• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump’s border czar says he’s sending National Guard to fight LA anti-ICE protests as clashes continue into second day

Tangmo said:
I haven't seen that you have a term for 21st century conservatives. I would think a true and self proclaimed "Centrist" would have a balancing term. Something symmetric or whatever.

Oogats.
Click to expand...
Someone else came up with "Mad Cons." It's certainly symmetrical and more original than the Mad Lib blathering about MAGA. "Mad Cons" is also more utilitarian as it could extend to the nation builders of Bushco, whereas MAGA is far more limited in utility.
 
Tangmo said:
Your post presumes everything in it is true.

Incessantly.

Not.
Click to expand...
If you're leveling the "deep fake" accusation, you should have a source for that assertion. I haven't heard any Libs deny this particular encounter, because they know the media won't make a big thing of it.
 
Jagged said:
Looks like those people are going to be shifting their position on illegal aliens now that TACO has chickened out on deporting all illegal aliens.
Click to expand...
Mad Libs are not exactly renowned for their prognostication skills.
 
Michael Cole apparently forgot to make a coherent response after he quoted a bunch of my posts, so I have no idea what point he thought he was making. There's no repetition of exact sentences in any of those posts as there had been by the poster I critiqued, so I can only guess that he thought he was being clever. Keep trying, MC: maybe you'll luck on to something, someday.
 
Ouroboros said:
Don't waste my time with your pretense of being willing to gauge evidence. You've already proven you cannot.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I thought.

You are dismissed with scorn and ridicule.
 
Ouroboros said:
Guess this invasion didn't make the papers. In what crystal ball did you see it?
Click to expand...

I said threaten to invade.
You do know what the word threaten means?
 
Ouroboros said:
Michael Cole apparently forgot to make a coherent response after he quoted a bunch of my posts, so
Click to expand...

Ouroboros said:
I have no idea
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Pointing out that your house has no mirrors is over your head.

 
W_Heisenberg said:
Yeah, a minor crime
Click to expand...
SO, contrary to your claim, they are "real criminals."

Blah blah blah, tell it to someone who's made such claims.

Oh well, still a crime.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
SO, contrary to your claim, they are "real criminals."


Blah blah blah, tell it to someone who's made such claims.


Oh well, still a crime.
Click to expand...

Have you ever hsrmlessly cut across someone’s property to get to some destination? If you did you engaged in the crime of trespassing. Should we now spend the rest of your life defining you as a criminal? Treating you like an animal?
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Have you ever hsrmlessly cut across someone’s property to get to some destination? If you did you engaged in the crime of trespassing.
Click to expand...
That's not trespassing until you've been ordered to leave and refuse to do so, at least where I am.

W_Heisenberg said:
Should we now spend the rest of your life defining you as a criminal? Treating you like an animal?
Click to expand...
Until I leave your property, yes.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
That's not trespassing until you've been ordered to leave and refuse to do so, at least where I am.
Click to expand...

For private property such as someone’s yard this is not a requirement in the vast majority of jurisdictions in the U.S.

And what you’re referring to is probably an exception where there is some anticipation that the public would enter the property such as a mall or business.

But supposing your jurisdiction has some unusual rule, which I don’t think is the case, it doesn’t matter. The vast majority of jurisdictions define trespassing in the way I define it.

Grizzly Adams said:
Until I leave your property, yes.
Click to expand...

The correct answer is no. Even someone engaged in the crime of trespassing still has fundamental individual rights. And the response has to be reasonable and related to how they’re behaving. For example, you cannot shoot someone for mere trespassing.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
For private property such as someone’s yard this is not a requirement in the vast majority of jurisdictions in the U.S.
Click to expand...
I'unno.

It's the law in Minnesota:
(b) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person intentionally:
(3) trespasses on the premises of another and, without claim of right, refuses to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor​
Click to expand...

It's the law in Florida:

It's the law in California:

That's just my state and two others I picked at random.

No one's talking about shooting someone for merely trespassing. It's utterly normal and reasonable to deport an alien who is unlawfully present.
 
