|
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 November 15 2018 21:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 21:14 Wegandi wrote:
I wonder if Democrats (in this thread at least) would ever compromise on this issue - let's have open borders (so no ICE/CBP/paper's please checkpoints/etc.), but no path to citizenship/vote for first generation immigrants (simply apply for permanent residence). Let's see if that compromise rhetoric is put into action. (Personally think free-trade and free movement of peoples with more restrictions on citizenship/vote privilege is ideal) Clearly you have never heard of the gang of 8. Immigration reform was possible several times in the last 20 years. But Republicans like Sessions moves heaven and earth to stop it. Also, Democrats don’t want “open borders” whatever that really means.
Come on, that is hardly compromise when you get 90% of what you want (Gang of 8). Open borders means just that - anyone is free to come to this country or not. If you do just apply for permanent residence and it is granted, but you do not get to vote, nor get citizenship (I'd also say ineligible for welfare as well, but I wanted to see if even the vote/citizenship was "too much").
Few Republicans will make immigration easier when immigration tends to favor the Democrats in the voting booth, so I don't see much getting done if this is never addressed. It was the same problem with slave states / free states admissions from the olden days.
|
On November 15 2018 21:32 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 21:18 Plansix wrote:On November 15 2018 21:14 Wegandi wrote:
I wonder if Democrats (in this thread at least) would ever compromise on this issue - let's have open borders (so no ICE/CBP/paper's please checkpoints/etc.), but no path to citizenship/vote for first generation immigrants (simply apply for permanent residence). Let's see if that compromise rhetoric is put into action. (Personally think free-trade and free movement of peoples with more restrictions on citizenship/vote privilege is ideal) Clearly you have never heard of the gang of 8. Immigration reform was possible several times in the last 20 years. But Republicans like Sessions moves heaven and earth to stop it. Also, Democrats don’t want “open borders” whatever that really means. Come on, that is hardly compromise when you get 90% of what you want (Gang of 8). Open borders means just that - anyone is free to come to this country or not. If you do just apply for permanent residence and it is granted, but you do not get to vote, nor get citizenship (I'd also say ineligible for welfare as well, but I wanted to see if even the vote/citizenship was "too much"). Few Republicans will make immigration easier when immigration tends to favor the Democrats in the voting booth, so I don't see much getting done if this is never addressed. It's the same problem as with slave states / free states admissions from the olden days. Its a compromise on a position that doesn't exist.
People are not asking for open borders on either side.
|
On November 15 2018 21:26 m4ini wrote:
Not that his compromise would be great either. It's obviously subjective, but even as a liberal voter, open borders are just moronic - not just in the EU, in the US it'd be even worse.
What does need to happen is that the entire system behind "the idea of how immigration is supposed to work" needs rebuilding. It's not radical (or purely republican for that matter) to want safe borders. What's missing is an actually working way to legally immigrate. The US system as it currently is is simply a joke (not that the EU does it better, it just does it wrong in the other direction). From application to decision it should take at maximum 3 months, and that's already lenient.
Put it this way, if you have no real possibility to apply legally, there's really no reason to complain if people do it illegally.
The US currently is just trying (screeching) to fix the results of a shitty system, rather than fixing the system itself. And the second you go into "well maybe this isn't the best way", republicans come running at you because you want all them murderous and rapey mexixans here.
The one good thing of the EU is the free movement of people and goods. The rest of the EU is total garbage though. Just like the US where free movement of people and goods between the states is great, but the layered bureaucracy is garbage (D.C.).
Also, Western countries are going to have to do something as the demography of our birth rates (<1.6/woman. Need >2.1 to sustain/increase population) is almost going to necessitate continued/increased immigration or you're going to find that Welfare state you guys love become impossible to sustain. If the vote is going to be continued to be attached to immigration and if immigration continues to predominantly favor one party over another, nothing will ever change unless there's a huge super-majority at all levels and it gets rammed through.
|
On November 15 2018 21:44 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 21:26 m4ini wrote:
Not that his compromise would be great either. It's obviously subjective, but even as a liberal voter, open borders are just moronic - not just in the EU, in the US it'd be even worse.
