Questions

Bad form, Balko.

How about this one: If you’re adamant that you only oppose criminalization of drugs, then do you think that we should educate children on the danger of mind altering drugs?

If you’re adamant that you only oppose unnecessary SWAT raids, then do you also support more training for true high risk, time sensitive police incidents requiring an armed response?

If you’re adamant that you only oppose convicting innocent men, then do you also support vastly expanding the amount of DNA testing done to crime scene evidence?

Yeah, you do, on all three.  And I can oppose illegal immigration while still wanting to radically relax our legal immigration requirements.  Just like how I can support decriminalizing drugs without wanting everyone to be a junkie, how I can think that prostitution is a horrible profession that demeans and psychologically harms but still not want to throw people in jail over it, and how I can support appeals for men convicted of rape without supporting rape itself.

2 Comments

  1. Robert says:

    And I can oppose illegal immigration while still wanting to radically relax our legal immigration requirements.

    I think this is what Radley was arguing for.

  2. Phelps says:

    I regularly catch flack in the comments section for using the label “anti-immigrant” when I’m referring to people who say they’re only opposed to illegal immigration.

    There is no other way to read that except that Balko is confident in saying the people who say they are only against illegal immigration are actually against immigration in general.