Being a devils advocate is not enlightened centrism or bringing ‘balance’. It’s having a debate for the sake of having a debate. I don’t hold those views, hence why they’re so marked. Otherwise political discussion drains away as everyone sits in their respective silos. Im inviting people (if they want) to articulate their view beyond their emotional reaction.
You’re really not doing that and I do not have the time or energy to explain to it to you. Congrats on your opportunity to think on that, I wish you much luck.
They already explained it and you’re being obtuse. Plenty of illegal actions don’t result in arrest.
They definitely never end in a MILITARY TRANSPORT TRYING TO, UNANNOUNCED, LAND ON SOVREIGN SOIL. Trump specifically referred to it as repatriation (like done with enemy combatants) and not deportation. This was treating people just trying to live as ENEMY COMBATANTS.
So beyond it being a massive departure from how every other “free” country handles deportation, it was a far removed example of how even the US treats it’s criminals.
There is no Devils Advocate argument for this beyond fascism and your insistence that you weren’t answered 1 or 2 comments in looks like you’re just a bad actor, which I’m very inclined to believe.
and plenty do. where the line is is basically the thing up for debate
end in a MILITARY TRANSPORT TRYING TO, UNANNOUNCED, LAND ON SOVREIGN SOIL
i thought this particular aspect was tragically stupid as you can see earlier in this thread
Trump specifically referred to it as repatriation (like done with enemy combatants) and not deportation
i don’t know enough about American use of the word, so i’ll agree with you here. in britain “repatriation” means sending something back to where it should be, it has a slightly different meaning to deportation since deportation only means being moved out of a country (to wherever). repatriation emphasises that the destination was the country of nationality. but this difference might not exist in america.
So beyond it being a massive departure from how every other “free” country handles deportation, it was a far removed example of how even the US treats it’s criminals.
they are using the military to grandstand, yes. but also to point out that these guys are not citizens. this is not the same question of how american citizens are treated.
There is no Devils Advocate argument for this beyond fascism
well…that’s why i persist with doing it. because i’m not a fascist. nor am i particuarlly representing a fascist point of view. just a different point of view on how severe a crime it is to illegally enter a country. that’s the only difference so far. i am not interested in Devils Advocating pure bigotry like straight up racism etc. it can be done, but i don’t personaly see the point. what interests me is that i’m not even representing a necessarily fascist point of view and yet am being accused of such. i think that black and white thinking is ultimatly harmful because it represents its own kind of intolerance - being unable to accept that some otherwise normal people just find entering a country illegally a serious crime against the state that should be treated as such.
you’re just a bad actor
i am continually surprised at how people cannot cope with even moderately different views to them without resorting to outlandish accusations. i don’t personally hold these views, i made that clear from the start. what i find boring is no-one ever representing even a moderately different point of view. questioning how severe a crime it is to enter a country illegally should not automatically result in accusations of “fascist” and insincerity… how else is it even possible to have a discussion about things like illegal migration?
You are not defending a position, all you’re doing is playing an adult version of the toddler “why” game. If you want a debate or to have discussion you need to add something to it. State your position and defend it.
If the end result was exactly the same and you had a choice between treating them like normal people and sending them on commercial aircraft with prior notice, or handcuffing them and transporting them on military aircraft with no notice, which would you say is the best way to deport them?
If you want a debate or to have discussion you need to add something to it. State your position and defend it.
i am repeating myself but the view i’m illustrating is essentially this:
it is harmful in multiple ways for a soverign state to appear to not have control of its border
entering a country illegally is a serious crime
where there is a popular perception of excessive lenience, it is acceptable to show criminals in handcuffs which is not in itself particularly unusual
using a miliiary airplane is grandstanding, yes. but it also illustrates that these people were not citizens when they broke american law and it is ok for a country to draw a firm line on things like this particuarly if they want it to stop
which would you say is the best way to deport them?
you can see elsewhere in this thread that i agreed with this point and i thought it was a good counter argument. even IF if were appropriate to handcuff criminals and deport them using non-civilian means, it’s ultimately an uneconomical use of money. (though one could argue that there is value in publicising that this is a crime against the state, which it is, and is being treated as such)
Being a devils advocate is not enlightened centrism or bringing ‘balance’. It’s having a debate for the sake of having a debate. I don’t hold those views, hence why they’re so marked. Otherwise political discussion drains away as everyone sits in their respective silos. Im inviting people (if they want) to articulate their view beyond their emotional reaction.
