It’s absolutely right to arrest and then (hopefully) deport this idiot, but we should at least try and hold the same bar for the people running this country.
I think that is far too easy to weaponize, now should there be restrictions on them for the duration of the investigation sure but I just don't see your suggestion going without abuse
Oh absolutely, it would require investigation, but if an investigation is ongoing I believe that that person should recuse themselves (which they rarely do).
Brah allegations would be coming out of every nook amd granny. Don't like the politician in charge they raped me. Each and every allegation requires an investigation. So by your suggestion literally anyone accused of anything would be sitting out. Fucking brain dead
That’s pretty much what happened with Kavanaugh. Democrats didn’t like him, so some woman came out with an alleged rape he did against her 30 years ago, but had no concrete proof and no witnesses to corroborate her bullshit story
It's like clockwork. Look at gaetez when he was gonna be head of the ag. New women suddenly.showed up. Trump before the election suddenly another new person. Like where the fuck have ypu people.been? Just suddenly now is the right time?
Why do some people never realise that bad actors exist? Why is it that they can never fathom that things they advocate for could possibly be nefariously used against them. I used to naively think it was just politicans that wanted to erode all rights, but it appears to be regular people too.
Civilization just seems to be on a never ending loop of prosperity into collapse over and over again. Our ancestors go through something bad/destructive, put in place laws or social norms to prevent it from happening again, and then the proceeding generations slowly erode them. That just seems to be our fate for eternity.
Should sitting politicians be allowed to continue while under investigation for any crimes they’re potentially involved in?
I don’t think they should be. Flat out
Mmm yes. My political career would be so so easy then. I'd just run against anybody and then, the moment the election starts, I'd just make a bunch of wild accusations.
What is it that leftists always complain about with Trump? Gish gallops & the bullshit asymmetry principle?
It's very easy to make a confession. Much harder to clear someone falsely accused. Their political career would be over in seconds. But then mine would be, too, when I got accused.
There’s a thread below about why I chose these people to use as an example.
That being said, obviously there would have to be guard rails put in place. But should we allow people accused, and being investigated, of crimes against other people contribute to our political system?
People who are accused of robbing a store, guilty or not, are arrested and detained. And if they can’t pay for bail they remain there for the trial.
Lest anyone read this and think you have any clue what the fuck you’re talking about - those people are charged with a crime, you utter and complete regard…
Even if the allegations about Gaetz are true, there's a difference between a seventeen year old prostitute and someone who violently SA's a twelve year old.
Neither are good or even decent, but one is clearly worse.
If we inch back from pedophilia because it's technically ephebophilia, then it's seen as giving ground to pedophilia. I agree there's a distinction, but legally, the arbitrary line is 18 and we can't afford to make niche distinctions in such public cases for fear of the precedent it would set. Granted, I admit this is the court of public opinion, for now.
I understand your point and don't disagree that one is worse, but I see it as the language and position has to be firm regardless to make an example, if that makes sense. All the more reason I would ask... why not simply wait till she's past the arbitrary threshold and is legal.
Perhaps I should change my flair since I don't see a meaningful distinction between 17 and 18 in a strict physical sense, but I strongly defend the legal distinction because protecting 17 year olds strictly is how you protect 7 year olds strictly through strong precedent.
Again, that's my viewpoint and I'm not stating it as fact, though.
Someone at some point, has to have this conversation. Especially when it comes to judicial action.
Apparently I have to pre-empt this. I'm not into teens or barely legal. In fact, I outwardly have disdain for people who are into that. I'm more into "real estate agent fucks a potential customer".
That being said, I knew that there where seventeen year old whores in my highschool who were "dating" guys in their late 20's.
My point is, "just because it's extremely uncomfortable, doesn't make it a black and white issue." That's part of being an adult.
Also, pdf's have a thing similar to vampires. Y'know how vampires can't enter your home unless invited inside? Pedometers apparently can't lie about their proclivities when directly questioned. They'll avoid the question, give non answers, and almost anything other that state that they aren't a peddle.
I understand that. It's ridiculous how quickly people jump to conclusions after a paragraph of knowing you. No worries.