Jagged said:
Looks like those people are going to be shifting their position on illegal aliens now that TACO has chickened out on deporting all illegal aliens.
Click to expand...
I still think it is great that we are enforcing the law. I think it is great that people entering our country with no respect for our laws and then committing crimes are being rounded up. I don't care if you are a citizen or illegal alien when you commit crimes you need to be arrested and dealt with.

The real pathetic part of this who thing is there are millions of law abiding people from all over the world who are waiting to come to this country and the left want criminals instead. Beyond ridiculous.
 
Your evidence the left wants criminals instead, is?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
No one's talking about shooting someone for merely trespassing.
Click to expand...

That's not true. There is a significant fraction of Trump's base who actually want to kill illegal immigrants. Maybe they're just boasting. I don't know. But you should know by now that many of your fellow Trump supporters are very unreasonable, mean people. Many of your political allies are belligerent assholes who hate immigrants for reasons of racism, bigotry, and ethnocentrism. They actively seek to implement hardline immigration policies with the intent to maintain the U.S. as a majority white country. Latin Americans, of mixed native and European Ancestry, are still not white enough for them.

Grizzly Adams said:
It's utterly normal and reasonable to deport an alien who is unlawfully present.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's appropriate to deport an illegal immigrant.

What I don't agree with is this idea you and other Trump supporters put forward that illegal immigrants are ruthless, hardened criminals deserving of our worst punishments. I think it's not okay to treat them with utter contempt even if they've committed a minor crime.

Another example, I would say a solid 60 to 80% of Trump supporters who contribute to this forum were perfectly fine with illegal immigrants being sent to CECOT in El Salvador despite the fact the immigrants had no criminal record (beyond the minor crime of improper entry, which they still weren't charged or convicted of). I think that's totally messed up.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
It's the law in Minnesota:

It's the law in Florida:

It's the law in California:

That's just my state and two others I picked at random.
Click to expand...

I reviewed each statute you posted. I then conducted a brief review of each state's laws concerning trespassing, examining many of the codes themselves, but mostly relying on reliable lay summaries.

Within the context of the hypothetical I presented, you are right, and I was wrong when I said the vast majority of states do not require notice for trespass to become a crime.

It's not true that simply crossing private property to reach a destination is a criminal violation in the vast majority of the states. Thank you for pushing back against this point. I simply assumed I was correct based on my understanding of a handful of states. I now have a more accurate picture of U.S. trespass law. Thank you.

44% of states treat unauthorized entry onto private land itself as the lowest level criminal trespass with no prior notice or demand needed. This definitely does not represent a "vast majority" or even a "majority" of states.

That being said, the reality of our law is more complicated. There are various nuances and exceptions. Let me explain them. First, let's look at your statutes you cited:

Minnesota:

1. When mere entry is a crime: entering a dwelling, locked, or posted building.

2. When demand/notice is required: "General premises" (open yards, fields, stores).

Florida:

1. When mere entry is a crime: any structure/conveyance (house, garage, boat), or land (fenced, cultivated, or posted).

2. When demand/notice is required: Unposted, unfenced land, the owner must give a direct order to leave.

California:

1. When mere entry is a crime: fenced/cultivated or posted land (first 2 times, represent civil infractions). Numerous carve-outs for special sites (airports, livestock pens, and domestic violence shelters).

2. When demand/notice is required: Unposted land open to the public becomes trespass only after owner's demand.

--

I briefly reviewed a few summaries of the laws for all 50 states.

44% of states (22) treat unauthorized entry onto private land itself as the lowest‑level criminal trespass. No prior notice or demand is needed.

56 % of states (28)  require some form of notice before open‑land entry can be charged such as a posted sign, a fence, paint markings, or a verbal order to leave.

And it appears as though that in every state, entering a dwelling, locked building, fenced enclosure, or vehicle without consent is immediately a crime, and the notice question matters only for open land or semi‑public premises (like a shopping mall or a businesses establishment).

However, despite the fact my analogy was off, I still think it's quite useful.

Let me explain.

