6 ms·

Have you considered that it doesn’t matter that what they’re doing is legal? You don’t need to know if it’s legal or illegal to know that it is wrong. It is ag

by gen220 1y ago

Have you considered that it doesn’t matter that what they’re doing is legal? You don’t need to know if it’s legal or illegal to know that it is wrong. It is against the spirit of this nation (or, perversely, you could say it’s the intrinsic spirit of this nation coming out…). There are plenty of things legal which are wrong. That anyone is defending these actions by claiming to do them “legally” is a means of saving face with the people in our society who are distant enough from those directly and indirectly affected, and who struggle to differentiate morality from law. This kind of thinking is a slippery slope that leads to the institutionalization of violence. If it were legal for ICE to hold *humans* classified by the state as “illegal migrants” in concentration camps, would you continue to defend that policy as merely enforcing the law?

bmn__ 1y ago
Common sense retort (on the level of Asmongold): If you do not agree with a law (on moral grounds or whatever other reason), you do not get to selectively ignore it. Your options in this society are to either put up with it, or lobby to change it. If you want for society to better align with your values, then lobby to fix the problems that made the introduction of the existing laws a necessity.
- gen220 1y ago
  I don’t see how this retort applies to this conversation. Do you think the executive branch was selectively ignoring the law by not sending asylum seekers to El Salvador under previous administrations? The law is selectively and capriciously enforced all the time. Jay walking, tax evasion, speed limits, etc. At the risk of repeating myself (selectively) “enforcing the law” is a great excuse for budding authoritarians, to save face with the segment of the population who struggle to discern right from wrong, and depend upon “the legal system” to make that distinction for them. You could dress up any behavior in the language of legal enforcement and necessary expressions of sovereignty, and that will apparently be enough for some people.
  - wredcoll 1y ago
    We have a president who is famous for not obeying the law and now we are being asked to stop being morally outraged because of some other laws.
mlrtime 1y ago
This is not a humanity issue, this is a legal one. The president ran on removing people from this country who entered the country illegally. He is executing what he ran on and what the people voted for. I don't personally approve of all the tactics that are being used, however it is clear that some cities are not in favor of these Federal laws at all no mater which tactic is used. I also realize how quickly these conversations turn.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > This is not a humanity issue, this is a legal one. Its only not a humanity issue if you have no humanity, but, even so, it is also an issue where the President has been violating more than executing the law,
  - mlrtime 1y ago
    >if you have no humanity Manipulation is a common tactic to try and persuade someone of a belief, politicians are great at it.
- gen220 1y ago
  What if immigration courts are also starting to target people who came here legally? (Green card holders) What if they begin to find “clerical errors” in their applications that suggest their immigration status is “fraudulent and illegal”? And what if they begin to target naturalized citizens, but only ones who had the misfortune of being born in “terrorists countries” like China and Venezuela and Iran? At what point would you say that they’ve gone too far? You have to recognize that the humanity of these people is worth more than their “legal immigration status”. The spirit of this country must continue to be the Statue of Liberty, not devolved into an ICE detention center.
  - mlrtime 1y ago
    I don't deal in what-if hypotheticals... this is anxiety and I don't allow it. I also (try not to) don't allow manipulation.
zahlman 1y ago
> Have you considered that it doesn’t matter that what they’re doing is legal? No, because it does matter. > You don’t need to know if it’s legal or illegal to know that it is wrong. Please explain why you think it is wrong. Or exactly, where does the wrongness come in? Is it wrong because they attempt to enforce immigration law? Do you consider it invalid for countries to restrict legal immigration? Why? Is it wrong because they wear masks? Why? Is it wrong because they operate "in broad daylight"? Why? It is definitely not wrong "because they kidnap people", because that is at best circular reasoning. Arrest is a standard tool of law enforcement. > a means of saving face with the people in our society who are distant enough from those directly and indirectly affected, and who struggle to differentiate morality from law. This is incorrect in my case, and frankly insulting. For example, marijuana has been legal here for several years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Canada) and I was in favour of that since long before it changed. I grew up and socialized in a world where it was outlawed and clearly not harmful, and I saw the injustice in that. But national borders are perfectly moral, in my view. > This kind of thinking is a slippery slope that leads to the institutionalization of violence. In the broad sense that your argument requires, violence is supposed to be institutionalized. That's what the criminal justice system is. Never mind capital punishment, or corporal punishment (I oppose both of course): apprehending criminals requires force. That said, I respect that you acknowledge the slippery slope fallacy here. Putting aside that "concentration camp" is not a well defined term (and people have argued since at least the Obama years about the conditions in ICE detainment facilities), that's clearly not where things are headed. Nobody wants to detain the people who are legally not entitled to be in the country. The entire point is to have them not in the country. Besides, is it any more moral to let employers (who violate laws themselves in this way) hold the threat of deportation over illegal immigrants, to deprive them of workers' rights and fair payment? Of course these employers should also be punished, but that isn't going to stop people from coming.
- mempko 1y ago
  Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. While what Trump did is a felony. Do you see masked agents kidnapping Trump without due process in the middle of the night?