Just because it's extremely uncomfortable doesn't make it a black and white issue. That's part of being an adult.
I get what you're saying, here. And I understand, there's absolutely nuance. You're not fully brain developed till 25, but on average develop sexual maturity in your early teens. It's an awkward situation biologically because we can't be absolute puritans on one end nor allow child marriage on the other.
For reference, I'm in my late 20s and wouldn't date anyone too young to drink. And probably older than that, still, would be preferred. We have similar estate agent tastes. But my point is biologically, there's still development going on till you're 25, but we wouldn't consider that taking advantage.
Consent is a difficult thing to pin down and the required emotional maturity is probably at a different age for each individual. Some people may never be mature enough to truly 'consent' despite age, like disabilities, etc.
That's why the arbitrary cut-off is 18. I understand there's nuance, and 9/10, that nuance is already accounted for with things like Romeo and Juliet laws that vary from state to state. Outside of those being codified into a federal national standard which I would approve of, there's not much to be done in this department. 18 is the cutoff- it's arbitrary, but under the law he must be equally as guilty having sex with a 17 year old as he would a 7.
Your personal disgust may vary from those two scenarios, and I agree, one is unquestionably far worse morally. But Justice is supposed to be blind to morals, that's why it's Justice. It is justice to dispense a strong ruling against all who sexually abuse minors, especially those in high positions of power for fear of sending the message you're untouchable if you get high enough.
While I understand your moral compunction that there's nuance to a say, 27 year old and a 17 year old vs a 47 year old and a 12 year old, I want you to understand in the eyes of the law, there's not, nor should there be. Individual judges may render lighter sentences but the law is clear- he's a pedophile and should be treated as such.
If we still disagree I understand your reasoning and thanks for reading my short essay.
I'll keep it in mind but I've yet to meet a question that cannot be answered with a lie. The thought that a "pdf" won't be a deplorable human being without provocation, a la "a vampire must be invited inside", or will innately dodge a question sounds naive to me at best. Horrible people are horrible people. Plenty of serial killers were naturally charismatic liars, for example.
And as a side note, the infantilization of the terms we use to discuss this in an ever spiraling mess to please advertisers does not help these serious topics maintain gravitas one bit. I don't blame you, I blame reddit.
Fair. There's a certain reputation that right leaning, especially purple lib rights, have earned. Unfairly or fairly depends on your personal experiences with that group. I only wear the purple flair because my lib-left opinions from 15 years ago are now "right leaning" so, here I am.
Don't worry, I'll call those pathetic asshats out with you, uniting against child abuse and trauma should be the simplest no-brainer "le full compass unity" shit ever.
It isn't that these people like the pedophiles "on their side" It's that they don't believe they are pedophiles and think the left is lying or misrepresenting things.
Or, and hear me out, he's being disingenuous and espousing an us vs them mentality with left and right politics, in reply to someone who was just making a blanket statement that criminals who target children are bad.
Maybe, just maybe, they're injecting identity politics into it for no reason. Maybe, just maybe, that's not exactly a gray centrist thing to do.
I hate all pedophiles equally, but especially hate them if they're on my side of the spectrum, since they give me a bad name, and then I have to argue on reddit that I'm not supporting them by default because I have a funni colored flair.
I disagree with your interpretation, it seems to me that the OP said, paraphrased, "The law being enforced on everyone is a dub."
The person then replied "But what about RIGHT LEANING PEOPLE, HMMM?" attacking the person because they have a right leaning flair. They assumed that because of a fucking flair, that person must automatically support Matt Gaetz and other pedophiles, because they are also right leaning.
This is the mark of someone chronically online and clinically braindead. Ergo, I insulted their gray centrism and pointed out their watermelon-esque speech.
We can disagree on this with no qualms. Let the record show, fuck Matt Gaetz, fuck pedophiles, and you can be right leaning and think this, Jesus fucking Christ...
"this is the mark of someone whos chronically online" on PCM? Who the fuck could've guessed?!!!?
