I’ve seen multiple people argue that crossing the border (once) without going through the process is a misdemeanor, and that it’s not a crime.
Yet, when it comes to the actions of those we disagree with politically, all of a solution Deb conviction for a misdemeanor makes one a “criminal”
“ I will, however, cite an article about how he was convicted of placing a GPS tracer on his wife's car (a misdemeanor, but creepy-sounding, at the very least) and note that here is another instance of the GOP running a criminal””
A misdemeanor is either a crime, or it’s not, please pick one standard and stick with it.
52 comments:
The point would be that a husband tracking his wife is Criminal... it's harmful, it's rather loathesome. There's a harm element.
On the other hand, with a family escaping to safety, there is no harm element and thus, it should not be a crime. That is why the vast majority of the world is opposed to the 1/3 of the US that supports or defends this Administration and its harmful oppressive policies.
When we criminalize seeking safety we are the criminals.
Dan, I’m not going to delete your comment because it’s off-topic. But I am going to politely ask you to focus on the actual question that was asked. You and others, have been very vocal in specific that a misdemeanor is not a crime. What I’m trying to get you to answer is when you consider a misdemeanor crime, and when you would consider it to be not a crime . But beyond that, in your opinion about the criminality of misdemeanors really has no bearing on the conversation. The question is what the law says..
I would greatly appreciate it if you would address this. Obviously you don’t have to, and I will most likely not delete your comments regardless of whether or not they are on topic. But I am asking nicely if you would actually address the question.
LEGALLY, a misdemeanor is always a crime. Rationally and morally, SOME "legal" crimes have been immoral and irrational.
Deeming slavery, Jim Crow or immigrants seeking safety a legal crime have all happened historically. Those designations have all been wrong. We recognize that now was slavery and Jim Crow. Most of us recognize that now with our oppressive immigration policies. The difference is harm. I'm not sure what it is you're not understanding. It seems to me I am directly clearly answering your question.
I would guess that "harm" would factor greatly in Dan's response. Yet it be only harm Dan recognizes, and not harm he doesn’t. That is, harm based on degree and/or who is harmed, subjectively determined by Dan.
A misdemeanor is a crime by definition and by virtue of listed in civil codes as such.
Yes, Harm is wrong. Harm should be legislated against, where possible. People causing harm to others should be criminalized.
Do you disagree?
On the other hand, actions that don't cause harm to others ought NOT be criminalized because, why would we? Is it not just a whimsical rule making, if harm is not the criteria?
I don't like that people drive trucks, so let's outlaw driving trucks. And done! It's a crime!
It doesn't matter if driving a truck is useful (for a farmer, or transportation industry person), or just something they want to do with their free will, it's a crime because we made it one!
Do you agree that that which does not cause harm (indeed, even that which SAVES from harm) ought NOT be criminalized?
If you disagree, God help you.
This is just reasonable. It's why the vast majority of the US and probably even across the world are crying out against this administration. As when we jailed Japanese folk in the past, or took native children from their families to send them to "christian" schools, it is a moral wrong.
When we criminalize seeking safety or doing good, WE become the criminal.
Do you disagree with the principle?
Dan I appreciate your passion, and understand your desire to express your opinion. But if you’re not going to address the question that was asked, then please don’t expect me to answer any questions of yours. It’s a very simple question that’s been asked of you, you should be able to answer it either yes or no.
You haven't asked any questions. Perhaps if you'd ask a specific question, I could answer the question you want answered.
The closest I can find is you saying you'd like me to a dress when I consider a misdemeanor a crime.
I answered THAT question directly and clearly. Do you see the answer to that?
"When we criminalize seeking safety or doing good, WE become the criminal."
You keep saying this, but there is no such law on the books. Thus, if this is your response to Craig, then you're not as forthright as you want us to believe. It certainly doesn't answer the question of when a misdemeanor is a crime, which I'd love to hear given that it is a crime in civil statutes (and federal as well).
Furthermore, you're clearly proving me correct in assuming that you'll assign yourself the arbiter of what constitutes harm. You might want to consider specifically, and without regard to the issue of legal versus illegal immigration, why we have laws governing the entry into our nation. That's something I'd love to see you address after you've satisfied Craig's request.
