|
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 September 06 2017 02:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2017 02:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Typical xDaunt posting, really. He doesn't post for the responses, just for the flowchart that always leads to "leftists are bad". I mean it is always a little bit baity, but what it looks more like he's doing is a standard logical flow of events as you would do for a mathematical proof or a legal argument. Establish some agreeable axioms then move from there into a larger point. I can't always agree with him but it is true that plenty of folk just strawman it and move on. Yes, but this is a common thread with xDaunt. Starts with a baity post, then whines about everyone misunderstanding him and blames it on the left. He could actually try making his post clear, clarify further as the discussion goes, or even try discussing things for once. But he doesn't.
Yeah, that is sort of his MO and I don't claim to support it. But personally I find that if you humor his style with a charitable interpretation of his posts you can get a fruitful discussion out of him. Insisting on taking the strawman approach leads to badness.
|
On September 06 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2017 02:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Typical xDaunt posting, really. He doesn't post for the responses, just for the flowchart that always leads to "leftists are bad". I mean it is always a little bit baity, but what it looks more like he's doing is a standard logical flow of events as you would do for a mathematical proof or a legal argument. Establish some agreeable axioms then move from there into a larger point. I can't always agree with him but it is true that plenty of folk just strawman it and move on. The percentage of strawman-and-move-on posters actively reduce the value of big posts with tons of points. If you keep teaching what you do and don't value over time, it's only your ignorance talking that you haven't encouraged smaller points and fewer responses.
On the one hand I agree - but on the other hand you can have shit-tier 20-printed-page treatise posts that are basically a gigantic Gish gallop. So length can't be called a virtue in and of itself.
|
On September 06 2017 02:20 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing. Mind answering your position yourself then as I asked at the top of the page? I'll quote it for you: Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 01:43 ChristianS wrote:On September 05 2017 22:34 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On September 05 2017 22:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's rather ironic that when xDaunt asks a question, he recieves a wide variety of answers dicussing the question, the meaning of the question, the politics and means and viability of the question and of poltics and policies, all in good faith. Meanwhile when someone asks xDaunt a yes and no question, he pointedly refuses to answer or skirts around the question. He did get his answer: the left cannot even posit in theory the goal of ending illegal immigration and absolute border control with a sane immigration policy. All attempts to answer different questions or ask the questioner on related topics gave rise to the actual answer. If we don't actually have the same gotals, is it any wonder that the policies meant to come close to achieving those goals are radically different? Bingo. Mind answering the question yourself then? As I see it there's really three questions here, which your question sort of conflates: 1) Assuming that all current illegal immigrants were going to immigrate anyway, would it have been better for them to have instead been able to immigrate legally? 2) Assuming it had been possible, would it have been better if all current illegal immigrants had been successfully prevented from entering by ICE, and/or successfully made to leave when their visa expired? 3) Assuming it were possible, would it be better if we deported all illegal immigrants currently living in the US? For me I'd think 1) is a nearly universal yes, 2) is hard to say, and 3) is an obvious no. Danglars, I'd be curious about your answers too, if you have the time.
I'm not into the pace and scope of your assumptions, sorry. Your three-question breakdown just isn't at the basis of the discussion. You have a perspective, sans assumptions, at what goals or principles should be at the heart of this nation's immigration policy? I don't see any use from our past interactions at digging down beyond understanding each other's principles at the outset.
|
On September 06 2017 02:23 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing. I'm left (voted Liberal in last federal, NDP in last provincial election) and pretty firmly against illegal immigration. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/we-re-allowed-to-stay-here-forever-deportation-order-for-mexican-family-overturned-1.4272700This was in the news recently. Some illegal immigrants from Mexico got into the country, popped out some babies, and since the babies were born in Canada, the kids get citizenship. Kids are now 5, 6 and 9 years old. Because they're citizens, the judge ruled that it'd be in the kids interest to let them stay in Canada since Canada has better healthcare, education etc. than Mexico (not really arguable). They get to bypass the normal immigration process, get access to welfare, etc. whereas people who come legally are on 5+ year waiting lists via the normal immigration process. I would rather deport the parents, and the kids with them, and let the kids keep citizenship. Once the kids grow up or, if they can get parents visas for visiting Canada earlier than that, they can come back, and apply to import their parents in like everyone else.
One of the problems with that is that you are deporting your own citizens and depriving them of rights simply because of their parents. I’m not sure citizenship is worth anything when they have to grow up in Mexico or some other nation. There is also the issue that they might not be a citizen of that nation or will have limited ability to prove their citizenship due to being born in another country.
