DACA

[TheReal_ND]

This has been thrilling, but I honestly don't know how to explain my position in a clearer way. In fact, by some of the responses, I get the impression that people aren't disagreeing with what I am arguing, as much as they find it totally incomprehensible.

/shrug

Why you don't understand that it is the parents as those doing the punishing is incomprehensible to me. The parents know they are breaking the law and they know they risk having their children grow up in another country only to get deported. It's simply not our job to make better parents out of all of you.

Implying they are cognizant of this fact and haven't been purposefully mislead on this very thing by our own government and theirs.

This is the tipping point. This is where the United States of America was finally, at long last, put out of its misery.

There are a lot of problems with the sentiment behind these opinions. The most obvious problem, of course, is that it plays right into the demographic (and thus cultural, and thus political) displacement that will be the death of us all.

But there's a deeper problem driving this nonsense: the view that admission to the USA is some kind of prize, where "good" people are rewarded with entry, and "bad" people are punished with exclusion.

Notice where they say they're in the country through "no fault of their own." Immigration isn't about fault. Sending them back isn't a form of punishment (even assuming it's not what they want to do).

You can see the same stupid dynamic playing out in million Twitter spats and normie forum arguments every day: "You Whites don't deserve to have a country because of [insert some half-baked interpretation of history from 150-400 years ago]."

"This country really belongs to the redskins Injuns Native Americans! [But they're all nearly dead or getting gibs on the res so instead we're just going to move a few millions Afro-Chinese-Guatemalan-Myanmars in.]"

This is a very strange way of looking at this issue.

I don't think any other country considers entry as a reward for "goodness," or exclusion as a punishment for "badness."

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

This has been thrilling, but I honestly don't know how to explain my position in a clearer way. In fact, by some of the responses, I get the impression that people aren't disagreeing with what I am arguing, as much as they find it totally incomprehensible.

/shrug

Why you don't understand that it is the parents as those doing the punishing is incomprehensible to me. The parents know they are breaking the law and they know they risk having their children grow up in another country only to get deported. It's simply not our job to make better parents out of all of you.

The parents have done something wrong. I am certainly not arguing otherwise.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I am starting with the assumption that the onus is on the state to prove why it should be allowed to compel any action whatsoever.

In the case of an adult, under their own volition, choosing to migrate illegally, the state's case is simple. They broke the law, they can be compelled to leave.

The case isn't as simple for their children, who, as individuals, distinct from their parents, should not bear the responsibility for the choices made for them by their parents.

I suppose that is an ethical distinction that isn't particularly important for anyone else.

again,

/shrug

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I promise that Hanarchy will give you all a million dollars. What? He won't give you the money? He's breaking my promise! Why should you be punished for that??

Dizzying logic.

Exactly, I should not be beholden to choices made for me by you.

Another example supporting my argument.

[doc_loliday]

Again, if I steal and either sell or give away the property, the recipient doesn't get to keep it, just because they really like it. They're not being punished.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I wonder what country you can go to, rob a store, give the goods to someone else and then cry when the goods are seized. Why are you punishing them? They really liked what I gave them!


Because it wasn't yours to begin with numbnuts, no matter how attached the recipient became to the stolen goods.

Again, if I steal and either sell or give away the property, the recipient doesn't get to keep it, just because they really like it. They're not being punished.

If I steal a candy bar form a bodega and give it to you, and you eat it, what lengths should we be expected to go to to secure the cost of the candy bar from your wallet?

I can, and should, be punished for my theft, but you aren't responsible for it.

The candy bar... well, it is never coming back. If you want to prevent the crime of me stealing it, invent a time machine.

[doc_loliday]

I promise that Hanarchy will give you all a million dollars. What? He won't give you the money? He's breaking my promise! Why should you be punished for that??

Dizzying logic.

Exactly, I should not be beholden to choices made for me by you.

Another example supporting my argument.

If I took your money and give it away the person who has to give it back isn't being punished. The logical outcome of this argument is that the people that want your stuff should get it because somebody else is deciding who gets it.

[doc_loliday]

I wonder what country you can go to, rob a store, give the goods to someone else and then cry when the goods are seized. Why are you punishing them? They really liked what I gave them!


Because it wasn't yours to begin with numbnuts, no matter how attached the recipient became to the stolen goods.

Again, if I steal and either sell or give away the property, the recipient doesn't get to keep it, just because they really like it. They're not being punished.

If I steal a candy bar form a bodega and give it to you, and you eat it, what lengths should we be expected to go to to secure the cost of the candy bar from your wallet?

I can, and should, be punished for my theft, but you aren't responsible for it.

The candy bar... well, it is never coming back. If you want to prevent the crime of me stealing it, invent a time machine.

It hasn't been eaten silly, so no time machine is necessary. They can be taken right on back. Your whole argument rests on the notion that it sucks to have to give back stolen property, and because it suck restitution is impossible.That's painfully false, I'm surprised you refuse to acknowledge it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I wonder what country you can go to, rob a store, give the goods to someone else and then cry when the goods are seized. Why are you punishing them? They really liked what I gave them!


Because it wasn't yours to begin with numbnuts, no matter how attached the recipient became to the stolen goods.

Again, if I steal and either sell or give away the property, the recipient doesn't get to keep it, just because they really like it. They're not being punished.

If I steal a candy bar form a bodega and give it to you, and you eat it, what lengths should we be expected to go to to secure the cost of the candy bar from your wallet?

I can, and should, be punished for my theft, but you aren't responsible for it.

The candy bar... well, it is never coming back. If you want to prevent the crime of me stealing it, invent a time machine.

It hasn't been eaten silly, so there's no time machine necessary. They can be taken right on back. Your whole argument rests on the notion that it sucks to have to give it back, and now, it's that restitution is impossible. Both are so painfully false, I'm surprised you refuse to acknowledge it.

It is an imperfect analogy. I say the candy bar has been eaten, you say it hasn't. Perhaps it wasn't the best analogy to begin with, no?

[doc_loliday]

They were given citizenship by somebody who didn't have the right to give it. It sucks that they have to return it, but they should be angry at their parents.