by gen220 1y ago

bmn__ 1y ago

Common sense retort (on the level of Asmongold): If you do not agree with a law (on moral grounds or whatever other reason), you do not get to selectively ignore it. Your options in this society are to either put up with it, or lobby to change it. If you want for society to better align with your values, then lobby to fix the problems that made the introduction of the existing laws a necessity.

gen220 1y ago
I don’t see how this retort applies to this conversation. Do you think the executive branch was selectively ignoring the law by not sending asylum seekers to El Salvador under previous administrations? The law is selectively and capriciously enforced all the time. Jay walking, tax evasion, speed limits, etc. At the risk of repeating myself (selectively) “enforcing the law” is a great excuse for budding authoritarians, to save face with the segment of the population who struggle to discern right from wrong, and depend upon “the legal system” to make that distinction for them. You could dress up any behavior in the language of legal enforcement and necessary expressions of sovereignty, and that will apparently be enough for some people.
- wredcoll 1y ago
  We have a president who is famous for not obeying the law and now we are being asked to stop being morally outraged because of some other laws.

mlrtime 1y ago

This is not a humanity issue, this is a legal one. The president ran on removing people from this country who entered the country illegally. He is executing what he ran on and what the people voted for. I don't personally approve of all the tactics that are being used, however it is clear that some cities are not in favor of these Federal laws at all no mater which tactic is used. I also realize how quickly these conversations turn.

dragonwriter 1y ago
> This is not a humanity issue, this is a legal one. Its only not a humanity issue if you have no humanity, but, even so, it is also an issue where the President has been violating more than executing the law,
- mlrtime 1y ago
  >if you have no humanity Manipulation is a common tactic to try and persuade someone of a belief, politicians are great at it.
gen220 1y ago
What if immigration courts are also starting to target people who came here legally? (Green card holders) What if they begin to find “clerical errors” in their applications that suggest their immigration status is “fraudulent and illegal”? And what if they begin to target naturalized citizens, but only ones who had the misfortune of being born in “terrorists countries” like China and Venezuela and Iran? At what point would you say that they’ve gone too far? You have to recognize that the humanity of these people is worth more than their “legal immigration status”. The spirit of this country must continue to be the Statue of Liberty, not devolved into an ICE detention center.
- mlrtime 1y ago
  I don't deal in what-if hypotheticals... this is anxiety and I don't allow it. I also (try not to) don't allow manipulation.

zahlman 1y ago

> Have you considered that it doesn’t matter that what they’re doing is legal? No, because it does matter. > You don’t need to know if it’s legal or illegal to know that it is wrong. Please explain why you think it is wrong. Or exactly, where does the wrongness come in? Is it wrong because they attempt to enforce immigration law? Do you consider it invalid for countries to restrict legal immigration? Why? Is it wrong because they wear masks? Why? Is it wrong because they operate "in broad daylight"? Why? It is definitely not wrong "because they kidnap people", because that is at best circular reasoning. Arrest is a standard tool of law enforcement. > a means of saving face with the people in our society who are distant enough from those directly and indirectly affected, and who struggle to differentiate morality from law. This is incorrect in my case, and frankly insulting. For example, marijuana has been legal here for several years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_Canada) and I was in favour of that since long before it changed. I grew up and socialized in a world where it was outlawed and clearly not harmful, and I saw the injustice in that. But national borders are perfectly moral, in my view. > This kind of thinking is a slippery slope that leads to the institutionalization of violence. In the broad sense that your argument requires, violence is supposed to be institutionalized. That's what the criminal justice system is. Never mind capital punishment, or corporal punishment (I oppose both of course): apprehending criminals requires force. That said, I respect that you acknowledge the slippery slope fallacy here. Putting aside that "concentration camp" is not a well defined term (and people have argued since at least the Obama years about the conditions in ICE detainment facilities), that's clearly not where things are headed. Nobody wants to detain the people who are legally not entitled to be in the country. The entire point is to have them not in the country. Besides, is it any more moral to let employers (who violate laws themselves in this way) hold the threat of deportation over illegal immigrants, to deprive them of workers' rights and fair payment? Of course these employers should also be punished, but that isn't going to stop people from coming.

mempko 1y ago
Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. While what Trump did is a felony. Do you see masked agents kidnapping Trump without due process in the middle of the night?