By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Robert_Downey_Jr. said:
the-pi-guy said:

No one has ever denied that some illegal immigrants are criminals. 

The thing that you conservatives seem to struggle to understand is that liberals don't tend to take these ultra black and white positions. There's a practically frustrating amount of nuance to basically everything.

Some illegal immigrants are murders and rapists and burglars. If you took literally any sizable group of even a thousand people, some of those people are going to be those things. 

If you think that liberals are completely denying that some people are criminals, then you've completely misunderstood their position.

The liberal concerns are:

1.) How much investment is it worth to do deportation? You were just complaining about ballooning a budget. Have you considered the logistics that are required to shut down the border and do all these deportations. How feasible is it to cover a few thousands mile of border. How feasible is it to find 10 million or whatever illegal immigrants and deport them? It would easily cost hundreds of billions dollars overall. 

1a.) How much of this crime would actually be prevented, if you actually did those things? A lot of drugs are illegal in the US, that doesn't stop them from costing billions. 

2.) They're less likely to commit crime than citizens. Which again, "less likely" does not mean "no crime".  It's still a lot of crime actually.

3.) Is that actually the most feasible way to prevent these issues? Conservatives love to punish people, and yet that is frequently the most expensive way to handle things. 

It's this constant idea, that we need a bigger hammer on these issues. Instead of ever wondering, maybe there are other better ways. 

when you are citing crime numbers, are you talking about immigrants or illegal immigrants specifically?  Because every illegal immigrant commits a crime when they enter the country without the proper procedure.

Do we count the asylum speaking process as the proper procedure? It's at least correct legally. 



...

Around the Network
Robert_Downey_Jr. said:

when you are citing crime numbers, are you talking about immigrants or illegal immigrants specifically?  Because every illegal immigrant commits a crime when they enter the country without the proper procedure.

Specifically violent crime amongst illegal immigrants. 

"Commits a crime" is kind of a meaningless bar. Speeding and not wearing a seat belt are also crimes, and yet I doubt you'd hold those things against any US citizen.  



the-pi-guy said:
Robert_Downey_Jr. said:

when you are citing crime numbers, are you talking about immigrants or illegal immigrants specifically?  Because every illegal immigrant commits a crime when they enter the country without the proper procedure.

Specifically violent crime amongst illegal immigrants. 

"Commits a crime" is kind of a meaningless bar. Speeding and not wearing a seat belt are also crimes, and yet I doubt you'd hold those things against any US citizen.  

I view entering a country illegally as an entirely different category than not using a seatbelt or some other minor thing.

That being said I do think, and I've heard many Republicans say this, that the immigration process and citizenship path should be easier.  For her to propose that the border bill she had was some great compromise though is ridiculous.  It allowed tons of illegals per day.  That number needs to be 0 per day in any border deal or it's radical.



I am Iron Man

Robert_Downey_Jr. said:

I view entering a country illegally as an entirely different category than not using a seatbelt or some other minor thing.

Yeah I get that. 

I don't particularly agree.

Robert_Downey_Jr. said:

That being said I do think, and I've heard many Republicans say this, that the immigration process and citizenship path should be easier.  For her to propose that the border bill she had was some great compromise though is ridiculous.  It allowed tons of illegals per day.  That number needs to be 0 per day in any border deal or it's radical.

I think it's naive to expect that any system will be perfect, especially when you're covering ~2,000 miles of border.

Who exactly called it "some great compromise"?  



Oh also if someone is too uninformed to know Biden dropped out and is too lazy to vote unless it's mailed to their house, I'm glad we're not in 2020 anymore and I literally do NOT want that person voting. You gotta want to do it a little



I am Iron Man

Around the Network
Robert_Downey_Jr. said:
the-pi-guy said:

Specifically violent crime amongst illegal immigrants. 

"Commits a crime" is kind of a meaningless bar. Speeding and not wearing a seat belt are also crimes, and yet I doubt you'd hold those things against any US citizen.  