You’re really not doing that and I do not have the time or energy to explain to it to you. Congrats on your opportunity to think on that, I wish you much luck.
Thanks.
If anyone else wants to explain I’m all ears
They already explained it and you’re being obtuse. Plenty of illegal actions don’t result in arrest.
They definitely never end in a MILITARY TRANSPORT TRYING TO, UNANNOUNCED, LAND ON SOVREIGN SOIL. Trump specifically referred to it as repatriation (like done with enemy combatants) and not deportation. This was treating people just trying to live as ENEMY COMBATANTS.
So beyond it being a massive departure from how every other “free” country handles deportation, it was a far removed example of how even the US treats it’s criminals.
There is no Devils Advocate argument for this beyond fascism and your insistence that you weren’t answered 1 or 2 comments in looks like you’re just a bad actor, which I’m very inclined to believe.
and plenty do. where the line is is basically the thing up for debate
i thought this particular aspect was tragically stupid as you can see earlier in this thread
i don’t know enough about American use of the word, so i’ll agree with you here. in britain “repatriation” means sending something back to where it should be, it has a slightly different meaning to deportation since deportation only means being moved out of a country (to wherever). repatriation emphasises that the destination was the country of nationality. but this difference might not exist in america.
they are using the military to grandstand, yes. but also to point out that these guys are not citizens. this is not the same question of how american citizens are treated.
well…that’s why i persist with doing it. because i’m not a fascist. nor am i particuarlly representing a fascist point of view. just a different point of view on how severe a crime it is to illegally enter a country. that’s the only difference so far. i am not interested in Devils Advocating pure bigotry like straight up racism etc. it can be done, but i don’t personaly see the point. what interests me is that i’m not even representing a necessarily fascist point of view and yet am being accused of such. i think that black and white thinking is ultimatly harmful because it represents its own kind of intolerance - being unable to accept that some otherwise normal people just find entering a country illegally a serious crime against the state that should be treated as such.
i am continually surprised at how people cannot cope with even moderately different views to them without resorting to outlandish accusations. i don’t personally hold these views, i made that clear from the start. what i find boring is no-one ever representing even a moderately different point of view. questioning how severe a crime it is to enter a country illegally should not automatically result in accusations of “fascist” and insincerity… how else is it even possible to have a discussion about things like illegal migration?
You are not defending a position, all you’re doing is playing an adult version of the toddler “why” game. If you want a debate or to have discussion you need to add something to it. State your position and defend it.
If the end result was exactly the same and you had a choice between treating them like normal people and sending them on commercial aircraft with prior notice, or handcuffing them and transporting them on military aircraft with no notice, which would you say is the best way to deport them?
i am repeating myself but the view i’m illustrating is essentially this:
it is harmful in multiple ways for a soverign state to appear to not have control of its border
entering a country illegally is a serious crime
where there is a popular perception of excessive lenience, it is acceptable to show criminals in handcuffs which is not in itself particularly unusual
using a miliiary airplane is grandstanding, yes. but it also illustrates that these people were not citizens when they broke american law and it is ok for a country to draw a firm line on things like this particuarly if they want it to stop
you can see elsewhere in this thread that i agreed with this point and i thought it was a good counter argument. even IF if were appropriate to handcuff criminals and deport them using non-civilian means, it’s ultimately an uneconomical use of money. (though one could argue that there is value in publicising that this is a crime against the state, which it is, and is being treated as such)