Why I don’t support vaccine mandates

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 56
#31
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
Law enforcement uses DNA and cameras, if ANYONE commits a victim producing crime in America, law enforcement finds out and there is prosecution.
Yea, but you can't link DNA to anyone who you don't have any U.S. records of. 

And it's not likely that immigrants would do this, but drug cartels would. 

You can have health DNA on file and still not be documented with the federal government.  This doesn’t justify deportation.
Again, you can't link DNA to someone who doesn't have any American records.  

You obviously don’t want fetonal in the country, but the solution is to replace ICE with FCE (Fetonal Control and Enforcement).  Their job is to go after fetanyl dealers while leaving the undocumented that have nothing to do with fetonal (the majority) alone.
Our solutions to our problems should be to live with our problems. 
It should be to take out an irradicate those problems, depending on the danger it causes.

We shouldn't have to have a job where people go after and chase fentanyl dealers in our country. We should get rid of it entirely. Make it illegal, except in certain medical treatments, that are approved and monitored by doctors. 

I don’t think you have to worry about the undocumented breaking into people’s homes on a large scale.
When you have about 1 million - 2 million people coming over the border every year, then you probably should worry about that. 
Again, most of immigrants are nice, but we can't just assume they all are. Cartels still exist, and bad people exist, we can't just forget about them.

But they are some of the bluest rural counties in the country.  This is often because they expierienced the undocumented first hand and they can confirm the undocumented aren’t a threat.
Ever heard of a state called Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or Arizona?
Even Canadian borders, like Idaho, Montana, North Dakota. 

These are all red states. 

Topic's author
#32
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yea, but you can't link DNA to anyone who you don't have any U.S. records of. 
Most Americans don’t give their DNA to the state but the police still know who did certain crimes.  Law enforcement knows how to hunt down murderers and rapists.

And it's not likely that immigrants would do this, but drug cartels would.
So go after the drug cartels,  not the undocumented, who probably have nothing to do with drug cartels.

Again, you can't link DNA to someone who doesn't have any American records. 
American records usually don’t contain any DNA.  There have been plenty of undocumented immigrants arrested for murder or rape (and they should get killed for THAT crime, but their documentation status should have nothing to do with it.)

Our solutions to our problems should be to live with our problems.
We should fix our problems by going after the root causes (fetanyl dealers) and not side effects(more undocumented immigrants).

We shouldn't have to have a job where people go after and chase fentanyl dealers in our country. We should get rid of it entirely.
Are you saying “Abolish ICE”?  You were calling for there not being a job where we get rid of fetanyl.  But we already have jobs where people get rid of the undocumented.  I’m merely advocating that ICE go after fetanyl and not the undocumented if the undocumented have nothing to do with fetanyl.

Make it illegal, except in certain medical treatments, that are approved and monitored by doctors.
I agree with banning recreational fetanyl.

When you have about 1 million - 2 million people coming over the border every year, then you probably should worry about that.
I wouldn’t worry about it.  I’d welcome the extra taxpayers into the country to boost GDP and to make it easier to pay off the debt.

Again, most of immigrants are nice, but we can't just assume they all are. Cartels still exist, and bad people exist, we can't just forget about them.
Probably over 95% of undocumented immigrants have nothing to do with fetanyl.  Our immigration policy should keep the cartels out and let everyone else in.  If a cartel comes to America, they get killed, making them less likely to come here.

Ever heard of a state called Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or Arizona?
Even Canadian borders, like Idaho, Montana, North Dakota.

These are all red states.
I said COUNTIES that border Mexico tend to vote blue.  Texas is a red state, but the counties that border Mexico that Texas owns are blue.  Arizona is a purple state and its border counties vote blue.  Border counties that border Canada don’t have many undocumented immigrants.  Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama aren’t border states, so they have no border counties.

In general, counties that border Mexico vote blue because they have expierienced the undocumented first hand and they can confirm they aren’t a threat.  This is even if the county is rural.
#33
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
So go after the drug cartels,  not the undocumented, who probably have nothing to do with drug cartels.
We have to remove the problem from the U.S. does not do something to chase them.

Letting the undocumented in, would do just that. 

So go after the drug cartels,  not the undocumented, who probably have nothing to do with drug cartels.
Yes......Americans. Who have been documented to be born in the U.S. 

American records usually don’t contain any DNA.  There have been plenty of undocumented immigrants arrested for murder or rape (and they should get killed for THAT crime, but their documentation status should have nothing to do with it.)
Yes, they do. 
You can't find someone who doesn't exist on any records in the U.S. just by DNA analyzation, and other things. 

We should fix our problems by going after the root causes (fetanyl dealers) and not side effects(more undocumented immigrants).
I halfway agree. We should go on the offence (the fentanyl dealers) and play a good defense.
Most immigrants aren't bad, but we can't take any chances until we have assured the fact, that the dealers are, gone, but guess what? They will never be gone, because of corruption. 

If good people/immigrants really wanted to come to the U.S., they would be willing to go through the paperwork. 

I wouldn’t worry about it.  I’d welcome the extra taxpayers into the country to boost GDP and to make it easier to pay off the debt.

It's definitely something to worry about. 

Probably over 95% of undocumented immigrants have nothing to do with fetanyl.  Our immigration policy should keep the cartels out and let everyone else in.  If a cartel comes to America, they get killed, making them less likely to come here.
Yes, but when you have an open border, like we do now, then it's kind of hard to do that, don't you think?

Also, cartels are smart, they will find another way. 
Our best and most safe option is to have an actual border and have immigrants who really do want to come into the country do the paperwork. 

If you're going to be part of a country, you should at least be a citizen of it. 
You talk about immigrants helping to pay off debt, but that won't work unless they are citizens. 

I said COUNTIES that border Mexico tend to vote blue.  Texas is a red state, but the counties that border Mexico that Texas owns are blue.
Not true. 
Not the exact number, but around 60 are red, and 20 are blue. 
In general, counties that border Mexico vote blue because they have expierienced the undocumented first hand and they can confirm they aren’t a threat. 
How do you explain the fentanyl crisis then?
#34
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I got a text yesterday from my healthcare provider saying if I come in for a "free" Covid vaccine, I would get a 75 dollar gift card.

