|
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. |
On May 11 2017 23:31 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 23:20 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 23:13 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:56 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 22:43 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:36 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 22:32 TMG26 wrote:On May 11 2017 22:00 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 21:34 Danglars wrote:[quote] Just to add to what you're saying, we have a local story here that is riling people up. A man deported 15 times put a six year old in critical condition in a DUI crash. The story was all over the top-of-the-hour news reports on the radio. An anecdote to be sure. The southern border is just that porous. You erect a barrier that makes crossing much more difficult at because the cracks in the system are just too wide. I would argue that there is no barrier we could create that can stop a man that is willing to be deported 15 times. As others have said, oceans do not stop illegal migrants. And on a similar line of thinking, contractors often say “you can’t stop water” when it comes to drainage and preventing flooding in houses. If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at some point we should have just incarcerated him. Maybe around deportation number 8-14. The wall doesn't stop it, but it may reduce it. Oceans only slow people down. Deserts only slow people down. Mountains only slow people down. How many billions are we willing to pay for a slight reduction while not overhauling our immigration system. Several billion in fact. Slow down every attempted re-entry and make the success rate way lower (unless you think patrolling a wall is inferior to patrolling no wall) Waste more months of your life attempting. Save rape victims and DUI injuries because guys like Constantino are still attempting his 3rd border crossing at age 38. Instead of having made it across 15 times. And you'll have a nice big government big business president perfectly willing to negotiate guest worker visas for things like seasonal farm labor. But no, when you say "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at so me point we should have just incarcerated him" you meant "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, the stupidest thing would be to make it harder to do so." Crime rates are lower among illegal immigrants than native americans, so you are increasing chances of rape and DUI injuries and making americans less safe by building the wall. Sometimes the parody is hard to separate from the sincere. I was being sincere. Educate me on why what I said is wrong. Breaking immigration law is a crime. Equivalent numbers of Americans are not exchanged for the new crop of illegal immigrants, so one new lawbreaker still increase rape and DUI injuries. Try telling the mother of a dead child that she was one of many new crimes by illegal immigrants, but at least the percentage is lower! I'm sure she will be comforted by your brilliant use of statistics. Breaking immigration law hurts no one and the discussion here was clearly about violent crime or crime that actually makes natives' lives worse. When assessing crime statistics from the perspective of how safe one is in a country you obviously have to use relative figures, which is why they're pretty much always expressed that way when doing any sort of meaningful comparison. If you want to figure out how safe you are, you have to look at "what are the chances of me getting raped/killed today?". Those chances decrease with illegal immigration because they commit fewer crimes per 100 000 people. I thought this was a policy debate not an exercise in cheap demagoguery. If you're actually concerned about grieving mothers, why not start with gun control?
Everything from school overcrowding to entitlement strain hurts communities that undergo more financial burden and debt problems. This is a multifaceted problem and high rates of illegal immigration bring with them problems not nearly summed up in violent crime statistics. Your first act in obeying the law is breaking the law. Great.
I'm not talking about how safe you are in the country, I'm taking about how many new crimes you're gaining and how these are eminently preventable. We can talk about it reducing crime rates for the citizens of the United States and prison reform and legal reform. It doesn't involve importing populations from other countries to drive the crime rate down by bulk. You'll have better looking rates maybe, but you won't have a country ... because you're outsourcing your immigration law to foreign governments. Crime rates go down by population, violent crime increases in bulk. No, that isn't a perspective I'm on board with. If Americans want this, post-wall and a review of border patrol needs and policy, they can vote through their representatives on raising quotas or loosening application restrictions. This isn't the country of who the hell feels like walking in.
If you want to make it less cumbersome to become a citizen, I'm with you as well. Let's have a look at the US's say in who comes in.
|
![[image loading]](http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/58248cb5691e8849528b5849-960/clinton%20word%20cloud%20getty.png)
It's not just that Clinton was under FBI investigation, it's also that this scandal was incredibly inflated and overexposed in comparison to Trump's scandals. There are a lot of people that are culpable here, starting with Clinton for being careless and incapable of inspiring different coverage, Comey for his infamous letter, but the most obvious target for attack is the media. If a person runs for president and the only thing you're capable of telling the public is the single word "EMAIL" which actually covers two separate scandals that have nothing to do with each other, you haven't done your journalistic duty correctly.
Media behavior in the Netherlands (or say France for a recent example) is much more responsible.
|
|
|
I call bullshit, where is "electable" on the image?
|
On May 11 2017 22:58 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 22:56 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 22:43 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:36 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 22:32 TMG26 wrote:On May 11 2017 22:00 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 21:34 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 20:01 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 19:21 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
I've lived close to the US southern border almost my whole life. There were over a million and a half illegal immigrants in my state as of 2006, and that number has certainly gone up since then. This manifests itself in very real cultural change. Imagine seeing the communities you grew up in being overrun by foreigners who don't even speak the language, much less share the same cultural traditions as you. They don't assimilate. It is impossible to have immigrants assimilate into the US if they can't even speak English. The situation would not be such a problem if the more than ten million illegal Latin American immigrants were highly skilled workers, but instead most of them are only able to do manual labor.
