|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 25 2022 09:20 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 06:28 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2022 02:02 Djabanete wrote:On September 24 2022 07:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 22 2022 23:23 ChristianS wrote: Sounds like you agree the comparison math is stupid. Great! Couldn’t be happier. Now I think you must have a different understanding of the word “overwhelmed” than me in this context but that sounds extremely boring to argue about.
I’ve been extremely unhappy with Biden on immigration. He’s been better than expected on some stuff and maaaybe the courts are partly to blame on immigration but like, I think MPP should have been ruled illegal day 1. Instead it continued well into the next administration. I think using Covid as an excuse to shut down asylum seekers that otherwise would have been entitled to make their case in court was bullshit that a court should have seen through immediately. Instead it continued well into the next administration.
Really, though, the “we’re just enforcing the rule of law!” argument lost most of its power as soon as metering became an intentional strategy to reduce *legal* immigration. That started under Obama (I don’t know for sure if it was an intentional strategy back then or just a lack of resources, but Obama was plenty eager to look hardline on immigration).
At that point you’ve got both US and international law entitling these people to apply for asylum in a timely fashion. Maybe they get rejected! But they’re entitled to apply. But hundreds or thousands are lining up at each port of entry and as a policy we only process 50 applications a day. So people just start coming across, getting apprehended, and *then* applying, and we can’t legally deport them because they do actually have a legal right to apply; we’ve just been refusing to give them that right at the port of entry. Then conservatives are outraged that all these people get to just come across, get apprehended, and stay anyway until their court date, but we’re the ones breaking the law here.
I’d much rather have a robust system for processing asylum cases in a timely fashion. But that would increase legal immigration, and contrary to Introvert’s insistence, conservatives are not actually interested in that, even for legitimate asylum cases. I don’t actually think most liberals are, either. Everybody knows this system is broken but there’s a lot more political will behind keeping it broken or breaking it further than there is in actually getting it functioning, so we’re stuck here forever.
So, uh, sorry El Paso had a bunch more homeless people last week. I hope they found shelters and such for those people to stay in. I’d love for the system to work better so things like that didn’t happen, but I don’t think anyone is actually interested in voting accordingly. I just fundamentally disagree with your philosophy that we can solve this problem if we just provided more resources and funding and allowed more people to expeditiously apply for asylum and get into the country. It's akin to saying that if we just massively incentivized even more people to show up at the border seeking asylum we could solve the problem of having too many people at the border seeking asylum. This is the California theory of governance. Just throw more and more money into making it easier to be homeless and then act surprised when homelessness goes up. Then you get to argue that the problem is even greater and now you need even more money to address it. Whether applications are processed efficiently is orthogonal to whether they’re granted. I don’t see the argument for being deliberately inefficient. Is it really so expensive to hire enough of whoever is processing applications that, going forward, each asylum seeker gets a quick yes/no? The consequence of announcing you're going to make it easier for everyone to quickly apply for asylum and enter the US while they wait for their application is that you're going to greatly increase the number of people that show up seeking asylum. Think about how many people are willing to wait for years while their application is processed and then consider how many more people would come if they got a quick yes/no instead. I think a lot more people would be willing to make the dangerous trek across Central America and a lot more people would be rejected for asylum so that will kind of suck for them. I think it’s revealing that you think the asylum system would have such elastic demand if it ran efficiently. If we actually allowed people to apply immediately (as required by law!) and processed their claims in, say, 3 months you’d have a lot fewer people around with this intermediate legal status of “asylum seeker,” AKA “allowed to be here pending results of my case, check back in 3 years.” Sure that’d be a bigger draw for people whose cases are likely to prevail, but not for the people who are counting on years of legal limbo before their case is likely rejected. The implication would be that you think there’s a lot of people who have legitimate asylum claims but aren’t currently seeking it because our system is so brutal and slow they don’t think they’re likely to get the asylum our system *currently promises them,* at least not in a reasonable time frame. Do you know how fucked up circumstances usually have to be for you to have a legitimate asylum claim? Lotta different stories come out of a lot of different places, but it’s not unusual for it to be something like “a drug cartel threatened to kill my family if my son doesn’t fight in their war against another cartel.” If you think that situation is real and common but you just don’t care or think it’s your problem, fine. But then you’re seriously gonna turn around and ask me to have compassion for the poor El Pasoans who have to deal with an extra 1000 homeless for a while? It’s kind of rare to see an impassioned case for how valuable the asylum system is, and frankly I’m not qualified to make it. But think about every time Americans have had opinions about what’s happening around the globe. Aw man, some dictator or something is abusing his people, or some ethnic or religious minority is being persecuted! And we’re torn between an interventionist impulse (“Let’s send in guys with guns and shoot the bad guys!”) and an isolationist impulse (“Let’s leave them alone, we always just fuck things up worse when we go in anyways.”). A lot of situations we know we can’t go in (e.g. Hong Kong a few years back) but we spend a lot of time and energy worrying about the injustice of it all. What if we said “we can’t fix things over there, but anybody who needs to escape can come here”? It won’t solve every problem. Refugees go through hell to get out of danger in the first place, and having to leave their homeland is often deeply painful. And it leaves the “bad guys” in charge with fewer people to resist them. But at the same time, it will be that much harder for tyrants to control their people if they have an escape, and rather than spend so much money and lives on a foreign war, we can spend quite a bit less on temporary lodging and provisions and education for them to integrate into our society. Hell, it probably costs quite a bit less than it would to raise and educate an American child to the point that they can join the work force at an equivalent level. Like, hey, maybe there’s some value in the “huddled masses” after all if we widen our view beyond the increased burden they’ll place on El Paso’s public bathrooms?
