3 ms·

Actually you just dodged the cogent response you received. Because many of these people are essentially refugees fleeing violence and extreme poverty in their

Actually you just dodged the cogent response you received. Because many of these people are essentially refugees fleeing violence and extreme poverty in their home countries. Instead of helping these people we're tearing them from their families. Then you framed your reply in terms of Mexico only, which ignored places like El Salvador, although maybe that’s just more “Mexico” in your mind? Point being, you’ve gotten many good replies, you just don’t like them, which is hardly the same as them being indefensible. You have every right to be here, but less of a right to throw a tantrum about leaving while being here. That’s just rude. It’s only right to have some respect for the platform and people who use and maintain it while you use it.

downandout 8y ago
I responded to that comment up above. I focused on Mexico because that is by far the largest source of illegal immigrants to the US. Not a single reply has answered my question as to why anyone would endorse illegal immigration. Many countries have many problems, we cannot just take in all of their residents. I think it’s terrible that families are being separated. But I don’t know of another solution when their parents are choosing to bring their children with them to commit a crime.
- eeeuo 8y ago
  The solution is to not separate them. You're not arguing in good faith when you suggest that the two possible binary outcomes are (a) unrestricted immigration or (b) separating kids from their parents. Many of the illegal immigrants come to the border to flee violence or crippling poverty. They have to bring their kids. If they had the time or the income or the support system to migrate legally, they would. With regards to your original point, I fail to see why Americans are not within their rights to protest laws that they feel are unjust. The employees understood that they may be fired for their views, but they did it because they could not in good conscience perform the work. You ignored the immediate reply about Jim Crow laws, but it's a good comparison. Would you also be angry with people that did not want to enforce Jim Crow laws?
  - downandout 8y ago
    I fail to see why Americans are not within their rights to protest laws that they feel are unjust So you feel that restrictions on immigration are unjust? The law doesn't say that children must be seperated from their parents at the border. That's simply a natural consequence of breaking the law - the parent goes to jail, and something has to be done with any children they chose to bring to the crime scene. US citizens are jailed everyday, for small things like driving without a license, and if their kids are in the car, those kids go to Child Protective Services. In many cases, the parents can't afford to bail out and the children wind up in foster homes for months or years while the parent serves their sentence and then fights to get custody back. This is all very ugly, but it all starts with a conscious decision to break the law with children in tow.
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    > You're not arguing in good faith when you suggest that the two possible binary outcomes are (a) unrestricted immigration or (b) separating kids from their parents. Completely agreed. Furthermore, it's the fact that we've had a lax border that is to blame for people expecting to get through without any trouble (or at least without being separated from their kids). I have no problem with tightening up border security, but these kids did no wrong -- and to forcibly separate them from their parents is to do evil to them. I'm sure we can find a creative (if unorthodox) solution to this that allows kids to stay with their parents whether or not the parents are prosecuted.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Sure I did. Because it's a minor crime and many of the people are involved are fleeing real danger. That's plenty enough reason to take a nuanced approach to dealing with the minor crime. Most of the world has agreed to simply not charge refugees with entry crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees#The_contracting_states_shall_not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Sta... But they aren't great.

downandout 8y ago

I responded to that comment up above. I focused on Mexico because that is by far the largest source of illegal immigrants to the US. Not a single reply has answered my question as to why anyone would endorse illegal immigration. Many countries have many problems, we cannot just take in all of their residents. I think it’s terrible that families are being separated. But I don’t know of another solution when their parents are choosing to bring their children with them to commit a crime.

eeeuo 8y ago
The solution is to not separate them. You're not arguing in good faith when you suggest that the two possible binary outcomes are (a) unrestricted immigration or (b) separating kids from their parents. Many of the illegal immigrants come to the border to flee violence or crippling poverty. They have to bring their kids. If they had the time or the income or the support system to migrate legally, they would. With regards to your original point, I fail to see why Americans are not within their rights to protest laws that they feel are unjust. The employees understood that they may be fired for their views, but they did it because they could not in good conscience perform the work. You ignored the immediate reply about Jim Crow laws, but it's a good comparison. Would you also be angry with people that did not want to enforce Jim Crow laws?
- downandout 8y ago
  I fail to see why Americans are not within their rights to protest laws that they feel are unjust So you feel that restrictions on immigration are unjust? The law doesn't say that children must be seperated from their parents at the border. That's simply a natural consequence of breaking the law - the parent goes to jail, and something has to be done with any children they chose to bring to the crime scene. US citizens are jailed everyday, for small things like driving without a license, and if their kids are in the car, those kids go to Child Protective Services. In many cases, the parents can't afford to bail out and the children wind up in foster homes for months or years while the parent serves their sentence and then fights to get custody back. This is all very ugly, but it all starts with a conscious decision to break the law with children in tow.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > You're not arguing in good faith when you suggest that the two possible binary outcomes are (a) unrestricted immigration or (b) separating kids from their parents. Completely agreed. Furthermore, it's the fact that we've had a lax border that is to blame for people expecting to get through without any trouble (or at least without being separated from their kids). I have no problem with tightening up border security, but these kids did no wrong -- and to forcibly separate them from their parents is to do evil to them. I'm sure we can find a creative (if unorthodox) solution to this that allows kids to stay with their parents whether or not the parents are prosecuted.
maxerickson 8y ago
Sure I did. Because it's a minor crime and many of the people are involved are fleeing real danger. That's plenty enough reason to take a nuanced approach to dealing with the minor crime. Most of the world has agreed to simply not charge refugees with entry crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees#The_contracting_states_shall_not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Sta... But they aren't great.