And I am not sure this issue is wide spread enough to invoke such a harsh stance.
|
On September 06 2017 02:26 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2017 02:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Typical xDaunt posting, really. He doesn't post for the responses, just for the flowchart that always leads to "leftists are bad". I mean it is always a little bit baity, but what it looks more like he's doing is a standard logical flow of events as you would do for a mathematical proof or a legal argument. Establish some agreeable axioms then move from there into a larger point. I can't always agree with him but it is true that plenty of folk just strawman it and move on. The percentage of strawman-and-move-on posters actively reduce the value of big posts with tons of points. If you keep teaching what you do and don't value over time, it's only your ignorance talking that you haven't encouraged smaller points and fewer responses. On the one hand I agree - but on the other hand you can have shit-tier 20-printed-page treatise posts that are basically a gigantic Gish gallop. So length can't be called a virtue in and of itself.
It can totally be taken to the opposite extreme.
But the only example I can think of with extremely long posts involves shit-tier argumentation, over-citation, and restatement that made its length unwarranted. I'm talking about people that pretend they want big breakdowns of all the policies in this policy area one conservative poster supports, then show they can't follow a single idea for a page without recasting it in some trolly direction.
|
On September 06 2017 02:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2017 02:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Typical xDaunt posting, really. He doesn't post for the responses, just for the flowchart that always leads to "leftists are bad". I mean it is always a little bit baity, but what it looks more like he's doing is a standard logical flow of events as you would do for a mathematical proof or a legal argument. Establish some agreeable axioms then move from there into a larger point. I can't always agree with him but it is true that plenty of folk just strawman it and move on. Yes, but this is a common thread with xDaunt. Starts with a baity post, then whines about everyone misunderstanding him and blames it on the left. He could actually try making his post clear, clarify further as the discussion goes, or even try discussing things for once. But he doesn't. Yeah, that is sort of his MO and I don't claim to support it. But personally I find that if you humor his style with a charitable interpretation of his posts you can get a fruitful discussion out of him. Insisting on taking the strawman approach leads to badness.
I think folks are out of charity and good faith to extend to conservative people who constantly post in this baiting style.
|
United States43675 Posts
On September 06 2017 01:26 LegalLord wrote:
The academic job market itself is a bottleneck - or perhaps more appropriately, a pyramidal structure. There are far more academic students than there are academic positions. Part of the problem is the decline of corporate and national non-academic R&D, part of the problem is that academia itself is a one-track system where professorships are the best path forward. But each academic in academia needs a lot of grunts; this is meant to be a system where you train them akin to an apprenticeship but it really looks more like grunt making. However, what happens is that since the labor is cheap, it is often done without regards to the benefit of the students - pricing the US aspiring students out of the market towards more lucrative opportunities.
The "lack of skilled labor" in the US is generally an argument made out of horseshit. What is generally lacking is American labor that wants to work for shit salaries under shit conditions. Developing a two-tier system where you can have internationals work for pennies (for universities and companies) just creates a situation that prices Americans out of the market.
My experience with internationals - largely MidEast, Asian, African, and Indian (few from Europe, honestly) - is mixed. Very broadly and racistly, I would rank them as MidEast > African > Asian >> Indian. I very much believe that if 50-90% of those internationals were to be purged from the system and replaced by talented American students, it would be a genuinely better system with proper incentives for encouraging high quality students to develop high tier talent for the country's skilled labor needs. As it stands now though, it is mostly a university and corporate welfare program.
You say "replaced by talented American students" as if there is a colossal pool of talented Americans who are not currently getting an education that we can pull from. I don't think that is the case. One more educated foreigner does not mean one less educated native.
|
United States43675 Posts
On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing.
You were being needlessly vague and that's why you got vague responses. GIGO.
Illegal immigration doesn't exist in isolation and can't be isolated the way you're trying to. A student friend of mine has an American girlfriend and an American child. If they overstayed their visa and got a job under the table to support their family I would be in favour of their illegal immigration because the alternative, abandoning their family, would be worse. If what you meant by opposition to illegal immigration presumes that those situations can be met through legal immigration then you have to make that clear in your question. You can't ask us to add our own specifics to your question before answering it. If we were to do that we would have a dozen different people answering a dozen different questions without knowing what questions the others were answering.
Perhaps the simplest answer I can give to the question as phrased is that I think illegal immigration should be unnecessary.
