- 18 Jul 2018 06:24
#14933625
1. If you are no longer arguing that this deliberate confusion of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers is not an attempt at detering asylum seekers, fine.
This is still a deliberate attempt to treat asylum seekers as illegal immigrants in order to treat the former as criminals and therefore justify the destruction of families.
(@Kaiserschmarrn, here is another conservative deliberately confusing economic migrnats and asylum seekers, something that you accused progressives, academics, and the media of doing. Also please note that this deliberate confusion is also part of Trump policy.)
2. Arresting asylum seekers like this is still in contravention of international treaties that the US has signed, even if Obama also did it (which is irrelevant).
3. You obviously have no idea what my opinion on immigration is as a socialist. I find it amusing that you think you do.
4. Again, I never claimed that detainment and arrest are the same thing. That does not change the fact that the Trump administration is arresting asylum seekers and then taking away their children because of the arrest.
5. Since Republicans have a majority in the legislatures, they ciuld easily change the legislation. Why have they not done so? How would they supposedly change it? Would it rectify the problem of family separation?
6. So we agree that they are arresting asylum seekers for a variety of reasons, including illegal entry. Do you have any evidence that Trump is allowing anyone at all to claim asylum by actually accessing legal points of entry, etc?
7. Please present evidence for the claim that a significant percentage of asylum seekers are using the asylum process as a loophole for illegal immigration.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosop ... gative.pdf
So, not only are you refusing to provide evidence for your claim that Central America is free from persecution, but you also seem to be confusing proof and evidence, and incorrectly assuming that you cannot prove a negative.
So, if we assume that i am a terrible debater, please note that it was a terrible debater who had to teach you that:
A) a negative can be proven, and
B) proof and evidence are two different things.
Let me know when you have evidence that Central America has no persecution.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
Conscript wrote:Nope, I said it was about deterring 'them' in the sense who we were talking about in the national debate. That is, people who cross the border illegally and then are prosecuted regardless of whether they made an asylum claim or not.
Nope, it doesn't make sense as a strategy to reduce the number of asylum claims, because as I've said they can just go through ports of entry. There's no way to stop asylum seeking.
I like order at the border and so did Obama and other past presidents. None of them have agreed to this interpretation of international treaties before.
I realize you do not respect national sovereignty or borders as a socialist internationalist with some Marxist leanings, but if you cross the border illegally you should be prosecuted, not allowed to make a bogus asylum claim that then gets you released pending a court date 40% of people don't show up to.
Detainment is not arrest. Change the Flores Consent Decree if you don't want separations.
I've never applauded their children being taken away, all I've said is that detainment is preferable to release and subsequent high in absentia rates. Separation is an unfortunate byproduct of this that needs to be changed through legislation, especially now that the Trump EO has been rejected.
The people being separated and focused on in media were a product of the increasing border crossings and captures I cited at the start of this debate, the demographic of people crossing having provably changed to include more accompanied children. The couple thousand children cited as separated are a product of that, not asylum seekers at large. This is not up for debate or your manipulation of it.
You tried to shift the debate from the prosecution of those who entered in between ports of entry to the general detainment of both in order to make a false claim that the government is 'arresting' and therefore separating everyone who claims asylum.
Overstayed visa, not an arrest for seeking asylum
Lawsuit is about detainment, not arrest of anyone.
Another overstayed visa.
You have failed to prove that the government is arresting asylum seekers at large, not people who cross the border illegally then file an asylum claim.
You don't get to bitch about underfunding causing a backlog and then claim there's no loophole present with subsequent releases.
Also, I find it amusing you're integrating this rhetoric about treaties now that I educated you about it.
I described it as a way to a) avoid prosecution for illegal entry b) then be released into the country pending adjudication of your claim, which as we've agreed will take a while.
I don't think you know what that word means. I mentioned Obama to show an evolution in the law in response to his own policies, which set the stage for family separation as a byproduct of detainment or prosecution.
Because it's not an argument against prosecution and closing the "catch and release" loophole, it's an argument to make ports of entry function as they should. We don't know the scale of it enough to make a claim that it's a forbidden alternative (it wouldn't just be reported on in a few articles by small media outlets if it was), and it's illegal for border control agents to do this.
1. If you are no longer arguing that this deliberate confusion of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers is not an attempt at detering asylum seekers, fine.
This is still a deliberate attempt to treat asylum seekers as illegal immigrants in order to treat the former as criminals and therefore justify the destruction of families.
(@Kaiserschmarrn, here is another conservative deliberately confusing economic migrnats and asylum seekers, something that you accused progressives, academics, and the media of doing. Also please note that this deliberate confusion is also part of Trump policy.)
2. Arresting asylum seekers like this is still in contravention of international treaties that the US has signed, even if Obama also did it (which is irrelevant).
3. You obviously have no idea what my opinion on immigration is as a socialist. I find it amusing that you think you do.
4. Again, I never claimed that detainment and arrest are the same thing. That does not change the fact that the Trump administration is arresting asylum seekers and then taking away their children because of the arrest.
5. Since Republicans have a majority in the legislatures, they ciuld easily change the legislation. Why have they not done so? How would they supposedly change it? Would it rectify the problem of family separation?
6. So we agree that they are arresting asylum seekers for a variety of reasons, including illegal entry. Do you have any evidence that Trump is allowing anyone at all to claim asylum by actually accessing legal points of entry, etc?
7. Please present evidence for the claim that a significant percentage of asylum seekers are using the asylum process as a loophole for illegal immigration.
The burden of proof for the claim that Central Americans are fleeing persecution is not on me, it's on you. This is after you just asked me to prove a negative. You are a terrible debater.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosop ... gative.pdf
- But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among profes- sional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait... this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.
So, not only are you refusing to provide evidence for your claim that Central America is free from persecution, but you also seem to be confusing proof and evidence, and incorrectly assuming that you cannot prove a negative.
So, if we assume that i am a terrible debater, please note that it was a terrible debater who had to teach you that:
A) a negative can be proven, and
B) proof and evidence are two different things.
Let me know when you have evidence that Central America has no persecution.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...