1. Improper border entry is equivalent to trespassing. Like the 44% of states that criminalize mere entry, federal immigration law makes it a misdemeanor to cross the border between ports of entry without permission.

2. Even where entry alone is criminal, a trespasser still has the right not to be treated with cruelty such as being shot on sight. The trespasser still has the right to receive a fair hearing, and to be punished proportionately.

3. Calling every person who crosses a fence line, or a border, a ruthless criminal ignores the levels of culpability that the law itself recognizes. For example, many jurisdictions start with an infraction or misdemeanor, reserve felonies for repeat or aggravated cases, and the jurisdictions don't allow vigilante violence.

4. The fact that the majority of the states require some form of notice or fencing prior to the crime of trespassing to be applicable is also an indication tells us that people should not be branded ruthless criminals for the first, non‑violent act of crossing an unseen line, whether that line is a fence or a national border.

So while I was wrong on the percentages, illegal entry into the country is most comparable to the lowest tier of trespass, not burglary, robbery, or violence, and the way we treat illegal immigrants should be comparable to how we treat people who trespass onto private property.

Also, while it's more rare, I think it's reasonable to assume that most U.S. citizens have crossed some type of fenced or posted property without permission at some point in their life. I am sure none of those U.S. citizens consider themselves to be criminals.

The fundamental point still stands: mere trespassing, just like improper entry, is not a serious crime.
 
Last edited:
We should not take that attitude. We all got it. They know they got it and will support it as long as the target is you or I. We have to stop it for our sakes.
 
I just noticed Grizzly was a libertarian. It seems like all the libertarians who contribute to this debate forum are 100% in favor of drastic governmental intervention as it concerns the political topics that interest them the most. Rarely has one political bloc been so hypocritical. I always sort of got the sense that what libertarians cared about was their own rights, their own interests, not anyone else's. Every day proves it.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
federal immigration law makes it a misdemeanor to cross the border between ports of entry without permission.
Click to expand...
The first time.

W_Heisenberg said:
2. Even where entry alone is criminal, a trespasser still has the right not to be treated with cruelty such as being shot on sight. The trespasser still has the right to receive a fair hearing, and to be punished proportionately.
Click to expand...
An illegal alien has the right to a hearing, but that hearing is basically: establish alienage, establish lack of lawful admission, get on this southbound bus. I wouldn't even call it punishment, really, just like I wouldn't call it punishment for a person who robs a bank to be compelled to return the money he stole.

Good thing I never did that, then. Next.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
The first time.
Click to expand...

So, how do you want to treat a first-time offender?

Do you want to treat a first-time offender like the worst of the worst criminals like your fellow Trump supporters do?


I agree that simply deporting people through civil procedures is not a punishment.

I think the approach Trump takes can sometimes represent a form of cruel punishment.

For example, did you support Trump sending illegal immigrants to CECOT in El Salvador despite the fact they have no criminal record? Yes or no.

I remember in the first administration they separated families at the border. I thought that was messed up. Did you support separating families at the border? Man, that's messed up if you did.

Recently, they've been arresting and detaining random people and detaining them for weeks or months despite the fact they've come here or reside here legally. Most of the time they've done this with respect to their political views. I think that's messed up.

Grizzly Adams said:
Good thing I never did that, then. Next.
Click to expand...

Oh, so while visiting one of your relative's farms or ranches you never ventured onto a neighbor's property? And when you were a kid you never wandered onto a construction site because you were curious and wanted to see the construction equipment. Doesn't everyone do this at some point?
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
Lie and lie.

Lie.

So many lies, you're not even worth my time.
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight, you think all of your political allies are totally reasonable people who never express extreme hostility towards illegal immigrants? Am I understanding you correctly?

I don't think you actually read the posts of your fellow Trump supporters on here who say things like Trump was right to send illegal immigrants to CECOT.

I recall vividly, during Trump's first term, I got into a discussion with an acquaintance at a gym whose actual words to me were we should have turrets on the border that shoot migrants trying to cross the border illegally. I guess live in a bad neighborhood!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…