• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 20:08
CEST 02:08
KST 09:08
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202530RSL Season 1 - Final Week8[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams2Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster Why doesnt SC2 scene costream tournaments
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL Corsair Pursuit Micro?
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread BWCL Season 63 Announcement
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 676 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3936

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 3934 3935 3936 3937 3938 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-03 19:09:37
June 03 2016 19:08 GMT
#78701
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.

Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different.

Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well.

EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.

Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true

As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.

Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?

Objection, bias, your honor.


I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.
Surth
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Germany456 Posts
June 03 2016 19:10 GMT
#78702
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

If there's one group we shouldnt listen to anymore its the police departments etc.. "Whomever lives for the sake of combating an enemy has an interest in the enemy's continued survival," as a wise german once said. The same applies to institutions. Fuck the border patrol, fuck the LAPD, fuck bill bratton, etc.

By the way, your precious operation wetback managed to deport less than 1,5 million people in 2 years and did not, in fact, stem the tide of not-so-legal immigration.
i believe your actions dishonour Starcraft 2 LotV cybersport!
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-03 19:13:40
June 03 2016 19:13 GMT
#78703
I am pretty sure the democrats want to address the illegal immigration issue by reforming immigration and making to just immigrate legally. And once that is done, enforcement will be easier to deal with.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Trainrunnef
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States599 Posts
June 03 2016 19:15 GMT
#78704
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.

Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different.

Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well.

EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.

Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true

As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.

Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?

Objection, bias, your honor.


I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.


You say that but evidence points to an alternate reality...

[image loading]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-5
I am, therefore I pee
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18825 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-03 19:20:18
June 03 2016 19:19 GMT
#78705
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.

Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different.

Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well.

EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.

Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true

As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.

Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?

Objection, bias, your honor.


I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement.

To the contrary, I'm merely pointing out that "enforcement" is not an on and off switch, it's a complex feedback loop by which particular policy directives are realized via agency action. Naturally, the groundwork employees of a particular agency have a vested interest in the vigorous and expansive enforcement of the legal scheme underpinning their livelihood, but that dynamic alone does not figure into the sufficiency of a particular implementation agenda. Like, let's be real, liberals could have screamed just as loudly during the 80s when Reagan's EPA decided to cut itself repeatedly like a teenage girl (which they did, don't get me wrong), but those familiar with the process are fully aware of the degree to which our system relies on executive agenda-based agency powers. To the victor go the executive spoils.

Besides, its disingenuous to pretend that there isn't a lot of hard economic data that suggests that a robust enforcement of deportation policy would lead to harsh economic consequences and potentially kill a lot of industry here in the States. For whatever reason, Trump and his supporters seem to think that the message underpinning "Goobacks" was that they weren't screaming "THEY TOOK OUR JERBS" loud enough, but I'm afraid that's just not the case. Pretending that illegal immigration is some magical policy area in which there is no ambiguity vis a vie government enforcement is just that, an act of desire divorced from reality.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42640 Posts
June 03 2016 19:20 GMT
#78706
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.

Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different.

Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well.

EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.

Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true

As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.

Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?

Objection, bias, your honor.


I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.

If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
June 03 2016 19:22 GMT
#78707
On June 04 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.

Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different.

Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well.

EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.

Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true

As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.

Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?

Objection, bias, your honor.


I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.

If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall.

Walls work? I seem to recall Israel having similar success with its walls. It certainly is better than having no wall.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23218 Posts
June 03 2016 19:25 GMT
#78708
On June 04 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.

Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different.

Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well.

EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.

Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true

As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.

Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?

Objection, bias, your honor.


I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.

If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall.

Walls work? I seem to recall Israel having similar success with its walls. It certainly is better than having no wall.



How big of a drop in illegal immigration would you expect from a wall?
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Introvert
Profile Joined April 2011
United States4748 Posts
June 03 2016 19:25 GMT
#78709
On June 04 2016 04:15 Trainrunnef wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.

Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different.

Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well.

EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.

Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true

As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.

Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?

Objection, bias, your honor.


I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.


You say that but evidence points to an alternate reality...

[image loading]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-5



Off the top of my head, my memory says that in 2007 or 2008 the definition of "removal" changed to include people caught crossing. I believe your chances of being deported once you make it inside of the US is much lower now than it's ever been.