I didn't say you should have compassion for El Pasoans for having to deal with extra homeless people. I said you should stop supporting ridiculous narratives that border towns are not overwhelmed when they have hundreds of people sleeping and defecating on the streets. Or that people wouldn't get on buses voluntary to go to progressive cities in the northeast because I guess they just love sleeping on the sidewalks of El Paso so much.
If you really want to take the most humane route you could just not have borders at all. Maybe not everyone at the border has a legitimate claim to asylum but they are all escaping something - either persecution, tyranny, or poverty. We already reject/deport plenty of people that are just seeking better lives for their families and we determine they are not entitled to it merely because they had the misfortune of not being born here. Why not just have open borders which would not only allow more people to receive a better life but it would probably also lead to less demand for coyotes dangerously smuggling people in. Is that something you support?
|
On September 25 2022 10:07 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 10:01 StasisField wrote:
People don't leave their homes, family, friends, and entire lives behind just because they don't want to fix what's going on where they currently live, they do it because they genuinely feel their lives are in danger and are out of options. I don't think this is correct. If you are to believe this or if you are correct though then i guess there is not much discussion about the refugee policies in any country, between us i mean. Then what do you believe? It's really easy to say "tough, they don't get in" and then offer nothing in the way of a rebuttal when people call out how inhumane your stance is.
|
On September 25 2022 08:59 Sermokala wrote: So what you're trying to say through a bizzare healthcare example is Induced demand. The more roads you build the more traffic comes to fill the capacity.
The solution is the same in both cases, bus rapid transit. Spread the asylum seekers throughout the country through a federally planned system to distribute population to where capacity exists to fill.
The answer is not to make it an even worse existence for those fleeing bad situations. The answer is to consider the human beings as human beings and do what's best for them, and through those actions what's best for the nation.
Yeah, exactly. I didn't know there was a term for that. Thanks
|
On September 25 2022 10:10 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 10:07 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:01 StasisField wrote:
People don't leave their homes, family, friends, and entire lives behind just because they don't want to fix what's going on where they currently live, they do it because they genuinely feel their lives are in danger and are out of options. I don't think this is correct. If you are to believe this or if you are correct though then i guess there is not much discussion about the refugee policies in any country, between us i mean. Then what do you believe? It's really easy to say "tough, they don't get in" and then offer nothing in the way of a rebuttal when people call out how inhumane your stance is. I believe no country should let immigrants in under any circumstances, unless the reasons are right.
E: If you are referring to what i quoted, i don't think most of the people going/fleeing/applying to US are seeking asylym, just better life. I think people seeking for better life should apply to a country with different things.
|
On September 25 2022 10:17 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 10:10 StasisField wrote:On September 25 2022 10:07 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:01 StasisField wrote:
People don't leave their homes, family, friends, and entire lives behind just because they don't want to fix what's going on where they currently live, they do it because they genuinely feel their lives are in danger and are out of options. I don't think this is correct. If you are to believe this or if you are correct though then i guess there is not much discussion about the refugee policies in any country, between us i mean. Then what do you believe? It's really easy to say "tough, they don't get in" and then offer nothing in the way of a rebuttal when people call out how inhumane your stance is. I believe no country should let immigrants in under any circumstances, unless the reasons are right.
This is so vague it could mean anything. What are the "right reasons" to let in immigrants?
E: If you are referring to what i quoted, i don't think most of the people going/fleeing/applying to US are seeking asylym, just better life. I think people seeking for better life should apply to a country with different things.
People are fleeing from all across the continent of South America on the chance they'll get into America and get to work for minimum wage and live in squalor. Counter-argument: the journey to America is a greater risk to their lives than just staying home if they truly aren't fleeing an oppressive, life-threatening situation.
EDIT: Also, how does making the process more annoying even address the issue? As pointed out on a previous page, properly funding and staffing the departments in charge of ruling on asylum seekers will help weed out those with illegitimate claims quicker than making an arbritrarily bad system that keeps theie status in limbo because you don't like immigrants. Do you think asylum seekers shouldn't be granted access to the country until their case is ruled on? Because if that's the case then applying for asylum in the US is almost pointless because by the time your case is ruled on you'll probably be dead/caught/succumb to whatever you were trying to escape in the first place by the time the US rules on your case.
|
On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: People are fleeing from all across the continent of South America on the chance they'll get into America and get to work for minimum wage and live in squalor. Counter-argument: the journey to America is a greater risk to their lives than just staying home if they truly aren't fleeing an oppressive, life-threatening situation.
I dont think its a life threatening situation.