What does need to happen is that the entire system behind "the idea of how immigration is supposed to work" needs rebuilding. It's not radical (or purely republican for that matter) to want safe borders. What's missing is an actually working way to legally immigrate. The US system as it currently is is simply a joke (not that the EU does it better, it just does it wrong in the other direction). From application to decision it should take at maximum 3 months, and that's already lenient.
Put it this way, if you have no real possibility to apply legally, there's really no reason to complain if people do it illegally.
The US currently is just trying (screeching) to fix the results of a shitty system, rather than fixing the system itself. And the second you go into "well maybe this isn't the best way", republicans come running at you because you want all them murderous and rapey mexixans here. The one good thing of the EU is the free movement of people and goods. The rest of the EU is total garbage though. Just like the US where free movement of people and goods between the states is great, but the layered bureaucracy is garbage (D.C.). Also, Western countries are going to have to do something as the demography of our birth rates (<1.6/woman. Need >2.1 to sustain/increase population) is almost going to necessitate continued/increased immigration or you're going to find that Welfare state you guys love become impossible to sustain. If the vote is going to be continued to be attached to immigration and if immigration continues to predominantly favor one party over another, nothing will ever change unless there's a huge super-majority at all levels and it gets rammed through. Have you ever seriously thought about why 'immigration predominantly favors one party'? That its the Republicans own fault for immigrants voting predominantly Democrat by holding a hostile position towards them?
|
On November 15 2018 21:44 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 21:26 m4ini wrote:
Not that his compromise would be great either. It's obviously subjective, but even as a liberal voter, open borders are just moronic - not just in the EU, in the US it'd be even worse.
What does need to happen is that the entire system behind "the idea of how immigration is supposed to work" needs rebuilding. It's not radical (or purely republican for that matter) to want safe borders. What's missing is an actually working way to legally immigrate. The US system as it currently is is simply a joke (not that the EU does it better, it just does it wrong in the other direction). From application to decision it should take at maximum 3 months, and that's already lenient.
Put it this way, if you have no real possibility to apply legally, there's really no reason to complain if people do it illegally.
The US currently is just trying (screeching) to fix the results of a shitty system, rather than fixing the system itself. And the second you go into "well maybe this isn't the best way", republicans come running at you because you want all them murderous and rapey mexixans here. The one good thing of the EU is the free movement of people and goods. The rest of the EU is total garbage though. Just like the US where free movement of people and goods between the states is great, but the layered bureaucracy is garbage (D.C.).
I'd never disagree with that, since that's my opinion too (but we likely come to different conclusions as to how to fix it). But we're not talking about free movement of people and goods here, since that has nothing to do with immigration (at its core).
|
On November 15 2018 20:32 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 18:02 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 17:39 Neneu wrote:On November 15 2018 15:28 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 15:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 15 2018 15:00 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 13:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:
FOX and DJT need to avoid discussing the caravan at this point. The more they talk about, the more it will come out that it went to Tijuana/CA, but Mattis/Trump sent the troops to the Texas border instead. How do you explain that to even the most drooling of T_D cultist? The caravan is in CA. The troops are in TX. Those are not the same places. Just the barest of facts is devastating.