And for all the talk of compromise, once again, it only leans in one direction. Increasing legalization/amnesty. What are they giving back to people who want border security? Nothing? Then don't expect to get any help.
"It is therefore only at the birth of a society that one can be completely logical in the laws. When you see a people enjoying this advantage, do not hasten to conclude that it is wise; think rather that it is young." -Alexis de Tocqueville
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-03 19:29:34
June 03 2016 19:27 GMT
#78710
Israel is the size of New Jersey and should never be used as a model for how to resolved disputes with your neighbors.

Edit: I would be perfectly fine with increased border security if it came with immigration reform.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
June 03 2016 19:28 GMT
#78711
On June 04 2016 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.

Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different.

Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well.

EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.

Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true

As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.

Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?

Objection, bias, your honor.


I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.

If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall.

Walls work? I seem to recall Israel having similar success with its walls. It certainly is better than having no wall.



How big of a drop in illegal immigration would you expect from a wall?

Beats me, but I'd expect it to be huge.
SK.Testie
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
Canada11084 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-03 19:30:02
June 03 2016 19:29 GMT
#78712
On June 04 2016 04:15 Trainrunnef wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.

Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different.

Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well.

EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.

Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true

As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.

Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?

Objection, bias, your honor.


I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.


You say that but evidence points to an alternate reality...

[image loading]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/daily-chart-5


Obama, actually a little deceptive

According to President Obama, the allegedly record-breaking deportation numbers released this week by ICE Director John Morton are "a little deceptive." I agree. They give the impression that this administration is enforcing the law more than, say, the previous administration. But other ICE numbers suggest that immigration enforcement is declining, not increasing.

Speaking about the year-end deportation figures to a group of Hispanic reporters in late September, the President said:

The statistics are actually a little deceptive because what we've been doing is, with the stronger border enforcement, we've been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. That is counted as a deportation, even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours, sent back – that's counted as a deportation.

This book-cooking was reported last year too. As the president said, one way that DHS pumps its numbers is to count those caught at the border and returned quickly. I don't have a problem with that, if these aliens are actually processed as a removal, and as long as the agency provides a breakdown of the numbers so that anyone can see the various types of enforcement that are being counted. But DHS and ICE public affairs personnel do not make that available; nor do they provide any breakdown of how the aliens were identified (e.g. Secure Communities vs. worksite – oh wait, I forgot, there are no more worksite operations), or which type of removal tool was used, i.e. expedited removal, voluntary departure or return, stipulated removal, etc. (See my colleague W.D. Reasoner's "Deportation Basics: How Immigration Enforcement Works (or Doesn’t) in Real Life".)

What I do have a problem with is the implication from Morton that this very modest increase in removals is somehow the result of tough enforcement in the interior of the country, or that ICE is making "progress".

Statistics on ICE arrests tell a different story. According to the annual report from the Office of Immigration Statistics, ICE is arresting far fewer people in the interior than ever before. The latest statistics shows that in 2010, ICE located fewer than half the number of deportable aliens in 2010 than they did in 2006 (517,000, down from 1.2 million).

Arrest numbers also have been dropping for quite some time. In 2006, the combined efforts of the Investigations and the Detention and Removal divisions resulted in 117,000 alien arrests, which dropped to 68,000 in 2008 and down to 54,000 in 2010. This is "progress" only if you are not in favor of immigration law enforcement. Not only has ICE shifted its focus nearly exclusively to removing illegal aliens who commit other crimes, it has reduced the overall level of enforcement within the country, where the 11 million illegal aliens are living and working and affecting the well-being of American communities.

For more on how ICE is doing less with more, watch members of the House Immigration Policy and Enforcement Sub-committee grill John Morton at an oversight hearing on October 13, 2010.


Just imagine your new tourist attraction, the great wall of "Fuck you Mexico!" America!
+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]
Social Justice is a fools errand. May all the adherents at its church be thwarted. Of all the religions I have come across, it is by far the most detestable.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
June 03 2016 19:34 GMT
#78713
On June 04 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2016 04:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.

Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different.

Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well.

EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.

Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true

As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.

Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?

Objection, bias, your honor.


I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.

If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall.

Walls work? I seem to recall Israel having similar success with its walls. It certainly is better than having no wall.



How big of a drop in illegal immigration would you expect from a wall?

Beats me, but I'd expect it to be huge.

