Fake Bombs?

Imaginos1892, I'm not a US citizen, just an interested bystander living in a country that superficially resembles the US (much smaller population), however I'm fascinated by the differences.
I just can't imagine someone like Trump gaining traction here. We do have a couple of alt right populist politicians, but they struggle to get 10% support between them and are a subject of derision for most people.
We don't force our ideas on them, just laugh at their antics. I personally cringe when I see videos of Trump talking at rallies. How can they get so many low IQ people assembled in one place to listen to his obvious lies and misdirections?

Imaginos1892 wrote:How about 'Those that are not willing to obey the laws of this country should not be let in'?

Actually, pretty good.

Imaginos1892 wrote:How about 'Those that are not willing to obey the laws of this country should not be let in'?

Sure.

Now show that it's possible to determine that fact before such a person enters your country.

There are, of course, a few pretty clear-cut cases where you can make such an assumption with reasonable certainty. Someone driving a car full of concealed high explosives into a border crossing is probably up to no good.
But for the vast majority of potential immigrants, it is completely impossible.

Who gets to decide which ideas we 'cannot tolerate'? Bullies that beat people up for wearing hats supporting a politician they hate? 'Activists' that disrupt events where people they disagree with are speaking? 'Protesters' that block highways and vandalize vehicles for having the 'wrong' bumper stickers? Do we surrender our rights and freedom to the likes of them?

We decide. You decide. I decide.

Ultimately, it comes down to what you personally choose as your red line where civil behaviour ends. For me, that line is at a point where someone shows public support for causes that dehumanize people that are, in one way or another, "other"; be they non-white, non-heterosexual, non-binary, non-christian, non-whatever the fuck the "normal" is. Once someone decides that that is acceptable, or they believe that they have the ever-elusive "silent majority" behind them in their desire to only live among people that are just as deluded as they themselves are, then they should be opposed. Verbally, physically if necessary.

If an idea is truly intolerable, it will get no support.

I was, for a very long time, convinced that anti-semitism is mostly dead, that bullshit like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is known as bullshit and anyone quoting from it would be laughed out of the house.

And yet, that particular nonsense is as alive as ever, people are still convincing themselves that whatever misery they are in is not their fault, or the fault of a system weighed against them, but the fault of a shadowy cabal of jewish businesspeople who control everything.

So, what does that tell me? Simply this: That there is no idea too abhorrent for a significant number of people to support.

If an idea that YOU find intolerable is widely supported, it would seem that a lot of people disagree with you.

Sure. But, when confronted with a movement that is utterly wrong, morally and ideologically corrupt, is it not my duty to stand for what I believe is right?

There are certainly ideas that I have in my head that I am wrong about; I refuse to consider my belief in the fundamental equality of all humans one of those.

Will you simply declare them all 'wrong' and force your 'tolerant' ideas on them? How much force are you prepared to use? How far will you go to silence the people you don't agree with?

Good question. Let me ask the people who raised the banner of resistance against the Nazis.

The E wrote:
Sure.

Now show that it's possible to determine that fact before such a person enters your country.

Actually, if such a person did not obey the established procedure and are willing to break the law to enter the country by illegal means, this is already a pretty good warning signal. Especially if we took "broken window" theory into consideration - that small illegal activities left unnoticed tend to provoke larger illegal activities.

Dilandu wrote:

The E wrote:
Sure.

Now show that it's possible to determine that fact before such a person enters your country.

Actually, if such a person did not obey the established procedure and are willing to break the law to enter the country by illegal means, this is already a pretty good warning signal. Especially if we took "broken window" theory into consideration - that small illegal activities left unnoticed tend to provoke larger illegal activities.

A huge majority of the people you are talking about evicting broke no laws as they were incapable of breaking laws.

A large number of the people you are talking about not letting in ARE obeying the law.

But I wonder how far you are willing to go with those who broke the law.

After all, the latest Supreme Court judge freely admitted to breaking the law.
So, by that broken window analagy Kavanaugh should have been ...?

Annachie wrote:A huge majority of the people you are talking about evicting

Me? I just pointed out that the willingness to broke the law is a dangerous indicator by itself.

broke no laws as they were incapable of breaking laws.

Not sure I follow you.

A large number of the people you are talking about not letting in ARE obeying the law.

Of course. But problem is, that illegal border crossing is by definition illegal.

"

Of course. But problem is, that illegal border crossing is by definition illegal

.". Not actually true. Under UN conventions refugees aren't actually illegal if they cross a border without permission.

Daryl wrote:Not actually true. Under UN conventions refugees aren't actually illegal if they cross a border without permission.

No.

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence

(Article 31 of "convention and protocol relating to the
status of refugees")

This means, that ONLY refugees who immediately after illegally crossing the border came to the proper authorities and asked for refugee should not be considered as law-breakers.

If someone cross the border illegally and did not immediately started to search for the police officer to make his/her presence known, said someone is NOT covered by the convention. Moreover, he should present good cause for illegal entry - i.e. that he is persecuted in his own country and tried to escape, for example.

I seriously doubt that it applies to most of illegal immigrants from Mexico & Central America.

The E wrote:they should be opposed. Verbally, physically if necessary.

I see. You are advocating the use of violence to prevent people you don't agree with from expressing their opinions.

The E wrote:Sure. But, when confronted with a movement that is utterly wrong, morally and ideologically corrupt, is it not my duty to stand for what I believe is right?

And you are so certain of your competence to decide that, you are willing to lead the lynch mob.

Words must be answered with words. If you can’t answer them with words, if you must resort to violence, it means you’re not as right as you thought you were.

The E wrote:Good question. Let me ask the people who raised the banner of resistance against the Nazis.

I call Godwin!

Of course, it was only a matter of time before you went there.

Dilandu wrote:The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees

So, 'shall not impose penalties' — that means don't fine them, or throw them in jail. Definitely no floggings! Requiring them to leave our country, and stay out, is not defined as a penalty under any code of laws I am aware of.
———————————
There is no shortage of people convinced they can create the perfect world. Trouble is, they always start out by fucking up this one.
———————————

Imaginos1892 wrote:So, 'shall not impose penalties' — that means don't fine them, or throw them in jail. Definitely no floggings! Requiring them to leave our country, and stay out, is not defined as a penalty under any code of laws I am aware of.

Er, in this context it means that their illegal entry would not be considered a crime act if immediately after that they go to authorities and present themselves, asking for asylum with valid reasons.

So if someone illegally entered USA, but immediately after that came to local authorities, presented himself, and ask for a refugee status with a valid reason (such as persecution in his native country), you could NOT require him to leave. But ONLY if he immediately formally asked for asylum and ONLY if he have valid reasons.

Ans so the often-mentioned "migrant caravan from Central America" would NOT be covered by said convention, because if those peoples wanted to abide to it, they should immediately ask for asylum in Mexico, not moving toward US border.