Weren't the hundreds of people in Tijuana bussed there from the middle of Mexico? I don't see that Fox needs to drop coverage because it's not like the image of people sitting on top of the border fence is going to increase sympathy for illegal immigration in their viewership. I will say it slower. Trump/Mattis deployed the troops to Texas. The caravan went to California. There are 1500 miles of border/USA between the deployment and the caravan. From your tone it sounds like you think you're making a really insightful point but what you're saying leaves something to be desired. They sent troops somewhere, and the migrants (most of "the caravan" is still in Mexico) went somewhere else. That sounds on paper like working as intended. What's the issue?Do soldiers have something more important to do? I'd imagine Texans are happy the caravan groups haven't tried to go there yet. If there was a zerg rush and you moved all your marines to defend one of two entry points to your base, but all the zerglings arrived through the second entry point, would you say that defense went as intended and was a good use of your apm? As a Terran user I'm actually forced to be adept at understanding zergling tight walls. The US has tons of soldiers so it's not like some commitment was made that ended in disaster. It's more like just... whatever. Maybe it's purely a political move, maybe they can have a practical benefit in Texas, maybe the administration is partly testing the waters to see what kind of impact the soldiers could have and how they perform, as the administration might want alternatives for border enforcement as the wall hasn't gotten off the ground and is even less likely with a Democratic House. The caravan migrants aren't going to be able to get through in Tijuana either, because they have border enforcement and are on alert now, and people had already been noting that legal asylum seekers seemed to be bottlenecked by officials at the ports of entry causing them to even maintain their own unofficial waiting list. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-asylum-seekers-notebook-holds-key-to-entry-20180705-story.html How much taxpayer money is it okay for the government to completely waste in your mind? You do know it costs money to deploy the army, yes?
The government also has to spend money on asylum seekers and citizens have to pay for services to counteract the problems associated with immigration, like including law enforcement and healthcare related to the drug trade.
I believe the defense budget is there whether you use the army or not. I'm not trying to be smart about this because I'm with you that inflated spending and constantly selling weapons to other countries so we're forced to pay our arms companies to develop the next generation of weapons to stay on the cutting edge is a huge problem. But deploying mere thousands of soldiers in the US isn't going to break the bank. Actually, if it were up to me, the military would be used a lot more in the interior to serve the public good.
|
Bisutopia19368 Posts
|
On November 15 2018 21:26 m4ini wrote:
Not that his compromise would be great either. It's obviously subjective, but even as a liberal voter, open borders are just moronic - not just in the EU, in the US it'd be even worse.
What does need to happen is that the entire system behind "the idea of how immigration is supposed to work" needs rebuilding. It's not radical (or purely republican for that matter) to want safe borders. What's missing is an actually working way to legally immigrate. The US system as it currently is is simply a joke (not that the EU does it better, it just does it wrong in the other direction). From application to decision it should take at maximum 3 months, and that's already lenient.
Put it this way, if you have no real possibility to apply legally, there's really no reason to complain if people do it illegally.
The US currently is just trying (screeching) to fix the results of a shitty system, rather than fixing the system itself. And the second you go into "well maybe this isn't the best way", republicans come running at you because you want all them murderous and rapey mexixans here.
Not to mention a dysfunctional system is a huge benefit for the GOP. Why fix something that is guaranteed to give you millions of votes?
|
On November 15 2018 21:44 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 21:26 m4ini wrote:
Not that his compromise would be great either. It's obviously subjective, but even as a liberal voter, open borders are just moronic - not just in the EU, in the US it'd be even worse.
What does need to happen is that the entire system behind "the idea of how immigration is supposed to work" needs rebuilding. It's not radical (or purely republican for that matter) to want safe borders. What's missing is an actually working way to legally immigrate. The US system as it currently is is simply a joke (not that the EU does it better, it just does it wrong in the other direction). From application to decision it should take at maximum 3 months, and that's already lenient.
Put it this way, if you have no real possibility to apply legally, there's really no reason to complain if people do it illegally.
The US currently is just trying (screeching) to fix the results of a shitty system, rather than fixing the system itself. And the second you go into "well maybe this isn't the best way", republicans come running at you because you want all them murderous and rapey mexixans here. The one good thing of the EU is the free movement of people and goods. The rest of the EU is total garbage though. Just like the US where free movement of people and goods between the states is great, but the layered bureaucracy is garbage (D.C.).
That’s a rather ignorant statement. The EU is pretty great for many, many things. It’s garbage for some, granted, and its governance model sucks, but saying the only good thing about it is free movement of good and people makes very, very little sense.
|
The part that amazes me most is how Governor Rick Scott continues to blame the democrats for something that was well within his control to address. Florida it is like the entire state has learned nothing since the 2000 elections and it is easier for the governors to blame the local officials than get in there and fix the problem.