Also the comparison of illegal immigrants with Nazism is a little much. The fact that you were eventually willing to condemn Nazis does not mean that it should be equally easy to condemn illegal immigrants.
|
U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma.
Mapp signed the order Monday in preparation for Hurricane Irma. The order allows the Adjutant General of the Virgin Islands to seize private property they believe necessary to protect the islands, subject to approval by the territory’s Justice Department.
Mapp issued an emergency declaration Tuesday and mobilized National Guard units to prepare for the massive storm.
“This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane,” Mapp said. “It’s not time to get on a surfboard.”
Irma strengthened to a Category 5 storm Tuesday, with wind gusts hitting 175 miles an hour. Irma’s eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the U.S. Virgin Islands on Wednesday and bring four to eight inches or rain and 60-mile-per-hour wind gusts.
Daily Caller
Irma won't know what hit her.
|
On September 06 2017 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:24 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2017 02:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 06 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:On September 06 2017 02:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Typical xDaunt posting, really. He doesn't post for the responses, just for the flowchart that always leads to "leftists are bad". I mean it is always a little bit baity, but what it looks more like he's doing is a standard logical flow of events as you would do for a mathematical proof or a legal argument. Establish some agreeable axioms then move from there into a larger point. I can't always agree with him but it is true that plenty of folk just strawman it and move on. Yes, but this is a common thread with xDaunt. Starts with a baity post, then whines about everyone misunderstanding him and blames it on the left. He could actually try making his post clear, clarify further as the discussion goes, or even try discussing things for once. But he doesn't. Yeah, that is sort of his MO and I don't claim to support it. But personally I find that if you humor his style with a charitable interpretation of his posts you can get a fruitful discussion out of him. Insisting on taking the strawman approach leads to badness. I think folks are out of charity and good faith to extend to conservative people who constantly post in this baiting style.
I think baiting is putting it lightly. I don't have time to argue with someone who decides to lump me in with "the Left" the moment I disagree with his disingenuous leading questions. The moment someone shows that all they care about is "winning" a debate, I lose all interest in discussing anything with them.
|
On September 06 2017 02:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma.
Mapp signed the order Monday in preparation for Hurricane Irma. The order allows the Adjutant General of the Virgin Islands to seize private property they believe necessary to protect the islands, subject to approval by the territory’s Justice Department.
Mapp issued an emergency declaration Tuesday and mobilized National Guard units to prepare for the massive storm.
“This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane,” Mapp said. “It’s not time to get on a surfboard.”
Irma strengthened to a Category 5 storm Tuesday, with wind gusts hitting 175 miles an hour. Irma’s eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the U.S. Virgin Islands on Wednesday and bring four to eight inches or rain and 60-mile-per-hour wind gusts. Daily CallerIrma won't know what hit her.
what?
The sounds utterly insane.
Why would the national guard need to seize property to protect against a hurricane?
|
United States43675 Posts
On September 06 2017 02:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:51 Danglars wrote:U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma.
Mapp signed the order Monday in preparation for Hurricane Irma. The order allows the Adjutant General of the Virgin Islands to seize private property they believe necessary to protect the islands, subject to approval by the territory’s Justice Department.
Mapp issued an emergency declaration Tuesday and mobilized National Guard units to prepare for the massive storm.
“This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane,” Mapp said. “It’s not time to get on a surfboard.”
Irma strengthened to a Category 5 storm Tuesday, with wind gusts hitting 175 miles an hour. Irma’s eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the U.S. Virgin Islands on Wednesday and bring four to eight inches or rain and 60-mile-per-hour wind gusts. Daily CallerIrma won't know what hit her. what? The sounds utterly insane. Why would the national guard need to seize property to protect against a hurricane?
Why would they need to seize guns and ammunition? This is literally the start of the infowars FEMA takeover movie.
|
On September 06 2017 02:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:51 Danglars wrote:U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma.
Mapp signed the order Monday in preparation for Hurricane Irma. The order allows the Adjutant General of the Virgin Islands to seize private property they believe necessary to protect the islands, subject to approval by the territory’s Justice Department.
Mapp issued an emergency declaration Tuesday and mobilized National Guard units to prepare for the massive storm.
“This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane,” Mapp said. “It’s not time to get on a surfboard.”
Irma strengthened to a Category 5 storm Tuesday, with wind gusts hitting 175 miles an hour. Irma’s eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the U.S. Virgin Islands on Wednesday and bring four to eight inches or rain and 60-mile-per-hour wind gusts. Daily CallerIrma won't know what hit her. what? The sounds utterly insane. Why would the national guard need to seize property to protect against a hurricane?
