The Proximate Cause of Family separation for illegal Immigrants - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The Proximate Cause of Family separation for illegal Immigrants
in Immigration

By VaulkVaulk 526 Pts
Image result for illegal immigrant family separation

It's sickening that the narrative is so far off the truth in this matter.  Parents are knowingly and purposely putting their children at risk of being separated from them.  Does anyone scream injustice when the Mother of three Children is arrested for trespassing?  The Children in this matter would be taken into custody and separated from the Mother while she was incarcerated.  Likewise when Parents who are first and foremost responsible for the Health, welfare and well-being of their Children put said Children into harms way with full knowledge of the risks involved...why are we screaming injustice instead of putting the blame where it belongs...on the Parents.

We're so hesitant and reserved when it comes to assigning blame to Parents as if they just can't be held accountable.  This is wrong.  Any parent that drags their Children into a Crime is totally and complete responsible, liable, accountable and reprehensible for the consequences of that crime and what happens to their Children as a result of their actions.  Our immigration laws haven't been suddenly radicalized.  If you break our laws, skip the line full of people willing to respect our laws, cut to the front and cross the border and become a criminal in doing so...if you brought kids with you then they're getting taken away and you have no one to blame but yourself.
aarongjoecavalry
  1. Parent and Child separation in cases of captured illegal immigrants is the Parent's fault.

    6 votes
    1. Yes
      66.67%
    2. No
      33.33%
"If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".





Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 338 Pts
    Well, ask any child of an illegal immigrant, say, from Bolivia on whether they prefer having been born in the US, or in Bolivia. Putting their children at risk? The countries from which those families escape are much more risky to live in, with all the poverty and crime, than the worst illegal immigrant enclave you can find in the southern states of the US.

    Caring about these children and treating their parents with respect go hand-in-hand here. You cannot claim to be concerned about these children's fate and yet want to punish their parents for, say, fleeing the Cuban totalitarian regime for Florida without a legit visa.
  • VaulkVaulk 526 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    I'm sure children from the 1980s who were fleeing Cuba indeed felt that it was a better life to chance it in America than to stay home.  This doesn't change the fact that, as a Parent, when you put your child into dangerous circumstances...bad things happen.  Parents need to be held accountable for their actions and how those actions affect their Children who are innocent, meanwhile trying to place the blame on anyone else for long established consequences of criminal acts is not only counterproductive but is outright wrong.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • In most cases, I don’t belive that children are being spectated from their families on the U.S. southern border. Firstly, these are illegal immigrants. They should not be coming into the United States and therefore should be able to be superheated from their families in that is necessary. Also, in some cases, the families of the children are not their real families and could be trafficking kids across the U.S. southern border.
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 597 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    Well, ask any child of an illegal immigrant, say, from Bolivia on whether they prefer having been born in the US, or in Bolivia. Putting their children at risk? The countries from which those families escape are much more risky to live in, with all the poverty and crime, than the worst illegal immigrant enclave you can find in the southern states of the US.

    Caring about these children and treating their parents with respect go hand-in-hand here. You cannot claim to be concerned about these children's fate and yet want to punish their parents for, say, fleeing the Cuban totalitarian regime for Florida without a legit visa.
    That's an irrelevant question.  What you should ask those children is whether they'd prefer living with their parents in as a family in Bolivia or living alone in the US as orphans.  A family coming from Bolivia has to cross through at least 8 different countries.  Are they not free of whatever they were fleeing in any of them?  And why can we not be concerned about these children's fate and yet want to punish their parents?  Can we not care for orphans?  Does this mean we should give American parents carte blanche to commit crimes as well?  After all, we can't lock them up or we'll be separating the parents from their children, right?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 338 Pts
    CYDdharta said:
    MayCaesar said:
    Well, ask any child of an illegal immigrant, say, from Bolivia on whether they prefer having been born in the US, or in Bolivia. Putting their children at risk? The countries from which those families escape are much more risky to live in, with all the poverty and crime, than the worst illegal immigrant enclave you can find in the southern states of the US.