What is your reaction to that scenario?
If we assume, for lack of a better term, "good intentions" then I would presume that your healthcare provider is trying to incentivize you into serving the best interests of your health. If we assume financial motivations--which would be likely in my opinion--then your provider is merely trying to hedge against the prospect of your hospitalization--and therefore its financial liability--by encouraging your taking the vaccine. If we assume the "worst intentions," which in my opinion is just as likely considering the excessive and disingenuous media coverage, as well as the outright lies concerning the vaccine by public officials, then I would presume a concerted, nefarious effort to have the people en masse inject a substance into their bodies which they do not fully understand, under the pretext of "public safety." 
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
Mind you, this "gift card" is most likely tax funded out of the massive Covid expense account. It's money that has to be spent once allocated.
#36
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Mind you, this "gift card" is most likely tax funded out of the massive Covid expense account. It's money that has to be spent once allocated.
Only the government can rob you, provide you something with money or resources they've stolen from you, and call it a "gift."
#37
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias

Confirmed it's tax funded via Vaccine Equity Initiative.

Pfizer probably got a very good deal purchasing this legislation.
#38
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Pfizer probably got a very good deal purchasing this legislation.
Which makes the suggestion that these pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer are an example of "Capitalism" that much more ridiculous. They're nothing more than quasi-socialist crony corporations.
Topic's author
#39
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
We have to remove the problem from the U.S. does not do something to chase them.

Letting the undocumented in, would do just that. 
Making life harder for the 11 million undocumented immigrants based on drug cartels that are out of their control is group justice.  Group justice is bad, whether through reperations or deportations.  Deporting an undocumented immigrant who did not sell fetanyl won’t help the fetanyl crisis get resolved.
You can't find someone who doesn't exist on any records in the U.S. just by DNA analyzation, and other things.
There have been enough undocumented murderers that have been found (and should be put to death for murder) for me to think that the undocumented can be prosecuted if they harm someone else in the US.

If good people/immigrants really wanted to come to the U.S., they would be willing to go through the paperwork.
A lot of the undocumented can’t afford it because it costs I think tens of thousands of dollars to go through legalization fees and if you don’t have a job to begin with, you can’t afford it.  Remove the buerocratic waste, and you will get the undocumented to afford their legalization (which wouldn’t be needed if not required by our many state government).  How about let the counties decide their own undocumented policy.  An undocumented immigrant can settle in a blue county, afford the legalization fees, get legalized, and settle in any red county?

You talk about immigrants helping to pay off debt, but that won't work unless they are citizens.
They will get jobs as long as they don’t have welfare.  I support eliminating welfare for the undocumented 100%.

Not the exact number, but around 60 are red, and 20 are blue.
Most counties that border Mexico vote blue.

How do you explain the fentanyl crisis then?
War on drugs.  Making it harder for people to get access to weed has caused them to do to shady dealers to get their weed, which was often laced with fetanyl.  If the war on drugs ended, you would get more legal weed, but since the weed is obtained at a drugstore instead of a shady dealer, people get safe weed.  This is how Portugal eliminated their drug problem; they let people get safe drugs at regulated stores.
#40
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Making life harder for the 11 million undocumented immigrants based on drug cartels that are out of their control is group justice.  Group justice is bad, whether through reperations or deportations.  Deporting an undocumented immigrant who did not sell fetanyl won’t help the fetanyl crisis get resolved.
True, but you're assuming that we know everyone's specific backgrounds. 
Some of the "immigrants could be drug cartel members getting through the border."

Let me ask you this:
To solve the school shooting problem, should we have more security in the schools?
Most of the students are just trying to graduate and are not a threat, but you still have to take precautions.

It's the same deal with the border.
Yes, most of the immigrants are probably good people, but we still have to take precautions.
The border crisis right now is proof that we need precautions.
The fentanyl crisis happens to of happened very closely to when Joe Biden took restrictions off of our southern border. Because it makes it easier for the cartels to get in. 

And it's not like immigrants can't get into our country. There is a legal way to get into our country. It takes some time, but it's not like we are locking these people out. 

There have been enough undocumented murderers that have been found (and should be put to death for murder) for me to think that the undocumented can be prosecuted if they harm someone else in the US.
If you are born in the USA, you immediately have documentation.
Give me one example of an immigrant with no documentation whatsoever that was caught using DNA analyzation. 

A lot of the undocumented can’t afford it because it costs I think tens of thousands of dollars to go through legalization fees and if you don’t have a job to begin with, you can’t afford it.  Remove the buerocratic waste, and you will get the undocumented to afford their legalization (which wouldn’t be needed if not required by our many state government).  How about let the counties decide their own undocumented policy.  An undocumented immigrant can settle in a blue county, afford the legalization fees, get legalized, and settle in any red county?
If you can't afford something, that doesn't mean that you can do illegal things to get what you want/ or need.

We can't do anything about the corruption in other countries except help their country out. 
We shouldn't have to take down our own safety precautions just to help other nations people. 
Now don't get me wrong, it's not that I hate people who want to come to the US, but in the end, it's the American people who come first, and you can't just jeopardize the American people for other nations people. 

The best we can do to help other nations peoples, is by sending out our support to them. 
Not jeopardize our own people. 

They will get jobs as long as they don’t have welfare.  I support eliminating welfare for the undocumented 100%.
Ok, well that's a start in the right direction, but they still should be documented. No one should be living in the U.S. without any documentation. 

Most counties that border Mexico vote blue.
Yes, but this doesn't prove anything. 
Immigrants tend to move away from the border further into states like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

California is obviously blue, because of..........certain people. So that's not related to the border. 
That leaves Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico.
Texas and Arizona are red states, and New Mexico are blue states. 
And given Texas's size, I think that it is safe to say that they red outdoes the blue. 