I’ll make this as simple as I can.
Is a person convicted of a misdemeanor a criminal or not?
No, I did not see an answer to that. But you can make up for that now. Thanks.
Art, I’ve asked multiple times for the code section number of any state or federal, civil or criminal code that specifically criminalizes “seeming safety”.
I think Dan’s problem is that he doesn’t understand how the legal system works. The first time someone crosses the US border in a way that doesn’t comply with the law that have committed a misdemeanor. Subsequent offenses are felonies. Dan is confusing the motive for the commission of the crime with the crime itself. So, if someone is arrested for the misdemeanor of crossing the border in a way that doesn’t comply with the law, can offer their motive (seeking safety) as a reason to mitigate the penalties or dismiss the charges. But, the impetus or the motive isn’t what’s criminalized.
It’s a ploy to inject a level of visceral, emotional response instead of simply making an argument.
There are two issues at play, that are separate but related.
1. The enforcement of existing law.
2. If the existing law should be changed.
I have no problem with an effort to revisit immigration law, and to change it. (Even if I don’t agree with the changes.). But that’s not what we’re seeing.
As I said,
"LEGALLY, a misdemeanor is always a crime."
Thus, someone who commits a misdemeanor IS LEGALLY, a criminal.
Does that answer your question?
The point the vast majority of people are making is something being codified as "illegal" does not make it right.
Just because escaping slaves were "illegal," rationally and morally speaking, it is the law that was a crime.
Are you understanding my point?
Thank you for clarifying. Does this mean you will be more accurate in the future regarding how you characterize those accused of and convicted of misdemeanors?
I’ve alawys understood your opinion. I’ve also understood that you’ve expressed it poorly and played fast and loose with terminology.
I’m just trying to get to to be clear and specific on this, unfortunately the others I’d like to have answer this probably won’t see it. So, I’ll settle for you.
Thanks
Everyone else understands, Craig.
OF COURSE, A MISDEMEANOR IS A CRIME.
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT MISDEMEANORS ARE CRIMES.
WE'RE CLEARLY MAKING THE POINT THAT SEEKING SAFETY SHOULD NOT BE A CRIME.
Did you truly not understand that?
If you DO understand, then why try to get the vast majority of the US to jump thru hoops to get you to understand what is patently obvious and which you say you understand?
It makes it appear you all are deliberately being obtuse to avoid the critical point, that seeking safety is not a crime.
And the same is true for when you ask for the code or law or regulation number that says seeking safety is a crime.
You understand what the point is. Don't be obtuse, just deal with a point. It makes you all seem more evil then you probably are.
If you think it should be a crime to seek safety then say yes I want to criminalize and penalize those who are seeking safety and who don't do it in a way that I find satisfying personally. Just say it and admit the evil.
You see Craig, you say...
"I've always understood your opinion... I've also understood that you expressed it poorly."
If you understand the opinion, then we're not expressing it because, according to you,YOU UNDERSTAND THE OPINION!
Do you see why it seems you're playing Petty little games instead of dealing with this life and death matter? Do you see that you're being obtuse When people's lives are at stake? We do not have time to deal with pettiness of 1/3 of the US, the Trump followers/defenders.
I hope your off topic rant helps you feel better. I’m glad that using misleading terms like “criminalizing seeming safety” makes you feel accomplished.
I also appreciate your assumptions about both my motivations and actions.
Hopefully your ranting instead of answering a simple question simply will be helpful to you.
I do appreciate your excercise of self control.
You are aware that Trump issued an EO to stop the separation, a court ruled against it as well, and at least one bill has been proposed to settle the matter.
I guess graciously winning isn’t on the agenda.
I answered the point that you were raising even though you didn't ask a question.
You then asked that I answer the question that you did not ask... but I went ahead and explained again that, of course, a misdemeanor is a crime... the point being that seeking safety should not be criminalized.
You said I still didn't answer your question so I requested that you ask the question so I can know what it is you're asking. You then asked the question that I had already answered as a point of fact and I re-answered it for at least the third time.
At which point you said you understood my point. So why are you asking the question if you already understood??