Does the guard plan on shooting it down with guns? The hurricane?
|
On September 06 2017 02:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:51 Danglars wrote:U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma.
Mapp signed the order Monday in preparation for Hurricane Irma. The order allows the Adjutant General of the Virgin Islands to seize private property they believe necessary to protect the islands, subject to approval by the territory’s Justice Department.
Mapp issued an emergency declaration Tuesday and mobilized National Guard units to prepare for the massive storm.
“This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane,” Mapp said. “It’s not time to get on a surfboard.”
Irma strengthened to a Category 5 storm Tuesday, with wind gusts hitting 175 miles an hour. Irma’s eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the U.S. Virgin Islands on Wednesday and bring four to eight inches or rain and 60-mile-per-hour wind gusts. Daily CallerIrma won't know what hit her. what? The sounds utterly insane. Why would the national guard need to seize property to protect against a hurricane?
The infrastructure is terrible out in the territories. Puerto Rico is expected to lose power for 3-4 months. They are looking a months long crisis with little support from the main land. I’m not sure how the guns fit into that, except that they don’t want people going full mad max and deciding they control the sources of drinkable water.
|
On September 06 2017 02:56 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 06 2017 02:51 Danglars wrote:U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma.
Mapp signed the order Monday in preparation for Hurricane Irma. The order allows the Adjutant General of the Virgin Islands to seize private property they believe necessary to protect the islands, subject to approval by the territory’s Justice Department.
Mapp issued an emergency declaration Tuesday and mobilized National Guard units to prepare for the massive storm.
“This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane,” Mapp said. “It’s not time to get on a surfboard.”
Irma strengthened to a Category 5 storm Tuesday, with wind gusts hitting 175 miles an hour. Irma’s eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the U.S. Virgin Islands on Wednesday and bring four to eight inches or rain and 60-mile-per-hour wind gusts. Daily CallerIrma won't know what hit her. what? The sounds utterly insane. Why would the national guard need to seize property to protect against a hurricane? Does the guard plan on shooting it down with guns? The hurricane?
I imagine the concern has less to do with the hurricane and more to do with the aftermath. I've never personally been in a hurricane zone, but from most other major disaster zones I'm guessing there are quite a few issues with looting and/or rioting post storm?
|
Plenty pre-storm as well. Aftermath largely involves much more rubble.
|
On September 06 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:23 Lmui wrote:On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing. I'm left (voted Liberal in last federal, NDP in last provincial election) and pretty firmly against illegal immigration. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/we-re-allowed-to-stay-here-forever-deportation-order-for-mexican-family-overturned-1.4272700This was in the news recently. Some illegal immigrants from Mexico got into the country, popped out some babies, and since the babies were born in Canada, the kids get citizenship. Kids are now 5, 6 and 9 years old. Because they're citizens, the judge ruled that it'd be in the kids interest to let them stay in Canada since Canada has better healthcare, education etc. than Mexico (not really arguable). They get to bypass the normal immigration process, get access to welfare, etc. whereas people who come legally are on 5+ year waiting lists via the normal immigration process. I would rather deport the parents, and the kids with them, and let the kids keep citizenship. Once the kids grow up or, if they can get parents visas for visiting Canada earlier than that, they can come back, and apply to import their parents in like everyone else. One of the problems with that is that you are deporting your own citizens and depriving them of rights simply because of their parents. I’m not sure citizenship is worth anything when they have to grow up in Mexico or some other nation. There is also the issue that they might not be a citizen of that nation or will have limited ability to prove their citizenship due to being born in another country. And I am not sure this issue is wide spread enough to invoke such a harsh stance.
In general, Canada does deport kids with citizenship. The problem here is that they appealed and appealed, and by the time the appeal gets to the point where they decide that yes, they should be deported, the kids have been in our education system for so long that it's seriously detrimental to the kids to deport them.
I say fuck the kids if it's early enough in life that they aren't embedded into our education system (I guess this is DACA in the USA). If the kids are less than ~grade 2-3, deport them, have them grow up elsewhere. If the parents can get someone to take care of the kids here, or successfully get a working visa to work while the kids go to school/grow up here, and get citizenship/PR, good for them. Otherwise, get out of the country, take the kids with you, the kids can come back/grow up here if/when someone who's legal in the country can take care of/provide for them here, or the kids are old enough to take care of themselves/provide for people in Canada.