War on drugs.  Making it harder for people to get access to weed has caused them to do to shady dealers to get their weed, which was often laced with fetanyl.  If the war on drugs ended, you would get more legal weed, but since the weed is obtained at a drugstore instead of a shady dealer, people get safe weed.  This is how Portugal eliminated their drug problem; they let people get safe drugs at regulated stores.
But you have to put into account the coincidence of the border crisis, and the fentanyl crisis, happening at the same time. 
#41
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
Forgot to tag. 
Topic's author
#42
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
To solve the school shooting problem, should we have more security in the schools?
I’d be fine with that, but I don’t think it’s the same.  To provide security, all people have to do is walk through a metal detector.   No fees equaling thousands of dollars have to be paid every time someone enters the school.  An easy solution to mass shootings (that unfortunately my HS hasn’t implemented when I went there).  If security costs thousands of dollars every time someone entered the school, that would be bad security.  If the security involved just a metal detector, I would support that.

The border crisis right now is proof that we need precautions.
So if the ONLY requirement to come into the US was you couldn’t bring in fetanyl, would you be cool with that?  If that was the only requirement to not get deported, the vast majority of the undocumented would show they don’t have fetanyl and be granted citizenship or a green card.

Give me one example of an immigrant with no documentation whatsoever that was caught using DNA analyzation.
https://www.flgov.com/2022/03/30/man-who-brutally-murdered-daytona-beach-couple-during-bike-week-was-an-illegal-immigrant-with-multiple-prior-drug-charges/.  If the undocumented murder, they can get caught by our wonderful police and the undocumented should have their head cut off for it; deportation is too easy for them (and too dangerous; they might murder people of their home country).

Now don't get me wrong, it's not that I hate people who want to come to the US, but in the end, it's the American people who come first, and you can't just jeopardize the American people for other nations people.
I would argue my immigration policy is America first because we are able to pay off the debt with a policy that allows anyone who doesn’t bring in fetanyl in the country.  I can send you my notes to prove it.

Immigrants tend to move away from the border further into states like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.
I don’t think this is true.  Mexican immigrants tend to live close to Mexico (just like how Cuban migrants tend to live close to Cuba).

But you have to put into account the coincidence of the border crisis, and the fentanyl crisis, happening at the same time.
In your view, this is the same thing.  There is a fetanyl crisis, but I perfer the term, “border economic opportunity”, because of the potential of freedom of movement getting the US out of debt.  Here’s the plan:

#43
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
I’d be fine with that, but I don’t think it’s the same.  To provide security, all people have to do is walk through a metal detector.   No fees equaling thousands of dollars have to be paid every time someone enters the school.  An easy solution to mass shootings (that unfortunately my HS hasn’t implemented when I went there).  If security costs thousands of dollars every time someone entered the school, that would be bad security.  If the security involved just a metal detector, I would support that.
Ok, if you go to a school, you have to have identification right? Like the school has to know who you are, and what classes you are taking. Same with going to colleges.
A random kid from a different school can walk through a metal detector, but that doesn't make it right for them to still be their. 

Schools are implementing ID tags because of the Uvalde shooting in Texas. I'm in school right now. I have to wear an ID as well.
Identification is for the safety of others and yourself.

So if the ONLY requirement to come into the US was you couldn’t bring in fetanyl, would you be cool with that?  If that was the only requirement to not get deported, the vast majority of the undocumented would show they don’t have fetanyl and be granted citizenship or a green card.
Fentanyl is not the only reason I believe in restricting borders and IDs.
Just like being a part of a school, you have to be identified for safety reasons, and educational reasons.
Fentanyl is just proof of what I am saying to be true. 

https://www.flgov.com/2022/03/30/man-who-brutally-murdered-daytona-beach-couple-during-bike-week-was-an-illegal-immigrant-with-multiple-prior-drug-charges/.  If the undocumented murder, they can get caught by our wonderful police and the undocumented should have their head cut off for it; deportation is too easy for them (and too dangerous; they might murder people of their home country).
First sentence in this link:
"The Biden Administration’s dangerous immigration policies, as well as the soft on crime policies of the 9th Circuit State Attorney’s Office (Orange and Osceola counties), have once again resulted in the needless deaths of innocent Floridians."

This article is literally smashing down against open borders.
This article is going against your argument.

Plus the murderer was caught afterward because of drug related charges, not from DNA analysis, and searching for him.
They found him because of drugs, and linked him to the murder with DNA. They did not find him simply with just DNA.

I would argue my immigration policy is America first because we are able to pay off the debt with a policy that allows anyone who doesn’t bring in fetanyl in the country.  I can send you my notes to prove it.
I am talking about American safety first. 
The economy would get worse actually because of the rise in crime, that we have seen from the border crisis.
Law enforcement would be spending more and risking more lives just because of the border.

I don’t think this is true.  Mexican immigrants tend to live close to Mexico (just like how Cuban migrants tend to live close to Cuba).
Let me rephrase. Immigrants who want to get away from the Mexican government tend to move further away.

In your view, this is the same thing.  There is a fetanyl crisis, but I perfer the term, “border economic opportunity”, because of the potential of freedom of movement getting the US out of debt.  Here’s the plan:
It doesn't matter what term you prefer.

American people/citizens, are dying because of Fentanyl coming over the border. 
Economic opportunity should not be at the cost of even one American death. 
Topic's author
#44
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Schools are implementing ID tags because of the Uvalde shooting in Texas. I'm in school right now. I have to wear an ID as well.
Identification is for the safety of others and yourself.
At the school I was at, there was a rule that said you had to wear an ID, but nobody ever did.  And nobody ever shot up my high school.

"The Biden Administration’s dangerous immigration policies, as well as the soft on crime policies of the 9th Circuit State Attorney’s Office (Orange and Osceola counties), have once again resulted in the needless deaths of innocent Floridians."

This article is literally smashing down against open borders.
The argument I made was that if an undocumented immigrant committed murder, it would be easy for the state to prosecute them.  Murderers deserve death; deportation is too easy for them.

I am talking about American safety first. 
"Those willing to trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both."(Founding fathers).

The economy would get worse actually because of the rise in crime, that we have seen from the border crisis.
Define, "rise in crime".  The only things that should be crimes in a country that values liberty are crimes that harm another person.  If one undocumented immigrant commits a crime that harms somebody, they ALONE should be prosecuted for it, not every other undocumented immigrant.

Immigrants who want to get away from the Mexican government tend to move further away.

