| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 09 2016 04:30 GGTeMpLaR wrote: It's so counter-intuitive I'd love to hear you try to explain it. It’s like prohibition, doomed to fail. Rather than just letting people work and immigrate to America legally, we try to keep them out with a physical wall. It will fail because they are more invested in getting in than we ever will be in keeping them out. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 09 2016 04:33 Plansix wrote: It’s like prohibition, doomed to fail. Rather than just letting people work and immigrate to America legally, we try to keep them out with a physical wall. It will fail because they are more invested in getting in than we ever will be in keeping them out. The wall isn't about stopping immigration, or legal immigration. It's to stop illegal immigration. If you are coming to work and immigrate legally, it isn't going to keep you out. You will be allowed to legally immigrate just like you are now. Try again? Your prohibition example is more like we should just ignore the legal drinking limit then when DUI's happen someone runs on a platform to enforce it. That would be Trump in your analogy. People are already allowed to legally drink in this country. There are also laws that prohibit things like driving under the influence or drunken and disorderly conduct in public. We enforce these laws against 'illegal drinking', if you will, for a reason. We should enforce illegal immigration for a reason. You can legally drink or immigrate as you see fit no one is trying to change that. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The wall is dumb. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On June 09 2016 04:30 GGTeMpLaR wrote: It's so counter-intuitive I'd love to hear you try to explain it. If you want the gist of it, increasing border security and marginally hampering the ability to cross "the border" does little to diminish the actual systemic factors and motivations for undocumented migration. If people want to get into a country, the cost of working around known, static border security is trivial. The pithy "11 foot ladder to a 10 foot wall" issue. Second, is that by increasingly securitizing the border, it empowers the organizations specialized in crossing the border illegally, as migrants looking to cross the border have no choice but to turn towards the cartels and other border running organizations, whom have incredibly complex and sophisticated methods for crossing the border, and opens up undocumented migrants to exploitation by these organizations as well as empowers these organizations in conducting their operations. Attempts to enforce border security is as a result a losing proposition: it costs far more for us to attempt to enforce the border than it does for those seeking entry to afford countermeasures, as they need only breach the border at one location at any given time. Efforts to use electronic surveillance, drones, etc. have all proven to be markedly ineffective. This has been the lesson of the past...20-30 years of security studies and migration policy. In any event, comprehensive post in a day. | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On June 09 2016 04:33 Plansix wrote: It’s like prohibition, doomed to fail. Rather than just letting people work and immigrate to America legally, we try to keep them out with a physical wall. It will fail because they are more invested in getting in than we ever will be in keeping them out. So we should just eliminate all pretense of border control and allow absolutely anyone who shows up to become a citizen and stay as long they like, no questions asked? | ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
On June 09 2016 04:09 SK.Testie wrote: 1. Obama deported less people than Bush. 2. Obama added 'turning people away at the border' to deportations. 3. Every single graph shows 'walls work' from the Migrant crisis to Israel to others. 4. The people most affected by illegal immigration are railing against it. The people who live there. You are quite literally the 'ivory tower' smug to not listen to the people on the ground. 1. FEWER. God, it's like Stannis Baratheon's death was completely in vain. Oh, spoilers. 2. Read this: http://www.zonebooks.org/titles/BROW_WAL.html and then this (this one's for free too!): https://www.academia.edu/2649325/_Security_assemblages_and_spaces_of_exception_the_production_of_para-_militarized_spaces_in_the_U.S._war_on_drugs_ Someone else just called the wall "phallic" and that is literally true, although it is not Trump's phallus. It's Americas imagined dick. It has nothing to do with security and everything with people who fear for the imagined sovereignty of the nation-state. Tough break: Sovereignty is always imaginary anyway, and if you want to protect the American nation-state, try limiting the power of corporations. There are very few dystopias about illegal immigrants overrunning everything and very many dystopias about megacorps running the world; this is not a coincidence. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 09 2016 04:39 Plansix wrote: If you just let all the people coming here illegal come legally, you don’t have to build a wall. You just spend the money on making sure they qualify for visas. The problem is solved. Building the wall without immigration reform is just like prohibition, doomed to fail. If you reform immigration, you don’t need the Wall. The wall is dumb. <if we just legalize all illegals, then the problem is solved> i can't make this shit up | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 09 2016 04:41 forsooth wrote: So we should just eliminate all pretense of border control and allow absolutely anyone who shows up to become a citizen and stay as long they like, no questions asked? Nice stawman. Not at all what I said. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Thoroughly researched, and the sheer number of sources alone will put any arguments we can put in this thread to shame. "omg Ann Coulter, dropped not a real source". Probably the most well sourced and researched book on the subject. And it seems to go in line with the fact that a population of 14.4 million hispanics went to 54.8 million in 34 years. That's a 40 million jump. In the same period of time Canada has added less than 11 million You're adding at least 550,000 illegals in per year, possibly more. And what is this "it would incentivize criminal behavior and empower the cartels"? "Bad people would do bad things if we don't make the moves that are in our best interests, so let's capitulate". | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On June 09 2016 04:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: <if we just legalize all illegals, then the problem is solved> i can't make this shit up I think we are dealing with someone who is ideologically opposed to the existence of borders, rather than a reasonable person who understands the catastrophic ramifications of allowing unlimited, uncontrolled migration from the developing world to the developed. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
