• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should illegal entry be punished by the death penalty?

Only if they get passed border control.

So: The death penalty for subversion should apply to foreigners looking for a better life, but not to American citizens undermining democracy.
 
while economic benefits would be attractive to mass illegal migration, it's only an indirect, not a direct, cause. Illegal immigration is caused by crossing the border illegally. That's the direct cause, and that's what should be punishable. The promise of a corporation hiring illegal employees is indirect. HOWEVER, any business that hires illegally should definitely be dissolved and the employers possibly be criminally charged.

Isn't that like saying that the street dealers who sell drugs should get the death penalty, but the manufacturers who make the drugs should just be "dissolved" and "possibly criminally charged?" After all, it's the street dealer who directly sold the heroin that killed your son. He is the direct cause, so that's what should be punishable, right? The manufacturer is the indirect cause.

Your logic is faulty my friend.
 
I posit that illegally entering a country from the border is to be considered a form of subversion, as it contributes directly to social, and therefore political change, by which laws were broken to achieve. Logically then, it can be considered like treason, for which the penalty was death until the criminal justice act of 1990 made life in prison as the punishment. I think we should review this act, and eventually repeal it, to make it easier for the government to distribute justice for illegal entry, and all the heinous crimes that come with it.

So the reality is that we’re are holding thousands of these people in camps at the boarder. We are treating them and their kids like criminals. It isn’t easy for a government to simply dump undocumented people into another country, and the Trump Admin is now arguing to hold these people in prison, indefinitely.

Under these circumstances, I am not surprised that some Americans are questioning why we can’t just kill them, also trying to build legal justification to kill them.

This is why I could never be a Trump supporter. Many in his base consider themselves Christians, and they are wanting a reasonable conversation about killing children seeking refugee in America
 
I posit that illegally entering a country from the border is to be considered a form of subversion, as it contributes directly to social, and therefore political change, by which laws were broken to achieve. Logically then, it can be considered like treason, for which the penalty was death until the criminal justice act of 1990 made life in prison as the punishment. I think we should review this act, and eventually repeal it, to make it easier for the government to distribute justice for illegal entry, and all the heinous crimes that come with it.
You want to raise it from a misdemeanor to a capital offense? That’s bizarre.
 
Isn't that like saying that the street dealers who sell drugs should get the death penalty, but the manufacturers who make the drugs should just be "dissolved" and "possibly criminally charged?" After all, it's the street dealer who directly sold the heroin that killed your son. He is the direct cause, so that's what should be punishable, right? The manufacturer is the indirect cause.

Your logic is faulty my friend.

in your case, the drug dealer is only indirectly causing the death of the son, not directly, whereas crossing the border illegally directly causes illegal immigration. You cross the border illegally, you're an illegal immigrant.
 
in your case, the drug dealer is only indirectly causing the death of the son, not directly, whereas crossing the border illegally directly causes illegal immigration. You cross the border illegally, you're an illegal immigrant.

Illegal immigration does not directly cause subversion. It is just illegal immigration.
 
If it were at all legally feasible (it isn't), I'd support the death penalty for voting as a non-citizen, since i) it's a subversion of government, ii) it's not an act that can be compelled by desperation, and iii) it's a risk 999,999 out of million people wouldn't take.

But not for border crossing. As much as I detest border hopping (especially when deported persons return), it's not a severe enough crime to warrant the death penalty, and even the risk of death wouldn't be an effective enough deterrent to solve the problem.

If death was an appropriate punishment, you might as well turn the whole border into the North American version of the Korean DMZ. No lengthy, expensive court battles, and anybody who makes a run for it and doesn't get shot or blown to high hell has earned honourary citizenship as far as I'm concerned. If they want it that badly, they can have it.
 
while economic benefits would be attractive to mass illegal migration, it's only an indirect, not a direct, cause. Illegal immigration is caused by crossing the border illegally. That's the direct cause, and that's what should be punishable. The promise of a corporation hiring illegal employees is indirect. HOWEVER, any business that hires illegally should definitely be dissolved and the employers possibly be criminally charged.

Crossing a border is an action, not a cause or reason.

Thanks tho.
 
I posit that illegally entering a country from the border is to be considered a form of subversion, as it contributes directly to social, and therefore political change, by which laws were broken to achieve. Logically then, it can be considered like treason, for which the penalty was death until the criminal justice act of 1990 made life in prison as the punishment. I think we should review this act, and eventually repeal it, to make it easier for the government to distribute justice for illegal entry, and all the heinous crimes that come with it.

In what world is crossing an imaginary line serious enough to warrant the end of your own life?
 