Fleeing to America sure is a good option, should people be allowed to do that though?
|
On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: Do you think asylum seekers shouldn't be granted access to the country until their case is ruled on? Yes i think this, regardless of if it US or any country in question.
|
On September 25 2022 10:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: Do you think asylum seekers shouldn't be granted access to the country until their case is ruled on? Yes i think this, regardless of if it US or any country in question. This is cruel, unnecessary, and will lead to more people dying. This is what people mean when they call anti-immigration positions inhumane.
EDIT
On September 25 2022 10:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: People are fleeing from all across the continent of South America on the chance they'll get into America and get to work for minimum wage and live in squalor. Counter-argument: the journey to America is a greater risk to their lives than just staying home if they truly aren't fleeing an oppressive, life-threatening situation.
I dont think its a life threatening situation.Fleeing to America sure is a good option, should people be allowed to do that though? And this speaks to your ignorance on South America and asylum seekers in general.
|
On September 25 2022 10:48 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 10:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: Do you think asylum seekers shouldn't be granted access to the country until their case is ruled on? Yes i think this, regardless of if it US or any country in question. This is cruel, unnecessary, and will lead to more people dying. This is what people mean when they call anti-immigration positions inhumane. I guess you can call inhumane on anyone who doesn't get / deserve an asylum. Tbh most of those people seeking one don't, if you or your country wants to get them one, be my guest. I was just saying what is my opinion on the matter.
Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 10:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: People are fleeing from all across the continent of South America on the chance they'll get into America and get to work for minimum wage and live in squalor. Counter-argument: the journey to America is a greater risk to their lives than just staying home if they truly aren't fleeing an oppressive, life-threatening situation.
I dont think its a life threatening situation.Fleeing to America sure is a good option, should people be allowed to do that though? And this speaks to your ignorance on South America and asylum seekers in general. Which of the South American countries are at war? If none (as it is), why does USA need to give asylum for those people?
It is exacerbated for sure, bu7t the point still stands.
|
On September 25 2022 11:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 10:48 StasisField wrote:On September 25 2022 10:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: Do you think asylum seekers shouldn't be granted access to the country until their case is ruled on? Yes i think this, regardless of if it US or any country in question. This is cruel, unnecessary, and will lead to more people dying. This is what people mean when they call anti-immigration positions inhumane. I guess you can call inhumane on anyone who doesn't get / deserve an asylum. Tbh most of those people seeking one don't, if you or your country wants to get them one, be my guest. I was just saying what is my opinion on the matter. Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 10:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: People are fleeing from all across the continent of South America on the chance they'll get into America and get to work for minimum wage and live in squalor. Counter-argument: the journey to America is a greater risk to their lives than just staying home if they truly aren't fleeing an oppressive, life-threatening situation.
I dont think its a life threatening situation.Fleeing to America sure is a good option, should people be allowed to do that though? And this speaks to your ignorance on South America and asylum seekers in general. Which of the South American countries are at war? If none (as it is), why does USA need to give asylum for those people? It is exacerbated for sure, bu7t the point still stands. Venezuela is in a state of western induced collapse. We are directly causing their economy to crash and their people to starve. There is a mass exodus from the nation because a man in Alabama working at a home depot (a store where they sell things like nails plumbing supplies and house building grade wood) is setting price controls on their black market.
This is causing them to flood into the nations around it. This has caused the nations around it to suffer greatly and because the situation is so bad in those nations they're willing to travel through one of the few parts of the world there is no land route through in order to get to a desert in order to then get to texas. Like look at a geographical map and see the kind of insane journey one has to make to travel on foot from Venezuela to the united states.
I'm going to just take a wild guess and say that your opinion on refugees and immigrants is derived from the more recent Islamic refugee crisis that had people from syria migrate to Europe. That you hated that but feel somehow that because they were fleeing a war their refugee label was justified but because people from Venezuela and Central America traveling through to America aren't justified because they aren't fleeing from a declared war or a high level civil conflict.
We are the ones causing the issue that is requiring them to either flee or die. Shit like this just kinda happens when you try to rule the world and slap down anyone that defies you. America doesn't need to invade your country to ruin it. We just make it so that your people starve to death and your economy ceases to exist because we run the worlds market now.
And I am telling you that in the cruelest of maths this is again a good thing for the united states. Immigrants, and especially refugees are extremely valuable economically. You can't ethically grow human beings, yet, but what you can do is place then in areas where their conception of a standard of living is much lower than the expectation of someone nativly born here. They then get a job as a working poor and begin to pay taxes. More valuable then the men is the women, who create more human beings and disproportionately spend money on good things for America like education and healthcare for the human beings that they sprout from the ground I think idk how women work. Now you've got a fresh crop of humans you can train and educate to be super productive in the mold you've grown others in. On top of that you don't need to build fresh infrastructure for them because the existing population isn't reproduceing at the same rate and then can take empty slots that would go unfilled otherwise.