How is repeatedly asked me to answer a question whose answer is obvious and clear and you even admit you understand helpful?
As to Trump changing the policy... children are still separated from their parents. He has not fixed his mistakes/crimes yet. (And YES, morally, Separating children from their parents for no good reason is a crime.)
It was a crime when we did it to native peoples and their children. It was a crime when we sent Japanese citizens off to internment camps. It was a crime to separate slave families and their children. And this is a crime. It's just wrong. Two-thirds of the nation agrees with this. Can you agree that it is morally reprehensible to do what Trump is still doing?
So your continued bleating is only that things aren’t moving as fast as you think they should.
Thanks again for answering, if you need to continue to rant and vent in order to feel better, go ahead.
While I understand that you hold the opinion that these things are crimes, the fact is that they are not currently actual crimes.
I know you like to use terms that have an actual specific meaning in ways that don’t actually fit the real actual meaning, but the reality is that your just expressing your opinion.
And that’s just fine, as long as we all understand that.
While I understand that you hold the opinion that these things are crimes, the fact is that they are not currently actual crimes.
While I understand that you feel it's important to note that these things are not LEGALLY crimes, I note that it's vital to remember that slavery was not LEGALLY a crime, that complying with the Nazis and turning in oppressed minorities was not LEGALLY a crime, etc, that they were, in fact, MORALLY crimes, monstrous crimes.
What is legal is not always the same as what is moral.
I know you like to use terms that have an actual specific meaning in ways that don’t actually fit the real actual meaning
CRIME: 3. an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong.
I know you aren't always aware of how words are used, and so, I'm pointing out to you that, as a point of fact, CRIME is defined the way I'm using it, as well.
Of course. This isn't anything new. I'm surprised you aren't aware of it.
But that's fine, as long as you understand it, now.
Do you?
Yes, noting reality is always important.
Yes, I realize that there is a colloquial use of the term crime, I’m talking about things that are actually crimes, not things that you opine about.
But thanks for answering.
It is ACTUALLY a crime to own people. It was, even back when it was "legal..."
Do you understand that?
It was ACTUALLY a crime to cooperate with Nazis, in turning in Jewish folk, gay folk and other oppressed minorities, even though it was "legal" to cooperate with the Nazis.
Do you understand that?
What we, the majority are saying is that, TODAY, it is ACTUALLY a crime to separate a child from their parents who were merely escaping to safety, even though it might be legal to do it.
Do you agree with that?
You say you understand, but then keep saying things that makes it seem as if you don't understand.
"(And YES, morally, Separating children from their parents for no good reason is a crime.)"
They were separated for a good and logical reason: their parents were guilty of illegally entering our country. They crossed in a manner that purposely avoided official scrutiny. When they were arrested for their crime, their children were properly separated from them, in the EXACT same manner that children are separated from their parents who steal in order to have a better life.
"... it is ACTUALLY a crime to separate a child from their parents who were merely escaping to safety, even though it might be legal to do it."
Even if government authorities could know with absolute certainty that these people are indeed "escaping to safety", it is ACTUALLY still a crime to enter the country anywhere but through a recognized port of entry. With rare exception, these parents know this. By your twisted logic, it is ACTUALLY a crime to risk putting one's own children through the trauma of separation that will result when one's lawbreaking is exposed. By your twisted logic it is ACTUALLY a crime to risk leaving a child with a lawbreaking adult until it can be determined that it is safe to return the child to the lawbreaker's custody. By your twisted logic, it is ACTUALLY a crime to incarcerate a child with the lawbreaking adult in whose custody the child was found.
In short, all you oppose and regard as criminal is based on knowledge law enforcement can't know in advance or learn is true until it has gone though all that leads to you wetting your Pampers. There is no ACTUAL CRIME in any of this except that you want it to be a crime because you think you can know that all who claim to be fleeing danger ACTUALLY are. You can't. The government can't. It must go through all of this in order to find out. Your position is childish from one end to the other. Upholding the law sometimes means ostensibly good people must endure severe inconveniences. That doesn't make any of it more criminal than the criminal act of the ostensibly good people. Not in the least.