American people/citizens, are dying because of Fentanyl coming over the border. 
So go after Fentanyl and the INDIVIDUALS that bring it in; not every undocumented immigrant that had nothing to do with fentanyl.

Economic opportunity should not be at the cost of even one American death. 
I'm just curious as to how does this argument go.  Every single year, over 30,000 Americans die from car accidents.  Are we going to ban cars and make people take public transit?  No; the economic opportunity of saving all that money on building trans is a tradeoff to 30,000 lives per year; otherwise cars would be banned.

Here is a video you should check out:

#45
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
At the school I was at, there was a rule that said you had to wear an ID, but nobody ever did.  And nobody ever shot up my high school.
Ok.......
People don't obey rules.
People don't obey laws either. 

That doesn't mean we should just take away precautions for people's safety. 

The argument I made was that if an undocumented immigrant committed murder, it would be easy for the state to prosecute them.  Murderers deserve death; deportation is too easy for them.
I also refuted this argument too, but you didn't feel it was important enough to add to your quoting of me.

Let me help you out:
Plus the murderer was caught afterward because of drug related charges, not from DNA analysis, and searching for him.
They found him because of drugs, and linked him to the murder with DNA. They did not find him simply with just DNA.

"Those willing to trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both."(Founding fathers).
This is referring too losing freedom for safety. Taking precautions that don't affect the American people is not taking away anyone's freedom. 

Define, "rise in crime".  The only things that should be crimes in a country that values liberty are crimes that harm another person.  If one undocumented immigrant commits a crime that harms somebody, they ALONE should be prosecuted for it, not every other undocumented immigrant.
But when you have a rise in crime and its coming from a source, you have to do your best to take out that source. 

Your arguing as if there are only 10 immigrants actually committing crimes. 

It's common knowledge that most people who cross the border illegally aren't going to follow our law. 
Because they already purposefully decided to break it by crossing the border illegally. 

The broke our laws even before entering into our country.
What do you think they will do when the get in.

That is Mexican origin population, not immigrant settlement population. 

So go after Fentanyl and the INDIVIDUALS that bring it in; not every undocumented immigrant that had nothing to do with fentanyl
Listen:

We don't have jurisdiction in Mexico, to go after the cartels.
So we have to instead defend our borders from those cartels. 
We can't go after them because we can't.
So we have to cut them off before they get here. 

And enacting border laws is how we do that.




#46
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm just curious as to how does this argument go.  Every single year, over 30,000 Americans die from car accidents.  Are we going to ban cars and make people take public transit?  No; the economic opportunity of saving all that money on building trans is a tradeoff to 30,000 lives per year; otherwise cars would be banned.
With cars, it's an individual's decision to drive a car, or live next to a city, so it's different than making a law where the border is not an individual choice. 


Topic's author
#47
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
People don't obey rules.
People don't obey laws either. 

That doesn't mean we should just take away precautions for people's safety. 
We also shouldn’t punish people for breaking the rules either if they don’t harm someone else by doing so, whether it’s not wearing an ID card, speeding 10 mph above the speed limit, or being undocumented.

Let me help you out:
Plus the murderer was caught afterward because of drug related charges, not from DNA analysis, and searching for him.
They found him because of drugs, and linked him to the murder with DNA. They did not find him simply with just DNA.
Alright; so prosecute JUST that murderer and don’t prosecute any undocumented immigrant for that murder charge.

This is referring to losing freedom for safety. Taking precautions that don't affect the American people is not taking away anyone's freedom.
Deporting people without their consent is taking away their freedom.  Those willing to trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both.

But when you have a rise in crime and it’s coming from a source, you have to do your best to take out that source.
You prosecute merely the INDIVIDUAL who did the victim producing crime, not anybody else.  Being undocumented is a victimless crime.

It's common knowledge that most people who cross the border illegally aren't going to follow our law.
Because they already purposefully decided to break it by crossing the border illegally.

The broke our laws even before entering into our country.
What do you think they will do when the get in.
You broke the law the last time you decided to drive over the speed limit.  But just like with the undocumented, you breaking a victimless law shouldn’t face prosecution (unless your okay with giving $500 to the state every time you drove above the speed limit).

That is Mexican origin population, not immigrant settlement population.
The Mexicans who moved to the US tended to settle where there would be a lot of Mexicans and that was close to Mexico, saving money on transportation.  If I wanted to move to New York (I’m from CT), I’d be more likely to move somewhere close to the CT border.

We don't have jurisdiction in Mexico, to go after the cartels.
So we have to instead defend our borders from those cartels.
So go after the cartels with FCE; just not undocumented immigrants caught in the crosshairs with ICE.

With cars, it's an individual's decision to drive a car, or live next to a city, so it's different than making a law where the border is not an individual choice.
With cars, many people that die in accidents didn’t cause the accident.  Did you watch the video?  When one does whatever it takes to save even one human life at the expense of significant amount of liberty, they become authoritarian.  

Not being vaccinated against COVID causes some vaccinated people to die.  But I’m not going to force people to get vaccinated to save a small number of lives since the freedom treaded upon would be too significant.  The undocumented are in the same situation.  If you deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants based on 1 murder done by 1 undocumented immigrant, that is group justice/social justice.  Social justice is bad.
#48
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
We also shouldn’t punish people for breaking the rules either if they don’t harm someone else by doing so, whether it’s not wearing an ID card, speeding 10 mph above the speed limit, or being undocumented.
Rules are put in place for a reason. If you purposely break them, whether your intentions are good or not, it's still breaking a rule.

You can't have a rule to protect people, and then allow certain people to break it. 

If you don't wear an ID card, that is breaking the rules. You might not want to wear it, but you still have to for everyone's safety.
If you don't want to follow the speed limit, that is breaking the rules. You might not want to follow it, but you still have to for everyone's safety.
If you want to enter a country undocumented that is breaking the rules. You might not want to follow them, but you still have to for everyone's safety. 

Alright; so prosecute JUST that murderer and don’t prosecute any undocumented immigrant for that murder charge.
First of all, that's not what we are doing. 
Second of all, we wouldn't be able to prosecute just that murderer, because we wouldn't be able to find him, with just DNA analysis.