But as with all things in Florida, I’m in a wait and see mode. All of these claims about voter fraud amount to a lot of accusations and little in the way of concrete evidence.
|
|
|
Slippery slope combined with the false argument ends up being a strawman  Why get into the details of policy when you can argue against an enemy of your creation?
|
Exactly. Just argue that Democrats are for open borders and taking away peoples guns. If you say it with enough conviction over and over, it becomes true.
Of course, the stupid part is when the Democrats try to argue against that bad faith argument rather than just saying their opponent is full of shit.
|
|
|
On November 15 2018 21:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 21:44 Wegandi wrote:On November 15 2018 21:26 m4ini wrote:
Not that his compromise would be great either. It's obviously subjective, but even as a liberal voter, open borders are just moronic - not just in the EU, in the US it'd be even worse.
What does need to happen is that the entire system behind "the idea of how immigration is supposed to work" needs rebuilding. It's not radical (or purely republican for that matter) to want safe borders. What's missing is an actually working way to legally immigrate. The US system as it currently is is simply a joke (not that the EU does it better, it just does it wrong in the other direction). From application to decision it should take at maximum 3 months, and that's already lenient.
Put it this way, if you have no real possibility to apply legally, there's really no reason to complain if people do it illegally.
The US currently is just trying (screeching) to fix the results of a shitty system, rather than fixing the system itself. And the second you go into "well maybe this isn't the best way", republicans come running at you because you want all them murderous and rapey mexixans here. The one good thing of the EU is the free movement of people and goods. The rest of the EU is total garbage though. Just like the US where free movement of people and goods between the states is great, but the layered bureaucracy is garbage (D.C.). Also, Western countries are going to have to do something as the demography of our birth rates (<1.6/woman. Need >2.1 to sustain/increase population) is almost going to necessitate continued/increased immigration or you're going to find that Welfare state you guys love become impossible to sustain. If the vote is going to be continued to be attached to immigration and if immigration continues to predominantly favor one party over another, nothing will ever change unless there's a huge super-majority at all levels and it gets rammed through. Have you ever seriously thought about why 'immigration predominantly favors one party'? That its the Republicans own fault for immigrants voting predominantly Democrat by holding a hostile position towards them?
This is a very valid point, Canada is an excellent example of doing this correctly. In reality many immigrants have more in common with conservative values then they do liberal. The vote is often split here and historically immigrant communities have favored conservative candidates although nothing outrageous. Its a healthy mix.
But if you start shitting on them and blaming them for everything that is wrong + Show Spoiler +(which is starting to become a bit of a trend for conservatives in Canada aswell and atm is somewhat disconcerting.I lived in the US at a time when the same sort of murmuring started and the parallels are there but not as stark because half this country is fortunately not closet racist, stupid or completely abandoned.)
|
If this Avenatti thing ends up being some 4d checkers setup, it is going to make Avenatti a 2020 front-runner lol
|
people actually believe he’s going to try to run for an office? on what qualifications? i thought this was a right wing meme. something to release all that hot air towards, like open borders.
anyone playing in the mud with DJT should immediately stop being considered for anything, imo.
|
On November 16 2018 01:38 brian wrote:
people actually believe he’s going to try to run for an office? on what qualifications? i thought this was a right wing meme. something to release all that hot air towards, like open borders.
anyone playing in the mud with DJT should immediately stop being considered for anything, imo.
No idea. Every time I see Avenatti discussed the people seem to be living in an alternative reality where he is someone democratic voters give two shits about.
|
|
|
On November 16 2018 01:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2018 01:38 brian wrote:
people actually believe he’s going to try to run for an office? on what qualifications? i thought this was a right wing meme. something to release all that hot air towards, like open borders.
anyone playing in the mud with DJT should immediately stop being considered for anything, imo. No idea. Every time I see Avenatti discussed the people seem to be living in an alternative reality where he is someone democratic voters give two shits about.
It's pretty hilarious that Jacob Wohl is likely sitting somewhere giddy with glee that he did it, that he owned the libs, completely unaware that no one cares at all about Avenatti.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