    Caring about these children and treating their parents with respect go hand-in-hand here. You cannot claim to be concerned about these children's fate and yet want to punish their parents for, say, fleeing the Cuban totalitarian regime for Florida without a legit visa.
    That's an irrelevant question.  What you should ask those children is whether they'd prefer living with their parents in as a family in Bolivia or living alone in the US as orphans.  A family coming from Bolivia has to cross through at least 8 different countries.  Are they not free of whatever they were fleeing in any of them?  And why can we not be concerned about these children's fate and yet want to punish their parents?  Can we not care for orphans?  Does this mean we should give American parents carte blanche to commit crimes as well?  After all, we can't lock them up or we'll be separating the parents from their children, right?
    Obviously they are a lot freer, say, in Brazil, than they are in the US. But Brazil still does not offer the opportunities comparable to those in the US. If these people decide to enter another country illegally, which already involves a lot of dangers, then that country might as well be the best one they can reach.

    But this is not what this discussion is about. This discussion is about criticism of the parents who expose children to the danger of becoming orphans - by those very people who take the legal action leading to that situation. You cannot say, "These immigrants are illegal, we should deport them", and then, once you have deported them, say, "Now their children are orphans! It is their parents' fault" - while remaining consistent in your narrative. Either you deport their parents and accept the fact that their orphanship is the result of your actions, or you should not deport their parents, if the children's fate is of such importance to you. One or the other; there is no third option.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 597 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    Obviously they are a lot freer, say, in Brazil, than they are in the US. But Brazil still does not offer the opportunities comparable to those in the US. If these people decide to enter another country illegally, which already involves a lot of dangers, then that country might as well be the best one they can reach.

    But this is not what this discussion is about. This discussion is about criticism of the parents who expose children to the danger of becoming orphans - by those very people who take the legal action leading to that situation. You cannot say, "These immigrants are illegal, we should deport them", and then, once you have deported them, say, "Now their children are orphans! It is their parents' fault" - while remaining consistent in your narrative. Either you deport their parents and accept the fact that their orphanship is the result of your actions, or you should not deport their parents, if the children's fate is of such importance to you. One or the other; there is no third option.
    You don't seem to understand the situation at hand.  Currently; if the parents are to be deported, the children are sent with them.  If the parents are to remain in the country legally as, say, asylum seekers, the children are reunited with the parents.  It's only when the parents are incarcerated that the children become wards of the state, which is the very same situation as American citizens. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 338 Pts
    CYDdharta said:
    MayCaesar said:
    Obviously they are a lot freer, say, in Brazil, than they are in the US. But Brazil still does not offer the opportunities comparable to those in the US. If these people decide to enter another country illegally, which already involves a lot of dangers, then that country might as well be the best one they can reach.

    But this is not what this discussion is about. This discussion is about criticism of the parents who expose children to the danger of becoming orphans - by those very people who take the legal action leading to that situation. You cannot say, "These immigrants are illegal, we should deport them", and then, once you have deported them, say, "Now their children are orphans! It is their parents' fault" - while remaining consistent in your narrative. Either you deport their parents and accept the fact that their orphanship is the result of your actions, or you should not deport their parents, if the children's fate is of such importance to you. One or the other; there is no third option.
    You don't seem to understand the situation at hand.  Currently; if the parents are to be deported, the children are sent with them.  If the parents are to remain in the country legally as, say, asylum seekers, the children are reunited with the parents.  It's only when the parents are incarcerated that the children become wards of the state, which is the very same situation as American citizens. 
    It depends: in case of Dreamers, for example, their parents may be deported, while they can stay under various amnesties. 

    In any case, my argument is: if you do not want children to be orphans, then do not take action against their parents leading to them becoming orphans. You cannot make the children orphans by your own choice and then accuse their parents of the consequences: the parents are not the ones orphaning their children - the state is. This is pure logic, and even if your political position does not match the conclusion of this logic, you have to admit that the parents in question, at the very least, are not solely responsible for their children's fates.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 597 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    It depends: in case of Dreamers, for example, their parents may be deported, while they can stay under various amnesties. 

    In any case, my argument is: if you do not want children to be orphans, then do not take action against their parents leading to them becoming orphans. You cannot make the children orphans by your own choice and then accuse their parents of the consequences: the parents are not the ones orphaning their children - the state is. This is pure logic, and even if your political position does not match the conclusion of this logic, you have to admit that the parents in question, at the very least, are not solely responsible for their children's fates.
    ...and you ignore the point once again.  Should we not enforce drug laws against parents lest we create more orphans?  How about armed robbery?  Or defrauding the government?  Why should we avoid enforcing the law against these criminals and not other criminals?  Breaking the law has consequences.  This is the case in every country on the face of this planet.  Entering the US illegally, by definition, entails breaking the law.  If parents choose to do so, it is their choice and their fault ENTIRELY.  If they end up incarcerated, they will be separated from their children.  THEY ARE MAKING THE CHOICE.  They most certainly ARE solely responsible.
  • VaulkVaulk 526 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    Yea  I'm not following the logic here.  We shouldn't punish criminals (Parents who commit crimes) because if we do then their children become orphans?  That's what I'm reading from your statement.  So then being a parent would be an amnesty card from the law.

