Trump MAGAthread IX: Korea, The Dreamers and Trump

[Proctopeo]

Most people, including myself, interpreted "Mexico" to be a reference to the government. That's at least true of people who don't support Trump. A few years ago, a conservative talking point was that Mexico was helping people to migrate illegally.

Thankyou Geilinor, you saved me from a warning for flaming. Your answer isn't exactly what I would say (if I could be calm and rebut the "point" made) but it will do.

Proctopeo, you'd be doing me a great favor if you simply didn't reply to any of my posts. Put me on Ignore if that helps.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It tells people not to use false documentation or resist arrest. There's no promotion of any illegal activity there.

Except for that whole inconvenient fact it helps explain to them how to best cross into the United States. Again, objective thinking is your friend here.

It is possible to legally cross into America.

[Ifreann]

It tells people not to use false documentation or resist arrest. There's no promotion of any illegal activity there.

Except for that whole inconvenient fact it helps explain to them how to best cross into the United States. Again, objective thinking is your friend here.

Funny, just yesterday you were all in favour of informing migrants about the dangers of the US.

[Seangoli]

It tells people not to use false documentation or resist arrest. There's no promotion of any illegal activity there.

Except for that whole inconvenient fact it helps explain to them how to best cross into the United States. Again, objective thinking is your friend here.

No, it tells people the best means of not dying. It does not give a guide on where to cross the border, it doesn't tell you which techniques to use to cross the border; the pamphlet is telling people about how to minimize risks to one's personal well being.

There is no cognitive dissonance here; the pamphlet doesn't say "Go to this spot, because border patrol is not here", or "Build this type of boat to cross the river". It is saying "Coyotes are dangerous, don't use them because they might kill you after you pay them", or "Bring a lot of water, because otherwise you might run out and die".

It is a large leap between a government issuing a pamphlet aimed at saving lives and one aimed at giving guidance on how to cross the border illegally. Equally, the pamphlet makes it very clear that one should not attempt to resist arrest, lie to police, or what not.

The damn thing is a response to 300 people dying a year from not knowing how to walk through the desert, and the government wants to prevent people from dying. Committing a misdemeanor offense is not cause to wish death on people.

[Clintonburge]

Except for that whole inconvenient fact it helps explain to them how to best cross into the United States. Again, objective thinking is your friend here.

Funny, just yesterday you were all in favour of informing migrants about the dangers of the US.

I guess someone is encouraging illegal immigration?

[Gauthier]

The pamphlet doesn't inform people how to get into the US at all; it tells people what to do, and what not to do, to minimize risk to one's life. In fact, the pamphlet actually tells people not to resist arrest or run from law enforcement. It is a how-to guide on how not to die, not a how-to guide on how to get into the US (As the pamphlet doesn't actually give any actual guidance on how to enter the country).

There's quite a bit of cognitive dissonance in this.

So you think condoms compel people to have sex then? That's the logic you're using to say those manuals encourage illegal immigration.

[Oil exporting People]

Funny, just yesterday you were all in favour of informing migrants about the dangers of the US.

Yes, and I still am. I want to tell them about, as the OP in that thread stated, how we live in a police state and such in order to dissuade them from coming here.

[Oil exporting People]

I guess someone is encouraging illegal immigration?

Telling them not to come here is encouraging illegal immigration? Interesting.

[The Black Forrest]

Funny, just yesterday you were all in favour of informing migrants about the dangers of the US.

Yes, and I still am. I want to tell them about, as the OP in that thread stated, how we live in a police state and such in order to dissuade them from coming here.

Waste of time. They won't believe it.

[AiliailiA]

It tells people not to use false documentation or resist arrest. There's no promotion of any illegal activity there.

Except for that whole inconvenient fact it helps explain to them how to best cross into the United States. Again, objective thinking is your friend here.

Yes, a provincial government issued a pamphlet telling people who intended to break US law how not to die in the process.

The pamphlet DID NOT encourage people to break US law, it did what a civilized and humane government should do which is alert citizens to a risk.

A little thing called harm reduction, it's wonderful actually and should be applied to all kinds of crime. But it makes no sense at all to those of a fascist mentality who regard criminals as subhuman and without any human rights even before they commit the crime.

[Gauthier]

I guess someone is encouraging illegal immigration?

Telling them not to come here is encouraging illegal immigration? Interesting.

Given that how you say a manual warning people of dangers to avoid is encouraging immigration, yes.