Anchor babies are a real problem too. The current situation is one where pregnant women sneak over the border and try to evade Border Patrol until they can give birth on U.S. soil, thereby guaranteeing their child American citizenship. This also provides the mother with a pathway to citizenship herself, simply by having the child inside the borders of the United States. You might ask who voted for this ridiculous situation. In fact, Congress has never enacted any such law. I actually can't find any convincing legal basis online. I did find a couple of arguments that the justification stemmed from particular readings of the 14th amendment, but that was obviously bullshit, because Congress had to pass a special act in 1924 to explicitly grant US citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. So if the citizenship status of Native American kids was in question in 1924, the 14th amendment clearly doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who only have a temporary visa in the U.S. To sum up: the current anchor baby situation is totally nuts and I can't even figure out how it started / what the legal basis is.
The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. And the wall is the solution? What about first dealing with the absurd situation where you know that you have that'll many illegals, you even know roughly where they are, but mysteriously, they somehow can't be extradited? Even when some law enforcement has hold of them but they just don't happen to be the one interested in immigrants? Or just solving the very problem of birthright that you mention. I just think that if given the option to deal with a problem by fixing up a couple of legalities or by building thousands of miles of a barrier across unaccessible country, the first thing should be tried first. I am not criticizing stricter immigration here, that is a question of choice (I wouldn't chose it, but that's not the point), but the wall is absurd. I agree that the legal loopholes should be fixed first. It's just that laws alone don't work vs people with no regard for the legal process. And from what I understand, even the highest cost estimates for a wall are 0.5% - 1% of the U.S. annual budget. That's a small price to pay for vastly increased border security that cannot simply be abolished by executive fiat as soon as political winds change. Just to add to what you're saying, we have a local story here that is riling people up. A man deported 15 times put a six year old in critical condition in a DUI crash. The story was all over the top-of-the-hour news reports on the radio. An anecdote to be sure. The southern border is just that porous. You erect a barrier that makes crossing much more difficult at because the cracks in the system are just too wide. I would argue that there is no barrier we could create that can stop a man that is willing to be deported 15 times. As others have said, oceans do not stop illegal migrants. And on a similar line of thinking, contractors often say “you can’t stop water” when it comes to drainage and preventing flooding in houses. If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at some point we should have just incarcerated him. Maybe around deportation number 8-14. The wall doesn't stop it, but it may reduce it. Oceans only slow people down. Deserts only slow people down. Mountains only slow people down. How many billions are we willing to pay for a slight reduction while not overhauling our immigration system. Several billion in fact. Slow down every attempted re-entry and make the success rate way lower (unless you think patrolling a wall is inferior to patrolling no wall) Waste more months of your life attempting. Save rape victims and DUI injuries because guys like Constantino are still attempting his 3rd border crossing at age 38. Instead of having made it across 15 times. And you'll have a nice big government big business president perfectly willing to negotiate guest worker visas for things like seasonal farm labor. But no, when you say "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at so me point we should have just incarcerated him" you meant "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, the stupidest thing would be to make it harder to do so." Crime rates are lower among illegal immigrants than native americans, so you are increasing chances of rape and DUI injuries and making americans less safe by building the wall. LOL Great joke. That Portuguese sense of absurdist taking it to the extreme humour. Love it.
this is a statistical truth, absurd or not. i can't believe Danglers is so quick to return to the fearmongering by equating immigrants to rapists. i thought we had moved above this discussion, since we've been backing up our claims with facts recently.
there are of course many legitimate gripes with illegal immigration but to call them rapists is just shameful. embarrassing. bad.
what is it xdaunt would call it? something to the effect of outrage porn? just troll bait.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 11 2017 23:51 opisska wrote:
I call bullshit, where is "electable" on the image?
Probably shows about how seriously people took her claims of such.
|
United States42934 Posts
On May 11 2017 19:11 HalcyonRain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. From what I understand we actually DO have a quite strict immigration system that takes a long long time to get through. The problem is the illegal immigration. Obama found it politically expedient to try to forgive a lot of the illegal immigrants and give them citizenship, although I don't know the details. From a political standpoint that was a very good move for the democrat party, as those people will very likely vote democrat the rest of their lives, both because it was a democrat that gave them a free pass, and that it's very likely they're on the poorer side and need gov assistance. I believe part of Obama's executive orders, in essence, stopped immigration enforcement, whereas Trump has now started to enforce the law and may be turning illegals back at the southern US border. Whether this does anything or not, who knows.
Hispanics are generally super pro-life and socially conservative. Also Obama didn't give any illegal immigrants citizenship or votes. Also it's the Southern Republican strongholds that are most dependent on government welfare. The theory doesn't really hold up.
|
On May 11 2017 23:52 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 22:58 ZeromuS wrote:On May 11 2017 22:56 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 22:43 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:36 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 22:32 TMG26 wrote:On May 11 2017 22:00 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 21:34 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 20:01 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 19:21 opisska wrote:
[quote]
And the wall is the solution? What about first dealing with the absurd situation where you know that you have that'll many illegals, you even know roughly where they are, but mysteriously, they somehow can't be extradited? Even when some law enforcement has hold of them but they just don't happen to be the one interested in immigrants? Or just solving the very problem of birthright that you mention. I just think that if given the option to deal with a problem by fixing up a couple of legalities or by building thousands of miles of a barrier across unaccessible country, the first thing should be tried first. I am not criticizing stricter immigration here, that is a question of choice (I wouldn't chose it, but that's not the point), but the wall is absurd.
I agree that the legal loopholes should be fixed first. It's just that laws alone don't work vs people with no regard for the legal process. And from what I understand, even the highest cost estimates for a wall are 0.5% - 1% of the U.S. annual budget. That's a small price to pay for vastly increased border security that cannot simply be abolished by executive fiat as soon as political winds change. Just to add to what you're saying, we have a local story here that is riling people up. A man deported 15 times put a six year old in critical condition in a DUI crash. The story was all over the top-of-the-hour news reports on the radio. An anecdote to be sure. The southern border is just that porous. You erect a barrier that makes crossing much more difficult at because the cracks in the system are just too wide. I would argue that there is no barrier we could create that can stop a man that is willing to be deported 15 times. As others have said, oceans do not stop illegal migrants. And on a similar line of thinking, contractors often say “you can’t stop water” when it comes to drainage and preventing flooding in houses. If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at some point we should have just incarcerated him. Maybe around deportation number 8-14. The wall doesn't stop it, but it may reduce it. Oceans only slow people down. Deserts only slow people down. Mountains only slow people down. How many billions are we willing to pay for a slight reduction while not overhauling our immigration system. Several billion in fact. Slow down every attempted re-entry and make the success rate way lower (unless you think patrolling a wall is inferior to patrolling no wall) Waste more months of your life attempting. Save rape victims and DUI injuries because guys like Constantino are still attempting his 3rd border crossing at age 38. Instead of having made it across 15 times. And you'll have a nice big government big business president perfectly willing to negotiate guest worker visas for things like seasonal farm labor. But no, when you say "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at so me point we should have just incarcerated him" you meant "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, the stupidest thing would be to make it harder to do so." Crime rates are lower among illegal immigrants than native americans, so you are increasing chances of rape and DUI injuries and making americans less safe by building the wall. LOL Great joke. That Portuguese sense of absurdist taking it to the extreme humour. Love it. this is a statistical truth, absurd or not. i can't believe Danglers is so quick to return to the fearmongering by equating immigrants to rapists. i thought we had moved above this discussion, since we've been backing up our claims with facts recently.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html?_r=0
Correct. Immigrants, legal and otherwise, are less likely to commit crimes of all sorts(with the exception of violating immigration law in the case of illegal immigrants).
|
United States42934 Posts
On May 11 2017 19:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 17:41 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Wow, that got a lot of replies. @all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one. @Kwark I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it. @zlefin I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time. I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win. Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now. @plansix Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here. These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind. @opisska That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically. Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme. I know I am five pages late due to timezones, but .. wait! You actually agreed on the wall? I was a little expecting that you could challenge the idiot part (glad you didn't) and started thinking what would be a good example - and the wall came up rather obviously. I mean even if you discarded his incoherent speech as a persona that some voters like for some reason, then the sole fact that a highly visible part of his platform was a childish, unrealistic, useless and even harmful (ecologically and to local people) penis compensation, speaks volumes about who he is ... Anyway, good that you said that you are willing to learn from these elections. More people like that! I just thinm that all the information was there already, but what is the point of beating people over it, really ... I've lived close to the US southern border almost my whole life. There were over a million and a half illegal immigrants in my state as of 2006, and that number has certainly gone up since then. This manifests itself in very real cultural change. Imagine seeing the communities you grew up in being overrun by foreigners who don't even speak the language, much less share the same cultural traditions as you. They don't assimilate. It is impossible to have immigrants assimilate into the US if they can't even speak English. The situation would not be such a problem if the more than ten million illegal Latin American immigrants were highly skilled workers, but instead most of them are only able to do manual labor. Anchor babies are a real problem too. The current situation is one where pregnant women sneak over the border and try to evade Border Patrol until they can give birth on U.S. soil, thereby guaranteeing their child American citizenship. This also provides the mother with a pathway to citizenship herself, simply by having the child inside the borders of the United States. You might ask who voted for this ridiculous situation. In fact, Congress has never enacted any such law. I actually can't find any convincing legal basis online. I did find a couple of arguments that the justification stemmed from particular readings of the 14th amendment, but that was obviously bullshit, because Congress had to pass a special act in 1924 to explicitly grant US citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. So if the citizenship status of Native American kids was in question in 1924, the 14th amendment clearly doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who only have a temporary visa in the U.S. To sum up: the current anchor baby situation is totally nuts and I can't even figure out how it started / what the legal basis is. The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. You seem to think that having a stricter immigration policy than you already have is going to do anything to stop illegal immigration. Moreover, you seem to think that increased border security will halt migrants from coming across. Let me tell you about Europe. We have this wall, it's the bestest and bigliest wall. Well, actually it's not a wall at all. It's hundreds of kilometers of SEA. Thousands of migrants drown every year trying to cross it in leaky boats. Now what do you think is harder to cross: the mediterranean, or whatever wall Trump promised he'd build? The problem really isn't stopping them from coming: you can't. It's having a functional return policy. That means working WITH Mexico (and Honduras, Guatemala and other countries the migrants are originally from). And if your starting point is pissing the Mexicans off by telling them they have to pay for your cockamamy penis enlargement scheme, that part is not going to go to well. Moreover, I think you actually need to make your migration policy more relaxed, so farmers can actually get legal seasonal labor, rather than being almost forced to rely on illegal laborers.
I mean it would have helped if the US hadn't also destabilized Central America by starting civil wars, funding death squads, aiding the drug cartels and so forth. They wouldn't be trying to get to America if nobody had set fire to their homeland.
|
On May 11 2017 20:01 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 19:21 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On May 11 2017 17:41 opisska wrote:On May 11 2017 05:27 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Wow, that got a lot of replies. @all: When another election comes around, I will definitely take into account what I've learned from this one. @Kwark I have repeatedly said that you are a smart person but a terrible persuader and this is just more evidence of it. @zlefin I honestly heard almost nothing about Russia and Trump prior to the election. There was Michael Flynn, who I knew was highly suspect to say the least, but that was just one man, or so it appeared at the time. I thought once Trump assumed office, Flynn would be gone because of the vetting requirements. The appointment of him as NSA was when I lost all faith in Trump's administration. But that was all in the future at that time. I heard a lot about the Access Hollywood tape and the Comey letter debacle. The overriding narrative about Trump before the election was that he was a racist/sexist/misogynist/ableist/transphobic/homophobic bigoted evil person but it didn't matter because Clinton was inevitably going to win. Examination of Trump's Russian ties simply wasn't a very big deal back then, as hard as that may be to remember now. @plansix Agreed, but it wasn’t like the warnings were not there. Many of the core criticisms of Trump have played out. Complete disregard for the rule of law, systems and offices that exist in government. A dislike for hard work. Completely uneducated on how international relations work and why we provide weapons to our allies. And most importantly, a complete distrust of professionals in a field that don’t tell him exactly what he wants to here. These are all very good points. The next election, I will be voting with this experience in mind. @opisska That's a rather hypocritical excuse, don't you think? What "platform they run on" can't be the only way to evaluate your candidates, unless you magically teleport into a world when everyone is honest and perfect.
Trump wasn't even secretive about how big of an idiot he is during the campaign, as evidence by the fact that he was willing to open his mouth in public. You can't ask to not be held accountable for not expecting him to actually act idiotically. Platforms are the primary part of evaluating any candidate. I always thought Trump was ethically challenged (Trump University, stiffing contractors) and not very bright (as you said, every time he spoke). On the other hand, I agreed with him on the main issues (tax reform, wall, immigration reform, trade deals). My alternative was someone who I considered intelligent but just as crooked and whose platform I disagreed with in the extreme. I know I am five pages late due to timezones, but .. wait! You actually agreed on the wall? I was a little expecting that you could challenge the idiot part (glad you didn't) and started thinking what would be a good example - and the wall came up rather obviously. I mean even if you discarded his incoherent speech as a persona that some voters like for some reason, then the sole fact that a highly visible part of his platform was a childish, unrealistic, useless and even harmful (ecologically and to local people) penis compensation, speaks volumes about who he is ... Anyway, good that you said that you are willing to learn from these elections. More people like that! I just thinm that all the information was there already, but what is the point of beating people over it, really ... I've lived close to the US southern border almost my whole life. There were over a million and a half illegal immigrants in my state as of 2006, and that number has certainly gone up since then. This manifests itself in very real cultural change. Imagine seeing the communities you grew up in being overrun by foreigners who don't even speak the language, much less share the same cultural traditions as you. They don't assimilate. It is impossible to have immigrants assimilate into the US if they can't even speak English. The situation would not be such a problem if the more than ten million illegal Latin American immigrants were highly skilled workers, but instead most of them are only able to do manual labor. Anchor babies are a real problem too. The current situation is one where pregnant women sneak over the border and try to evade Border Patrol until they can give birth on U.S. soil, thereby guaranteeing their child American citizenship. This also provides the mother with a pathway to citizenship herself, simply by having the child inside the borders of the United States. You might ask who voted for this ridiculous situation. In fact, Congress has never enacted any such law. I actually can't find any convincing legal basis online. I did find a couple of arguments that the justification stemmed from particular readings of the 14th amendment, but that was obviously bullshit, because Congress had to pass a special act in 1924 to explicitly grant US citizenship to Native Americans born in the United States. So if the citizenship status of Native American kids was in question in 1924, the 14th amendment clearly doesn't grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who only have a temporary visa in the U.S. To sum up: the current anchor baby situation is totally nuts and I can't even figure out how it started / what the legal basis is. The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. And the wall is the solution? What about first dealing with the absurd situation where you know that you have that'll many illegals, you even know roughly where they are, but mysteriously, they somehow can't be extradited? Even when some law enforcement has hold of them but they just don't happen to be the one interested in immigrants? Or just solving the very problem of birthright that you mention. I just think that if given the option to deal with a problem by fixing up a couple of legalities or by building thousands of miles of a barrier across unaccessible country, the first thing should be tried first. I am not criticizing stricter immigration here, that is a question of choice (I wouldn't chose it, but that's not the point), but the wall is absurd. I agree that the legal loopholes should be fixed first. It's just that laws alone don't work vs people with no regard for the legal process. And from what I understand, even the highest cost estimates for a wall are 0.5% - 1% of the U.S. annual budget. That's a small price to pay for vastly increased border security that cannot simply be abolished by executive fiat as soon as political winds change.
you vastly overestimate the use of a wall to border security.
walls don't stop people, they slow them down and change where they flow.
iirc, there's already border wall in all the places it's useful to have a wall.
keep in mind people pay thousands of dollars to smugglers to get in, and a bunch may be sent in at once; so you have to have a wall wherein someone can't spend $50k to make a breach at a single point and go through, which is very very hard to do.
the fundamental challenges of defense vs offense and the amount of money willing to be spent to smuggle people and things in is quite substantial.
after all, it's already profitable for drug smugglers to build literal tunnels under the area, and those smuggle people too.
|
I think people advocating for the wall realize it won't actually reduce immigration. I think they just like the idea of finally giving immigrants the middle finger. A lot of people don't like the fact that immigrants are so welcomed. And when you look at rural communities in particular, immigrants are often just a better version of rural people. They work the same jobs, cheaper, because they are totally stoked to even be here. These communities tend to feel victimized because their remarkably low skill work is being done by someone who doesn't even know English. But if someone who doesn't know English managed to replace you, you were always a really unimportant, low level individual to begin with.
|
United States42934 Posts
On May 12 2017 00:08 Mohdoo wrote:
I think people advocating for the wall realize it won't actually reduce immigration.
You're overestimating Trump supporters. These are people who like their policy solutions in a single sentence. They believe in it because they understand it. They dismiss the problems with the policy because the problems take a whole paragraph to understand.
|
On May 11 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 19:11 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. From what I understand we actually DO have a quite strict immigration system that takes a long long time to get through. The problem is the illegal immigration. Obama found it politically expedient to try to forgive a lot of the illegal immigrants and give them citizenship, although I don't know the details. From a political standpoint that was a very good move for the democrat party, as those people will very likely vote democrat the rest of their lives, both because it was a democrat that gave them a free pass, and that it's very likely they're on the poorer side and need gov assistance. I believe part of Obama's executive orders, in essence, stopped immigration enforcement, whereas Trump has now started to enforce the law and may be turning illegals back at the southern US border. Whether this does anything or not, who knows. Hispanics are generally super pro-life and socially conservative.
Hispanics still vote democrat though.
