daoneandonly wrote:pancakes3 wrote:you're equating MS13 members with being undocumented immigrants, and also equating all undocumented immigrants as MS13. you also assume that ICE is the only law enforcement agency capable of deportation.
MS13 is not a new gang, or an especially violent gang compared to other gangs. it's only gaining notoriety because they're a hispanic gang, and fits the political narrative that hispanic immigrants bring crime into our otherwise peaceful country.
it detracts attention from actual drivers of violent crime: poverty, access to guns, and income/social inequality.
I'm not equating all undocumented folks as MS13 at all, thats what Democrats do to counter any argument or concern the right side (pun intended) tries to make. WHatever the number, these punk kids that murder ppl like its a game should have never been here, and if we can kick their butts back, why wouldnt we?
So poverty and income disparities, is that a rationale now to be a criminal? So lets help ppl so they dont commit crimes? Give them incentive to just be a decent human being?
When you say "if we can kick their butts back, why wouldnt we?" you're asserting that deportation is a solution for gang violence. That assumes that:
- MS13 is the source of crime, not gang violence at large
- That deportation will affect MS13 when in fact, there are legal immigrants and U.S. citizens who are MS13 gang members.
- That when we kick "their" butts back, it lumps in non-MS13 members with MS13 members, you don't really care who gets tossed back, equating undocumented immigrants as MS13 threats.
And yes, poverty and income/social disparities is a rationale of how human beings become criminals. If we can help those people to stop committing crimes, why wouldn't we?
For someone who's very concerned about the rights of the unborn, you seem callously indifferent to what happens to those unborn after they exit the womb. When that baby enters a world filled with poverty, discrimination, and inequality, that baby, through no fault of its own, is more likely to be a criminal than a baby, through no merit of its own, is born into a world of wealth, resources, and privilege. Striving for an equal playing field for these babies is fundamentally, the American dream.
Allow me to pose a hypothetical that points out that your simplistic view of how laws work, is inadequate.
If the two of us were sitting in a room with a cookie on the table, and the voice of God comes down and says "Do not eat that cookie," it seems very cut and dry that if you eat that cookie, you would be breaking the law, with corresponding consequences. However, if you add real world considerations that muddy the waters, it becomes much less cut and dry. If you were poor, starving, and possess a genetic predisposition to be addicted to cookies, and I was born rich, well fed, and allergic to cookies, the cookie law affects the both of us in drastically different ways. Moreover, what if the law of cookies didn't come from God, but rather it was a law that I had proposed to your protest, but because of my wealth and privilege, it was codified regardless. What if the punishment for eating that cookie was disproportionately draconian? What if I locked you up for five years for just possessing that cookie, leaving your hypothetical children similarly poor and starving for cookies, dooming a whole generation of people to be dramatically more at risk of cookie-eating? And all the while, I'm sitting in my corner of the room, eating cake, and shaking my head at you and your family of cookie-eating junkies who just can't seem to help themselves to break the law?
it's incredibly f*cked, and a puzzling stance for someone who claims to be a Christian.