Also not wanting immigrants of any kind is a bit ethnostate and bad. I guarantee Finland needs immigrants in the next few decades to stave off economic collapse and making their children culturally finnish is the only way you save your culture in the next 100 years.
|
You can't ethically grow human beings, yet, but what you can do is place then in areas where their conception of a standard of living is much lower than the expectation of someone nativly born here. They then get a job as a working poor and begin to pay taxes. Isnt this what i am saying pretty much?
|
On September 25 2022 10:08 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 09:20 ChristianS wrote:On September 25 2022 06:28 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2022 02:02 Djabanete wrote:On September 24 2022 07:54 BlackJack wrote:On September 22 2022 23:23 ChristianS wrote: Sounds like you agree the comparison math is stupid. Great! Couldn’t be happier. Now I think you must have a different understanding of the word “overwhelmed” than me in this context but that sounds extremely boring to argue about.
I’ve been extremely unhappy with Biden on immigration. He’s been better than expected on some stuff and maaaybe the courts are partly to blame on immigration but like, I think MPP should have been ruled illegal day 1. Instead it continued well into the next administration. I think using Covid as an excuse to shut down asylum seekers that otherwise would have been entitled to make their case in court was bullshit that a court should have seen through immediately. Instead it continued well into the next administration.
Really, though, the “we’re just enforcing the rule of law!” argument lost most of its power as soon as metering became an intentional strategy to reduce *legal* immigration. That started under Obama (I don’t know for sure if it was an intentional strategy back then or just a lack of resources, but Obama was plenty eager to look hardline on immigration).
At that point you’ve got both US and international law entitling these people to apply for asylum in a timely fashion. Maybe they get rejected! But they’re entitled to apply. But hundreds or thousands are lining up at each port of entry and as a policy we only process 50 applications a day. So people just start coming across, getting apprehended, and *then* applying, and we can’t legally deport them because they do actually have a legal right to apply; we’ve just been refusing to give them that right at the port of entry. Then conservatives are outraged that all these people get to just come across, get apprehended, and stay anyway until their court date, but we’re the ones breaking the law here.
I’d much rather have a robust system for processing asylum cases in a timely fashion. But that would increase legal immigration, and contrary to Introvert’s insistence, conservatives are not actually interested in that, even for legitimate asylum cases. I don’t actually think most liberals are, either. Everybody knows this system is broken but there’s a lot more political will behind keeping it broken or breaking it further than there is in actually getting it functioning, so we’re stuck here forever.
So, uh, sorry El Paso had a bunch more homeless people last week. I hope they found shelters and such for those people to stay in. I’d love for the system to work better so things like that didn’t happen, but I don’t think anyone is actually interested in voting accordingly. I just fundamentally disagree with your philosophy that we can solve this problem if we just provided more resources and funding and allowed more people to expeditiously apply for asylum and get into the country. It's akin to saying that if we just massively incentivized even more people to show up at the border seeking asylum we could solve the problem of having too many people at the border seeking asylum. This is the California theory of governance. Just throw more and more money into making it easier to be homeless and then act surprised when homelessness goes up. Then you get to argue that the problem is even greater and now you need even more money to address it. Whether applications are processed efficiently is orthogonal to whether they’re granted. I don’t see the argument for being deliberately inefficient. Is it really so expensive to hire enough of whoever is processing applications that, going forward, each asylum seeker gets a quick yes/no? The consequence of announcing you're going to make it easier for everyone to quickly apply for asylum and enter the US while they wait for their application is that you're going to greatly increase the number of people that show up seeking asylum. Think about how many people are willing to wait for years while their application is processed and then consider how many more people would come if they got a quick yes/no instead. I think a lot more people would be willing to make the dangerous trek across Central America and a lot more people would be rejected for asylum so that will kind of suck for them. I think it’s revealing that you think the asylum system would have such elastic demand if it ran efficiently. If we actually allowed people to apply immediately (as required by law!) and processed their claims in, say, 3 months you’d have a lot fewer people around with this intermediate legal status of “asylum seeker,” AKA “allowed to be here pending results of my case, check back in 3 years.” Sure that’d be a bigger draw for people whose cases are likely to prevail, but not for the people who are counting on years of legal limbo before their case is likely rejected. The implication would be that you think there’s a lot of people who have legitimate asylum claims but aren’t currently seeking it because our system is so brutal and slow they don’t think they’re likely to get the asylum our system *currently promises them,* at least not in a reasonable time frame. Do you know how fucked up circumstances usually have to be for you to have a legitimate asylum claim? Lotta different stories come out of a lot of different places, but it’s not unusual for it to be something like “a drug cartel threatened to kill my family if my son doesn’t fight in their war against another cartel.” If you think that situation is real and common but you just don’t care or think it’s your problem, fine. But then you’re seriously gonna turn around and ask me to have compassion for the poor El Pasoans who have to deal with an extra 1000 homeless for a while? It’s kind of rare to see an impassioned case for how valuable the asylum system is, and frankly I’m not qualified to make it. But think about every time Americans have had opinions about what’s happening around the globe. Aw man, some dictator or something is abusing his people, or some ethnic or religious minority is being persecuted! And we’re torn between an interventionist impulse (“Let’s send in guys with guns and shoot the bad guys!”) and an isolationist impulse (“Let’s leave them alone, we always just fuck things up worse when we go in anyways.”). A lot of situations we know we can’t go in (e.g. Hong Kong a few years back) but we spend a lot of time and energy worrying about the injustice of it all. What if we said “we can’t fix things over there, but anybody who needs to escape can come here”? It won’t