I did some analysis a long time ago; I don't have citations for it; it came to around a 10-15% reduction, depending on how much money you put into it.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
biology]major
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2253 Posts
June 03 2016 19:36 GMT
#78714
The wall represents a much needed giant middle finger to mexico, for taking advantage of our weakness for so many years.
Question.?
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42640 Posts
June 03 2016 19:36 GMT
#78715
On June 04 2016 04:22 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 04 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:05 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 04:00 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:57 farvacola wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:44 xDaunt wrote:
On June 04 2016 03:34 farvacola wrote:
When you paint the opposition as folks who "support illegal immigration," its quite easy to dictate the substance of their beliefs. However, the only people who "support illegal immigration" are border state business owners who likely vote Republican without question.

Those in favor of soft immigration policies while work is done on actual, substantive reform are rather different.

Sorry, but the Democrat Party in virtually its entirety supports illegal immigration by hampering enforcement and demonizing proponents of enforcement. And yes, business owners who support illegal immigration need to be strung up as well.

EDIT: Hell, Democrats aren't even honest enough to call illegal immigration what it is: ILLEGAL. They contort themselves so badly to pander to Hispanics that they refer to illegal aliens as undocumented workers. It's sheer madness.

Democrats don't collectively share in the same immigration platform and like plansix pointed out, enforcement under Democrats is by no means "hampered" generally speaking. That is unless you also meant "enforcement" to include the state tolerated gangs of vigilante immigrant hunters who roam large segments of the border looking to catch other people like animals. In that case, yes, Democrats attempt to hamper enforcement, that much is true

As for the terminology issue, I guess it's not exactly surprising that you'd single out the words being used instead of the substance of the thing being discussed. That liberals and conservatives use different words to describe the same thing ought surprise no one.

Yes, please tell me more about how serious democrats are with enforcement of illegal immigration laws. It's a wonder that the border patrol supports Trump over them!

Are you really pointing to the opinions of a group whose very livelihood depends on the vigorous implementation and enforcement of a particular legal scheme as evidence that vigorous enforcement of said legal scheme is a net positive?

Objection, bias, your honor.


I'm not even arguing whether enforcement of illegal immigration is a "net positive." I'm merely pointing out that democrats aren't interested in enforcement. And the fact that you brought up the merits of enforcing illegal immigration laws in response to my argument betrays the truth of the matter: democrats aren't serious about enforcement. At least have the decency to be honest about your party's position.

If most people who do not have a legal right to be in the United States don't enter by crossing the border outside of the recognized crossing points, in what way is building a wall being interested in enforcement? If Hillary said that she was going to stop immigration by reforming Wall Street would that count as being serious on enforcement? Or would she have to show how the two are linked? I ask because Trump seems not to have made the case for the wall beyond it being a wall.

Walls work? I seem to recall Israel having similar success with its walls. It certainly is better than having no wall.

You're advocating a hugely expensive public construction project on the grounds that walls are better than not walls?
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
June 03 2016 19:36 GMT
#78716
You just linked to a conservative think tank that focuses on advocate for immigration reduction and are not really an unbiased source. There has also been some pretty reasonable criticism levied against them due to their connection to John Tanton, including some from the Wall Street Journal.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Jaaaaasper
Profile Blog Joined April 2012
United States10225 Posts
June 03 2016 19:40 GMT
#78717
So according to the LAtimes, Bernies biggest donors are students and the unemployed. So basically Bernie is redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich with his advertising blitzes.

[image loading]
Hey do you want to hear a joke? Chinese production value. | I thought he had a aegis- Ayesee | When did 7ing mad last have a good game, 2012?
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
June 03 2016 19:44 GMT
#78718
Interesting article on Hillary and her dealings:
Donald Trump is not a man who needs any kind of assistance when it comes to coining insulting epithets or finding effective lines of attack on his political opponents. He has a vulgar, shameless, and sophomoric style that seems better suited for professional wrestling than presidential politics, and resembles a troll who gets off on provoking people, all to satisfy his desperate craving for attention. This unorthodox and brazen approach is unpredictable, and it could prove to be very potent against a conventional politician like Hillary Clinton, who has plenty of political and personal baggage for Trump to work with (which — it should be noted — her current opponent has refused to exploit).

Trump’s nickname for Clinton, “Crooked Hillary,” gets to the heart of what so many Americans find disconcerting about the former Secretary of State and her husband. The opportunism, the sleazy connections (e.g. Frank Giustra, Sant Chatwal, Marc Rich, etc.), the millions in paid speeches from Wall Street firms and foreign companies, the endless catalog of scandals (the majority — but not all — of which are baseless), the big campaign contributions from bankers and billionaires and media moguls, and so on. Clinton has a serious image problem: people view her as the ultimate politician who will lie and cheat her way into power (there’s a reason why people believe Frank and Claire Underwood were inspired by the Clintons).