On June 09 2016 01:21 Barrin wrote: It is against the law for a CEO to do anything in the company that wouldn't maximize profits (except break other laws). Having a positive influence often overlaps with this. A positive image is good for business. Read Liquidated by Karen Ho. This idea that companies shouldnt do anything but maximize short term profits is not "the law" (which is hilarious by the way, you people all act as if laws were these universal unchangeable essences); it is an ideology that has been constructed in the past few decades. if you go back to the 50s and 60s, companies were seen as social actors that had a responsiblity to their workers as much as they did to shareholders. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 09 2016 04:46 forsooth wrote: I think we are dealing with someone who is ideologically opposed to the existence of borders, rather than a reasonable person who understands the catastrophic ramifications of allowing unlimited, uncontrolled migration from the developing world to the developed. The most important thing is that you believe whatever makes you feel comfortable. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
If you really want to control the border, tougher security - invest in the drones, in the extra man power, don't build a fucking wall. Either way, I understand the illegal situation, but what can we really do, it's always going to continue to happen. It's really a fine line to walk, because one, we're all human and everyone should have a chance at living a "happy" life. Two, illegal people in the country do cause some issues. But then you have these issues rise up to the "top" where there are people that sit there, and say they understand but really don't. | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
How else am I supposed to interpret someone who says "we can't stop everyone who wants to break the law because they want to break it more than we want to uphold it, so we should not only not try but also reward the criminals." Might as well advocate for the abolition of police and courts, since we can't stop all the robberies and assaults. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
a wall is only as strong as its weakest point. A wall is not inherently bad as an idea; its just in practice a questionable and probably bad investment in this case. An unmanned wall does nothing. Walls dont STOP people from going past it; their purpose is to slow people down so that other countermeasures can then be used. So the entirety of the wall has to be monitored, and include a fair bit of manpower and response team to respond to any people going over it; including reserve teams to deal with mass incursions at a single point, and those have to operate 24/7 of course. One pointed issue is: if you already have the entire area monitored and have manpower and response teams, is building the wall actually that helpful? in empty areas, whether they get 1 mile in or 5 miles in doesn't change much about the response. It might be more cost-effective in many places to not build a wall (which involves both a considerable construction cost, and ongoing maintenance costs, heightened by being far from towns), and simply hire more agents. walls of course are useful in certain areas that are close to lots of good hiding spots, and walls are used in places like border cities, where it'd be far easier to hide/blend in if people jump them. And going over the border wall area is only one of many means of entry to the US, there's also slipping in by boat, slipping in/hiding amongst the 100,000 or so daily legal border crossing; and of course the overstaying of legal visas. so to some extent, strengthening a wall will displace people into using those other methods. all need to be reinforced to have the best effects. One common problem that happens in real life: someone builds a wall, then the flow THERE stops, because the flow simply went somewhere else along an easier route. Thus the underlying problem wasn't fixed, just redirected. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
And there are roads! ROADS! In which people drive into the country. It isn't 2003 anymore in the middle of a housing booming with endless construction jobs in the south west. Immigrants arent running across the border anymore. They drive, boat, or walk in perfectly legally ... and then don't leave. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 09 2016 04:54 forsooth wrote: How else am I supposed to interpret someone who says "we can't stop everyone who wants to break the law because they want to break it more than we want to uphold it, so we should not only not try but also reward the criminals." Might as well advocate for the abolition of police and courts, since we can't stop all the robberies and assaults. You’re confused. I said reform immigration, which does not offer enough work visas or makes them to costly to obtain. I did not say anyone could come over. I advocated for more legal immigration, rather than foolish projects doomed to fail. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5936 Posts
On June 09 2016 04:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote: <if we just legalize all illegals, then the problem is solved> i can't make this shit up I mean it should be intuitive that not everything the government prohibits is comparable to alcohol. Like on the one hand someone drinks a beer, and on the other hand they uproot and surreptitiously become a resident of another country. One of these is a much bigger decision than the other. There's this defeatist theme in politics where fighting a problem makes it worse - fighting terrorism makes more terrorists, fighting illegal immigration increases crime, trying to recreate jobs that have disappeared results in the loss of more jobs. I'm not certain if we're expected to take it seriously when someone calls a wall a penis. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
ByuN vs SHIN
Maru vs Krystianer
WardiTV Team League
Patches Events
BSL
GSL
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
WardiTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