[Ifreann]

I saw it. Nothing there contradicts me. You cited law related to entering or attempting to enter the US, not being in the US.

Learn to read:

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

As I said, that is law related to entering or attempting to enter the US. Being in the US illegally does not constitute eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers.

---

Funny, just yesterday you were all in favour of informing migrants about the dangers of the US.

Yes, and I still am. I want to tell them about, as the OP in that thread stated, how we live in a police state and such in order to dissuade them from coming here.

But you think there's something wrong with telling them that the police may kill them, that people smugglers may kill them, that the elements themselves may kill them.

[Seangoli]

Not necessarily. Crossing the border is a misdemeanor offense. Being undocumented is a civil offense, and not a criminal one.

What fantasy world are you in?

Misdemeanors are less serious than felonies, either because the intent requirement is of a lower level or because the result is less extreme. Misdemeanors are usually punishable by jail time of one year or less per misdemeanor, a fine, or alternative sentencing like probation, rehabilitation, or community service. Note that incarceration for a misdemeanor is in jail rather than prison. The difference between jail and prison is that cities and counties operate jails, and the state or federal government operates prisons, depending on the crime. The restrictive nature of the confinement also differs between jail and prison. Jails are for defendants who have committed less serious offenses, so they are generally less restrictive than prisons.

The majority of undocumented people came here through legal channels and just never left; meaning they are, in fact, not criminals as being in the country without documentation is not a criminal act. Without proving that the person crossed the border, they are not actually committing any criminal offense at all and are, by definition, not criminals.

Again, what fantasy world are you in?

The real world, where reading comprehension is a thing. Being undocumented in the US is not in and of itself a crime according to the damn links you providing. Eluding Immigration officers requires more than just not submitting oneself to immigration; it involves actively fleeing from them or providing false information. Immigration law in the United States is civil law, not criminal law, and Immigration Courts are civil courts, not criminal courts.

If you don't know the damn facts, you should probably damn well look them up before you spout your mouth off.

[AiliailiA]

Yes, and I still am. I want to tell them about, as the OP in that thread stated, how we live in a police state and such in order to dissuade them from coming here.

Waste of time. They won't believe it.

Yeah, for such a lie to work the US would need strict control over all media coming out of the US. Shutdown or take over all the media, which may not even be possible considering the social media which would free itself from the regular internet and become a digital Samizdat. Not even North Korea can achieve that ... their intention being to portray life in their country as better than it is, but same principle. It's beyond the wildest dreams of fascists to do it in the US, I don't just mean unconstitutional I mean impossible.

I think the US media does quite enough already to portray the US as a shithole nobody should emigrate to if they have other options like Canada or Europe. It doesn't need to lie to do that.

[AiliailiA]

Except for that whole inconvenient fact it helps explain to them how to best cross into the United States. Again, objective thinking is your friend here.

No, it tells people the best means of not dying. It does not give a guide on where to cross the border, it doesn't tell you which techniques to use to cross the border; the pamphlet is telling people about how to minimize risks to one's personal well being.

There is no cognitive dissonance here; the pamphlet doesn't say "Go to this spot, because border patrol is not here", or "Build this type of boat to cross the river". It is saying "Coyotes are dangerous, don't use them because they might kill you after you pay them", or "Bring a lot of water, because otherwise you might run out and die".

It is a large leap between a government issuing a pamphlet aimed at saving lives and one aimed at giving guidance on how to cross the border illegally. Equally, the pamphlet makes it very clear that one should not attempt to resist arrest, lie to police, or what not.

The damn thing is a response to 300 people dying a year from not knowing how to walk through the desert, and the government wants to prevent people from dying. Committing a misdemeanor offense is not cause to wish death on people.

I found the pamphlet eminently sensible and responsible, but even someone holding the opposite view must acknowledge that one pamphlet issued by an agency of one state government does not represent an act of the Mexican government, nor of Mexico in any other sense.

[Aidannadia]

I find the Bannon interview by 60 minutes to be both fascinating and terrifying.

[Clintonburge]

I find the Bannon interview by 60 minutes to be both fascinating and terrifying.

What did he say that got your attention? I didn't see the interview and have no intention of doing so.

[Aidannadia]

I find the Bannon interview by 60 minutes to be both fascinating and terrifying.

What did he say that got your attention? I didn't see the interview and have no intention of doing so.

