[fzeroracer]

I'm pretty sure we don't permanently separate families for doing things like petty theft.

There's also the the 'Affluenza' case where a teenager killed four people and got off scott-free. Well, until he was found fleeing probation in a foreign country and was dragged back here.

So I don't know: Do you think crossing the border is worse than murder?

[nilkn]

The affluenza comparison feels like a "whataboutism" to me. Virtually nobody holds that case up as an example of the system working in a healthy and desirable way.

[fzeroracer]

No. It's not. The comment I directly replied to was asking for a crime where you can take your children with you when you're arrested.

We've already established the fact the system is massively stacked against minorities. Then we continue to use 'but it's a crime!' as justification for vile and malicious behavior to people that have committed something without an actual victim like smoking marijuana or crossing the border.

And again, we do not permanently separate families in every single case where someone commits misdemeanor. So then why is it OK to permanently separate all immigrants who cross the border despite it being the same level of crime? Give me one reason outside of 'racism and xenophobia.'

[nilkn]

I'm only commenting on your affluenza comparison specifically.

Here's an example of why I think the comparison is meaningless. Grand theft can be charged as a misdemeanor with up to a two year jail sentence. But Brock Turner was sentenced to only six months of jail time for rape. Do you think grand theft is worse than rape? Of course not, but the problem here is the Brock Turner sentence, not the sentencing for grand theft. This question could only be posed because, by design, I selected a more serious crime (rape) for which there exists at least one case where an inappropriately lenient sentence was given out.

You did the same. By design, you selected a more serious crime (murder) for which there exists at least one case where an inappropriately lenient sentence was given out. You then used this highly dysfunctional example to draw a comparison to the less serious crime. But the simplest response to your question comparing crossing the border and murder is simply that the affluenza sentencing was wrong.

[fzeroracer]

And yet you failed to address my point entirely. Which is that far worse crimes in the US end up with more lenient sentencing than immigrants crossing the border.

But fine then, I want to draw up a more apt comparison and I want you to address this. Public intoxication is a misdemeanor similar to crossing the border illegally. How often do you think people caught being publicly intoxicated end up losing custody of their children or being permanently separated from their family?

[sheepmullet]

> Public intoxication is a misdemeanor similar to crossing the border illegally.

I’d argue trying to illegally immigrate to the US is a serious crime and public intoxication is not.

[nilkn]

As was clear from my first post, and as I stated explicitly in my second, and as I now state explicitly again, I was only commenting on your affluenza comparison. I found the comparison to be meaningless and invalid for the reasons I stated above. I never registered any opinion whatsoever on the specific issues at the border, so in particular I’m curious why you’re so confident I even disagree with you on that. Someone who agrees with your conclusion may still find your path there fallacious.