Why it is a contradiction to be anti death penalty and pro deportation

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 30
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
There are many combinations many people believe are contradictions (like pro life and pro death penalty, pro life and [insert really practically any position the right has on a non abortion issue whether it's guns, vaccine mandates, mask mandates, immigration, Medicare for all, free college (more educated people tend to live longer), you name it]), or , "Education not indoctrination (but we will teach PragerU in public schools)", "Actual Nazis shouldn't get fired from their job for being Nazis but if you support Palestine, then the government can legally fire you over it", "Being anti Israel is anti sematic, but being pro Hitler isn't" (Cadence Owens liked a post I think everyone can agree is anti sematic and the right likes her, but if she endorsed Palestine, then she's an unforgivable anti semite).  I'm pretty sure we can agree that liking a post that stereotypes Jews as drinking Christain blood is way more anti sematic than not wanting the Israeli military to attack Gaza.

But here is why it is a contradiction to be anti death penalty and pro deportation.

If you are pro deportation, then you don't want undocumented immigrants getting free healthcare and having their living expenses paid for by the state.

If you are anti death penalty, then you do want murderers or similar getting free healthcare and having their living expenses paid for by the state.

It is a contradiction to treat undocumented immigrants worse than murderers.  Murderers are worse.

They are ILLEGAL immigrants
The term, "Illegal immigrant" is synonymous with, "Undocumented immigrant" and the only difference is connotation.  Those who see no problem with them being here will refer to them as undocumented.  Those who do see a problem with them being here refer to them as being illegal.  Use whatever term you prefer.  I don't think it's wrong that they are here; so I use undocumented.  I won't police your speech; you don't police mine.

I happen to believe the high slope punishment policy; the very bad crimes (murder; r***) should get death as punishment; the harmless crimes should get no punishment.
#2
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,819
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
Their are people that are not illegal aliens, citizens without healthcare or medical insurance.

This is not automatically indicative of heading towards a fatality.

Why are there immigration laws in the first place?

Is it for the welfare and security of others?

This is what this so called scholar , author , whoever the person was couldn't get about immigration policies.
Topic's author
#3
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Mall
Their are people that are not illegal aliens, citizens without healthcare or medical insurance.

This is not automatically indicative of heading towards a fatality.
People without health insurance are more likely to die.

Why are there immigration laws in the first place?

Is it for the welfare and security of others?
Ethnic based collectivism and government control.  It is not the government's job to provide money for people unless they have a useful government job.  Claiming that immigrants make America more dangerous simply for being undocumented immigrants is undocuphobia.
#4
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you are pro deportation, then you don't want undocumented immigrants getting free healthcare and having their living expenses paid for by the state.

If you are anti death penalty, then you do want murderers or similar getting free healthcare and having their living expenses paid for by the state.
There are many reasons one might be pro deportation, such as the belief that immigrants are stealing our jobs and/or pushing down wages, a belief in following our immigration laws, or even straight up bigotry.

Painting the anti death penalty position as wanting murderers to get free healthcare is just downright silly. Housing and caring for murderers is a lesser of two evils outcome, not the driving factor behind the position. It's also a false choice since it costs more to put someone to death than it does to imprison then for life.

I've noticed you have a propensity to do this; when characterizing other people's positions you make out sound like the byproduct of the position is the point, like saying Pro-life really just means you want to control women's bodies, or pro-choice really means you want to kill babies. It's easy to paint anyone as a hypocrite when you do this, just not honest.
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Double_R
Yes that's exactly what he does. I get he's trying to be original and not regurgitate the same topics others do over and over but he's not producing high quality despite trying to, he's just producing even worse mischaracterisations of each side than the current 'on-repeat' stuff does to the other side at times.
#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,087
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
That's a bit like saying that bananas contradict pineapples.
#7
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,819
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
You know people with healthcare, it's the doctor's prescriptions that are messing them more than without bringing in other complications killing them with all these pharmaceuticals?

It's more to it than just having a standard doctor's visit.
#8
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,000
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
It is a contradiction to treat undocumented immigrants worse than murderers.
Life hack: The undocumented immigrant should just murder someone. Then they will have their expenses paid for by whatever government imprisons them.
Topic's author
#9
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
There are many reasons one might be pro deportation, such as the belief that immigrants are stealing our jobs and/or pushing down wages, a belief in following our immigration laws, or even straight up bigotry.
So then this person wouldn't want the undocumented getting free healthcare.

Painting the anti death penalty position as wanting murderers to get free healthcare is just downright silly.
If one supports jailing murderers, then you need free healthcare for them.

 like saying Pro-life really just means you want to control women's bodies, or pro-choice really means you want to kill babies
Anti-abortioners are willing to control women's bodies to prevent homicide and those that want abortion legal are fine with homiciding the unborn in the name of bodily autonomy.  I don't like positive connotations with political ideologies; I want honesty.  Positive connotations are too much like a politician; who tries to be agreeable instead of honest.


Topic's author
#10
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Savant
The undocumented immigrant should just murder someone. Then they will have their expenses paid for by whatever government imprisons them.
Usually they get deported if they murder (so they get the same penalty as an undocumented person that doesn't murder but still gets caught).

