4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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?
- zahlman 1y ago
  How did we go from "in broad daylight" being used for emotional appeal, to using "in the middle of the night" for emotional appeal? If there is not a better time of day at which to take these actions, then adding these phrases is just highlighting the irrationality of the argument. I already explained why this is definitionally not "kidnapping" nor a violation of due process. Being lawfully apprehended by federal agents is an arrest, which is completely compatible with due process. Due process rights apply after that point: things like not being held indefinitely, having access to legal representation, etc.
wredcoll 1y ago
> I grew up and socialized in a world where it was outlawed and clearly not harmful, and I saw the injustice in that. So you are able to see the injustice of marijuana being illegal to consume but not the injustice of masked anonymous federal (maybe) agents kidnapping people off the street, assaulting people random bystanders and in general attempting to create a culture of terror? Fascinating, tell me more.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > but not the injustice of... To see injustice in this, it would have to be happening as you describe. I already explained multiple inaccuracies in the description and you have added more.
  - jibal 1y ago
    You "explanation" was erroneous and fallacious from top to bottom, which is why it is now dead.
gen220 1y ago
Some of the people being detained and deported are asylum seekers who came to this country fleeing persecution in their home nation. They arrived at this country following all the rules provided to them by prior administrations (including the last Trump administration). They have shown up for their court dates. Those that were permitted to work have found ways to contribute to their local economies. They've created homes, found love, and become part of their local communities. Their stories are abundant and well-documented, you can find them trivially. I think it is wrong to remove peaceful, hard-working people from their present communities, doubly-so if they are asylum-seekers who have already demonstrated an extreme ability to suffer through the hardship of coming here. The current administration is making a deliberate choice to interpret immigration law in a way that enables them to arbitrarily detain and deport these people, while rhetorically defining them as a violent, criminal invasion by foreign powers. Just because the executive branch has the legal right to treat non-citizens within our borders with impunity, does not make it right to do so. What part of this picture do you think is right, and why? Regarding slippery slope fallacy: if a policy choice enables or disables centralized detention and deportation infrastructure, wouldn't you prefer to follow the precautionary principle and avoid inadvertently building the tools of fascism? Even if you think Trump is acting in good faith and with restraint, his successors need not, and will inherit an infrastructure that amplifies their ability to inflict damage up the ladder of minorities. Also, it's not true that "nobody wants to detain people who are legally not entitled to be in this country". There's a whole cottage industry of facilities popping up around the country that are paid by the inmate-detention-day, who do everything they can to avoid giving people due process so they can maximize their revenue. This industry will be happy to lobby for detention to apply to an ever-increasing circle of people.

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?

zahlman 1y ago
How did we go from "in broad daylight" being used for emotional appeal, to using "in the middle of the night" for emotional appeal? If there is not a better time of day at which to take these actions, then adding these phrases is just highlighting the irrationality of the argument. I already explained why this is definitionally not "kidnapping" nor a violation of due process. Being lawfully apprehended by federal agents is an arrest, which is completely compatible with due process. Due process rights apply after that point: things like not being held indefinitely, having access to legal representation, etc.

wredcoll 1y ago

> I grew up and socialized in a world where it was outlawed and clearly not harmful, and I saw the injustice in that. So you are able to see the injustice of marijuana being illegal to consume but not the injustice of masked anonymous federal (maybe) agents kidnapping people off the street, assaulting people random bystanders and in general attempting to create a culture of terror? Fascinating, tell me more.

zahlman 1y ago
> but not the injustice of... To see injustice in this, it would have to be happening as you describe. I already explained multiple inaccuracies in the description and you have added more.
- jibal 1y ago
  You "explanation" was erroneous and fallacious from top to bottom, which is why it is now dead.

gen220 1y ago

Some of the people being detained and deported are asylum seekers who came to this country fleeing persecution in their home nation. They arrived at this country following all the rules provided to them by prior administrations (including the last Trump administration). They have shown up for their court dates. Those that were permitted to work have found ways to contribute to their local economies. They've created homes, found love, and become part of their local communities. Their stories are abundant and well-documented, you can find them trivially. I think it is wrong to remove peaceful, hard-working people from their present communities, doubly-so if they are asylum-seekers who have already demonstrated an extreme ability to suffer through the hardship of coming here. The current administration is making a deliberate choice to interpret immigration law in a way that enables them to arbitrarily detain and deport these people, while rhetorically defining them as a violent, criminal invasion by foreign powers. Just because the executive branch has the legal right to treat non-citizens within our borders with impunity, does not make it right to do so. What part of this picture do you think is right, and why? Regarding slippery slope fallacy: if a policy choice enables or disables centralized detention and deportation infrastructure, wouldn't you prefer to follow the precautionary principle and avoid inadvertently building the tools of fascism? Even if you think Trump is acting in good faith and with restraint, his successors need not, and will inherit an infrastructure that amplifies their ability to inflict damage up the ladder of minorities. Also, it's not true that "nobody wants to detain people who are legally not entitled to be in this country". There's a whole cottage industry of facilities popping up around the country that are paid by the inmate-detention-day, who do everything they can to avoid giving people due process so they can maximize their revenue. This industry will be happy to lobby for detention to apply to an ever-increasing circle of people.