Of course, a great deal of this is obviously a result of right-wing smears and conspiracy theories that have been propagated since the first day the Clinton’s entered the political spotlight. Anyone who denies that a right-wing noise machine has been making shit up about the Clinton’s and manufacturing scandals since the 1990s is simply deluding themselves. But the same goes for anyone who argues that the Clinton’s are merely victims of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” who have never done anything questionable or ethically dubious in their entire careers — like the folks at Blue Nation Review, a website that was purchased by a Hillary Super PAC run by David Brock in December and has since become a propaganda wing for the Clinton campaign.

Source
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Surth
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Germany456 Posts
June 03 2016 19:45 GMT
#78719
One of the problems of the Trumpian wall, by the way, is that there is also a truly staggering amount of legal bordercrossing every single day along the US-Mexican border, upon which the economy is utterly dependent. The problem with all walls is to make it semi-permeable, letting only through what you want to be let through. a wall of the effectiveness that trump imagines would slow down the flows of the economy between the two states slow down to a crawl.


On June 04 2016 04:36 biology]major wrote:
The wall represents a much needed giant middle finger to mexico, for taking advantage of our weakness for so many years.
this thread makes me want to do heroin. if only it wasnt illegal! Although you are, of course, correct: that IS the actual reasons for why walls are built. the fact that many people right now wish for walls to return is because they want to make a show of the sovereignty of the nation state. of course, that sovereignty is being undermined by forces much larger and more dangerous than illegal immigration..
i believe your actions dishonour Starcraft 2 LotV cybersport!
SK.Testie
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
Canada11084 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-06-03 19:53:14
June 03 2016 19:49 GMT
#78720
On June 04 2016 04:36 Plansix wrote:
You just linked to a conservative think tank that focuses on advocate for immigration reduction and are not really an unbiased source. There has also been some pretty reasonable criticism levied against them due to their connection to John Tanton, including some from the Wall Street Journal.


Again you attack the source. Always the left will attack the source. When I could attack the source as well.

CNN is biased.
NYT is biased. Has been completely discredited multiple times. Their comments section is insufferable.
Huffpo is biased. A complete joke by now hopefully everyone has realized.
Buzzfeed / Vox / All those click-bait sites? Complete jokes that intentionally obfuscate and are just time wasters.
MSNBC completely biased.
Foxnews completely biased.
Every outlet has an agenda and a bias. We can always attack the source. Every single one of us on every side can attack the source. "This one is our preferred source of bullshit though so it is better."
What, CNN hasn't run a false narrative before? They're the most popular news site in the world.

I'd agree that CNN is in fact better than Breitbart. Hell, The Economist was rated as one of the most trusted sources by the left, and every time they post an article the top two comments are almost always criticizing it for being biased, untruthful, half baked and not telling the full story, or an outright lie. Once in a while with an actual correction that can be looked up easily.

So every time you say, "a ha, that's a conservative source. Complete bullshit." And I really agree, I felt dirty linking Breitbart because I most definitely don't identify with their reader base. But even they can have very poignant pieces that skewer complete hypocrisies, lies, or just full omissions from the left.

Often times these sources, even less credible ones have sources of their own that are very reliable.

Yet another reason to vote for Trump. The only candidate calling out the media for being completely full of shit.
Social Justice is a fools errand. May all the adherents at its church be thwarted. Of all the religions I have come across, it is by far the most detestable.
Prev 1 3934 3935 3936 3937 3938 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 9h 53m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 21
StarCraft: Brood War
Hyuk 1056
NaDa 75
Aegong 47
Dota 2
monkeys_forever276
LuMiX0
League of Legends
syndereN497
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1358
flusha361
Coldzera 295
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox296
AZ_Axe99
Other Games
tarik_tv8966
Grubby2297
Day[9].tv1194
shahzam453
C9.Mang0281
ViBE179
Maynarde153
Livibee86
Liquid`Ken7
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1243
BasetradeTV27
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• RyuSc2 62
• rockletztv 4
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22373
League of Legends
• Doublelift4664
Other Games
• Scarra1647
• Day9tv1194
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
9h 53m
ByuN vs Zoun
SHIN vs TriGGeR
Cyan vs ShoWTimE
Rogue vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs Solar
Reynor vs Maru
herO vs Cure
Serral vs Classic
Esports World Cup
1d 9h
Esports World Cup
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Online Event
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.