In what world is crossing an imaginary line serious enough to warrant the end of your own life?

You already live in such a world.
51arC19vlHL._AC_SY450_.jpg
 
*sigh* lets just be glad the op will never be in charge of immigration enforcement. This is a civil issue not necessarily a criminal one.
 
The far right machismo fantasy on full display.
 
I posit that illegally entering a country from the border is to be considered a form of subversion, as it contributes directly to social, and therefore political change, by which laws were broken to achieve. Logically then, it can be considered like treason, for which the penalty was death until the criminal justice act of 1990 made life in prison as the punishment. I think we should review this act, and eventually repeal it, to make it easier for the government to distribute justice for illegal entry, and all the heinous crimes that come with it.

This whole proposal is flawed. If, as you claim, illegal entry brings "heinous crimes", those who commit these terrible crimes should be punished rather than those who illegally enter. By illegally entering an individual does not "cause" terrible crimes, rather they fall into the category of people who enter illegally, and some people in that category happen to commit terrible crimes following their illegal entry. Regardless, most people nowadays would disagree with your proposal on moral grounds: some would say the death penalty should be banned or reserved for only the most cold-blooded crimes, and entering a country illegally is not that.
 
while economic benefits would be attractive to mass illegal migration, it's only an indirect, not a direct, cause. Illegal immigration is caused by crossing the border illegally. That's the direct cause, and that's what should be punishable. The promise of a corporation hiring illegal employees is indirect. HOWEVER, any business that hires illegally should definitely be dissolved and the employers possibly be criminally charged.

The "heinous crimes" mentioned in the OP are also an indirect cause of certain instances of illegal immigration.
 
Ok, maybe I was exaggerating but why should we assume that everyone who crosses the border is a threat to national security?

because for what reason would they be here without a passport or visa or documents? They'd already be here illegally, so they already don't care about following the law. Their motivations, then, could be something like drugs or trafficking.
 
I posit that illegally entering a country from the border is to be considered a form of subversion, as it contributes directly to social, and therefore political change, by which laws were broken to achieve. Logically then, it can be considered like treason, for which the penalty was death until the criminal justice act of 1990 made life in prison as the punishment. I think we should review this act, and eventually repeal it, to make it easier for the government to distribute justice for illegal entry, and all the heinous crimes that come with it.

...and the Death Penalty should be distributed in a more brutal fashion. The idea of being put gently to sleep does not deter traitors. Hanging at the very lest but more effective measures like Wolf Pits, stoning to death and being impaled should be resurrected.
 
I support the death penalty but only in the most heinous of crimes which I do not consider crossing a border illegally to be one.

You do not consider traitors trying to subvert social order and who are here to rape and rob others heinous? What about those that come bringing diseases that lead to the death of American Citzen's?
 
No. The only time lethal force should be used is if there is a clear and present danger presented by illegal immigrants to the border guard or to the citizenry at large, i.e., an actual armed invasion or demonstration that illegal immigrants are engaging in terrorist activity. Short of that, nonlethal crimes should not be punished with lethal force nor by execution.

Exactly... border crossing should be dealt with at the border where Americans use lethal force to shoot, bomb or light afire traitorous villains who are out to destroy our way of life.
 
because for what reason would they be here without a passport or visa or documents? They'd already be here illegally, so they already don't care about following the law. Their motivations, then, could be something like drugs or trafficking.

But why put them to death instead of doing the normal thing like detaining them?
 
I think the death penalty is too harsh. A better policy would be to build a giant moat along our southern border filled with millions and millions of starving of crocodiles. And that way if someone dies attempting a crossing-- we can blame Darwin.
 
But why put them to death instead of doing the normal thing like detaining them?

because all the laws and time and demand on actually having to detain and try them just isn't worth the effort. Considering where many of these people are coming from, liberals should be happy enough that they actually are being detained and processed through courts. We owe them nothing.
 
because for what reason would they be here without a passport or visa or documents? They'd already be here illegally, so they already don't care about following the law. Their motivations, then, could be something like drugs or trafficking.

Oh great. You want people put to death because you have a feeling they might be drug traffickers.

You've just ruled yourself out from any position of responsibility so well done.
 
Oh great. You want people put to death because you have a feeling they might be drug traffickers.

You've just ruled yourself out from any position of responsibility so well done.

says you. i vote.
 
because all the laws and time and demand on actually having to detain and try them just isn't worth the effort. Considering where many of these people are coming from, liberals should be happy enough that they actually are being detained and processed through courts. We owe them nothing.

Not that you'll care but I don't see it sitting well with the international community.
 
Back
Top Bottom