Worse, none of this in any way is on par with nazi or racist atrocities, but as a liar, you know this.
Dan,
I understand your need to think those things are crimes in a legal sense in order to validate your feelings about the longstanding US policy with which you disagree. I understand that it helps fuel your rage to brand Trump as a criminal and blame him for every evil thing you perceive. I even understand your need to demand that others agree with your opinions down to the smallest detail.
So if this needs to be a safe space for you to rant, go right ahead.
Thanks for answering the question.
Craig, your question was "Is a misdemeanor a crime or is it not?" You have to know that, given the position "Crime is not defined by the law" makes it impossible to come to a reasonable understanding. You might want to find out how Dan defines "crime" -- since it is not "an act that violates the law" -- before trying to come to some sort of understanding with him.
That’s a great point. But look how difficult it was to get him to admit that everyone who is convicted of a misdemeanor is a criminal, and by extension that a misdemeanor is a crime. Good luck getting any more than that
Also, he’s already been clear, that laws on the books don’t determine what defines a crime.
Fellows, you are not this ignorant. Use a f****** Dictionary. Look up Merriam and Webster, Criminal. It is clearly not limited to just legal criminality. This is not a hidden, obscure, arcane definition of the word. You all do know this, don't you?
Feather as you admitted Craig you know exactly what I meant so it wasn't hard for you to understand. Deal with the problem being raised not made up nonsense.
If you're having difficulty understanding, you could answer the question that I asked you...
Slavery was a crime even back when it was legal.
That is a rational, moral and technically correct sentence. Do you understand that?
I think the problem appears to be that you truly do not understand that. Just because slavery was legal did not make it not Criminal in the common understanding of the word found in Merriam-Webster, the second definition.
Slavery was a horrendous crime against humanity even when it was legal. as a point of fact.
Can you agree with that reality?
When you say things like this, Craig, it makes it appear that you just simply don't understand a single thing...
But look how difficult it was to get him to admit that everyone who is convicted of a misdemeanor is a criminal, and by extension that a misdemeanor is a crime.
OF COURSE, one is technically a "criminal" if convicted of a misdemeanor, or ANY legal crime. That is just reality and one would have to be incredibly unaware of reality if someone thought that people like me are saying that misdemeanors don't exist or that they're not crimes. Of course, I understand reality. That is not the question and you all simply shouldn't be confused by this.
The WHOLE QUESTION is whether or not these behaviors SHOULD be considered a crime? SHOULD they be codified as illegal? Not "is a misdemeanor a crime... in general...?" To ask (and repeatedly ask) this question is entirely missing the point.
It was LEGAL to own people once upon a time. But it was MORALLY and RATIONALLY a great and horrible crime. The technical legality of that did not make it okay to own a slave. It wasn't. It was a great moral wrong. An actual crime against humanity.
The question that you all are not getting (the 1/3 who continue to support even the most deplorable of policies from this deplorable liar and cheater and bully) is, WHY is this considered a crime? It shouldn't be! Of course it shouldn't be. What IS a crime (MORALLY AND RATIONALLY speaking, not technically legally speaking) is to separate children from their parents when their parents are detained for crossing an imaginary line in seeking safety.
Do you truly not get it?
I guess you don't. I guess that's the problem.
Even now, you want to have it both ways. You want your enemies to be criminals, and your friends not to.
I’ve got it.
I don't think you do, since it has nothing to do with friends or not.
Good luck. Sorry I've been unable 5help you understand.
You just can’t be definitive, you just have to keep the escape. Like so much, definitions are only of value to the extent you can use them against your enemies.
Dan will deflect from the most common understanding of a word in order to make his point. And at the same time, he will take the lesser understanding and twist it further to make that point. In this case, he chooses Merriam-Websters second definition:
"a grave offense especially against morality "
...and then presumes he can dictate what, in this debate, constitutes morality/immorality.
Dan's position and objection to long standing laws are disingenuous at best, and outright lie in reality. He pretends he doesn't understand the reasons for and morality of immigration law and border protection. He insists on consciously and willfully misrepresenting what is being "criminalized" as "seeking safety", when in truth, the crime is the illegal entry into a sovereign nation. He ignores the reality that lax border enforcement has resulted in great harm, including death, to so many of our fellow Americans. He ignores the reality that children are routinely and out of concern for them, separated from their lawbreaking parents, instead preferring that our government assume all illegal entry is with "moral" intent simply due to the presence of children.
