ICE putting LGBT and disabled immigrants in solitary...

[Twilight Imperium]

They could claim any or all of them. How do you intend to disprove their claims?

I have no intention of disproving any of it, since that's not my job. However, since most illegal immigration involves people overstaying their visas rather than fleeing an oppressive regime, invoking the refugee act is a weird flex.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

So, NBC generally is biased, but I still don't what to make of it considering they decided to mention Obama and the threat of human rights he was. I do not deny any of this happening, but I still think there is more to this.

So your defense of these actions is "I'm sure they had a good reason for doing it".

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

They could claim any or all of them. How do you intend to disprove their claims?

I have no intention of disproving any of it, since that's not my job. However, since most illegal immigration involves people overstaying their visas rather than fleeing an oppressive regime, invoking the refugee act is a weird flex.

Whether you think it's a morally valid defense or not is irrelevant, because it is a legally valid defense unless you can prove them wrong. Can you?

[Liriena]

Your inalienable rights do not include "Living within the USA."

Now, if Mexico wants someone to liberate them from their inferior governance then that'd be ok.

"Sovereignity for me but not for thee", quoth conservatives, neck-deep in pure ideology.

[Novus America]

They could claim any or all of them. How do you intend to disprove their claims?

I have no intention of disproving any of it, since that's not my job. However, since most illegal immigration involves people overstaying their visas rather than fleeing an oppressive regime, invoking the refugee act is a weird flex.

Oh the vast majority of refugee claims are actually BS, (some 80% get rejected) but still they have to be processed to find out which are BS, and which are not.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Your inalienable rights do not include "Living within the USA."

Now, if Mexico wants someone to liberate them from their inferior governance then that'd be ok.

"Sovereignity for me but not for thee", quoth conservatives, neck-deep in pure ideology.

At this point, it's so omnipresent that it's barely worth commenting on.

[Twilight Imperium]

Whether you think it's a morally valid defense or not is irrelevant, because it is a legally valid defense unless you can prove them wrong. Can you?

What I think is there's a long walk between "extranational people are allowed to claim refugee status under certain criteria" and "our nation must accept anyone who wanders over the border until proven otherwise", which seems to be the banner you're waving here. Am I wrong?

I also think the dog-pound solutions are horrific and possible crimes against humanity, don't get me wrong, but if you're going to try to pound the law, be sure you're not denting the table instead.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Whether you think it's a morally valid defense or not is irrelevant, because it is a legally valid defense unless you can prove them wrong. Can you?

What I think is there's a long walk between "extranational people are allowed to claim refugee status under certain criteria" and "our nation must accept anyone who wanders over the border until proven otherwise", which seems to be the banner you're waving here. Am I wrong?

I also think the dog-pound solutions are horrific and possible crimes against humanity, don't get me wrong, but if you're going to try to pound the law, be sure you're not denting the table instead.

Your moral compass and my moral compass are largely incompatible, therefore arguing about the morality of the issue is probably pointless since all we would conclude is that we disagree, which we already know. If you want to do that, then I'm fine with it. I'd rather argue why we should or shouldn't do something than argue about which legal technicalities apply.
For the record, I also don't think that we should take in absolutely everyone. But between that and rounding up productive, well-adjusted members of society by the hundreds, tearing apart their families, and subjecting them to dehumanizing conditions, all on the grounds that they didn't file the proper paperwork, I'll take the former, thank you very much.

[The Emerald Legion]

Your inalienable rights do not include "Living within the USA."

Now, if Mexico wants someone to liberate them from their inferior governance then that'd be ok.

"Sovereignity for me but not for thee", quoth conservatives, neck-deep in pure ideology.

I don't believe in sovereignty. I believe America is right and literally every other government on the face of the Earth is illegitimate.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

"Sovereignity for me but not for thee", quoth conservatives, neck-deep in pure ideology.

I don't believe in sovereignty. I believe America is right and literally every other government on the face of the Earth is illegitimate.

Adding "I believe" to a statement doesn't validate it. To quote the self-appointed God of conservatism himself, facts don't care about your feelings.

[The Emerald Legion]

I don't believe in sovereignty. I believe America is right and literally every other government on the face of the Earth is illegitimate.

Adding "I believe" to a statement doesn't validate it. To quote the self-appointed God of conservatism himself, facts don't care about your feelings.

No, but when someone implies I'm hypocritical for believing in Sovereignty while denigrating sovereignty. "I don't actually believe in Sovereignty."

Not to mention, Sovereignty isn't a fact. Sovereignty is a claim. A claim we can and do disparage on a regular basis.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Adding "I believe" to a statement doesn't validate it. To quote the self-appointed God of conservatism himself, facts don't care about your feelings.

No, but when someone implies I'm hypocritical for believing in Sovereignty while denigrating sovereignty. "I don't actually believe in Sovereignty."

Not to mention, Sovereignty isn't a fact. Sovereignty is a claim. A claim we can and do disparage on a regular basis.

