DHS’s Kelly: Program shielding 800,000 illegal immigrants may be in jeopardy[W:33]

Mr Person · Jul 13, 2017

Renae said:
Whose fault is it these "kids" are here illegally?
The law?
The parents?

Answer that.

Mr Person said:
I already did. Several times.

Could you just not play games? It's stupid. It's so ****ing tiresome and worthlessly stupid. I get that you want to deport them. I get that you think that that's a really good idea. Could you do something other than drop turds in your own thread?

My posts are already on the prior pages. They answer your silly gotcha questions and then some. You clearly are in favor of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, so tell me: why does it make sense to enforce the law against kids who were brought here regardless of their will, who could not possibly disobey their parents, who grew up as Americans, who are fluent in English, who have contributed to society, who wish to contribute to society?

Why does that make sense?

Show me, please, that you want an honest discussion. Why does it make sense?

Why punish kids who were brought here under their parents' force, and that's even assuming that these kids were old enough to understand what the hell was going on?

Renae said:
I saw you posted some drivel about how bad it is in their home countries. And how it makes you feel all pained inside to think that people get held accountable for their illegal actions.

You cannot even explain your own position?

That is quite unfortunate.

How is a four year old criminally/civilly liable for entry or re-entry when their parents drag them here?

Renae · Jul 13, 2017

Mr Person said:
You cannot even explain your own position?

That is quite unfortunate.

My position is simple and has been explained.

The law is you enter the country legally.

Do this, and I'll welcome you with open arms.

Do it illegally, and you need to gtfo.

It's very simple.

Mr Person · Jul 13, 2017

Renae said:
My position is simple and has been explained. The law is you enter the country legally. Do this, and I'll welcome you with open arms. Do it illegally, and you need to gtfo. It's very simple.

I am sorry that your posts are so very simple.

I was hoping that you would be willing or, at least able, to respond to the points raised against your "very simple" posts. Apparently, all you can manage to do is smugly repeat yourself and pat yourself on the back for a "victory" (which is painful to watch when your posts are so very stupid).

Whoopsie-Daisy

Renae · Jul 13, 2017

Mr Person said:
I am sorry that your posts are so very simple.

I was hoping that you would be willing or, at least able, to respond to the points raised against your "very simple" posts. Apparently, all you can manage to do is smugly repeat yourself and pat yourself on the back for a "victory" (which is painful to watch when your posts are so very stupid).

Whoopsie-Daisy

I could give a long drawn out explanation on the need for a country to maintain its sovereignty, how law and order must be adhered too lest you invite chaos and so forth. However I believed that it would go as wasted effort. Being long winded to make a point isn't always the best path. This is more true when the issue is clear cut.

Mr Person · Jul 13, 2017

Renae said:
I could give a long drawn out explanation on the need for a country to maintain its sovereignty, how law and order must be adhered too lest you invite chaos and so forth. .

Which would be bloviation that dishonestly avoid the points made against you. As you know perfectly well, I'm talking about discretion in enforcing the law.

:lamo

Renae said:
Being long winded to make a point isn't always the best path. This is more true when the issue is clear cut.

Yeah, they should probably just shorten Presidential debates to 15 seconds. I mean, why should national policy be decided by anymore than "nuh uh, you're the poopyface!" ?

That's how adults do things, after all.

Renae · Jul 13, 2017

Mr Person said:
Which would be bloviation that dishonestly avoid the points made against you. As you know perfectly well, I'm talking about discretion in enforcing the law.

:lamo

Yeah, they should probably just shorten Presidential debates to 15 seconds. I mean, why should national policy be decided by anymore than "nuh uh, you're the poopyface!" ?

That's how adults do things, after all.

Discretion based on emotion. Here's the thing, when you allow and encourage an illegal behavior, it's natural for that behavior to continue. While on personal level I feel for these people, I'm looking at the bigger picture.

Mr Person · Jul 13, 2017

Renae said:
Discretion based on emotion. Here's the thing, when you allow and encourage an illegal behavior, it's natural for that behavior to continue. While on personal level I feel for these people, I'm looking at the bigger picture.

Because the law/policy cannot be altered to prevent new illegals from taking advantage of this supposed slippery slope? (Again, ignoring decades and decades of reasonable enforcement).

Because in a hugely anti-illegal-immigrant uprising, people are going to decide to bring their kids here and keep them secret as part of a really clever plan for them to become citizens 18 years later?

Also, btw, these "emotions" you so despise are taken into account in enforcement of the law. If someone reports domestic violence but the cops find pot in their possession during the resulting police encounter, a prosecutor might just "feel bad" - a dirty smelly emotion - for the domestic violence victim and not prosecute them.

How is that kind of thinking bad, Spock? (Well, I say "Spock", but he'd understand the logic of not prosecuting even if he didn't feel the emotional weight of the decision)

Anyway, these are words between anonymous people, but I suspect that there are any number of situations in which you would support "emotions" being considered in enforcement of the law.

Helix · Jul 13, 2017

Moderator's Warning:

Cut out the baiting and snarking, and discuss the topic and the topic only.

Quazimodo · Jul 13, 2017