The wire traps, from which a 19-year-old pregnant woman had to be cut free, are part of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's (R) ghoulish border plan to keep migrants out.
She had to be cut out of the wire and miscarried soon after.
If you want to talk about morality, then you don’t need to even mention legal terms like booby-trap. They are irrelevant. I like Jezebel and I am a militant leftist. I am also for unrestricted immigration while still making crossing at non-official border points illegal. But non of these things matter in my initial argument.
If you think borders/countries should exist, like everyone except for born-too-soon anarchists, then there is no problem here. Jezebel aren’t anarchists though. If pressed they will say the disagree with the current US policy on immigration. Not that they all borders should be open at every geographic point of entry.
So they are bringing in legal terms like “booby-trap” to try to muddy the waters instead of saying what their criticism is. Their criticism is that current border-patrol policy’s are too harsh (I agree), but securing a border can’t be a clean thing. Either a border exists as a State enforced entity or it doesn’t. If they want to say that the US should open it’s borders, I’m on board, that doesn’t mean free crossing into the US at every geographic spot. So in order to discourage crossing at non-official crossings, the only answer is passive barriers. If you are against passive barriers then you have to make that clear in the text, but Jezebel didn’t do that.
So in order to discourage crossing at non-official crossings, the only answer is passive barriers.
Completely visible barriers would do the trick.
You’ve somehow, again, managed to miss the point: the purpose was not just deterrence, the purpose was to hide them and cause unexpected harm. I’m not using booby trap to evoke any legality relating to the word; I’m using the word to evoke the horrendously inhumane use of hidden weapons meant to cause harm to those who accidentally stumble upon them.
You’re defending a horrific practice in the guise of it being a necessary evil, when in all actuality, it’s just one horrific out of many not-horrific implementations of something that you’re overtly in favor of.
Ah, already to the “intent” argument. The intent is 100% to stop migrants. That is the intent of literally every single border. If you are jumping into that trap and saying that the problem here is the specific method used to stop migrants, you are playing their game and are basically just a liberal.
Don’t be a coward. The intent is to cause harm, otherwise it wouldn’t be hidden. Build up the courage to admit that at least, rather than just saying “you’re a liberal…” So weak, dude.
If you want to talk about morality, then you don’t need to even mention legal terms like booby-trap. They are irrelevant. I like Jezebel and I am a militant leftist. I am also for unrestricted immigration while still making crossing at non-official border points illegal. But non of these things matter in my initial argument.
If you think borders/countries should exist, like everyone except for born-too-soon anarchists, then there is no problem here. Jezebel aren’t anarchists though. If pressed they will say the disagree with the current US policy on immigration. Not that they all borders should be open at every geographic point of entry.
So they are bringing in legal terms like “booby-trap” to try to muddy the waters instead of saying what their criticism is. Their criticism is that current border-patrol policy’s are too harsh (I agree), but securing a border can’t be a clean thing. Either a border exists as a State enforced entity or it doesn’t. If they want to say that the US should open it’s borders, I’m on board, that doesn’t mean free crossing into the US at every geographic spot. So in order to discourage crossing at non-official crossings, the only answer is passive barriers. If you are against passive barriers then you have to make that clear in the text, but Jezebel didn’t do that.
Completely visible barriers would do the trick.
You’ve somehow, again, managed to miss the point: the purpose was not just deterrence, the purpose was to hide them and cause unexpected harm. I’m not using booby trap to evoke any legality relating to the word; I’m using the word to evoke the horrendously inhumane use of hidden weapons meant to cause harm to those who accidentally stumble upon them.
You’re defending a horrific practice in the guise of it being a necessary evil, when in all actuality, it’s just one horrific out of many not-horrific implementations of something that you’re overtly in favor of.
Ah, already to the “intent” argument. The intent is 100% to stop migrants. That is the intent of literally every single border. If you are jumping into that trap and saying that the problem here is the specific method used to stop migrants, you are playing their game and are basically just a liberal.
No.
The intent is to maim a human being.
What you are talking about is just a bonus…
Don’t be a coward. The intent is to cause harm, otherwise it wouldn’t be hidden. Build up the courage to admit that at least, rather than just saying “you’re a liberal…” So weak, dude.