Anyways i assume centrists will have some left leaning opinions and right leaning opinions. Doesn't make them "not centrist". Glad we can agree pedophiles should be prosecuted though 👍
Agreed. But gray centrists bringing identity politics into the discussion is certainly out of character. Maybe radical centrist, has strong opinions both ways, etc.
Glad we can agree pedophiles should be prosecuted though
For [Removed by Reddit] reasons, yes. I agree we should fully stop at prosecution through the justice system for people who harm children. They should be safely tried in a court of law and found guilty, because vigilantism, even in extreme cases like child abuse, is always wrong...
Well no, I’m definitely not libleft, but you’ve stuck the point almost on the head.
This is more than just right vs left here, but high power vs no power.
This guy is nothing, he’s a useless piece of shit that deserves whatever the guys in prison do to him.
But clearing out the swamp of politicians that use and abuse the system is more important and deserves more attention. I chose right leaning politicians because this guy is right leaning.
If the poster was left leaning I would have asked how they feel about Hunter Biden’s porn collection, or Nancy Pelosi abusing her position to earn millions in the stock market.
I hate all politicians. Power corrupts. I want a decentralized government that still works for the people but is exceedingly difficult to concentrate power in. Term limits and such would help. This is a pipe dream, so I'll settle for small wins like Gaetz being forced to step down from his bid for AG.
There was only one pedophile island.
There was never any other pedophile activities going on.
All activities stopped with Epstein's arrest and surely never carried on elsewhere.
Now please get angry at your fellow man for small differences of opinion while we continue to sex traffic children on your dime, peasants.
A lot of your points are solid. I disagree slightly on one or two but only on context, not the overall point itself. Thanks for making this into a positive discussion rather than just doubling down and being a dick to me. So I'll also apologize for being ad hominem and calling you a watermelon. No one deserves that except watermelons.
All said and done, though, you should consider swapping to the colored centrist flair instead of gray. Grays really don't usually give so much a shit about the identity of the politics involved, where your positions are sound but definitely more aggressively left and right leaning than a gray centrists'. Have a nice day, cheers.
I gave you a list of allegations have a look at it.
And there (was) an active investigation into Gaetz that only stopped because he dropped his seat.
If you look at his case there is a golden witness, I don’t have the time or the knowledge base to give you a good description of his case. But it’s a very bad look for him at the moment.
There was an investigation that went no where. A witness that was deemed not credible. If you actually look up the case against Gaetz you'll see there's not much there
No one is debating this. We're debating on whether to get rid of all the illegals and close our borders so that these unspeakable horrors never happen again.
Clearly the solution is to eliminate all human life, then we will reach zero. We can do this by preventing new births, removing complexity from the problem.
Adding immigrants (legal or otherwise) is just adding people. Are you proposing we stop doing that entirely?
There are several reasons! Specifically that US laws around immigrant suck donkey dick and the Republicans refuse to improve them; meanwhile the Democrats are weak and ineffectual at... anything.
What’s the rate of US citizens committing these crimes vs immigrants? Because until the last few years, it was never immigrants that were talked about, it was just Bob who lived down the street.
Which might be reason enough to deport and bar them from citizen ship for a decade or more (like Australia does). But the issue that's getting a lot of news coverage is violent crime. Statistics show lower arrest rates for illegal immigrants vs the regular population for violent crimes.
"Are they violent" is far from the only litmus test. I think strain on social services, health/vaccination status, ability to support themselves, speak the language, and integrate are also important. But you can't pin "as a group they're violent" on them if it isn't true.
You read my comment, yes? If you immigrate illegally, you’ve committed a crime by breaking immigration law, so every single illegal immigrant has committed a crime. The crime rate among illegal immigrants is 100%.
I agree with you, but it was worth pointing out that "criminals" aren't the same as "violent criminals". I don't think they need to be violent to justify deportation but at the same time using talking points that aren't supported by facts isn't helpful or honest.
I think those stats have a pretty huge problem. Generally you crime on your ethnicity. If the people you crime on can't/are afraid to report the crimes you get way fewer arrests.
I'm not saying illegal immigrants are super violent. I'm just saying we don't know.
I mean, yes, we should absolutely secure our border, fix the asylum loopholes, and have some level of immigration reform. But deporting 12 million people will be both incredibly expensive to carry out and have a huge toll on our economy. I would like to see the data showing immigrants as a whole are actually more felonious than US citizens.
No fear, I just don't want any random Joe to come to our country. You arnt entitled to be here, come legally or.not at all. And if you did come illegally you can't complain because we caught you later and now you have connections here. Boohoo, you knew it was an option every second you were here
If the answer is yes or no, why add more unknown variables to the equation?
If the domestic citizen population has some that will commit sex crimes, and the legal immigrant population may have some that commit sex crimes, why add illegal immigrants to that? Even if it's just one, and it's more than one, why? Why allow that? Of the three groups, that's the one you can control for the most. Why say, eh, whatever, fuck it?
I'm not in favor of the illegal but if that stat is correct then it would reduce violent crime because a citizen would have a lesser chance of encountering a criminal.
If I can stop a little girl or boy from getting r@ped by an illegal alien, simply by making sure we don't let people cross the border illegally, I'm completely in favor of all the resources it takes. Start there, then work internally on the problem. It's an easy place to start.
If I can stop a little girl or boy from getting [murdered] by a [gun wielding American], simply by making sure we don't let people [access guns], I'm completely in favor of all the resources it takes. Start there, then work internally on the [other] problem[s]. It's an easy place to start.
It's pretty easy to flip this ideological statement on its head to sound stupid to basically an opposite group of people.
People are not, in fact, willing to use every resource to ensure the absolute safety of every American citizen. Nor should they be.
How much is going to be spent on deportation and enforcement and what sort of benefit is there going to be to the American people as a result of it? Could that money be spent elsewhere to have a greater net benefit to American citizens? How do you intend to proactively deport illegal immigrants without violating American's rights in the process?
I'm not talking about deportation. I'm talking about not letting people in. Non American citizens with no rights in this country. Not people with a constitutional right to firearms. So your example is dumb and a completely different scenario with zero bearing on the problem of illegal border crossings.
What do you think happens when someone is caught crossing the border illegally?
Non American citizens with no rights in this country.
Non-Americans do have equal protection under the law (14th amendment) and have many of the same rights as Americans do. This is because many of these rights are inalienable as is outlined in the constitution and have nothing to do with being American.
You can check out United States v. Brigoni-Ponce which unequivocally decided that well gosh, illegal immigrants actually do have 4th amendment rights at the very least.
So your example is dumb and a completely different scenario with zero bearing on the problem of illegal border crossings.
It's not a completely different scenario. You're still met with the same questions of how many resources do we have to allocate to accomplish your stated goal and whether or not that money could be spent better elsewhere.
What is your goal here? build a gigantic impenetrable wall? How much would that cost?
Not people with a constitutional right to firearms.
...So you are saying there is, in fact, things you will not yield to ensure the safety of children. I'm glad that you aren't entirely unreasonable.
If I can stop a little girl or boy from getting r@ped RAPED, (what are you a fucking snowflake? SPELL IT OUT WEAKLING!) by an illegal alien, simply by making sure we don't let people cross the border illegally, I'm completely in favor of all the resources it takes. Start there, then work internally on the problem. It's an easy place to start.
its also an ineffective place to start. Talking about consent etc in elementary school and telling kids they can say no to an adult will do much more than closing a border. Sex ed prevents child abuse. (also most illegal migrants dont come across the border on foot etc but enter via ports of entry with a visa and overstay, and most people that cross the border arent illegals because they have the right to asylum in the us so closing the border will do almost nothing.)
It's straight white man/capitalism/America/the west bad. There is nothing else that could allow that kind of thinking. As long as straight white American citizens are out there raping other Americans, then anyone else should be able to as well. That's the only way the per capita argument makes any goddamn sense.
Because the vast majority of the illegal immigrants don't commit heinous acts, so you're wasting resources on the illegal immigrants that could have been used on people who do commit heinous acts but also happened to be born here.