What happens when a sophisticated group of criminals from Mexico come over the border, and have no documentation. 
And this wouldn't be a small group, I'm talking about a couple hundred of people, maybe even a thousand. 
Having no documentation would cause a lot of damage to us. 

Deporting people without their consent is taking away their freedom.  Those willing to trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both.
You have to be an American citizen to enjoy your freedoms. 
Americans have freedoms. 
Illegal immigrant's don't. 

You prosecute merely the INDIVIDUAL who did the victim producing crime, not anybody else.  Being undocumented is a victimless crime.
We can't predetermine others intentions.
So in order to stop the source.
We have to take precautions.
And those precautions involve implementing ID's.
Because it makes everyone safe. 

It's basic common knowledge.

You broke the law the last time you decided to drive over the speed limit.  But just like with the undocumented, you breaking a victimless law shouldn’t face prosecution (unless your okay with giving $500 to the state every time you drove above the speed limit).
You can't compare driving 10 mph over the speed limit, to crossing and international border illegally.
Your not just breaking American laws, your breaking international laws as well.

I think that our law enforcement can determine threats, and if they think the person who was driving 10 mph over the speed limit was being a threat, then they should charge them, but breaking international law is most definitely a threat, and has to be charged.

The Mexicans who moved to the US tended to settle where there would be a lot of Mexicans and that was close to Mexico, saving money on transportation.  If I wanted to move to New York (I’m from CT), I’d be more likely to move somewhere close to the CT border.
Your chart showed legal immigrants, not illegal ones. 
It's kind of hard to chart out how many illegal immigrants' live where, because they don't have any documentation to be charted. 

So go after the cartels with FCE; just not undocumented immigrants caught in the crosshairs with ICE.
Cartels are smarter than you think, and won't just reside in Mexico. They will move if threatened by national threats.
Also The FCE wouldn't be able to take any legal action, because they are the Fondo de Cultura Economica. 

It's also not just fentanyl that is the threat. It is bad people that are the threat, and again, we can't predetermine others intentions, so we have to take precautions to prevent the actions that we can't predetermine. 

With cars, many people that die in accidents didn’t cause the accident.  Did you watch the video?  When one does whatever it takes to save even one human life at the expense of significant amount of liberty, they become authoritarian.  
This is obviously ridiculous. 
If someone makes the decision to drive a car, they are taking the risk that they might get into an accidents whether or not they caused it or not. 
It's consensual. You are consenting to the possibility that you might crash. 

Not being vaccinated against COVID causes some vaccinated people to die.  But I’m not going to force people to get vaccinated to save a small number of lives since the freedom treaded upon would be too significant.  The undocumented are in the same situation.  If you deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants based on 1 murder done by 1 undocumented immigrant, that is group justice/social justice.  Social justice is bad.
Well with vaccinations it becomes a little weird. The government told us that if we get the vaccine, then we would be safe. Then changed the narrative and said if we don't get the vaccine then others with the vaccine will die. 

And it's not based on 1 murder done by 1 undocumented immigrant, it has to do with our safety and things that could happen because of us being unsafe. We already see it with the fentanyl crisis, and crime all around the border, and in border states, with most of the offenders being illegal immigrants. 

There is no excuse to cross the border illegally, when there is a perfectly legal way to do it. 
Topic's author
#49
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Rules are put in place for a reason. If you purposely break them, whether your intentions are good or not, it's still breaking a rule.
So are you okay with the government kicking you out of the country for speeding?  After all, you broke the law.  You can still drive, just drive legally and below the speed limit.

What happens when a sophisticated group of criminals from Mexico come over the border, and have no documentation.
And this wouldn't be a small group, I'm talking about a couple hundred of people, maybe even a thousand.
Having no documentation would cause a lot of damage to us.
It depends on the crime that made them criminals.  If it’s murder or rape, Mexico would tell us, “You have some of our murderers” (just like what we would do if American murderers fled to Canada).  Then you can send them back and I don’t think it violates open borders anymore than someone committing a murder in Nevada, fleeing the state to avoid prosecution, and then the murderer getting deported back to Nevada.  All open borders means harmless people are allowed entry into the United States just like harmless people are allowed to cross state lines.  It is group justice to prosecute in any way the 11 million undocumented immigrants based on the murders done by 50 or so of them.  Group justice is social justice; and SJW justice is woke.  America is where women goes to die.

You have to be an American citizen to enjoy your freedoms.
Americans have freedoms.
Illegal immigrant's don't.
Everyone in the United States provided they didn’t harm anyone else has the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That’s why the constitution says, “we the people” and not, “we the citizens”.  We the people are pissed.

You can't compare driving 10 mph over the speed limit, to crossing and international border illegally.
Your not just breaking American laws, your breaking international laws as well.

I think that our law enforcement can determine threats, and if they think the person who was driving 10 mph over the speed limit was being a threat, then they should charge them, but breaking international law is most definitely a threat, and has to be charged.

Speeding is a biggger threat than the undocumented; 30,000 people die per year from speeding; less than 300 people die per year from the undocumented.  Being undocumented should be less prosecuted than speeding.

Also The FCE wouldn't be able to take any legal action, because they are the Fondo de Cultura Economica.
Speak English; this is America.  If you don’t know English, the solution is google translate; not deportation and the loss of labor and money.

This is obviously ridiculous.
If someone makes the decision to drive a car, they are taking the risk that they might get into an accidents whether or not they caused it or not.
It's consensual. You are consenting to the possibility that you might crash.
If you’re a child in the backseat, it’s not consensual.  A child is way more likely to die in a car accident than they are to get murdered by someone that’s undocumented.

Well with vaccinations it becomes a little weird. The government told us that if we get the vaccine, then we would be safe. Then changed the narrative and said if we don't get the vaccine then others with the vaccine will die.
The government didn’t make that argument.  But being unvaccinated makes other people at risk.  But those willing to tread on huge amounts of liberty for a false or small sense of safety deserve neither and will lose both.  Sic semper tyrannis.


