Subject: Re: STOP ENGAGING WITH FASCISTS
No one disputes that people who are here illegally are on the wrong side of the law. They disagree with balancing the costs and consequences of deporting the people who are here unlawfully but are otherwise law-abiding with the costs and consequences of some aliens with serious criminal convictions avoiding detention.

So they...want to change the law.

That's great, make a proposal to change the law.

Again, if you want to have a constructive and possibly persuasive argument, it is helpful to have an accurate understanding of what the other person actually believes and engage with those beliefs.

I get that. left wingers routinely claim the right "doesn't understand them" 24/7 on this board.
You're highlighting the differences between liberals and conservatives, but not in the way that you intend.

So liberals think the Punishment Should Fit the Crime and that true justice should prevail. Great! Who argues otherwise? What "punishment", if any? And then what? That's the basis for discussion right there: Many liberals balk at the notion of what "crime" was actually committed by an illegal alien in the first place (as in the case of the person here 20 years with the otherwise clean record).

We're not Singapore where you can cane somebody for spitting on the sidewalk. That's accepted. That takes care of your Jean Valjean point because literally no one wants to see someone serve a punishment they do not deserve (although many of your running mates here routinely chant "The cruelty is the point" with respect to immigration policy). That's not "Justice" as believed by the vast majority of folks in this country. "Justice" has as its core principle a restoration of balance, in redressing the harm caused by the offender towards the victim. This is where liberals and conservatives also generally diverge as conservatives favor retribution (i.e. jail) and liberals favor rehabilitation.

And this statement
No one disputes that people who are here illegally are on the wrong side of the law. They disagree with balancing the costs and consequences of deporting the people who are here unlawfully but are otherwise law-abiding with the costs and consequences of some aliens with serious criminal convictions avoiding detention.

..accepts the premise that even otherwise Solid Citizen illegal aliens have tipped the scales in the wrong direction but frames it as a resourcing problem instead of a legal one. Okay, fine: Any conservative would say that it's better to go get all the violent criminals first as a matter of priority because conservatives tend to value public safety quite highly. But what to do when they catch others that you yourself say are on the wrong side of the law? Forget about it? Or just apply enough "discretion"? And what's stopping this prioritization exercise from happening?

Or why not...change the law? And just debate that?

Anyway. My favorite comment in this thread is this one because it sums up so many on this board so very well:

In my experience, quite a few folks I’ve known who are on the right do not understand that liberalism for many of us has as its source an empathy and a compassion for the types of people they really really do not trust or like… Minorities, outsiders, asylum seekers, people with darker skin, LGBTQ people, people who are in our country looking for a better life for themselves and their children (even if they entered illegally).

...because right wingers are racist, sociopathic morons who can't possibly have any empathy for them thar brown and quarrr folks, amirite? And then proceeds to ask you how to "convince" these presumably hate-filled morons that they're wrong. All the while standing on the highest Virtue-Signaling Mountaintop digitally available, lol.

Conversations are difficult - and even more so in this country today - because of competing goals, loaded premises, and biased judgements (see above) going in. Casual slurs of this sort are exactly why both sides talk past one another. I don't care to hear about how much empathy so and so has on any topic when their first impulse is to issue bigoted insults in an almost Tourette's-like manner (and thus decline to show empathy to anyone they're debating with) - just get to the point of what is wanted. Thus: If one wants the laws to be different, then discuss how the laws should be different.