solve every problem. Refugees go through hell to get out of danger in the first place, and having to leave their homeland is often deeply painful. And it leaves the “bad guys” in charge with fewer people to resist them. But at the same time, it will be that much harder for tyrants to control their people if they have an escape, and rather than spend so much money and lives on a foreign war, we can spend quite a bit less on temporary lodging and provisions and education for them to integrate into our society. Hell, it probably costs quite a bit less than it would to raise and educate an American child to the point that they can join the work force at an equivalent level. Like, hey, maybe there’s some value in the “huddled masses” after all if we widen our view beyond the increased burden they’ll place on El Paso’s public bathrooms? I didn't say you should have compassion for El Pasoans for having to deal with extra homeless people. I said you should stop supporting ridiculous narratives that border towns are not overwhelmed when they have hundreds of people sleeping and defecating on the streets. Or that people wouldn't get on buses voluntary to go to progressive cities in the northeast because I guess they just love sleeping on the sidewalks of El Paso so much. If you really want to take the most humane route you could just not have borders at all. Maybe not everyone at the border has a legitimate claim to asylum but they are all escaping something - either persecution, tyranny, or poverty. We already reject/deport plenty of people that are just seeking better lives for their families and we determine they are not entitled to it merely because they had the misfortune of not being born here. Why not just have open borders which would not only allow more people to receive a better life but it would probably also lead to less demand for coyotes dangerously smuggling people in. Is that something you support? I’m not an open borders guy. It’s an admirable enough ideal as ideals go, but if someone wants to immigrate to the US to increase their earning power I can imagine valid policy reasons for allowing or not allowing that. If they want to immigrate to increase their earning power *because their family will literally starve otherwise* there’s a clearer moral case, even more so if they want to immigrate because they’re likely to be murdered or forced into sex slavery or something.
Most people look back on when we turned away boats of European Jews fleeing Nazi Germany with some shame, right? That’s not, like, celebrated as a nation properly prioritizing its citizens or something on the right?
|
On September 25 2022 11:58 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 11:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:48 StasisField wrote:On September 25 2022 10:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: Do you think asylum seekers shouldn't be granted access to the country until their case is ruled on? Yes i think this, regardless of if it US or any country in question. This is cruel, unnecessary, and will lead to more people dying. This is what people mean when they call anti-immigration positions inhumane. I guess you can call inhumane on anyone who doesn't get / deserve an asylum. Tbh most of those people seeking one don't, if you or your country wants to get them one, be my guest. I was just saying what is my opinion on the matter. On September 25 2022 10:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: People are fleeing from all across the continent of South America on the chance they'll get into America and get to work for minimum wage and live in squalor. Counter-argument: the journey to America is a greater risk to their lives than just staying home if they truly aren't fleeing an oppressive, life-threatening situation.
I dont think its a life threatening situation.Fleeing to America sure is a good option, should people be allowed to do that though? And this speaks to your ignorance on South America and asylum seekers in general. Which of the South American countries are at war? If none (as it is), why does USA need to give asylum for those people? It is exacerbated for sure, bu7t the point still stands. Venezuela is in a state of western induced collapse. We are directly causing their economy to crash and their people to starve. There is a mass exodus from the nation because a man in Alabama working at a home depot (a store where they sell things like nails plumbing supplies and house building grade wood) is setting price controls on their black market. This is causing them to flood into the nations around it. This has caused the nations around it to suffer greatly and because the situation is so bad in those nations they're willing to travel through one of the few parts of the world there is no land route through in order to get to a desert in order to then get to texas. Like look at a geographical map and see the kind of insane journey one has to make to travel on foot from Venezuela to the united states. I'm going to just take a wild guess and say that your opinion on refugees and immigrants is derived from the more recent Islamic refugee crisis that had people from syria migrate to Europe. That you hated that but feel somehow that because they were fleeing a war their refugee label was justified but because people from Venezuela and Central America traveling through to America aren't justified because they aren't fleeing from a declared war or a high level civil conflict. We are the ones causing the issue that is requiring them to either flee or die. Shit like this just kinda happens when you try to rule the world and slap down anyone that defies you. America doesn't need to invade your country to ruin it. We just make it so that your people starve to death and your economy ceases to exist because we run the worlds market now. And I am telling you that in the cruelest of maths this is again a good thing for the united states. Immigrants, and especially refugees are extremely valuable economically. You can't ethically grow human beings, yet, but what you can do is place then in areas where their conception of a standard of living is much lower than the expectation of someone nativly born here. They then get a job as a working poor and begin to pay taxes. More valuable then the men is the women, who create more human beings and disproportionately spend money on good things for America like education and healthcare for the human beings that they sprout from the ground I think idk how women work. Now you've got a fresh crop of humans you can train and educate to be super productive in the mold you've grown others in. On top of that you don't need to build fresh infrastructure for them because the existing population isn't reproduceing at the same rate and then can take empty slots that would go unfilled otherwise. Also not wanting immigrants of any kind is a bit ethnostate and bad. I guarantee Finland needs immigrants in the next few decades to stave off economic collapse and making their children culturally finnish is the only way you save your culture in the next 100 years. Venezuela collapsed all by itself with price controls, nationalisations, mass corruption, and a government destroying their institutions. The West had nothing to do with it.
Edit: and of course the government spending financed by the central bank
|
On September 25 2022 11:58 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 11:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:48 StasisField wrote:On September 25 2022 10:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: Do you think asylum seekers shouldn't be granted access to the country until their case is ruled on? Yes i think this, regardless of if it US or any country in question. This is cruel, unnecessary, and will lead to more people dying. This is what people mean when they call anti-immigration positions inhumane. I guess you can call inhumane on anyone who doesn't get / deserve an asylum. Tbh most of those people seeking one don't, if you or your country wants to get them one, be my guest. I was just saying what is my opinion on the matter. On September 25 2022 10:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: People are fleeing from all across the continent of South America on the chance they'll get into America and get to work for minimum wage and live in squalor. Counter-argument: the journey to America is a greater risk to their lives than just staying home if they truly aren't fleeing an oppressive, life-threatening situation.
I dont think its a life threatening situation.Fleeing to America sure is a good option, should people be allowed to do that though? And this speaks to your ignorance on South America and asylum seekers in general. Which of the South American countries are at war? If none (as it is), why does USA need to give asylum for those people? It is exacerbated for sure, bu7t the point still stands. Venezuela is in a state of western induced collapse. We are directly causing their economy to crash and their people to starve. There is a mass exodus from the nation because a man in Alabama working at a home depot (a store where they sell things like nails plumbing supplies and house building grade wood) is setting price controls on their black market. This is causing them to flood into the nations around it. This has caused the nations around it to suffer greatly and because the situation is so bad in those nations they're willing to travel through one of the few parts of the world there is no land route through in order to get to a desert in order to then get to texas. Like look at a geographical map and see the kind of insane journey one has to make to travel on foot from Venezuela to the united states. I'm going to just take a wild guess and say that your opinion on refugees and immigrants is derived from the more recent Islamic refugee crisis that had people from syria migrate to Europe. That you hated that but feel somehow that because they were fleeing a war their refugee label was justified but because people from Venezuela and Central America traveling through to America aren't justified because they aren't fleeing from a declared war or a high level civil conflict. We are the ones causing the issue that is requiring them to either flee or die. Shit like this just kinda happens when you try to rule the world and slap down anyone that defies you. America doesn't need to invade your country to ruin it. We just make it so that your people starve to death and your economy ceases to exist because we run the worlds market now. And I am telling you that in the cruelest of maths this is again a good thing for the united states. Immigrants, and especially refugees are extremely valuable economically. You can't ethically grow human beings, yet, but what you can do is place then in areas where their conception of a standard of living is much lower than the expectation of someone nativly born here. They then get a job as a working poor and begin to pay taxes. More valuable then the men is the women, who create more human beings and disproportionately spend money on good things for America like education and healthcare for the human beings that they sprout from the ground I think idk how women work. Now you've got a fresh crop of humans you can train and educate to be super productive in the mold you've grown others in. On top of that you don't need to build fresh infrastructure for them because the existing population isn't reproduceing at the same rate and then can take empty slots that would go unfilled otherwise. Also not wanting immigrants of any kind is a bit ethnostate and bad. I guarantee Finland needs immigrants in the next few decades to stave off economic collapse and making their children culturally finnish is the only way you save your culture in the next 100 years.
I am not a anti immigration by any means, you seem to complete ignore some of the major problems with mass immigration.
There are countries in the middle east with millions of refugees. They solve it in the only way possible: cram them in big camps living of an existencial minimum and forbid them to work. Why? Because they would completely crash the local labour market if they did. Western nations are even less willing to let masses of people push their hard fought wages and living standards down. The only option seems to be blackmarket seasonal labour, which is some times quietly accepted but rarely regulated.
Also, refugees can be damaged people, some times carrying criminal professions and connections with them. Sweden had a very liberal immigration policy for a long time, and got both the benefits, like no shortage of labour and an exciting mixed culture and business life, but also a problem with gang violence very different from neighbouring countries. Their nationalist far-right party crushed their recent election.
The current system encourages illegitimate ways of immigration as the legal ones have broken down. I have no idea what the US should do. Look for creative ways immigrants can work legally, maybe?
|
On September 25 2022 13:42 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 11:58 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2022 11:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:48 StasisField wrote:On September 25 2022 10:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: Do you think asylum seekers shouldn't be granted access to the country until their case is ruled on? Yes i think this, regardless of if it US or any country in question. This is cruel, unnecessary, and will lead to more people dying. This is what people mean when they call anti-immigration positions inhumane. I guess you can call inhumane on anyone who doesn't get / deserve an asylum. Tbh most of those people seeking one don't, if you or your country wants to get them one, be my guest. I was just saying what is my opinion on the matter. On September 25 2022 10:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: People are fleeing from all across the continent of South America on the chance they'll get into America and get to work for minimum wage and live in squalor. Counter-argument: the journey to America is a greater risk to their lives than just staying home if they truly aren't fleeing an oppressive, life-threatening situation.
I dont think its a life threatening situation.Fleeing to America sure is a good option, should people be allowed to do that though? And this speaks to your ignorance on South America and asylum seekers in general. Which of the South American countries are at war? If none (as it is), why does USA need to give asylum for those people? It is exacerbated for sure, bu7t the point still stands. Venezuela is in a state of western induced collapse. We are directly causing their economy to crash and their people to starve. There is a mass exodus from the nation because a man in Alabama working at a home depot (a store where they sell things like nails plumbing supplies and house building grade wood) is setting price controls on their black market. This is causing them to flood into the nations around it. This has caused the nations around it to suffer greatly and because the situation is so bad in those nations they're willing to travel through one of the few parts of the world there is no land route through in order to get to a desert in order to then get to texas. Like look at a geographical map and see the kind of insane journey one has to make to travel on foot from Venezuela to the united states. I'm going to just take a wild guess and say that your opinion on refugees and immigrants is derived from the more recent Islamic refugee crisis that had people from syria migrate to Europe. That you hated that but feel somehow that because they were fleeing a war their refugee label was justified but because people from Venezuela and Central America traveling through to America aren't justified because they aren't fleeing from a declared war or a high level civil conflict. We are the ones causing the issue that is requiring them to either flee or die. Shit like this just kinda happens when you try to rule the world and slap down anyone that defies you. America doesn't need to invade your country to ruin it. We just make it so that your people starve to death and your economy ceases to exist because we run the worlds market now. And I am telling you that in the cruelest of maths this is again a good thing for the united states. Immigrants, and especially refugees are extremely valuable economically. You can't ethically grow human beings, yet, but what you can do is place then in areas where their conception of a standard of living is much lower than the expectation of someone nativly born here. They then get a job as a working poor and begin to pay taxes. More valuable then the men is the women, who create more human beings and disproportionately spend money on good things for America like education and healthcare for the human beings that they sprout from the ground I think idk how women work. Now you've got a fresh crop of humans you can train and educate to be super productive in the mold you've grown others in. On top of that you don't need to build fresh infrastructure for them because the existing population isn't reproduceing at the same rate and then can take empty slots that would go unfilled otherwise. Also not wanting immigrants of any kind is a bit ethnostate and bad. I guarantee Finland needs immigrants in the next few decades to stave off economic collapse and making their children culturally finnish is the only way you save your culture in the next 100 years. Venezuela collapsed all by itself with price controls, nationalisations, mass corruption, and a government destroying their institutions. The West had nothing to do with it. Edit: and of course the government spending financed by the central bank Regardless of who caused the collapse, Maduro rules as a de facto totalitarian dictator, would you not agree?
So does it really matter who "caused" it? Are Venezuelans who legitimately fear for their lives somehow less deserving of our compassion because people within their country caused the situation rather than "the west"?
As for raynpelikoneet's statements. It must be nice to have been born in Finland. I thought your education system was one of the best in the world... but clearly not very good at philosophy, history or geography. Subjects in which you might have been taught that sometimes situations can become so hopeless that fleeing is your only option to stay alive. But hey, I'm sure German Jews would have done better during the late 1930s and all of the 1940s if they had just tried to improve their country rather than hiding and trying to escape!
|
Mass migration is a problem that is here to stay and likely to get worse once climate breakdown gets going seriously in the next couple of decades. We are going to have to make a choice of whether we want to help or not.
What we have here though is a large fraction of people that do not want to help but because saying no to asylum seekers with horrible stories makes you look bad, they'd rather break the system so they can't ever get in.
|
On September 25 2022 15:10 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 13:42 RvB wrote:On September 25 2022 11:58 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2022 11:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:48 StasisField wrote:On September 25 2022 10:44 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: Do you think asylum seekers shouldn't be granted access to the country until their case is ruled on? Yes i think this, regardless of if it US or any country in question. This is cruel, unnecessary, and will lead to more people dying. This is what people mean when they call anti-immigration positions inhumane. I guess you can call inhumane on anyone who doesn't get / deserve an asylum. Tbh most of those people seeking one don't, if you or your country wants to get them one, be my guest. I was just saying what is my opinion on the matter. On September 25 2022 10:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 25 2022 10:32 StasisField wrote: People are fleeing from all across the continent of South America on the chance they'll get into America and get to work for minimum wage and live in squalor. Counter-argument: the journey to America is a greater risk to their lives than just staying home if they truly aren't fleeing an oppressive, life-threatening situation.
I dont think its a life threatening situation.Fleeing to America sure is a good option, should people be allowed to do that though? And this speaks to your ignorance on South America and asylum seekers in general. Which of the South American countries are at war? If none (as it is), why does USA need to give asylum for those people? It is exacerbated for sure, bu7t the point still stands. Venezuela is in a state of western induced collapse. We are directly causing their economy to crash and their people to starve. There is a mass exodus from the nation because a man in Alabama working at a home depot (a store where they sell things like nails plumbing supplies and house building grade wood) is setting price controls on their black market. This is causing them to flood into the nations around it. This has caused the nations around it to suffer greatly and because the situation is so bad in those nations they're willing to travel through one of the few parts of the world there is no land route through in order to get to a desert in order to then get to texas. Like look at a geographical map and see the kind of insane journey one has to make to travel on foot from Venezuela to the united states. I'm going to just take a wild guess and say that your opinion on refugees and immigrants is derived from the more recent Islamic refugee crisis that had people from syria migrate to Europe. That you hated that but feel somehow that because they were fleeing a war their refugee label was justified but because people from Venezuela and Central America traveling through to America aren't justified because they aren't fleeing from a declared war or a high level civil conflict. We are the ones causing the issue that is requiring them to either flee or die. Shit like this just kinda happens when you try to rule the world and slap down anyone that defies you. America doesn't need to invade your country to ruin it. We just make it so that your people starve to death and your economy ceases to exist because we run the worlds market now. And I am telling you that in the cruelest of maths this is again a good thing for the united states. Immigrants, and especially refugees are extremely valuable economically. You can't ethically grow human beings, yet, but what you can do is place then in areas where their conception of a standard of living is much lower than the expectation of someone nativly born here. They then get a job as a working poor and begin to pay taxes. More valuable then the men is the women, who create more human beings and disproportionately spend money on good things for America like education and healthcare for the human beings that they sprout from the ground I think idk how women work. Now you've got a fresh crop of humans you can train and educate to be super productive in the mold you've grown others in. On top of that you don't need to build fresh infrastructure for them because the existing population isn't reproduceing at the same rate and then can take empty slots that would go unfilled otherwise. Also not wanting immigrants of any kind is a bit ethnostate and bad. I guarantee Finland needs immigrants in the next few decades to stave off economic collapse and making their children culturally finnish is the only way you save your culture in the next 100 years. Venezuela collapsed all by itself with price controls, nationalisations, mass corruption, and a government destroying their institutions. The West had nothing to do with it. Edit: and of course the government spending financed by the central bank Regardless of who caused the collapse, Maduro rules as a de facto totalitarian dictator, would you not agree? So does it really matter who "caused" it? Are Venezuelans who legitimately fear for their lives somehow less deserving of our compassion because people within their country caused the situation rather than "the west"? As for raynpelikoneet's statements. It must be nice to have been born in Finland. I thought your education system was one of the best in the world... but clearly not very good at philosophy, history or geography. Subjects in which you might have been taught that sometimes situations can become so hopeless that fleeing is your only option to stay alive. But hey, I'm sure German Jews would have done better during the late 1930s and all of the 1940s if they had just tried to improve their country rather than hiding and trying to escape! Yes, sorry I just took issue with the the statement that Venezuala is in a state of western induced collapse.
I totally agree that the west should take in many more refugees but I think using compassion as an argument to let them in is a dead end. It reinforces the idea that refugees (and immigrants in general) are only a burden to the host country. As I said in a previous post this isn't true. Many of the costs from refugees are due to governments restrictions such as not being allowed to work initially. It's not a coincidence that when governments aren't allowed the discriminate (as is the case in the EU due to the free movement of people) almost all immigrants get a job and participate into society. A good example is the recent immigration wave of Ukrainian refugees who had to deal with much less rules and have relatively high employment numbers.
|
On September 25 2022 15:22 EnDeR_ wrote: Mass migration is a problem that is here to stay and likely to get worse once climate breakdown gets going seriously in the next couple of decades. We are going to have to make a choice of whether we want to help or not.
What we have here though is a large fraction of people that do not want to help but because saying no to asylum seekers with horrible stories makes you look bad, they'd rather break the system so they can't ever get in.
I am not worried about the "climate breakdown" at all. We are both amazing at growing food and transporting it around, and we'll only get better in the future.
Mind you, the US is filled with Europeans because they migrated in millions from around the time the "global warming" started. A colder climate is arguably much worse than a warmer one, we'll see...
|
On September 26 2022 04:05 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 15:22 EnDeR_ wrote: Mass migration is a problem that is here to stay and likely to get worse once climate breakdown gets going seriously in the next couple of decades. We are going to have to make a choice of whether we want to help or not.
What we have here though is a large fraction of people that do not want to help but because saying no to asylum seekers with horrible stories makes you look bad, they'd rather break the system so they can't ever get in. I am not worried about the "climate breakdown" at all. We are both amazing at growing food and transporting it around, and we'll only get better in the future. Mind you, the US is filled with Europeans because they migrated in millions from around the time the "global warming" started. A colder climate is arguably much worse than a warmer one, we'll see... That is just plain wrong.
|
On September 26 2022 04:05 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2022 15:22 EnDeR_ wrote: Mass migration is a problem that is here to stay and likely to get worse once climate breakdown gets going seriously in the next couple of decades. We are going to have to make a choice of whether we want to help or not.
What we have here though is a large fraction of people that do not want to help but because saying no to asylum seekers with horrible stories makes you look bad, they'd rather break the system so they can't ever get in. I am not worried about the "climate breakdown" at all. We are both amazing at growing food and transporting it around, and we'll only get better in the future. Mind you, the US is filled with Europeans because they migrated in millions from around the time the "global warming" started. A colder climate is arguably much worse than a warmer one, we'll see...
Surely, I’m misreading something here or not getting the sarcasm. Your use of quotation marks seems to imply that you deny man-made global warming. Or that, even if it existed, it can’t be a climate breakdown because in your place global cooling would be worse?
|
|
|
|