|
On May 11 2017 23:31 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 23:20 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 23:13 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:56 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 22:43 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:36 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 22:32 TMG26 wrote:On May 11 2017 22:00 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 21:34 Danglars wrote:[quote] Just to add to what you're saying, we have a local story here that is riling people up. A man deported 15 times put a six year old in critical condition in a DUI crash. The story was all over the top-of-the-hour news reports on the radio. An anecdote to be sure. The southern border is just that porous. You erect a barrier that makes crossing much more difficult at because the cracks in the system are just too wide. I would argue that there is no barrier we could create that can stop a man that is willing to be deported 15 times. As others have said, oceans do not stop illegal migrants. And on a similar line of thinking, contractors often say “you can’t stop water” when it comes to drainage and preventing flooding in houses. If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at some point we should have just incarcerated him. Maybe around deportation number 8-14. The wall doesn't stop it, but it may reduce it. Oceans only slow people down. Deserts only slow people down. Mountains only slow people down. How many billions are we willing to pay for a slight reduction while not overhauling our immigration system. Several billion in fact. Slow down every attempted re-entry and make the success rate way lower (unless you think patrolling a wall is inferior to patrolling no wall) Waste more months of your life attempting. Save rape victims and DUI injuries because guys like Constantino are still attempting his 3rd border crossing at age 38. Instead of having made it across 15 times. And you'll have a nice big government big business president perfectly willing to negotiate guest worker visas for things like seasonal farm labor. But no, when you say "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at so me point we should have just incarcerated him" you meant "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, the stupidest thing would be to make it harder to do so." Crime rates are lower among illegal immigrants than native americans, so you are increasing chances of rape and DUI injuries and making americans less safe by building the wall. Sometimes the parody is hard to separate from the sincere. I was being sincere. Educate me on why what I said is wrong. Breaking immigration law is a crime. Equivalent numbers of Americans are not exchanged for the new crop of illegal immigrants, so one new lawbreaker still increase rape and DUI injuries. Try telling the mother of a dead child that she was one of many new crimes by illegal immigrants, but at least the percentage is lower! I'm sure she will be comforted by your brilliant use of statistics. Breaking immigration law hurts no one and the discussion here was clearly about violent crime or crime that actually makes natives' lives worse. When assessing crime statistics from the perspective of how safe one is in a country you obviously have to use relative figures, which is why they're pretty much always expressed that way when doing any sort of meaningful comparison. If you want to figure out how safe you are, you have to look at "what are the chances of me getting raped/killed today?". Those chances decrease with illegal immigration because they commit fewer crimes per 100 000 people. I thought this was a policy debate not an exercise in cheap demagoguery. If you're actually concerned about grieving mothers, why not start with gun control?
by that logic if we want to reduce crime we should start black people control
|
|
|
United States42934 Posts
On May 12 2017 00:12 TMG26 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 23:31 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 23:20 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 23:13 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:56 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 22:43 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:36 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 22:32 TMG26 wrote:On May 11 2017 22:00 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I would argue that there is no barrier we could create that can stop a man that is willing to be deported 15 times. As others have said, oceans do not stop illegal migrants. And on a similar line of thinking, contractors often say “you can’t stop water” when it comes to drainage and preventing flooding in houses. If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at some point we should have just incarcerated him. Maybe around deportation number 8-14. The wall doesn't stop it, but it may reduce it. Oceans only slow people down. Deserts only slow people down. Mountains only slow people down. How many billions are we willing to pay for a slight reduction while not overhauling our immigration system. Several billion in fact. Slow down every attempted re-entry and make the success rate way lower (unless you think patrolling a wall is inferior to patrolling no wall) Waste more months of your life attempting. Save rape victims and DUI injuries because guys like Constantino are still attempting his 3rd border crossing at age 38. Instead of having made it across 15 times. And you'll have a nice big government big business president perfectly willing to negotiate guest worker visas for things like seasonal farm labor. But no, when you say "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at so me point we should have just incarcerated him" you meant "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, the stupidest thing would be to make it harder to do so." Crime rates are lower among illegal immigrants than native americans, so you are increasing chances of rape and DUI injuries and making americans less safe by building the wall. Sometimes the parody is hard to separate from the sincere. I was being sincere. Educate me on why what I said is wrong. Breaking immigration law is a crime. Equivalent numbers of Americans are not exchanged for the new crop of illegal immigrants, so one new lawbreaker still increase rape and DUI injuries. Try telling the mother of a dead child that she was one of many new crimes by illegal immigrants, but at least the percentage is lower! I'm sure she will be comforted by your brilliant use of statistics. Breaking immigration law hurts no one and the discussion here was clearly about violent crime or crime that actually makes natives' lives worse. When assessing crime statistics from the perspective of how safe one is in a country you obviously have to use relative figures, which is why they're pretty much always expressed that way when doing any sort of meaningful comparison. If you want to figure out how safe you are, you have to look at "what are the chances of me getting raped/killed today?". Those chances decrease with illegal immigration because they commit fewer crimes per 100 000 people. I thought this was a policy debate not an exercise in cheap demagoguery. If you're actually concerned about grieving mothers, why not start with gun control? by that logic if we want to reduce crime we should start black people control
Calm down Himmler.