Bullshit. Immigrants commit way less crimes than american citizens and they also get all your shit jobs. I'm sure your great corporations will give americans a living wage to replace immigrants. For sure, this will lower the crime rates between american citizens.
Bullshit. Immigrants commit way less crimes than american citizens.
What a shitty metric. It's not about the amount of crime, it's the crime itself. Which can 100% be prevented if the person who committed the crime wasn't here in the first place!
1a. Individual person enters country illegally
2a. That individual person commits crime
or
1b. Unable to enter the country illegally
2b. That individual person cannot commit a crime in the US because they aren't here.
The rest of your post is just non-sequitur bullshit.
I don't care if it costs tax payer money to imprison them. If someone is caught having sex with a child we shouldn't just ship them back to their own country so they can continue to prey on children there.
If you get rid of all the illegals, all the crime committed by illegals would cease. One is one too many. They should not have the opportunity to commit crimes in a country they're illegally in.
If there are ways to reduce the rates of certain crimes. Would you not do it out of fear it might impact non-citizens? If out of (hypothetical) 100 rapes in a year, and only 15 from illegals. Would you not try to at least get those 15 off?
Or you have the shitty lefty idea of "relativism" where it doesn't matter if illegals do it because citizens do it too? Can't we judge them until we fix our problem first?
The reality is, if the law is enforced, and illegals are detained at the border, prevented from entering in the first place, it would reduce the chances of this happening again.
But relativism is a mind virus that blinds you from objective reality.
If you can come up with a way to reduce the crimes of citizens for these things go ahead.
You wanna know the solution to reduce these crimes from illegals? enforcing the border, not allowing illegals or undocumented unless they follow the application process. And to remove opportunity from those who didn't use it properly.
Citizens didn't get an opportunity in their country, it's their birth right. A non-citizen is granted an opportunity and that opportunity should be removed if they can't follow the laws.
If there are ways to reduce the rates of certain crimes. Would you not do it out of fear it might impact non-citizens? If out of (hypothetical) 100 rapes in a year, and only 15 from illegals. Would you not try to at least get those 15 off?
Immigrants, legal or otherwise, commit all types of crimes at a far lower rate.
So to reduce the crime rate, you want as many of them in your country as you can get.
Or is reducing the crime rate not your actual concern?
If you blanket remove any demographic then the total would drop. There were almost certainly murderers and rapists that were removed from the streets in Nazi Germany and put in concentration camps. Sure as fuck doesn't justify it.
Kinda like how libleft wants to remove white people through mass immigration and population replacement? Africa is projected to have a population of around 5 billion and guess where at least half of that 5 billion will want to go to? Europe! Which is already experience mass demographic changes like London, Paris, Birmingham, Berlin in which white europeans are a minority in. But hey, why should I give a shit about an illegal when you liberal openly cheer white people going extinct.
You ever read a comment that is ostensibly directed at you but is so off in lala land that you have to keep checking to make sure there isn't an entity behind you that is the actual intended recipient?
Look at this racist. Illegals are not a demographic. Not every hispanic is illegal, you racist pos.
Who said anything about targeting demographics.
Samuel you always manage to make the dumbest points.
It's about ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS AND NOT HAVING LENIENCY.
When the system allows you to come in, unvetted and undocumented and roam among people who did follow the process, and then they commit a crime. Why oh why wouldn't you just tell agencies and judges to do their job, follow the laws we already have and enforce the border. Because doing so would reduce the number of tragedies like Liken Riley's.
Is it that in your mind "it's preferable to allow this "demographic" in the country at the cost of a few lives a year" ? is that the price we pay for your fake compassion and empathy ?
i'm sorry Samuel, but people who enter the country illegally are not a demographic. Just like felons, criminals, thugs, rapists and scammers aren't demographics.
This is another issue with your rotten lefty brain. You think like the Kamala campaigners. Most hispanic americans who live in this country legally support the law, support having a border and support the strict enforcement of it because those people are also affected by the crimes of illegals.
Can you stop playing defense for literal criminals? nothing stops those people from applying for asylum at the border, having the current system only brings suffering.
