have read from you. You treat is as a moral failure for not treating the flag with the utmost respect, and that is a form of worship.
Hate can be a feeling, but it isn’t always a feeling. Hatred can be a cold unfeeling action, or speech. Granted, I think if this part of the conversation continues any further then it will devolve into semantics.
What is hateful about saying you don’t care that people die if they ‘don’t fight like a man.’ You’re seriously asking that. First of all, your sexism is showing, second of all, how about the woman and children who flee in fear of being murdered? And no sympathy for jews dying in the holocaust cause they weren’t armed, like that was their fault? Like you can just easily buy guns and ammo and fight back.
Please tell me how many wars you’ve fought in, you know, since you’re such a patriotic man.
Flags do not equal patriotic, people who use the American flag as a pseudo God can be insane, take Trump supporters for example, crimes were committed and flags were flown. Mhm, yes, really patriotic upstanding citizens.
If you can’t see the hate you’re spewing, you’re blind and a fool. But keep spouting your bullshit complete holiness and then acting like a psychopath.
Please consider 10 USC §246, which defines the US militia as all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45.
That may give you some background on my perspective. I expect able-bodied men to be soldiers, ready to fight and die to protect their families and neighbors at the drop of a hat. That’s why we Americans keep and bear arms. It’s not sexist to expect men to fight like men, and to find fault with cowardice.
Have you ever seen liveleak videos of what cartels do to the people who stand up to them? Because I have. I’ve seen a guy get decapitated with a box cutter. If I were living in one of those countries, the logical thing for me to do is to get my family the hell out of there rather than to throw my life away in a failed attempt to take down a cartel.
The problem with what you’ve said isn’t sexism, the problem is that none of what you said has any sense of realism. You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no bootstraps.
What’s wrong with you, watching a video like that? I’m traumatized just reading your description of it. Are you okay?
I get your point, and I don’t think either of us can convince the other. The honorable man dies with his boots on. That’s my position, and I’m sticking to it.
But really, I’m concerned about anyone watching videos like that. That’s really disturbing.
4chan is a rough place and I will leave it at that. I only brought it up to point out how hopeless it is for any individual (and even governments) to stand up to cartels. You have an unrealistic expectation on how people should fight for the safety of their loved ones.
When the continental army was fighting the British, they were fighting tyranny illegally, and doing so with women and children and tow. Many of those soldiers died during retreating movements, without their boots on so to speak.
I don’t aim to convince you, I’m simply here to point out that the rational thing is to recognize that getting your family out of danger through any means necessary is the moral thing to do even if it technically breaks the law.
First of all, we were talking about people fleeing other countries and the Jews, not the US. Also, the US code subordinate to the constitution, and the constitution gives ‘the people’ the right to own guns. PEOPLE. Not just men, people. so no, it’s not just dur dur men.
Again, your sexism is showing. Men shouldn’t be expected to be ‘manly’. Men are people too, they can be however they like. I thought you were all for people being able to have freedom, yet you’re pigeon holing people into categories and defined characteristics. Which is sexist.
But what do I expect from a Christian.
This is just so off-topic and lacking in understanding that I’m not going to continue arguing. Especially with that closing remark. God bless you, pixelfox.