7 ms·

Laws can be unethical? Protesting Jim Crow laws was a good thing?

downandout 8y ago
It’s unethical to require people from other countries that want to enter the US to follow certain, well established, legal protocols before they enter? I’m all for legal immigration. I guess I just don’t understand all the support for illegal immigration. Edit: based on the downvotes, there must be some kind of benefit to the US arising from illegal immigration that I’m missing. Could one of you that downvoted this please explain that benefit to me?
- evanlivingston 8y ago
  I'm unable to downvote, but I'll share my position. I don't base my political beliefs on what is good for the U.S. alone. There are plenty of things that are good for the U.S. but negative for other people. As an example, think of Western expansion in the early 1800's and policies directed towards Native Americans and how certain practices were "good" for the US but bad for other people.
- jaredklewis 8y ago
  > It's unethical to require people from other countries that want to enter the US to follow certain, well established, legal protocols before they enter? The contents of letter state that it is a reaction to the recent news that babies and toddlers of immigrants crossing the border illegally are being separated from their parents in the hundreds. We have no evidence that these parents have been charged with violent or other crimes of a nature that might justify the separation for the children's safety. In no way does the letter assert that it supports illegal immigration, as I think your comment suggests. Rather, the letter accuses ICE of inhumane treatment of children in a way that violates international law. So the letter cosigners might very well be strongly against illegal immigration. I am strongly against homicide, for instance. That being said, I would like our prisons to treat convicted murderers in a humane way. Just because I am against murder, it doesn't mean I want prisoners to be water boarded or starved or what have you.
  - downandout 8y ago
    babies and toddlers of immigrants crossing the border illegally are being separated from their parents in the hundreds. We have no evidence that these parents have been charged with violent or other crimes of a nature that might justify the separation for the children's safety. When parents commit crimes, they are going to wind up being separated from their children. This is a consequence of breaking the law - you commit a crime, and then you go to jail. Your children can’t be with you in jail, so you get separated. The evidence that they have committed a crime in the case of illegal entry is by default - they couldn’t be arrested by the US border patrol unless they violated the law, because the US border patrol doesn’t arrest people in Mexico, they arrest them in the US. So, in order to support these parents not being separated from their children, you have to support not prosecuting people for illegally entering the country. That, by definition, means you have to be in favor of illegal immigration.
    - maxerickson 8y ago
      Sure, lots of people actually are in favor of the sort of illegal immigration where if people seek asylum they are not prosecuted for the misdemeanor border crossing at least until their asylum application is rejected (and maybe they just aren't prosecuted). But why would the "greatest" country in the world use any nuance when dealing with vulnerable people, right, nuance is for rich people and their powerful lawyers, not for people fleeing death. I dare you to be specific when you make your arguments about law and order. Own the specifics. Proper procedure is a very important part of seeking asylum and all that. Don't hide behind words like "commit crimes" and "violated the law", actually say "misdemeanor border crossing".
      - downandout 8y ago
        Are misdemeanors not crimes? The term misdemeanor simply means that it is a crime punishable by up to 364 days in prison. Further, illegal reentry is a felony, and in many of these cases, it’s reentry.
        deleted 8y ago
- peterashford 8y ago
  Plenty of countries discourage immigration. That is not controversial. No-one splits up people's families and takes their kids away. One issue is a bog-standard legal issue, the other issue is a human rights abuse and is morally despicable. Your edit to your post indicates that you don't seem to get the moral dimension to this issue.
  - downandout 8y ago
    But being separated from your kids is a natural consequence of breaking the law. You commit a crime and go to jail, and your children no longer have parents while you’re in jail.

It’s unethical to require people from other countries that want to enter the US to follow certain, well established, legal protocols before they enter? I’m all for legal immigration. I guess I just don’t understand all the support for illegal immigration. Edit: based on the downvotes, there must be some kind of benefit to the US arising from illegal immigration that I’m missing. Could one of you that downvoted this please explain that benefit to me?

evanlivingston 8y ago
I'm unable to downvote, but I'll share my position. I don't base my political beliefs on what is good for the U.S. alone. There are plenty of things that are good for the U.S. but negative for other people. As an example, think of Western expansion in the early 1800's and policies directed towards Native Americans and how certain practices were "good" for the US but bad for other people.
jaredklewis 8y ago
> It's unethical to require people from other countries that want to enter the US to follow certain, well established, legal protocols before they enter? The contents of letter state that it is a reaction to the recent news that babies and toddlers of immigrants crossing the border illegally are being separated from their parents in the hundreds. We have no evidence that these parents have been charged with violent or other crimes of a nature that might justify the separation for the children's safety. In no way does the letter assert that it supports illegal immigration, as I think your comment suggests. Rather, the letter accuses ICE of inhumane treatment of children in a way that violates international law. So the letter cosigners might very well be strongly against illegal immigration. I am strongly against homicide, for instance. That being said, I would like our prisons to treat convicted murderers in a humane way. Just because I am against murder, it doesn't mean I want prisoners to be water boarded or starved or what have you.
- downandout 8y ago
  babies and toddlers of immigrants crossing the border illegally are being separated from their parents in the hundreds. We have no evidence that these parents have been charged with violent or other crimes of a nature that might justify the separation for the children's safety. When parents commit crimes, they are going to wind up being separated from their children. This is a consequence of breaking the law - you commit a crime, and then you go to jail. Your children can’t be with you in jail, so you get separated. The evidence that they have committed a crime in the case of illegal entry is by default - they couldn’t be arrested by the US border patrol unless they violated the law, because the US border patrol doesn’t arrest people in Mexico, they arrest them in the US. So, in order to support these parents not being separated from their children, you have to support not prosecuting people for illegally entering the country. That, by definition, means you have to be in favor of illegal immigration.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    Sure, lots of people actually are in favor of the sort of illegal immigration where if people seek asylum they are not prosecuted for the misdemeanor border crossing at least until their asylum application is rejected (and maybe they just aren't prosecuted). But why would the "greatest" country in the world use any nuance when dealing with vulnerable people, right, nuance is for rich people and their powerful lawyers, not for people fleeing death. I dare you to be specific when you make your arguments about law and order. Own the specifics. Proper procedure is a very important part of seeking asylum and all that. Don't hide behind words like "commit crimes" and "violated the law", actually say "misdemeanor border crossing".
    - downandout 8y ago
      Are misdemeanors not crimes? The term misdemeanor simply means that it is a crime punishable by up to 364 days in prison. Further, illegal reentry is a felony, and in many of these cases, it’s reentry.
      - deleted 8y ago
peterashford 8y ago
Plenty of countries discourage immigration. That is not controversial. No-one splits up people's families and takes their kids away. One issue is a bog-standard legal issue, the other issue is a human rights abuse and is morally despicable. Your edit to your post indicates that you don't seem to get the moral dimension to this issue.
- downandout 8y ago
  But being separated from your kids is a natural consequence of breaking the law. You commit a crime and go to jail, and your children no longer have parents while you’re in jail.