I'm a high slope guy; I don't like a no slope policy.
#11
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Anti-abortioners are willing to control women's bodies to prevent homicide and those that want abortion legal are fine with homiciding the unborn in the name of bodily autonomy.  I don't like positive connotations with political ideologies; I want honesty.
If you wanted honesty you would stop making this argument and listen to what people are actually saying.

Being willing to accept outcome X in order to achieve outcome Y is a statement that you value X more than Y. That tells us nothing about whether or how much how you value X in isolation, yet you are presenting the argument as if it does. That's dishonest. There is a reason these decisions are difficult.
Topic's author
#12
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
That tells us nothing about whether or how much how you value X in isolation, yet you are presenting the argument as if it does. 
I'm not saying it does.  Like, 8 year olds don't infringe on bodily autonomy; everyone supports the right to life for 8 year olds.  The R word saves nobody and it's a violation of bodily autonomy; everyone is pro bodily autonomy on the R word.

It's when the 2 come into conflict that people have to pick sides.
#13
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's when the 2 come into conflict that people have to pick sides.
Correct, and you have yet to explain how there is a conflict between being anti death penalty and pro deportation. Your only attempt rested on the notion that choosing the lesser of two evils (giving free healthcare to murderers) amounts to endorsing it, which it doesn't.
Topic's author
#14
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
 Your only attempt rested on the notion that choosing the lesser of two evils (giving free healthcare to murderers)
Giving free healthcare to murderers to prevent them from dying is the dichotomy; either give free healthcare to murderers or be the reason they die from action or inaction (I prefer killing them).
#15
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yes, we said that already. You still have not shown where the contradiction is.

Topic's author
#16
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
How can one not want to give undocumented immigrants free healthcare (which would be implied if you want to deport them) and want to give murderers free healthcare (which would be implied if you don't want to execute them)?

Murderers are obviously worse.
#17
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
I already explained this. The former is not necessarily part of the consideration and the latter is nothing more than a byproduct of the position, it is not the point.

For it to be a contradiction you need to show how one’s values need to change in order to jump from one position to the next. That’s not necessary here. If one values life above all else the rest falls into place perfectly consistently.
Topic's author
#18
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
 If one values life above all else the rest falls into place perfectly consistently.
If one values life above all else, then they would be anti death penalty, but they would also be anti deportation because deportations produce death.
#19
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Value life means we don't kill people. It doesn't mean we are responsible to keep everyone in the world alive. People die, it's the one thing every single one of us will be guaranteed to do. The fact that some people will die as a result of being deported doesn't make it our problem, we're not killing them.

You're really reaching for a conflict here.
Topic's author
#20
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
Fair enough.  You believe in this context, there is a difference between killing and letting die, that it's better to let an undocumented Mexican die than to kill an American Citizen that is convicted of murder to some people.

I just think it's a crazy belief and I don't agree with the people with that belief.
#21
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
You believe in this context, there is a difference between killing and letting die
There is a difference, but it's circumstantial. If sending an individual back will result in that individual's certain death then that difference is minimal. But we're not talking about any individual, we're talking about a blanket policy position. From that angle one has to consider far more than just whether some people will die, such as what happens if we don't deport people.

These are complicated and nuanced issues, that's why I object to you painting it as a contradiction based on such an overly simplistic notion. It isn't representative of what people are saying or what they necessarily believe.
Topic's author
#22
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
But we're not talking about any individual, we're talking about a blanket policy position.
I would assume if you are moving to a country where you don't know the language when you could have head to Spain, then you are fleeing for your life and will die if you stay in Mexico.

But someone who is against the state killing people and is pro deportation (assuming significant chance of death which there is) should be fine with life imprisonment for murderers with no food given to them (death by starvation).  You aren't killing them; you are letting them die.  But then, the death penalty is more humane than a death by starvation.
#23
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
But someone who is against the state killing people and is pro deportation (assuming significant chance of death which there is) should be fine with life imprisonment for murderers with no food given to them (death by starvation).  You aren't killing them; you are letting them die.  But then, the death penalty is more humane than a death by starvation.
If I locked you in my basement without feeding you and you starved to death, I would rightfully be charged for murder.

You are  trying really hard to conflate two different things. Why? You’re wrong on this. Deportation =/= Murder.
Topic's author
#24
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
If I locked you in my basement without feeding you and you starved to death, I would rightfully be charged for murder.
If you locked me in your basement while feeding me, you would be charged with kidnapping.

Imprisonment is kidnapping, but society is understandably okay with it because it happens to bad people.  But kidnapping and murder are comparably bad offenses; so one who is opposed to killing but ok with letting die and that also didn't want to give undocumented immigrants free stuff wouldn't want to give murderers free stuff and as a result, they would want to jail murderers and not give them any food; letting them die of starvation.

Deportation =/= Murder.
If you deport an immigrant, then there is a very plausible chance they end up dying in their home country.  If I shipped you to Africa and just dropped you off and you weren't allowed to come back here and gangs were hunting you (which I assume is the case for many immigrants), then your death is on the government's hands.
#25
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
one who is opposed to killing but ok with letting die…
Ok just stop, because you’re doing it again.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is not an endorsement of that evil. If I gave you a choice between killing a child vs killing an old man, and if you failed to choose both would die, so you chose to kill the old man… that doesn’t mean you are perfectly fine m with killing an old man.