    You cannot make the children orphans by your own choice and then accuse their parents of the consequences

    This argument is ignorant of the fact that it's the PARENTS who are making the children into orphans.  This debate is about the "Proximate cause", and the proximate cause of the separation of these children from their parents is:   The actions of the Parents...not the laws of our land or the lawmakers or law enforcement.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • brontoraptorbrontoraptor 96 Pts
    edited June 16
    @Vaulk

    By the left's standard, you could never arrest anyone with a kid for anything. Ya know...because you can't seperate kids from their parents...
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 338 Pts
    Consider the following situation. I am walking on the street with my children. A thug with a rifle walks up to us and aims at my son's head. I quickly pull up a pistol and shoot the thug in the head to save my son. Police arrives and arrests me for manslaughter, and my children become orphans. 

    Am I responsible for my children becoming orphans? Yes. Am I solely responsible for it? No. The responsibility is also shared by the thug who created the situation in the first place, and by the state which does not handle this sort of cases properly.

    In case of families fleeing, say, Cuba, they see the alternative of their children becoming orphans in a First World country as better than the alternative of them living their whole lives in a totalitarian communist state. Or for the refugees from Mexico, the alternative of them being shot in a gang war. Just as I, shooting the thug and knowing the potential consequences, preferred it to my children being shot in front of my eyes. 

    The laws are not paramount, they are subjective and they change with time, as the values in the society also change. Sometimes it is worth it to gain something and risk losing everything, when the alternative is never having anything in the first place. This is why people in totalitarian states become dissidents, despite knowing that it is illegal and their children can become orphans: they prefer to try fighting for their children's freedom over letting them live with their parents, but in slavery. It is similar here: give children a hope for the better future even at the expense of your own future, or let them live in a third world country and hope they will one day be able to get a better future on their own - it is not an easy choice, and different people choose different options.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 597 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    Consider the following situation. I am walking on the street with my children. A thug with a rifle walks up to us and aims at my son's head. I quickly pull up a pistol and shoot the thug in the head to save my son. Police arrives and arrests me for manslaughter, and my children become orphans. 

    Am I responsible for my children becoming orphans? Yes. Am I solely responsible for it? No. The responsibility is also shared by the thug who created the situation in the first place, and by the state which does not handle this sort of cases properly.

    That is a poor analogy.  Illegals are more like the thug with the rifle, placing their own needs and desires above those of society as a whole, than the person minding his own business who is forced to defend himself.  So the thug has a kid he needs to feed, does that make it right for him to point a rifle at your child's head and steal your property?  Should he not be punished for doing so?  After all it was for the child, he had not choice, right?  Why would you try to deprive this poor man the means to buy food for his child?  If your son has to be sacrificed the way Jim Steinle's daughter was, that's just the cost of being humane, right? 

    See how this works?  Any depravity can be justified because "it's for the children". 


    In case of families fleeing, say, Cuba, they see the alternative of their children becoming orphans in a First World country as better than the alternative of them living their whole lives in a totalitarian communist state. Or for the refugees from Mexico, the alternative of them being shot in a gang war. Just as I, shooting the thug and knowing the potential consequences, preferred it to my children being shot in front of my eyes. 

    The laws are not paramount, they are subjective and they change with time, as the values in the society also change. Sometimes it is worth it to gain something and risk losing everything, when the alternative is never having anything in the first place. This is why people in totalitarian states become dissidents, despite knowing that it is illegal and their children can become orphans: they prefer to try fighting for their children's freedom over letting them live with their parents, but in slavery. It is similar here: give children a hope for the better future even at the expense of your own future, or let them live in a third world country and hope they will one day be able to get a better future on their own - it is not an easy choice, and different people choose different options.

    LOL, dissidents.  Dissidents don't flee their country, they stay and fight to make them a better place.  If there were more dissidents, more people fighting corruption and government overreach in their own countries, there would be fewer illegals. 

    So your position is that these kids are better off as wards of the state in the US than living with their families in their home countries.  That being the case, what is your complaint?  They're getting what they feel is in the best interest of their families.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch