Parabola
New Member
Enter at risk.
Posts: 22
|
Post by Parabola on Jun 10, 2011 10:22:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by caseagainstfaith on Jun 10, 2011 10:33:14 GMT -5
It's funny how you say criminals should still be punished. I mean if you are in the US illegally are you not a criminal? Yes you are. So really it is more of a paradox. On the one hand you were raped and should report the crime but at the same time if you report the crime you have a high chance of getting deported yourself for being in the US illegally. Also Mr Fattman has obviously never been a immigrant before. I have a friend who immigrated here legally and it still took him almost 3 years to get his full citizenship and thats with the help of a lawyer helping with all the legal paperwork bs. So I think part of the problem is the whole legal immigration process. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 10, 2011 12:50:11 GMT -5
I don't care if they're illegal, crime is still crime and the criminals should be punished. I agree. Both the criminal should be punished and the illegal deported. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 10, 2011 13:05:43 GMT -5
I don't care if they're illegal, crime is still crime and the criminals should be punished. I agree. Both the criminal should be punished and the illegal deported. Which is the problem as it leads to an unreported violent crime. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 10, 2011 13:24:49 GMT -5
I agree. Both the criminal should be punished and the illegal deported. Which is the problem as it leads to an unreported violent crime. Both are crimes and need to be dealt with, giving one immunity just to catch the other seems rather silly to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 10, 2011 13:31:42 GMT -5
Which is the problem as it leads to an unreported violent crime. Both are crimes and need to be dealt with, giving one immunity just to catch the other seems rather silly to me. Only if you view all crimes as equal. Do you think law enforcement should go after a jaywalker with the same perseverance as a arsonist? Illegal immigration is more serious than jaywalking in my mind, but less severe than an actual violent crime like rape. And it is not unprecedented to give immunity to one criminal in order to capture a more serious criminal. ETA: Also, from a practical perspective, is it better to let one criminal go and arrest one or is it better to let both of them go? That is the choice we are dealing with here. Illegal immigrants are not going to report violent crimes against them if they will be deported. Instead it will lead to the creation of a ghetto within a city where crime is common because criminals can safely assume they can rob, rape, and even kill people with no fear of retaliation because the victim will be an illegal immigrant. |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jun 10, 2011 13:38:59 GMT -5
This hurts us from the other side, too: if an illegal witnesses a crime, which isn't too improbable considering that they tend to be at the bottom of the ladder and thus share space with the worst criminals, among others, they won't be able to come forward either.
Ultimately it's offensive to me simply from the perspective of human rights: should the illegal be here? Absolutely not. Do we owe them legal protection from outside harm? Yes, absolutely. Illegal aliens, in fact, are NOT criminals - they have not broken the law, at least not technically. They have circumvented the system, absolutely, but this is an administrative violation and NOT a criminal one. People act like illegals eat puppies on the street or something.
Besides, I'd rather the local cops worry about shit that actually affects people in the communities they serve: catch the drug dealers, the murderers, the rapists, the hit-and-run drivers, and not have to do the Department of Homeland Security's job for them, too. Hell, cops don't get paid enough as it is to take on even more responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 10, 2011 13:51:20 GMT -5
Only if you view all crimes as equal. Do you think law enforcement should go after a jaywalker with the same perseverance as a arsonist? Illegal immigration is more serious than jaywalking in my mind, but less severe than an actual violent crime like rape. And it is not unprecedented to give immunity to one criminal in order to capture a more serious criminal. I'll grant you that. That said, illegal immigration is quite serious so I'd be very wary about granting them any sort of immunity from deportation. Maybe leaving them be when they report a crime, but taking note of their details so they may be dealt with at a later date would be the way to go. ETA: Also, from a practical perspective, is it better to let one criminal go and arrest one or is it better to let both of them go? That is the choice we are dealing with here. Illegal immigrants are not going to report violent crimes against them if they will be deported. Instead it will lead to the creation of a ghetto within a city where crime is common because criminals can safely assume they can rob, rape, and even kill people with no fear of retaliation because the victim will be an illegal immigrant. Ghettos will always form whenever there are large enough numbers of illegals because not only do they not have access to government services such as the police, they'll also always be quite a bit poorer than any citizen due to them not being subject to minimum labour standards and social security. The only way to prevent that is to get rid of the illegals. Well, either that or grant them citizenship, but then you'd be making things even more difficult for potential legal immigrants who're most likely both wealthier and better educated by allowing people who managed to not get caught sneaking into the country to jump the queue. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 10, 2011 14:02:38 GMT -5
Only if you view all crimes as equal. Do you think law enforcement should go after a jaywalker with the same perseverance as a arsonist? Illegal immigration is more serious than jaywalking in my mind, but less severe than an actual violent crime like rape. And it is not unprecedented to give immunity to one criminal in order to capture a more serious criminal. I'll grant you that. That said, illegal immigration is quite serious so I'd be very wary about granting them any sort of immunity from deportation. Maybe leaving them be when they report a crime, but taking note of their details so they may be dealt with at a later date would be the way to go. That leads to the same problems. So they don't get deported immediately, but in a few months, that doesn't matter. The end effect is still them being deported for trying to report abuses against them, so they simply won't do it. By the harm reduction model, the way to lower the amount of societal damage the most is to ignore that the immigrant is here illegally and only deal with him/her at a later date is the immigrant screws up in some manner. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 10, 2011 14:06:00 GMT -5
By the harm reduction model, the way to lower the amount of societal damage the most is to ignore that the immigrant is here illegally and only deal with him/her at a later date is the immigrant screws up in some manner. As long as the immigrant stays in the US, they're effectively "screwing up" by staying and working illegally. I suppose that's the part that bothers me. This sort of immunity is usually only granted to one-time crimes, granting it for something of a continuous nature like illegal immigration just doesn't sit right. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 10, 2011 14:09:46 GMT -5
I don't think rights should extend to just American citizens. It should extend to all human beings.
Personally, here's what I think: Not only should illegally immigrating be decriminalized, but when an illegal immigrant is found, they are guided through the proper immigration process while still allowed to live on American soil for the process. During the said process, they could be given a temporary title of sorts that marks them as an immigrant-in-process, until the papers go through.
I am not fond of the idea that just because someone isn't an American doesn't mean they don't deserve basic consideration or rights. Deporting them is silly - there's a reason they had to jump the border...
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 10, 2011 14:14:47 GMT -5
By the harm reduction model, the way to lower the amount of societal damage the most is to ignore that the immigrant is here illegally and only deal with him/her at a later date is the immigrant screws up in some manner. As long as the immigrant stays in the US, they're effectively "screwing up" by staying and working illegally. I suppose that's the part that bothers me. This sort of immunity is usually only granted to one-time crimes, granting it for something of a continuous nature like illegal immigration just doesn't sit right. Which is less bad, letting the immigrant go or letting both the immigrant and the rapist go? The least bad option may still be bad, but I think society has a duty to do the most good (or, at least the least bad) as possible. A known rapist is a greater threat and the only way to go after that threat is to let somebody who committed a lesser offense go free. If there is any greater chance of deporting an illegal immigrant, any crimes committed against them will go unreported (as well as any crimes they witness, as MN pointed out). |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 10, 2011 14:19:17 GMT -5
I don't think rights should extend to just American citizens. It should extend to all human beings. Personally, here's what I think: Not only should illegally immigrating be decriminalized, but when an illegal immigrant is found, they are guided through the proper immigration process while still allowed to live on American soil for the process. During the said process, they could be given a temporary title of sorts that marks them as an immigrant-in-process, until the papers go through. I am not fond of the idea that just because someone isn't an American doesn't mean they don't deserve basic consideration or rights. Deporting them is silly - there's a reason they had to jump the border... The problem though is that if you opened the boarders like that, there'd be far too more people than the current economy and infrastructure can cope with. The US is the world's richest country, pretty much anyone is Africa, South America and parts of Asia would dearly love to move there and be naturalised. The problem with that is things like roads, housing, the electric grid, the water grid, rail, jobs, communications and other basic services the average citizen requires are not infinite, and take considerable time and expense to expand. The kind of influx of people such a switch in policy would bring would overload basic services to the point where the current recession would seem a mere hiccup. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 10, 2011 14:20:47 GMT -5
As long as the immigrant stays in the US, they're effectively "screwing up" by staying and working illegally. I suppose that's the part that bothers me. This sort of immunity is usually only granted to one-time crimes, granting it for something of a continuous nature like illegal immigration just doesn't sit right. Which is less bad, letting the immigrant go or letting both the immigrant and the rapist go? The least bad option may still be bad, but I think society has a duty to do the most good (or, at least the least bad) as possible. A known rapist is a greater threat and the only way to go after that threat is to let somebody who committed a lesser offense go free. If there is any greater chance of deporting an illegal immigrant, any crimes committed against them will go unreported (as well as any crimes they witness, as MN pointed out). Ehh, you have a point. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jun 10, 2011 14:56:27 GMT -5
Illegal aliens, in fact, are NOT criminals - they have not broken the law, at least not technically. They have circumvented the system, absolutely, but this is an administrative violation and NOT a criminal one. Actually, illegal immigrants have broken the law. It is not simply an administrative issue - it is a criminal statute. (USC 1227 is one. There may be others.) There are procedures to enter and work in the US legally. There are procedures and requirements to obtain citizenship. (USC Section 1421-1458) For many different reasons, illegal immigrants have not followed those procedures. |
|