|
On May 11 2017 23:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 23:31 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 23:20 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 23:13 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:56 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 22:43 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:36 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 22:32 TMG26 wrote:On May 11 2017 22:00 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I would argue that there is no barrier we could create that can stop a man that is willing to be deported 15 times. As others have said, oceans do not stop illegal migrants. And on a similar line of thinking, contractors often say “you can’t stop water” when it comes to drainage and preventing flooding in houses. If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at some point we should have just incarcerated him. Maybe around deportation number 8-14. The wall doesn't stop it, but it may reduce it. Oceans only slow people down. Deserts only slow people down. Mountains only slow people down. How many billions are we willing to pay for a slight reduction while not overhauling our immigration system. Several billion in fact. Slow down every attempted re-entry and make the success rate way lower (unless you think patrolling a wall is inferior to patrolling no wall) Waste more months of your life attempting. Save rape victims and DUI injuries because guys like Constantino are still attempting his 3rd border crossing at age 38. Instead of having made it across 15 times. And you'll have a nice big government big business president perfectly willing to negotiate guest worker visas for things like seasonal farm labor. But no, when you say "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at so me point we should have just incarcerated him" you meant "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, the stupidest thing would be to make it harder to do so." Crime rates are lower among illegal immigrants than native americans, so you are increasing chances of rape and DUI injuries and making americans less safe by building the wall. Sometimes the parody is hard to separate from the sincere. I was being sincere. Educate me on why what I said is wrong. Breaking immigration law is a crime. Equivalent numbers of Americans are not exchanged for the new crop of illegal immigrants, so one new lawbreaker still increase rape and DUI injuries. Try telling the mother of a dead child that she was one of many new crimes by illegal immigrants, but at least the percentage is lower! I'm sure she will be comforted by your brilliant use of statistics. Breaking immigration law hurts no one and the discussion here was clearly about violent crime or crime that actually makes natives' lives worse. When assessing crime statistics from the perspective of how safe one is in a country you obviously have to use relative figures, which is why they're pretty much always expressed that way when doing any sort of meaningful comparison. If you want to figure out how safe you are, you have to look at "what are the chances of me getting raped/killed today?". Those chances decrease with illegal immigration because they commit fewer crimes per 100 000 people. I thought this was a policy debate not an exercise in cheap demagoguery. If you're actually concerned about grieving mothers, why not start with gun control? Everything from school overcrowding to entitlement strain hurts communities that undergo more financial burden and debt problems. This is a multifaceted problem and high rates of illegal immigration bring with them problems not nearly summed up in violent crime statistics. Your first act in obeying the law is breaking the law. Great. I'm not talking about how safe you are in the country, I'm taking about how many new crimes you're gaining and how these are eminently preventable. We can talk about it reducing crime rates for the citizens of the United States and prison reform and legal reform. It doesn't involve importing populations from other countries to drive the crime rate down by bulk. You'll have better looking rates maybe, but you won't have a country ... because you're outsourcing your immigration law to foreign governments. Crime rates go down by population, violent crime increases in bulk. No, that isn't a perspective I'm on board with. If Americans want this, post-wall and a review of border patrol needs and policy, they can vote through their representatives on raising quotas or loosening application restrictions. This isn't the country of who the hell feels like walking in. If you want to make it less cumbersome to become a citizen, I'm with you as well. Let's have a look at the US's say in who comes in.
Come on, your are not this stupid. Why would you act like absolute crime numbers are the relevant statistic, and not relative crime rates. I remember having this debate already with someone else. It was silly. You are educated enough to know that looking at a statistic that scales with population is silly to judge the effect of adding more people has on the native population.
I am generally not a big fan of illegal immigration. But your arguments are just so horribly bad. "All illegal immigrants are criminal because illegal immigration is a crime". Yes, that is technically true, but also really besides the point. When people talk about criminals, they obviously mean people who are a danger to other people. When you claim that all illegal immigrants are criminals, you evoke the image of them being about to knife you in a dark alley, not what your tautology actually amounts to.
"More people means more crimes". Also true, but not relevant, because what you should care about is the probability of you being a victim of a crime. Which correlates with the crime ratio, and not the absolute number of crimes. Did you know that there are more murders in the US than in El Salvador? Which country do you believe is safer to live in?
I know that you can do better than technicalities and intentionally misunderstanding statistics.
|
On May 12 2017 00:12 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 19:11 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. From what I understand we actually DO have a quite strict immigration system that takes a long long time to get through. The problem is the illegal immigration. Obama found it politically expedient to try to forgive a lot of the illegal immigrants and give them citizenship, although I don't know the details. From a political standpoint that was a very good move for the democrat party, as those people will very likely vote democrat the rest of their lives, both because it was a democrat that gave them a free pass, and that it's very likely they're on the poorer side and need gov assistance. I believe part of Obama's executive orders, in essence, stopped immigration enforcement, whereas Trump has now started to enforce the law and may be turning illegals back at the southern US border. Whether this does anything or not, who knows. Hispanics are generally super pro-life and socially conservative. Hispanics still vote democrat though.
Because the Republicans position is bat shit insane on a lot of issues.