Topic's author
#50
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I’m okay with letting every county decide their own undocumented policy.  It’s best to let local solutions work.  What works for rural Texas doesn’t have to work for NYC or Fairfield county.  Let every county decide its own undocumented policy and the undocumented can move to a county where they are accepted.

But I know some undocumented immigrants in my county that I would not kick out.  Roughly 3% of the US population is undocumented; so it’s like deporting the population of Georgia.  Just not practical.
#51
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
So are you okay with the government kicking you out of the country for speeding?  After all, you broke the law.  You can still drive, just drive legally and below the speed limit.
But you when you speed, you are still a citizen of this country. 
I never claimed you should be kicked out of the country for speeding. 

It depends on the crime that made them criminals.  If it’s murder or rape, Mexico would tell us, “You have some of our murderers” (just like what we would do if American murderers fled to Canada).  Then you can send them back and I don’t think it violates open borders anymore than someone committing a murder in Nevada, fleeing the state to avoid prosecution, and then the murderer getting deported back to Nevada. 
You still aren't understanding what I am saying. 
If you have a country, you have a duty to protect it. 
When you have a country bordering your country, obviously you are going to want to put precautions in place, in order to protect your country. 
It doesn't matter if that country is really nice. You should still have precautions in place, just in case.

Here's my solution:
We don't open the borders and close them/lock them. down.
Any immigrants found in the US, will have a chance to become a citizen, or become deported. 
We should also upgrade the process of immigrants becoming citizens, because right now, I will admit, it sucks. 

So, we should lock down the border and upgrade our system. That way we are safe, and everyone can get easy legal access to becoming an American citizen. 

Everyone in the United States provided they didn’t harm anyone else has the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That’s why the constitution says, “we the people” and not, “we the citizens”.  We the people are pissed
Yes..........we the American people. 
With this logic we should protect all countries and just let everyone flood in with no precautions, and say, we are protecting the people.
I know it's important to include others, but again, if you just include everyone then people are going to take advantage of the system. 
So, you have to cut off certain people.
And that cutoff is called being an American citizen. 

Speeding is a biggger threat than the undocumented; 30,000 people die per year from speeding; less than 300 people die per year from the undocumented.  Being undocumented should be less prosecuted than speeding.
That we know of......because they are undocumented. 300 found cases. How many people are overdosing from fentanyl, and how many people are not dying, but getting robbed and mugged because of the increase of criminals coming through the border. 

If you’re a child in the backseat, it’s not consensual.  A child is way more likely to die in a car accident than they are to get murdered by someone that’s undocumented.
...........you ever heard of child trafficking?

The government didn’t make that argument.
Yes, they did.
The government first told us that getting the vaccine would help stop the spread of the virus, and if you get it, you will be safe.
Then they told us that if we don't get the vaccine, then we are endangering people with the vaccine.........but I thought they were safe?

Also let's not forget the many recent cases of military personal, getting the vaccine, and having unexplained heart attacks at young ages in their 20s. Then they have the doctors telling them that they aren't supposed to talk about it, to the people who literally had the heart attacks.
What's a common factor with all of these patients? The vaccine.

I’m okay with letting every county decide their own undocumented policy.  It’s best to let local solutions work.  What works for rural Texas doesn’t have to work for NYC or Fairfield county.  Let every county decide its own undocumented policy and the undocumented can move to a county where they are accepted.
That would just cause the cartels to get further into the country to settle and divide states from the country as well. 
Topic's author
#52
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But you when you speed, you are still a citizen of this country. 
It doesn’t matter; you broke the law (the reason you want to kick out the undocumented).

If you have a country, you have a duty to protect it.
Protect it from what?  Pablo the undocumented immigrant’s taco stand?  FCE protects the country from fetanyl.  You c an replace ICE with FCE and still effectively protect the country from the fetanyl crisis.

We should also upgrade the process of immigrants becoming citizens, because right now, I will admit, it sucks.
What specific requirements would you impose to come legally?  I can’t think of any that merit deportation for a violation.  Lack of English knowledge can be solved with google translate (although I believe America should teach only English to those that come here).

Yes..........we the American people.
The constitution didn’t mention the word “American” because this was written during a time of open borders.  America went from a British colony to a superpower because of practically open borders.

With this logic we should protect all countries and just let everyone flood in with no precautions, and say, we are protecting the people.
We already protect many countries around the world and democrat and republican politicians  have supported it.  Trump may be against America getting involved with Ukraine due to costs, but he didn’t have this vigor with South Korea.

...........you ever heard of child trafficking?
Is your solution to deport the child to a country where they will be raped?  I think the way to reduce child trafficking in the US is the following policy prescription:

1) Anyone who uses or sells a child for sex gets their head cut off.  Child rape should be punished with death.
2) Let the parents come with their kid to the US so they can get a good job, keep their kids, not sell their kids to pedos, and reduce child rape coming into the country.

The government first told us that getting the vaccine would help stop the spread of the virus, and if you get it, you will be safe.
Then they told us that if we don't get the vaccine, then we are endangering people with the vaccine.........but I thought they were safe?
You’re safer with the vaccine than without it, but not 100% safer.  I’m very anti mandate, but I’m also very pro vaccination.

Also let's not forget the many recent cases of military personal, getting the vaccine, and having unexplained heart attacks at young ages in their 20s. Then they have the doctors telling them that they aren't supposed to talk about it, to the people who literally had the heart attacks.
What's a common factor with all of these patients? The vaccine.
These heart attacks are less common than death from COVID that got reduced despite society being maskless now because of the vaccine, although I think you should be allowed to sue a vaccine brand if their product causes you to die or endure significant pain.

That would just cause the cartels to get further into the country to settle and divide states from the country as well.
Cartels aren’t going to go to a place that will kill them for selling fetanyl.  I think the federal penalty for selling fetanyl should be death.

I live in a sanctuary state.  We have many undocumented immigrants.  We don’t have cartels here because the cartels fear police despite ICE having a minimal presence in my state.
#53
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
It doesn’t matter; you broke the law (the reason you want to kick out the undocumented).
If someone is speeding, they are breaking the law of their country that they are a citizen of. Therefore, you don't get kicked out of that country, you just get prosecuted.