The anchor babies thing really needs to be heavily discouraged.
|
On September 06 2017 03:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:56 NewSunshine wrote:On September 06 2017 02:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 06 2017 02:51 Danglars wrote:U.S. Virgin Islands Gov. Kenneth Mapp signed an emergency order allowing the seizure of private guns, ammunition, explosives and property the National Guard may need to respond to Hurricane Irma.
Mapp signed the order Monday in preparation for Hurricane Irma. The order allows the Adjutant General of the Virgin Islands to seize private property they believe necessary to protect the islands, subject to approval by the territory’s Justice Department.
Mapp issued an emergency declaration Tuesday and mobilized National Guard units to prepare for the massive storm.
“This is not an opportunity to go outside and try to have fun with a hurricane,” Mapp said. “It’s not time to get on a surfboard.”
Irma strengthened to a Category 5 storm Tuesday, with wind gusts hitting 175 miles an hour. Irma’s eye is expected to pass just north of the heart of the U.S. Virgin Islands on Wednesday and bring four to eight inches or rain and 60-mile-per-hour wind gusts. Daily CallerIrma won't know what hit her. what? The sounds utterly insane. Why would the national guard need to seize property to protect against a hurricane? Does the guard plan on shooting it down with guns? The hurricane? I imagine the concern has less to do with the hurricane and more to do with the aftermath. I've never personally been in a hurricane zone, but from most other major disaster zones I'm guessing there are quite a few issues with looting and/or rioting post storm?
That makes a lot more sense. I'm in Florida, so we stand to get hit just as hard as them, but they'll be much less well equipped to recover. Good luck to us all, I guess.
|
United States43675 Posts
On September 06 2017 03:02 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 02:28 Plansix wrote:On September 06 2017 02:23 Lmui wrote:On September 06 2017 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I don't understand all of the handwringing going on here over the questions that I posed about illegal immigration. I gave y'all a very clear opportunity to acknowledge that it's a bad thing. I put it right on the tee, and y'all still wouldn't take it. Even I had the good sense to denounce Nazism while acknowledging that they have a right to protest. So what exactly is a reasonable person supposed to take from this refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is bad? And how about putting this refusal in the context of Democrats obstructing immigration enforcement if not outright encouraging it?
There's nothing inherently wrong with advocating for an open, legal immigration policy. However, where the Left has jumped the shark is in their dogged refusal to acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem and a bad thing. I'm left (voted Liberal in last federal, NDP in last provincial election) and pretty firmly against illegal immigration. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/we-re-allowed-to-stay-here-forever-deportation-order-for-mexican-family-overturned-1.4272700This was in the news recently. Some illegal immigrants from Mexico got into the country, popped out some babies, and since the babies were born in Canada, the kids get citizenship. Kids are now 5, 6 and 9 years old. Because they're citizens, the judge ruled that it'd be in the kids interest to let them stay in Canada since Canada has better healthcare, education etc. than Mexico (not really arguable). They get to bypass the normal immigration process, get access to welfare, etc. whereas people who come legally are on 5+ year waiting lists via the normal immigration process. I would rather deport the parents, and the kids with them, and let the kids keep citizenship. Once the kids grow up or, if they can get parents visas for visiting Canada earlier than that, they can come back, and apply to import their parents in like everyone else. One of the problems with that is that you are deporting your own citizens and depriving them of rights simply because of their parents. I’m not sure citizenship is worth anything when they have to grow up in Mexico or some other nation. There is also the issue that they might not be a citizen of that nation or will have limited ability to prove their citizenship due to being born in another country. And I am not sure this issue is wide spread enough to invoke such a harsh stance. In general, Canada does deport kids with citizenship. The problem here is that they appealed and appealed, and by the time the appeal gets to the point where they decide that yes, they should be deported, the kids have been in our education system for so long that it's seriously detrimental to the kids to deport them. I say fuck the kids if it's early enough in life that they aren't embedded into our education system (I guess this is DACA in the USA). If the kids are less than ~grade 2-3, deport them, have them grow up elsewhere. If the parents can get someone to take care of the kids here, or successfully get a working visa to work while the kids go to school/grow up here, and get citizenship/PR, good for them. Otherwise, get out of the country, take the kids with you, the kids can come back/grow up here if/when someone who's legal in the country can take care of/provide for them here, or the kids are old enough to take care of themselves/provide for people in Canada. The anchor babies thing really needs to be heavily discouraged.
I don't think this is DACA, I think DACA is kids who came here with their parents as minors. That's why they don't have citizenship. Children born in the US have citizenship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