There is nothing whatsoever immoral about separating children from their lawbreaking parents simply because the children and parents cry. The trauma children experience by separation from their parents is not contingent on the seriousness of the parental infraction. It is the mere separation itself. But it isn't the law that is responsible for that trauma. It isn't law enforcement who is responsible for the breakup of the families. It is the actions of the parents themselves.
It is YOU, Dan, who doesn't "get it". Your lack of honesty, your lack of concern for your fellow Americans and nation is immoral. There is no lack of concern for the plight of the refugee on the part of those who enforce the righteous laws governing the entry into our country. There is no immorality in the laws itself or their enforcement. Our country takes in thousands of legal immigrants seeking a better life, "fleeing" as it were, poverty and deprivation...and yes, often oppression and crime. Our country takes in thousands of refugees annually through proper channels and established procedures. Immigrants and refugees accessing our protection and opportunity through legal protocols come from all over the world, so there is no racial component to those who insist our immigration laws be enforced and our borders protected.
And we support the building of an actual border to erase the complete and utter idiocy of those who deceitfully refer to our borders as "imaginary lines"
Dan,
If you’d read my earlier comments you’d know that I’d already addressed this latest canard.
There are 2 issues. The reality of what is, and your opinion of what “should” be. As long as you keep acting like your opinion is anything but your opinion, you just look out of touch with reality.
The fact that you don’t differentiate between those accused of your pet misdemeanor (in the midst of what the law calls “due process”) and those convicted of your pet misdemeanor. I get the tactic, but again, it raises questions about your connection with reality.
Funny. You can't answer the questions I ask,
don't understand the meaning of my words,
misrepresent what I've said into something entirely antithetical to what I believe and have advocated
And defend morally and rationally indefensible policies...
And I'm you're questioning MY connection with reality.
I'm sorry I can't help you understand reality.
You’re mistaken, I’ve chosen not to answer your questions at this time.
I’m sorry you didn’t read my comment where I addressed your issues, I’m sorry that you’re back to trying to sneak objective moral standards in the back door.
I’m sorry that reality is such a problem for you.
I've read your comments. You have not "addressed" my issues. You may think you have, but you have not dealt with them.
As to the rest, you continue to just be mistaken. Mistaken about my motives, about what I've said, about what I've not said, about the meaning of my words, about your understanding of reality.
Good luck.
Ok, as long as your version of reality ignores what’s in black and white in this thread, you’re welcome to it.
One would think that in order to prove misunderstanding, a simple procedure could clarify for all. Copy and paste the comment that presents the misrepresentation, and follow it up with a correction. That way, all would be fully aware of just what was misunderstood, rather than having to guess after the whine is submitted. Just sayin'.
At one point I would have agreed with you. Then Dan accused me of slander for copy/pasting his own quotes words.
https://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2018/07/02/why-building-a-border-wall-is-a-morally-good-action-n2496574
Just thought I'd post this here as well as in other places where it will likely be deleted because it shows a more accurate and sensible understanding of Scripture.
When you attempt to counter arguments I haven’t made, while ignoring what you’ve been asked for, it doesn’t help.
And I asked you a simple direct question. Come up with a detailed plan with definitions of your terms that will achieve the reduction in gun violence you say it will.
Until you do so, why would I do what you won’t.
Blaming others for your inability to come up with a plan containing details and defined terms is almost a new low.
My plan is available for anyone to see, that’s good faith enough.
A list, devoid of details and definitions, is not a plan.
Absent details and definitions it’s lust a list of talking points.
Absent details and definitions, it’s just a list of talking points.
It’s interesting, both Dan and Feo get really grumpy and impatient when something like an impromptu trip to a lake with friends gets in the way of them trying to hijack other people’s blogs.
Because we need more people like Alejandro Alvarez Villegas in the US. I completely understand why we wouldn’t want to separate his children from him.
Post a Comment