Your claim that the United States is legitimate is a claim that it is sovereign. That's how sovereignty is defined.
Either you believe in sovereignty, or you believe that the US is an illegitimate government. Pick an opinion and stick with it.

[The Emerald Legion]

No, but when someone implies I'm hypocritical for believing in Sovereignty while denigrating sovereignty. "I don't actually believe in Sovereignty."

Not to mention, Sovereignty isn't a fact. Sovereignty is a claim. A claim we can and do disparage on a regular basis.

Your claim that the United States is legitimate is a claim that it is sovereign. That's how sovereignty is defined.
Either you believe in sovereignty, or you believe that the US is an illegitimate government. Pick an opinion and stick with it.

Not particularly no. I'm arguing for US hegemony.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Your claim that the United States is legitimate is a claim that it is sovereign. That's how sovereignty is defined.
Either you believe in sovereignty, or you believe that the US is an illegitimate government. Pick an opinion and stick with it.

Not particularly no. I'm arguing for US hegemony.

So you do, in fact, believe that the US is an illegitimate state?

[The Emerald Legion]

Not particularly no. I'm arguing for US hegemony.

So you do, in fact, believe that the US is an illegitimate state?

I don't believe there is such a thing as a legitimate nor illegitimate state.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

So you do, in fact, believe that the US is an illegitimate state?

I don't believe there is such a thing as a legitimate nor illegitimate state.

If America was invaded and conquered by a foreign power, would you consider it right for that foreign power to do so?

[Twilight Imperium]

Your moral compass and my moral compass are largely incompatible, therefore arguing about the morality of the issue is probably pointless since all we would conclude is that we disagree, which we already know. If you want to do that, then I'm fine with it. I'd rather argue why we should or shouldn't do something than argue about which legal technicalities apply.
For the record, I also don't think that we should take in absolutely everyone. But between that and rounding up productive, well-adjusted members of society by the hundreds, tearing apart their families, and subjecting them to dehumanizing conditions, all on the grounds that they didn't file the proper paperwork, I'll take the former, thank you very much.

I doubt our moral compasses differ as much as you seem to think, and I definitely believe in governance guided by compassion and morality vs sterility and bigotry. Here's the rub: "legal technicalities" are how things get done by governments. If you want to hold your government accountable, you either point to an existing law or make a new one. That's how it works, and it's generally for the better that way. If you want to get yourself all in a tizzy over the blatant human rights abuses on display here, then fine - but unless you channel that into actually doing something, i.e. legal challenges, you're basically just sitting here jerking off into a bucket, and claiming the moral high ground for it. What have you actually done to help these people?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

So you do, in fact, believe that the US is an illegitimate state?

I don't believe there is such a thing as a legitimate nor illegitimate state.

You literally just said every other nation that isn’t the United States is illegitimate.

[Liriena]

"Sovereignity for me but not for thee", quoth conservatives, neck-deep in pure ideology.

I don't believe in sovereignty. I believe America is right and literally every other government on the face of the Earth is illegitimate.

lmao

[New Lindale]

So, NBC generally is biased, but I still don't what to make of it considering they decided to mention Obama and the threat of human rights he was. I do not deny any of this happening, but I still think there is more to this.

So your defense of these actions is "I'm sure they had a good reason for doing it".

No. What I mean is there could a be a political agenda being pushed here. The actions are indefensible, but there could be something else at play.

[Twilight Imperium]

No. What I mean is there could a be a political agenda being pushed here. The actions are indefensible, but there could be something else at play.

"Their actions are indefensible, but there might be a defense?" What are you driving at here?

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

I have no intention of disproving any of it, since that's not my job. However, since most illegal immigration involves people overstaying their visas rather than fleeing an oppressive regime, invoking the refugee act is a weird flex.

Oh the vast majority of refugee claims are actually BS, (some 80% get rejected) but still they have to be processed to find out which are BS, and which are not.

Rejected =/= BS.

Much of it is just "Sorry, quota's out, bye!"

[Vassenor]

So your defense of these actions is "I'm sure they had a good reason for doing it".

No. What I mean is there could a be a political agenda being pushed here. The actions are indefensible, but there could be something else at play.

And that political agenda would be... what?

[New Lindale]

No. What I mean is there could a be a political agenda being pushed here. The actions are indefensible, but there could be something else at play.

"Their actions are indefensible, but there might be a defense?" What are you driving at here?

It's not about ICE, it's about the publication. Further research into the topic I uncovered that last year a lawsuit was being filed against the Obama cabinet on the unacceptable treatment of those as young as 14 in a Virginia facility. My suspicion is that they may be hinting at trump, however, the timeline of documents start at the beginning of Obama's second term.

[Vassenor]

"Their actions are indefensible, but there might be a defense?" What are you driving at here?

It's not about ICE, it's about the publication. Further research into the topic I uncovered that last year a lawsuit was being filed against the Obama cabinet on the unacceptable treatment of those as young as 14 in a Virginia facility. My suspicion is that they may be hinting at trump, however, the timeline of documents start at the beginning of Obama's second term.

#butobama

#brownmanbad