4 ms·

Deporting illegal immigrants is called enforcing the law, not fascism.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Depends on how you do it. Yes, they are here in violation of the law. But if that's what bothers you, then the process you use to deport them had better be in keeping with the law. If what bothers you about them being here is the "illegal" aspect, then you must not trample the legal process in order to remove them.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  For example what's an illegal way of departing an illegal immigrant?
  - whatnow37373 2y ago
    Surely there is some kind of due process? You can't just pick up foreign looking types and ship them off in black vans. That would be an illegal way to do that, I believe (I hope). I'm not American so I don't know how it works over there.
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > meaning the due process has been already run and determined they are illegal I'm pretty certain that is not what most people mean when they say "illegal immigrant".
        FirmwareBurner 2y ago
        And that's my problem how? I'm using the logical definition of the word, not trying to mind read what other peoples' interpretation might be. Illegal immigrant = an immigrant who is here illegally/against the law. What other stronger definitions of the word are there?
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > Illegal immigrant = an immigrant who is here illegally/against the law I'm confused. This is how most people define the term, and is not what you said before. What you said before is "due process has been already run and determined they are illegal". There is a vast difference between someone that broke the law and someone that was convicted of breaking the law. When the average person says "illegal immigrant" they mean someone that broke immigration law. Nothing about whether due process has been applied. So if you start rounding up "illegal immigrants" and deporting them right away, that's a big problem, because not all of them had due process and you'll inevitably grab innocent people.
        FirmwareBurner 2y ago
        >When the average person says "illegal immigrant" they mean someone that broke immigration law. [...] So if you start rounding up "illegal immigrants" and deporting them right away, that's a big problem, because not all of them had due process and you'll inevitably grab innocent people. Aren't you contradicting yourself here? How can you break immigration law but be innocent? Immigration is pretty binary, you either have valid visa to be here or you don't, so you either broke the law or you didn't. What's there to argue about here? Yeah, we can say immigration laws suck sometimes, but that's an argument for changing the laws, not for removing the enforcement of the law.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > Aren't you contradicting yourself here? How can you break immigration law but be innocent? If you try to round up everyone that committed a crime, you're going to make mistakes. You'll get people that did not commit that crime. So no, there's no contradiction in that sentence. > Immigration is pretty binary, you either have valid visa to be here or you don't, so you either broke the law or you didn't. What's there to argue about here? The way you check, properly, is with due process. It's pretty easy to do due process on immigration. It can be done efficiently. But you still have to do it.
- rayiner 2y ago
  That’s a bizarre argument. Conduct is illegal because it’s bad or has harmful effects. Immigration laws exist because society recognizes that immigration has various undesirable effects (cultural change, strain on public resources, etc.), so we need to restrict immigration to controllable levels that manage those negative effects. The objection to illegal immigrants is that they’re here. While deportation efforts should follow the law like everything else, there’s nothing about illegal immigration that makes the legal process especially important compared to other things.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
Gibbon1 2y ago
[flagged]
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  >You'll vote for a guy that raped a 12 year old girl. You don't care. Where did I say this? Who is this "you" here? Why are you making accusations in bad faith trying to demonize people you don't know using words they haven't said and arguments they haven't made?
  - erxam 1y ago
    It's always the same thing with you types. Grasping at words like some kind of hyper-logical machine trying to find some magical logical fallacy that will somehow invalidate the speaker's entire argument. Let's set facts here: you are arguing for a position held by the dictator in charge of the USA today, and it is plenty transparent that you voted for him and you love everything he's doing. Everything else is just misdirection so you can try and confuse any bystanders, abusing the very same 'niceness' and 'non-political' messaging you accuse others of breaking all the time. Let's not mince words here anymore. Everyone can see through you. If you're doing it deliberately, congratulations.
    - DonHopkins 1y ago
      And it's painfully obvious that he's got a lot of unresolved hatred and bigotry issues.

Depends on how you do it. Yes, they are here in violation of the law. But if that's what bothers you, then the process you use to deport them had better be in keeping with the law. If what bothers you about them being here is the "illegal" aspect, then you must not trample the legal process in order to remove them.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
For example what's an illegal way of departing an illegal immigrant?
- whatnow37373 2y ago
  Surely there is some kind of due process? You can't just pick up foreign looking types and ship them off in black vans. That would be an illegal way to do that, I believe (I hope). I'm not American so I don't know how it works over there.
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > meaning the due process has been already run and determined they are illegal I'm pretty certain that is not what most people mean when they say "illegal immigrant".
      - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
        And that's my problem how? I'm using the logical definition of the word, not trying to mind read what other peoples' interpretation might be. Illegal immigrant = an immigrant who is here illegally/against the law. What other stronger definitions of the word are there?
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > Illegal immigrant = an immigrant who is here illegally/against the law I'm confused. This is how most people define the term, and is not what you said before. What you said before is "due process has been already run and determined they are illegal". There is a vast difference between someone that broke the law and someone that was convicted of breaking the law. When the average person says "illegal immigrant" they mean someone that broke immigration law. Nothing about whether due process has been applied. So if you start rounding up "illegal immigrants" and deporting them right away, that's a big problem, because not all of them had due process and you'll inevitably grab innocent people.
        FirmwareBurner 2y ago
        >When the average person says "illegal immigrant" they mean someone that broke immigration law. [...] So if you start rounding up "illegal immigrants" and deporting them right away, that's a big problem, because not all of them had due process and you'll inevitably grab innocent people. Aren't you contradicting yourself here? How can you break immigration law but be innocent? Immigration is pretty binary, you either have valid visa to be here or you don't, so you either broke the law or you didn't. What's there to argue about here? Yeah, we can say immigration laws suck sometimes, but that's an argument for changing the laws, not for removing the enforcement of the law.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > Aren't you contradicting yourself here? How can you break immigration law but be innocent? If you try to round up everyone that committed a crime, you're going to make mistakes. You'll get people that did not commit that crime. So no, there's no contradiction in that sentence. > Immigration is pretty binary, you either have valid visa to be here or you don't, so you either broke the law or you didn't. What's there to argue about here? The way you check, properly, is with due process. It's pretty easy to do due process on immigration. It can be done efficiently. But you still have to do it.
rayiner 2y ago
That’s a bizarre argument. Conduct is illegal because it’s bad or has harmful effects. Immigration laws exist because society recognizes that immigration has various undesirable effects (cultural change, strain on public resources, etc.), so we need to restrict immigration to controllable levels that manage those negative effects. The objection to illegal immigrants is that they’re here. While deportation efforts should follow the law like everything else, there’s nothing about illegal immigration that makes the legal process especially important compared to other things.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

Gibbon1 2y ago

[flagged]

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
>You'll vote for a guy that raped a 12 year old girl. You don't care. Where did I say this? Who is this "you" here? Why are you making accusations in bad faith trying to demonize people you don't know using words they haven't said and arguments they haven't made?
- erxam 1y ago
  It's always the same thing with you types. Grasping at words like some kind of hyper-logical machine trying to find some magical logical fallacy that will somehow invalidate the speaker's entire argument. Let's set facts here: you are arguing for a position held by the dictator in charge of the USA today, and it is plenty transparent that you voted for him and you love everything he's doing. Everything else is just misdirection so you can try and confuse any bystanders, abusing the very same 'niceness' and 'non-political' messaging you accuse others of breaking all the time. Let's not mince words here anymore. Everyone can see through you. If you're doing it deliberately, congratulations.
  - DonHopkins 1y ago
    And it's painfully obvious that he's got a lot of unresolved hatred and bigotry issues.