I view entering a country illegally as an entirely different category than not using a seatbelt or some other minor thing.

That being said I do think, and I've heard many Republicans say this, that the immigration process and citizenship path should be easier.  For her to propose that the border bill she had was some great compromise though is ridiculous.  It allowed tons of illegals per day.  That number needs to be 0 per day in any border deal or it's radical.

Is it even legal to turn away every asylum seeker without going through the process to determine if their claim is legitimate? Even limiting it is on questionable ground to my knowledge. 



...

Sonia Sotomayor is getting a few calls to retire given that she's 70 but these calls seem way too late for me.
The Republicans blocked Barack Obama's pick for 10 months, they can easily do it for 2 months.
Donald Trump will probably get at least one pick in his second term. All the pre-Trump picks are seniors and at least one could retire or die in the next 4 years despite the fact that even the oldest of them is under 80.
Sotomayor is the only Democrat I see getting replaced statistically speaking given her age during Trump's term. Anyone else that retires would probably be one of the older Republicans.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 161 million (was 73 million, then 96 million, then 113 million, then 125 million, then 144 million, then 151 million, then 156 million)

PS5: 115 million (was 105 million) Xbox Series S/X: 48 million (was 60 million, then 67 million, then 57 million)

PS4: 120 mil (was 100 then 130 million, then 122 million) Xbox One: 51 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

all I have to say on the matter of immigration is that if you ain't a member of one of the indigenous tribes of the region then shut the fuck up about illegal immigration.

ESPECIALLY against the Mexican people, who probably have a greater historical claim to the land than any white person.

"History begins and ends where and when the white people came and went" Really does seem to be america's motto. No wonder it's such a racist nation on the whole.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

That didn't take long...

Top Republican senator calls for ‘swift retaliation’ against ICC, chief prosecutor

Tom Cotton, from the US state of Arkansas, has issued a statement calling for action against the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its chief prosecutor for pursuing Israeli officials.

Cotton was a strong contender for Trump’s running mate, and the US president-elect’s team is now considering him for the cabinet role of defence secretary, according to Politico and Axios. The Senator, however, has turned down that offer, according to Axios.

In his statement, Cotton said the ICC “has no jurisdiction in Israel and its illegal pursuit of Israeli officials is built on a lie”. He added, “Any attempt by kangaroo court prosecutor Karim Khan to threaten the United States or our allies should be seen as an act of aggression and face swift retaliation.”

Khan asked for arrest warrants for Netanyahu, his Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and three Hamas leaders in May, saying there were reasonable grounds the men had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The court has yet to decide on the warrants.

The court already established jurisdiction in 2021 based on the case against Israel for the 2014 Gaza war. But so far the US and UK have been successful at suppressing the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.



SvennoJ said:

That didn't take long...

Top Republican senator calls for ‘swift retaliation’ against ICC, chief prosecutor

Tom Cotton, from the US state of Arkansas, has issued a statement calling for action against the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its chief prosecutor for pursuing Israeli officials.

Cotton was a strong contender for Trump’s running mate, and the US president-elect’s team is now considering him for the cabinet role of defence secretary, according to Politico and Axios. The Senator, however, has turned down that offer, according to Axios.

In his statement, Cotton said the ICC “has no jurisdiction in Israel and its illegal pursuit of Israeli officials is built on a lie”. He added, “Any attempt by kangaroo court prosecutor Karim Khan to threaten the United States or our allies should be seen as an act of aggression and face swift retaliation.”

Khan asked for arrest warrants for Netanyahu, his Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and three Hamas leaders in May, saying there were reasonable grounds the men had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The court has yet to decide on the warrants.

The court already established jurisdiction in 2021 based on the case against Israel for the 2014 Gaza war. But so far the US and UK have been successful at suppressing the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant.

It appears 'Rule of Law' is just a matter of convenience. Sadly not surprising.