Its mostly that I can't tell if he really is into his supposed 'economic nationalism' with seemingly just institutional racism, and actually did just use the alt-right support to get Trump elected and that's all, or if the 'economic nationalism' is the mask he uses for the media to hide his actual overt racism.

It also surprised me on his worldview. The way he sees politics, power struggles, electoral politics, and consolidating power in general are... jolting, concise, effective. I'm tempted to call him a genius.

[Clintonburge]

What did he say that got your attention? I didn't see the interview and have no intention of doing so.

Its mostly that I can't tell if he really is into his supposed 'economic nationalism' with seemingly just institutional racism, and actually did just use the alt-right support to get Trump elected and that's all, or if the 'economic nationalism' is the mask he uses for the media to hide his actual overt racism.

It also surprised me on his worldview. The way he sees politics, power struggles, electoral politics, and consolidating power in general are... jolting, concise, effective. I'm tempted to call him a genius.

Does he cherish our democratic institutions? Or is he more of a anti-constitutional, authoritarian like Trump?

I know that Bannon seemed to be pushing Trump to be less war hawkish, for example, I agreed with him when he said their didn't look like a suitable option in North Korea.

As for the alt-right, well, Bannon has said in the past that Breitbart is a platform for them, so I don't believe he would betray his audience.

[Geilinor]

What did he say that got your attention? I didn't see the interview and have no intention of doing so.

Its mostly that I can't tell if he really is into his supposed 'economic nationalism' with seemingly just institutional racism, and actually did just use the alt-right support to get Trump elected and that's all, or if the 'economic nationalism' is the mask he uses for the media to hide his actual overt racism.

It also surprised me on his worldview. The way he sees politics, power struggles, electoral politics, and consolidating power in general are... jolting, concise, effective. I'm tempted to call him a genius.

I hesitate to call Bannon a genius because he doesn't deserve the praise or respect.

[Computer Lab]

Its mostly that I can't tell if he really is into his supposed 'economic nationalism' with seemingly just institutional racism, and actually did just use the alt-right support to get Trump elected and that's all, or if the 'economic nationalism' is the mask he uses for the media to hide his actual overt racism.

It also surprised me on his worldview. The way he sees politics, power struggles, electoral politics, and consolidating power in general are... jolting, concise, effective. I'm tempted to call him a genius.

I hesitate to call Bannon a genius because he doesn't deserve the praise or respect.

He might be morally bankrupt, but that has little to no effect on someone's intellect.

[Clintonburge]

Bannon Calls Comey Firing the Biggest Mistake in ‘Modern Political History’

He even singled out President Trump, labeling his firing of James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, the biggest mistake in “modern political history.”

Pressed by the interviewer, Charlie Rose, Mr. Bannon said that had Mr. Comey not been fired, the Justice Department investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia’s election interference would not have been handed over to the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

[Aidannadia]

Does he cherish our democratic institutions? Or is he more of a anti-constitutional, authoritarian like Trump?

I know that Bannon seemed to be pushing Trump to be less war hawkish, for example, I agreed with him when he said their didn't look like a suitable option in North Korea.

As for the alt-right, well, Bannon has said in the past that Breitbart is a platform for them, so I don't believe he would betray his audience.

I don't think he cares about democracy or not, it's just about his agenda.

He talks a lot about focusing on seeing Washington as institutions, not as personalities, and identifies this as Trump's major weakness; Specifically, this was in response to Comey, and the decision on firing him. He even went so far as to insinuate it was "the worst mistake in modern political history," because he felt that wouldn't help the Russia investigation.

Well, he also said that the alt-right were a bunch of fools, didn't he? That's the other thing; I can't tell if that's something he just says that to the media, or if it is his genuine belief.

[Aidannadia]

I hesitate to call Bannon a genius because he doesn't deserve the praise or respect.

His effectiveness as a political operative cannot be discounted.

[Corrian]

Its mostly that I can't tell if he really is into his supposed 'economic nationalism' with seemingly just institutional racism, and actually did just use the alt-right support to get Trump elected and that's all, or if the 'economic nationalism' is the mask he uses for the media to hide his actual overt racism.

It also surprised me on his worldview. The way he sees politics, power struggles, electoral politics, and consolidating power in general are... jolting, concise, effective. I'm tempted to call him a genius.

I hesitate to call Bannon a genius because he doesn't deserve the praise or respect.

Terrible people have been geniuses in the past. Doesn't matter to me if they murdered tons of people, they could still be a genius in some way.