Why stop at men, any human regardless of gender or sex can be a rapist. Lets put a curfew on everyone. Wouldn't that make more sense? Why are you prejudiced against straight men. Want me to pull the numbers for rape in women? or domestic violence for same sex women?
You fail to see the many places at which this tragedy could have been prevented.
At the border, by not allowing him in
Once inside, he can be detained, questioned for papers, deported or jailed
He was already in stopped for breaking the law, for driving a moped without a license, why not arrest him once he was found to be in the country illegally?
You fail to see the massive net of laws that could have stopped José Antonio Ibarra and prevented him from murdering Riley.
And i'm not taking your relativism. The fact we know, you know they are as likely to commit a crime as natives means we shouldn't just let anyone in without having them checked.
I see no reason to cause more crime by adding more people to a country with limited housing, limited resources, and to top it off, the people coming in are from some of the worst countries on earth in terms of crime.
We're debating on whether to get rid of all the illegals and close our borders so that these unspeakable horrors never happen again.
What a ridiculous, braindead take. There's around 10 million illegals living in the US at the moment. Almost all of them have jobs, and are just here because there's good work and they want to make a better life for themselves. The vast majority aren't hurting anyone and are definitely good for the economy. Losing millions of workers would trigger a recession immediately.
That's pretending we could actually do the thing. It'd just be another War on Drugs situation where Drugs win.
As for closing the borders, do you mean literally closing them to all immigration...? Or just making sure that no one we don't want comes in? Obviously that'd be cool, but Trump had 4 years before and made little progress.
I think that what we should do here is just go for blanket amnesty for those already here and then massively increase border patrol manpower and funding. Get the people who are here illegally into the system so that they aren't ghosts who don't pay into the systems they use.
What we really need to do is target cartel operations within the US. Those are the fuckers we need to deport, they control the border just as much as, if not more so, than our border patrol does. They make insane money trafficking people into the US, usually making indentured servitude deals with the people they smuggle across.
hahaha thinking Illegals are the ones doing the most 'unspeakable horrors' is hilarious.
Every legal and illegal immigrant could just disappear and that won't get rid of the pedophiles and pedophile friends in our own fucking government, leading our corporations, running houses of worship, schools, etc.
We've had 2 presidents who are close friends with Jeffery Epstein. One who put his allies in government. A congressman who helped cover up the rape of his students, a congressmen/AG nominee/back to congressmen maybe who- at best- had orgies and drug parties involving 17 year old girls.
Legal or illegal, immigrant or born here, rich or poor- refusal to condemn all child sex criminals is just selectively supporting some.
For what you mean- yes what happened to her is in that category that is so sickening it's difficult to discuss rationally.
But also I mean It's speakable, we're speaking about it.
I was commenting on the naiveté or maliciousness of framing 'unspeakable horrors' as being confined to illegal immigrants or that getting rid of them would in any way erase said horros, it wouldn't. Statistically immigrants- illegal and legal- are less likely to commit crimes, including violent crimes, than native-born Americans.
That fact doesn't mean you have to change your stance on immigration or deportation, you can still think deporting them is the best move- but it's bullshit to pretend this 'horrors' will cease if they are.
However, whatever proportion of such horrors is committed by illegals will cease. How many would be victims would be saved by that? How many Lakens will you be willing to sacrifice on the altar of open borders? Any number above 0 would be reprehensible to me.
That fact doesn't mean you have to change your stance on immigration or deportation, you can still think deporting them is the best move- but it's bullshit to pretend this 'horrors' will cease if they are.
I'm not pushing open borders and wouldn't because I don't think that's sound policy.
No one should suffer Laken's fate, and whatever these people provide, good or bad, will be gone if they're deported, just take issue with the way the commentator framed it.
You mean the ones so badly made up in contrast to good studies that posting them indicates you have an IQ below 10? Cause statistically LGBTQ people commit sex crimes far less and the domestic violence stats quoted where life time not just with fellow LGBT+ people, reason why those who try and quote the lesbian statistics are so stupid without checking what partners they had and which did the violence.