I bet there are a lot of people who would like to vote Republican for part of their program but won't because the rest is so far out there.
|
On May 11 2017 23:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 23:31 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 23:20 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 23:13 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 23:08 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:56 warding wrote:On May 11 2017 22:43 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2017 22:36 Plansix wrote:On May 11 2017 22:32 TMG26 wrote:On May 11 2017 22:00 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I would argue that there is no barrier we could create that can stop a man that is willing to be deported 15 times. As others have said, oceans do not stop illegal migrants. And on a similar line of thinking, contractors often say “you can’t stop water” when it comes to drainage and preventing flooding in houses. If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at some point we should have just incarcerated him. Maybe around deportation number 8-14. The wall doesn't stop it, but it may reduce it. Oceans only slow people down. Deserts only slow people down. Mountains only slow people down. How many billions are we willing to pay for a slight reduction while not overhauling our immigration system. Several billion in fact. Slow down every attempted re-entry and make the success rate way lower (unless you think patrolling a wall is inferior to patrolling no wall) Waste more months of your life attempting. Save rape victims and DUI injuries because guys like Constantino are still attempting his 3rd border crossing at age 38. Instead of having made it across 15 times. And you'll have a nice big government big business president perfectly willing to negotiate guest worker visas for things like seasonal farm labor. But no, when you say "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, at so me point we should have just incarcerated him" you meant "If this person was dangerous and kept coming back into the country, the stupidest thing would be to make it harder to do so." Crime rates are lower among illegal immigrants than native americans, so you are increasing chances of rape and DUI injuries and making americans less safe by building the wall. Sometimes the parody is hard to separate from the sincere. I was being sincere. Educate me on why what I said is wrong. Breaking immigration law is a crime. Equivalent numbers of Americans are not exchanged for the new crop of illegal immigrants, so one new lawbreaker still increase rape and DUI injuries. Try telling the mother of a dead child that she was one of many new crimes by illegal immigrants, but at least the percentage is lower! I'm sure she will be comforted by your brilliant use of statistics. Breaking immigration law hurts no one and the discussion here was clearly about violent crime or crime that actually makes natives' lives worse. When assessing crime statistics from the perspective of how safe one is in a country you obviously have to use relative figures, which is why they're pretty much always expressed that way when doing any sort of meaningful comparison. If you want to figure out how safe you are, you have to look at "what are the chances of me getting raped/killed today?". Those chances decrease with illegal immigration because they commit fewer crimes per 100 000 people. I thought this was a policy debate not an exercise in cheap demagoguery. If you're actually concerned about grieving mothers, why not start with gun control? Everything from school overcrowding to entitlement strain hurts communities that undergo more financial burden and debt problems. This is a multifaceted problem and high rates of illegal immigration bring with them problems not nearly summed up in violent crime statistics. Your first act in obeying the law is breaking the law. Great. I'm not talking about how safe you are in the country, I'm taking about how many new crimes you're gaining and how these are eminently preventable. We can talk about it reducing crime rates for the citizens of the United States and prison reform and legal reform. It doesn't involve importing populations from other countries to drive the crime rate down by bulk. You'll have better looking rates maybe, but you won't have a country ... because you're outsourcing your immigration law to foreign governments. Crime rates go down by population, violent crime increases in bulk. No, that isn't a perspective I'm on board with. If Americans want this, post-wall and a review of border patrol needs and policy, they can vote through their representatives on raising quotas or loosening application restrictions. This isn't the country of who the hell feels like walking in. If you want to make it less cumbersome to become a citizen, I'm with you as well. Let's have a look at the US's say in who comes in.
Immigrants are more often than not a net-positive on welfare programs, the US has a smaller welfare system compared to European countries and a very low unemployment rate. If immigrants are a burden on your finances then you must be doing something terribly wrong. Anyway, it seems like you're just shooting in every direction now. I actually haven't heard of any convincing case for a single practical problem illegal immigration causes in the US to the average american.
I won't discuss crime and safety in absolute numbers. It's dumb.
|
United States42934 Posts
On May 12 2017 00:12 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 23:54 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 19:11 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 18:45 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
The U.S. needs a much stricter immigration system. Copying Canada's merit based system would be a good start. To candidate Trump's credit, he was the only person in either primary even willing to raise these issues. The mass importation of the Third World has got to end. It is destroying the social fabric of this country. From what I understand we actually DO have a quite strict immigration system that takes a long long time to get through. The problem is the illegal immigration. Obama found it politically expedient to try to forgive a lot of the illegal immigrants and give them citizenship, although I don't know the details. From a political standpoint that was a very good move for the democrat party, as those people will very likely vote democrat the rest of their lives, both because it was a democrat that gave them a free pass, and that it's very likely they're on the poorer side and need gov assistance. I believe part of Obama's executive orders, in essence, stopped immigration enforcement, whereas Trump has now started to enforce the law and may be turning illegals back at the southern US border. Whether this does anything or not, who knows. Hispanics are generally super pro-life and socially conservative. Hispanics still vote democrat though.
Because the Republicans actively target them as an enemy. But politically the only thing immigrants and Democrats are aligned on is that immigrants aren't the devil. They're generally social conservatives who are seeking a low regulatory pro-business environment to chase the American dream. Literally the only thing Democrats offer Hispanics is that they're not the Republicans and the Republicans want to force them to watch baseball and shoot anyone who doesn't pretend to enjoy it enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