Stop misrepresenting people’s positions.

and that also didn't want to give undocumented immigrants free stuff wouldn't want to give murderers free stuff and as a result, they would want to jail murderers and not give them any food; letting them die of starvation.
No they wouldn’t. First of all, we’re not responsible for illegal immigrants, we are responsible for US citizens. So that’s a major difference you are plainly ignoring. Another factor you are ignoring is that when you deport someone that person has the freedom to decide where they go next. They can hide, they can run, they can face the threat against them. They are free.

When you imprison someone they are not free. You are locking them in a cell where they do not have a choice what happens to them. They can’t seek alternative shelter, they can’t hunt down food, they can’t fight back against the threats they face… they’re just stuck between four walls. When you do that to someone, whether they’re legal or not, you take full responsibility for their well being.

This has nothing to do with whether one “wants” to give free food and healthcare, it’s about whether we are obligated to. 
Topic's author
#26
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
Choosing the lesser of two evils is not an endorsement of that evil.
Correct, but if one wants to spend tax dollars taking care of murderers but not undocumented immigrants, then they think the murderer is more worthy of the funds.

First of all, we’re not responsible for illegal immigrants, we are responsible for US citizens. 
So their belief would be that they believe US Citizens that commit murder should get their living expenses paid for, but undocumented immigrants who don't commit murder wouldn't?  If that's their belief, then I think it is a bigoted belief because they would be putting undocumented immigrants below murderers.

 Another factor you are ignoring is that when you deport someone that person has the freedom to decide where they go next. They can hide, they can run, they can face the threat against them. They are free.
They left because they knew they did not want to be in Guatemala.

When you imprison someone they are not free. You are locking them in a cell where they do not have a choice what happens to them.
And we have to pay for that.

If one believes undocumented immigrants should be treated worse than murderers, then to me, that's a contradiction.  Judge by the content of character, not the piece of dirt they were born on.
#27
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,283
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
So their belief would be that they believe US Citizens that commit murder should get their living expenses paid for, but undocumented immigrants who don't commit murder wouldn't?
My god dude, why are you having such a hard time with this?

A murderer should not live freely amongst society. That means we as a society must, for the safety of everyone else, take that individual into custody. Once we take that individual into custody, we are responsible for whatever happens to them.

If we do not believe in killing others, then from that point there is no other choice but to provide food and shelter to that individual.

The food and shelter is the necessary end, it is not the desire, it is not the thing driving the position. It is the only way to stay true to the value of being against killing people.

When an illegal immigrant comes to our shores, we don’t have to incarcerate them to keep them out of our society. Unlike with murderers, we can send them back to their home countries. Since that is their home country, we are not responsible for whatever happens to them once they are there.

Do you understand the difference here?

They left because they knew they did not want to be in Guatemala.
Neither do most of the people living there. That doesn’t make it our responsibility to import the entire country into ours.

Judge by the content of character, not the piece of dirt they were born on.
The piece of dirt they were born on is the literal thing that determines what country they are from and thus is responsible for them.

Do you seriously believe there should be no such thing as citizenship? Do you believe the entire world should just be one big revolving door of people going wherever they want and governments should have no control over who comes in?
Topic's author
#28
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
If we do not believe in killing others, then from that point there is no other choice but to provide food and shelter to that individual.

When an illegal immigrant comes to our shores, we don’t have to incarcerate them to keep them out of our society. Unlike with murderers, we can send them back to their home countries. Since that is their home country, we are not responsible for whatever happens to them once they are there.
So the US government then rewards murderers and similar with free food and housing that they wouldn't give to the undocumented immigrant because there is a reward in being dangerous.  I'd rather be in prison than homeless.

Do you believe the entire world should just be one big revolving door of people going wherever they want and governments should have no control over who comes in?
Like unironically, yes.  Otherwise, it is bigoted to force people to live in certain areas based on where they are born.  I use the phrase, "bigoted" with liberals since I know it triggers their fear based emotions and I use the term, "run this country like a business" to appeal to the MAGA people who like Trump for that reason.

The piece of dirt you are born on should not matter at all, otherwise it's xenophobic.
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
The piece of dirt you are born on should not matter at all, otherwise it's xenophobic.
Cool idea, so if every nation had open borders and say, Japan and China continue to have closed borders.... in 200 years the entire world would be culturally Chinese and Japanese. Not a terrible thing.
Topic's author
#30
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
@GP:

Cool idea, so if every nation had open borders and say, Japan and China continue to have closed borders.... in 200 years the entire world would be culturally Chinese and Japanese. Not a terrible thing.
Every country should let anyone in their country, including Japan and China.  That's freedom.

We should run this country like a business; businesses don't care if you are documented or not; they want your money to grow their GDP.  We should run this country the same way.

But if you want to respond to my comments, then unblock me first; otherwise you don't want pushback (which goes against free speech, but I know you only believe in that for right wing opinions).