The reason I want to kick out the undocumented, is because they are breaking a law of a country that they are not citizens of. This does not apply to all citizens, only the undocumented, from any country. 

Protect it from what?  Pablo the undocumented immigrant’s taco stand?  FCE protects the country from fetanyl.  You c an replace ICE with FCE and still effectively protect the country from the fetanyl crisis.
You are taking what I am saying, and completely ignoring it. 

Listen:
There are good people who want to come over to America. Most of the immigrants are probably really nice people. But not all of them are nice, and you have to put this into consideration. Not all of the immigrants are going to be Pablo the undocumented immigrant. Some are going to be cartels, and drug dealers, and human traffickers. This is why we need a security system in order to let the good people in, and the bad ones out. And the best way to do that, is to have identification for the people that enter this country to know that they went through all of the security measures in order to become a citizen. 

And I will admit that right now, the system put in place for that is really bad, but the solution is not to just let everyone in. The solution is to fix the system so that more people can legally get in.

I'm not against more people/immigrants from coming into the country, I am actually for it. But I also am for keeping our country secure, and there are people who want to get into the U.S. that don't have good intentions, and I want to protect our country for it. 

So, if we upgrade the system, then we have a safer way to get more people into the country so that our economy will be better, we will be more diverse, and we will be safer all at once. 

What specific requirements would you impose to come legally?  I can’t think of any that merit deportation for a violation.  Lack of English knowledge can be solved with google translate (although I believe America should teach only English to those that come here).
There is already a system in place for immigrants to gain citizenship. All I know about it, is that it is really bad and needs to be improved. We can always improve something if we try hard enough. 

I don't know the specifics of how it works, but I think upgrading it would be a useful tool and help a lot of immigrants' families. 

The constitution didn’t mention the word “American” because this was written during a time of open borders.  America went from a British colony to a superpower because of practically open borders.
But it is we the American people.

With this logic, anyone from anywhere in the world could flood into the U.S. 
But you don't see that happening do you. 
In order to enjoy the freedoms of being an American, you have to..........be an American. 

We already protect many countries around the world and democrat and republican politicians  have supported it.  Trump may be against America getting involved with Ukraine due to costs, but he didn’t have this vigor with South Korea.
Ok. Protecting other country's is a favor that we do, not a requirement. 

Is your solution to deport the child to a country where they will be raped?  I think the way to reduce child trafficking in the US is the following policy prescription:
The child already grew up and lived in that country. It's not like they were born here, and we just sent them to another country to get raped. 
Emotional manipulation when it comes to these things works with a lot of people and is sad. 
Which is why we need to upgrade our systems, so that these kids can get into a country where it is safer than the one that they were previously in.

If you open the borders, the child traffickers that were in the bordering country would just come to ours, so those kids who came over the border would be in just as much danger. 

1) Anyone who uses or sells a child for sex gets their head cut off.  Child rape should be punished with death.
I think the death penalty is enough, but yea. 

) Let the parents come with their kid to the US so they can get a good job, keep their kids, not sell their kids to pedos, and reduce child rape coming into the country
Then what's stopping the pedos and rapists from following them in?
Wow, it's almost like we need a filtration system to separate the bad guys from the good guys............

You’re safer with the vaccine than without it, but not 100% safer.  I’m very anti mandate, but I’m also very pro vaccination.
I think that I would have gotten the vaccine if it wasn't for the government trying to mandate it. 

I mean there has been a large spike, (especially in the military) of young people having heart attacks in their 20s with no preexisting conditions. And what do all these people have in common? They all took the vaccine shots. 

I of course am not anti-vaccination, because I have all of my other vaccines, but this one put me off edge, and is why I didn't get it, and my family didn't get it. 

These heart attacks are less common than death from COVID that got reduced despite society being maskless now because of the vaccine, although I think you should be allowed to sue a vaccine brand if their product causes you to die or endure significant pain.
Agreed. Let's sue Pfizer. 

Cartels aren’t going to go to a place that will kill them for selling fentanyl.  I think the federal penalty for selling fentanyl should be death.
You don't get killed in America for selling fentanyl most of the time. 
And even at that, the cartels find routes and places to put their fentanyl where they can't be tracked back to them. Only the dealers can. 
So, it is likely that the cartels are going to come in. Not the whole operation, but the people who do the selling will, and already have. 
Topic's author
#54
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If someone is speeding, they are breaking the law of their country that they are a citizen of. Therefore, you don't get kicked out of that country, you just get prosecuted.
Kicking someone out of the country is a subset of prosecution.

The reason I want to kick out the undocumented, is because they are breaking a law of a country that they are not citizens of.
I think the real reason you want to kick the undocumented out is because your party gives you that position.  If the GOP said, 
We believe in family values and we believe that fathers should raise their children.  Many fathers are undocumented.  Every father should raise their children, so we aren’t going to seperate families and create single motherhood.  Black Fathers Matter and All Fathers Matter.
And the Democrats said
These damn illegal aliens are anti choice misogynists who want to take away a woman’s right to choose what she can do with her body.  Build the Wall!!! (I mean, the immigrants tend to be pro life until the democrats support them and they relieze it, then they abandon their pro life values because of the democrats)
Your stance on immigration would probably change.  Mine would stay the same, because I don’t look at issues through a partisan lens.

But I digress.  If I visit Saudi Arabia, speed 10 mph above the speed limit, I broke the law and I’m not a citizen of their country.  But I don’t get sent back to America over it.

There is already a system in place for immigrants to gain citizenship.
Well, we both agree that the system needs to be changed to be more libertarian (me more so than you).  What requirements would you impose upon the immigrants to let them stay here without fear of deportation?

I don't know the specifics of how it works, but I think upgrading it would be a useful tool and help a lot of immigrants' families.
Well, if you want the immigration system to change, you need a specific plan.  List your requirements for immigrants.  I can’t think of any, so that’s why I support open borders.

But it is we the American people.

With this logic, anyone from anywhere in the world could flood into the U.S.
In the 1920s, it was basically like that.  Freedom won and tyranny lost.

