And the concept of innocence is a significant factor. When talking virtually any system or morality, ethics, philosophy, religion, etc the concept of innocence is extremely important when trying to assign blame, punishment, and remedies. It is a feat of the highest order of cognitive dissonance that you try to skirt or ignore this.
National sovereignty doesn't matter because think of the children? Yeah, nah.
.
I am unaware that I argued against national sovereignty. No idea what you are talking about here.
Trying to establish some kind of argumentative superiority by portraying me as some kind of cruel, inhuman monster. How nice..
As I said above, you are trying to dismiss the entire concept of innocence as relates to fairness, justice, morals, and ethics. There is not a culture on the planet or throughout the whole of human history that does not take into account the concept of innocence when considering punishment and justice.
those are significant factors when trying to figure out what to do with these kids and you are using a lot of trickery or selective blindness in arguing that the punishment for these innocents should be completely independent of their situation.
You're quite mistaken if you think the spirit of immigration law was ever "well even if they're illegal immigrants, they're already here, let's just give them citizenship because feelings"..
The concept of justice and fairness is dependent on situational. This is why people who commit the same crime can get different sentences. This is why committing an act (like killing someone) isn't automatically a crime. You are hell bent on ignoring the situation and just trying to lump everything together as "illegal" and then treat all illegals the same.
An adult who sneaks across the border is not equivalent to a 2 year old child brought here from another country and then said child grows up here.
It's also the country they are from..
By what definition?
I was born in Kentucky, spent 6 months of my life there then I moved to Texas where I spent the next 18 years of my life growing up. So by your definition I'm not from Texas I'm really from Kentucky.
You are trying to play the game of technicality "gotcha" on a complex issue and it is absurd.
You're also making a big assumption by claiming that these people are totally American even in a cultural sense. Quite often they are not..
Two things. 1) By whose definition? That is, what is the criteria for being culturally American
2). If they were "culturally American" by your definition does that change your views on them?
Sorry, regardless of the above, a child who grew up and spent more than 90% of their lives in this country is culturally American and to argue otherwise is a weird argument. If I spent 90% of my life in Japan I'd be culturally Japanese moreso than I'd be anything else. Seems pretty obvious to me...
My family has been in America for centuries, since at least the latter part of the 1700s and possibly before the Revolution, but these illegals embody what it is to be American more than me or any other person with a similar history. Sure thing..
Are you arguing that only those with ancestry traced back to Plymouth Rock are Americans? Similarly, being an "American" has changed from times of slavery and women being second class citizens to Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights movement.
The "American Dream" has long been at the core of being an American, for the last century or so and that is what most of us feel is at the heart of being an American and these "Dreamers" embody it.
not to say being an American is strictly binary. There are many ways to be an American. They just happen to be one aspect of it. Coming from humble beginnings and rising through the ranks thanks to your own hard work and living in the land of Opportunity
I don't see this as an injustice. By way of analogy, I think that a single parent who robs a bank to get more money for their kid should be locked up for doing so, even if it deprives a child of their parent and access to that stolen money. I don't think that's doing an injustice to that child any more than this is.
If my father fraudulently acquired a large amount of money and I received some of that money without knowing it's true origin, and later on that money is forced to be given back because it was acquired illegally, it's absolutely my father's fault for putting me in that sort of situation. What you're saying is basically that I should get to keep that money regardless because taking it away from me would cause problems for me.
Great example. Using your example, yes. You do get to keep the money in certain circumstances. THere is something called the "Statute of Limitations" and that is something that accounts for fairness and Justice.
If your father handed you $10k in 1995 that he stole from a bank and then unknowing to you that it was stolen money, you invested that money and grew a Million Dollar Business then 18 years later it was discovered that your father robbed that bank and gave you $10k without your knowledge. You would not have to give that money back.
And in the event you felt compelled to return the money the government would never require you to completely dissolve your company would they?
Basically, my point is, even in your example, the concept of fairness and justice and looking at the entire situation would still apply. Because that is how the world works because for us humans, fairness, justice, innocence is all factors in making decisions about punishment and restitution etc...
unfortunately I have to run so can't finish this but I fell confident I made my point.