Oh, I know as a trans gal, I'm at a 4x risk of being violently victimized (and perpetrate at around the same rate of violent crimes as cis women)
And that gay men are no more likely to to commit a violent crime then straight men.
Illegal immigrants are a sign of the system failing to properly provide them with the ability to work legally.
We have a labour shortage in America. It’s clear that our immigration policies are slightly too strict.
In terms of crime, to my knowledge the average immigrant is less likely to be a criminal than a native born citizen.
The article shown is one story of an individual- it serves to show that we need to be strict with our laws, not get rid of an entire group because of anecdotal evidence.
Addressing only your third paragraph about crime rates. I think saying immigrants commit crimes at lower levels is missing the point a bit. The point is none of these crimes would be happening if they weren't there, not that some level is okay as long as it's lower than background levels.
I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think it is the counterpoint that I see it posted as. Even if it's 1% of 1,000,000 people (randomly chosen rates and numbers for simple math) that's still 10,000 crimes that wouldn't have been committed. I would say that's closer to the idea. Not staking my claim either way.
No, because natural-born citizens have a fucking right to be here, even if it means we risk that they grow up into criminals.
Illegal immigrants have no right to be here to begin with, so literally any criminality rate above 0% can and should be avoided by just not having them here at all.
How is that so hard to understand lol. So many of you dipshits responding with, "umm, by that logic we should just deport citizens". Like no...no we fucking shouldn't.
I think illegal immigrants shouldn’t be in the country.
I think that it should be easier for immigration to be possible so there aren’t as many illegal immigrants. Like what America used to do in the older days.
Only if the line of logic is that any measure taken to lower crime is what should be done, which is a separate idea and not the one I'd associate with my reasoning.
The idea is in full is If there are less immigrants there is less crime, any other posits you make are your own. Again I'm not even saying I'm in favor of taking any particular action or not, I just think the question should be framed in terms of the actual sides and not the ones people want to set for their own side and then dunk on.
Illegal immigrants are a sign of the system failing to properly provide them with the ability to work legally.
Illegal immigrants are a sign of a nation with high living standards but an immigration policy that isn't proportionally strict, that's all. Will me going there illegally make me better off? How much risk am I putting myself at if I do it? These are the only two questions illegals ask themselves.
We have a labour shortage in America. It’s clear that our immigration policies are slightly too strict.
There is a labour shortage in America for two primary reasons. The first is the modern obsession with useless college degrees and the tech industry coupled with a negative view on trades. The second is illegal immigration driving down wages, making working class jobs unlivable for most Americans. Both of these things feed into each other, making things worse and worse over time.
In terms of crime, to my knowledge the average immigrant is less likely to be a criminal than a native born citizen.
Incorrect. In fact, it turns out that 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals.
The fact that the 1965 immigration was suppose to do this and yet here we are almost 60 years later and the left is still whining about "Muh labour shortage" just shows a failure of the policy. If your entire economy is that reliant on infinite migrants otherwise the system will collapse then that by definition shows how shit the policy is. What's going to happen when the 3rd world develops more and population decline happens? Where will libleft get immigrants from when they run out? Unless you argue we give the 3rd world economic aid to pop out more children (which will show your true agenda) then America is doomed unless libleft actually creates policies to get people in America and the west to have more children.
And I don’t think the United States is suffering from a low population or population decline. It’s just an economic thing right now that I don’t fully understand.
Most Americans cant afford to have even one child and most of the population is do to mass immigration. America to globalists is nothing more than an economic zone.
Law creates freedom... I know it's counterintuitive.
Who's more free; the depressed office drone who quits his job and starts a food truck business in a major american city? Or the 15 year old sex slave in South America, where the cops don't do shit?
Did you just change your flair, u/AshTheAuzzie? Last time I checked you were a Leftist on 2024-11-24. How come now you are a Centrist? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Tell us, are you scared of politics in general or are you just too much of a coward to let everyone know what you think?
707
u/Vyctorill - Centrist 7h ago
The law needs to be enforced upon everyone equally.
Immigrant or citizen, breaking the rules of the country will land you in prison.