If you open the borders, the child traffickers that were in the bordering country would just come to ours, so those kids who came over the border would be in just as much danger.
Fair point.  So would your only requirement to immigrate be that you can’t have fetanyl on you when you come in?  FCE makes sure you don’t have fetanyl and once that is the case, you’re free to move here?  To keep sex traffickers out, you ask the kids privately if these are your parents.  If the kid says “Yes; they are”, then there is no child rape happening so they can enter and if the kid says, “No they are not”, then the parents get killed for sex trafficking children across (why else would the kid say no to that question?)

Agreed. Let's sue Pfizer.
You should be allowed to sue Pfizer if the vaccine produced bad side effects for you.  But I’ve had 2 vaccines and 2 boosters with minimal side effects.

You don't get killed in America for selling fentanyl most of the time. 
Yea; if I was in charge, I’d be operating differently.  But DART is for normative analysis, not positive analysis.

And even at that, the cartels find routes and places to put their fentanyl where they can't be tracked back to them. Only the dealers can.
FCE would get funding to fight the fetanyl coming into the country (and the funding would be bipartisan since nobody but cartels want fetanyl coming in).  Take it out of ICE’s budget.
#55
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
Kicking someone out of the country is a subset of prosecution.
No, it is not.
Do your research. 

Your stance on immigration would probably change.  Mine would stay the same, because I don’t look at issues through a partisan lens.

But I digress.  If I visit Saudi Arabia, speed 10 mph above the speed limit, I broke the law and I’m not a citizen of their country.  But I don’t get sent back to America over it.
No, it wouldn't no matter what political parties said. 
I don't have any political bias when it comes to these issues. Only common sense, which is why I don't argue with what certain people say, only what logic says.

The key word in your example is visit. 
If you lived in Saudi Arabia, without any documentation, then you would be probably either sent back to America or imprisoned for a long time there. And just using logic here, but I think you would rather go back to America (better than Saudi Arabia) then spend a couple years of your life in prison. 

Well, we both agree that the system needs to be changed to be more libertarian (me more so than you).  What requirements would you impose upon the immigrants to let them stay here without fear of deportation?
Gaining citizenship, learning basic English, and having a thorough background check for any criminal activity in the country that they previously were in. Also, basic identification from the country that they were previously in. 

Fair point.  So would your only requirement to immigrate be that you can’t have fetanyl on you when you come in? 
No, it would be the terms that I just stated:
Gaining citizenship, learning basic English, and having a thorough background check for any criminal activity in the country that they previously were in. Also, basic identification from the country that they were previously in. 

FCE makes sure you don’t have fetanyl and once that is the case, you’re free to move here? 
No because people like drug dealers don't need drugs on them to deal drugs through the countries. Thats not how drug dealing works. It's a complicated system of corruption. 

 To keep sex traffickers out, you ask the kids privately if these are your parents.  If the kid says “Yes; they are”, then there is no child rape happening so they can enter and if the kid says, “No they are not”, then the parents get killed for sex trafficking children across (why else would the kid say no to that question?)
Asking children this question is not a strong way to keep these kinds of people out. 

Children can lie. Especially if one child is a part of the operation, and the rest aren't. 
We need to have strong security measures for these types of people including things like background checks for immigrants. 

Yea; if I was in charge, I’d be operating differently.  But DART is for normative analysis, not positive analysis.
Yes. If you were in charge. But your not. 

FCE would get funding to fight the fetanyl coming into the country (and the funding would be bipartisan since nobody but cartels want fetanyl coming in).  Take it out of ICE’s budget.
FCE and ICE are not God. 
I don't think you really understand how big of a threat the cartels are to America. 
The FCE and ICE are too busy trying to find the cartels, that they aren't focused on our borders.

Joe Biden has already implemented open borders, and the policy's he has enacted are proof that open borders do more harm than good. We have a literal border crisis. 
Topic's author
#56
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Kicking someone out of the country is a subset of prosecution.
No, it is not.
Do your research. 
What’s the difference?  Prosecution is when the state punished you for something.

I don't have any political bias when it comes to these issues.
I don’t believe that.  Can you state one left wing idea you have?  All your beliefs to the best of my knowledge are conservative.

Everyone has their own biases, including both of us.

The key word in your example is visit.
Your still not a citizen of Saudi Arabia, so they won’t deport you for speeding.

All victimless crimes should be legalized.

Gaining citizenship, learning basic English, and having a thorough background check for any criminal activity in the country that they previously were in. Also, basic identification from the country that they were previously in.
What requirements would you impose for gaining citizenship?  Gaining citizenship isn’t a valid response.

If the undocumented don’t know English, you can use google translate to communicate or other translation software.  I’ve used it with people that don’t know English and it works.

I wouldn’t worry about background checks; California is filled with crime but I’m not worried that Californian migrants to CT are going to bring their crime with them.  And let’s say hypothetically they are a murderer from Italy.  Italy is going to want that guy back, so they tell America, “You have one of our murderers”, and then America would send that guy back (just like if a murderer from California head to CT, CA would tell us that we have one of their murderers and then CT would send that guy back).  I don’t think either situation violates open borders because the only people who can really take advantage of it are people with no criminal record; drug cartels are going to come in here at virtually the same levels no matter how many undocumented immigrants get deported.  Go after the cartels;  it the undocumented caught in the crosshairs.

What counts as, “basic identification”?

No because people like drug dealers don't need drugs on them to deal drugs through the countries.
How is this the case?

Children can lie. Especially if one child is a part of the operation, and the rest aren't.
We need to have strong security measures for these types of people including things like background checks for immigrants.
If a child is being raped, why would they lie to protect their rapists?  You can have all the children get asked if these are their parents or sex traffickers to minimize the risk that there is a lie.  I don’t think a child is going to lie if it results in them getting raped more.

Yes. If you were in charge. But you’re not.
The whole point of debating is to see how we specifically would do things differently if we were in charge.

FCE and ICE are not God.
I don't think you really understand how big of a threat the cartels are to America.
The FCE and ICE are too busy trying to find the cartels, that they aren't focused on our borders.
I want ICE to be focused on fetanyl and not kicking out 1 in 30 people living in the US.

Joe Biden has already implemented open borders
He’s deported more people than Trump (and I think this is bad btw).  Let’s Go Brandon!