Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No, no, it's fine. 10 years ago Bin Laden was the number one priority for the CIA, it makes sense to still devote most of their resources to catching him today..

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
That's the best fantasy translation of both sides I've read in these threads to date. Is your plan of resistance more on the level of Red Dawn or Independence Day?

Red Dawn, the original version not the gakky remake. And obviously you'll have to prove you're on the right side by answering a question regarding a state capital by providing the correct wrong answer. Independence Day style is reserved for an entirely different type of illegal alien invasion.

Yeah but if you have to fight both Republicans and Democrats plus all their voters then the odds are more on the level of Independence Day long shot

It's not much of a high horse. Kinda short, actually. Not, like, Shetland pony-short, but not particularly high. I'm not surprised it looks that way if you can honestly defend a policy that should have Liam Neeson making threatening phone calls.

It is a dangerous journey, though. That actually isn't in dispute - although maybe those Border Patrol agents filmed kicking over water jugs thought it wasn't dangerous enough. So the rational, logical, detached question you want to be asking yourself is 'why would I bring my child on such a dangerous trip, so that we can declare asylum, a totally legal process which absolutely shouldn't result in my child being taken away from me?' Is it because something awful is going to happen to you or your child or both if you stay? Is it because you have nothing left to lose?

Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually)?

Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

I think the horse looks very tall from the bottom of a ravine.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Why isn't your message to build nurseries and and have social workers who speak Spanish for each boarder processing center? So we can deport these people with kindness. Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually) due to the high volume of deportations going on?

Complains about appeals to emotions and emphasizes his own rationality, can't give proper sources and has to rely on ridiculously loaded questions. Just another day in the US politics thread.

Here's a solution: stop separating kids from their parents. Stop changing an already existing policy when it's so patently obvious to anyone with even a basic level of competency that it's going to lead to horrific treatment of people. We get it. You didn't like the previous situation. What you've effectively done is decide that treating asylum seekers (and, as explained to you, there's a right to seek asylum regardless of one's means of crossing the border) in a despicable way is preferable to the previous, more lenient approach of not splitting up families when at all avoidable.

Rationalism (and let's be clear, the way you're arguing is far removed from rationalism) without humanism is useless when it comes to social sciences.

 Spinner wrote:
It's not much of a high horse. Kinda short, actually. Not, like, Shetland pony-short, but not particularly high. I'm not surprised it looks that way if you can honestly defend a policy that should have Liam Neeson making threatening phone calls.

It is a dangerous journey, though. That actually isn't in dispute - although maybe those Border Patrol agents filmed kicking over water jugs thought it wasn't dangerous enough. So the rational, logical, detached question you want to be asking yourself is 'why would I bring my child on such a dangerous trip, so that we can declare asylum, a totally legal process which absolutely shouldn't result in my child being taken away from me?' Is it because something awful is going to happen to you or your child or both if you stay? Is it because you have nothing left to lose?

Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually)?

Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

There are US Consulate offices in Mexico and in Central/South America. If they want to claim Asylum, then can go there. Failing that, they can actually go to the US border crossing station itself (or any other port of entry), present themselves to any US Borders & Customs and legally claim asylum.

For some reason, these folks are convinced that they have to illegally cross the borders... can we first acknowledge that these folks in doing so are breaking our laws?

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It's not much of a high horse. Kinda short, actually. Not, like, Shetland pony-short, but not particularly high. I'm not surprised it looks that way if you can honestly defend a policy that should have Liam Neeson making threatening phone calls.

It is a dangerous journey, though. That actually isn't in dispute - although maybe those Border Patrol agents filmed kicking over water jugs thought it wasn't dangerous enough. So the rational, logical, detached question you want to be asking yourself is 'why would I bring my child on such a dangerous trip, so that we can declare asylum, a totally legal process which absolutely shouldn't result in my child being taken away from me?' Is it because something awful is going to happen to you or your child or both if you stay? Is it because you have nothing left to lose?

Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually)?

Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

There are US Consulate offices in Mexico and in Central/South America. If they want to claim Asylum, then can go there. Failing that, they can actually go to the US border crossing station itself (or any other port of entry), present themselves to any US Borders & Customs and legally claim asylum.

For some reason, these folks are convinced that they have to illegally cross the borders... can we first acknowledge that these folks in doing so are breaking our laws?

Why do you repeatedly ignore people who have informed you that they're separating people who HAVEN'T crossed the border and ARE trying to claim asylum at legal ports of entry?

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It's not much of a high horse. Kinda short, actually. Not, like, Shetland pony-short, but not particularly high. I'm not surprised it looks that way if you can honestly defend a policy that should have Liam Neeson making threatening phone calls.

It is a dangerous journey, though. That actually isn't in dispute - although maybe those Border Patrol agents filmed kicking over water jugs thought it wasn't dangerous enough. So the rational, logical, detached question you want to be asking yourself is 'why would I bring my child on such a dangerous trip, so that we can declare asylum, a totally legal process which absolutely shouldn't result in my child being taken away from me?' Is it because something awful is going to happen to you or your child or both if you stay? Is it because you have nothing left to lose?

Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually)?

Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

There are US Consulate offices in Mexico and in Central/South America. If they want to claim Asylum, then can go there. Failing that, they can actually go to the US border crossing station itself (or any other port of entry), present themselves to any US Borders & Customs and legally claim asylum.

For some reason, these folks are convinced that they have to illegally cross the borders... can we first acknowledge that these folks in doing so are breaking our laws?

No, you cannot claim asylum at an embassy or consulate.

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It's not much of a high horse. Kinda short, actually. Not, like, Shetland pony-short, but not particularly high. I'm not surprised it looks that way if you can honestly defend a policy that should have Liam Neeson making threatening phone calls.

It is a dangerous journey, though. That actually isn't in dispute - although maybe those Border Patrol agents filmed kicking over water jugs thought it wasn't dangerous enough. So the rational, logical, detached question you want to be asking yourself is 'why would I bring my child on such a dangerous trip, so that we can declare asylum, a totally legal process which absolutely shouldn't result in my child being taken away from me?' Is it because something awful is going to happen to you or your child or both if you stay? Is it because you have nothing left to lose?

Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually)?

Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

There are US Consulate offices in Mexico and in Central/South America. If they want to claim Asylum, then can go there. Failing that, they can actually go to the US border crossing station itself (or any other port of entry), present themselves to any US Borders & Customs and legally claim asylum.

For some reason, these folks are convinced that they have to illegally cross the borders... can we first acknowledge that these folks in doing so are breaking our laws?

No, you cannot claim asylum at an embassy or consulate.

Shh, stop being right! There's no place for that in here!

Now I finally get why Trump supporters like walls so much. They resemble walls themselves! Impossible to reason with.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It's not much of a high horse. Kinda short, actually. Not, like, Shetland pony-short, but not particularly high. I'm not surprised it looks that way if you can honestly defend a policy that should have Liam Neeson making threatening phone calls.

It is a dangerous journey, though. That actually isn't in dispute - although maybe those Border Patrol agents filmed kicking over water jugs thought it wasn't dangerous enough. So the rational, logical, detached question you want to be asking yourself is 'why would I bring my child on such a dangerous trip, so that we can declare asylum, a totally legal process which absolutely shouldn't result in my child being taken away from me?' Is it because something awful is going to happen to you or your child or both if you stay? Is it because you have nothing left to lose?

Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually)?

Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

There are US Consulate offices in Mexico and in Central/South America. If they want to claim Asylum, then can go there. Failing that, they can actually go to the US border crossing station itself (or any other port of entry), present themselves to any US Borders & Customs and legally claim asylum.

For some reason, these folks are convinced that they have to illegally cross the borders... can we first acknowledge that these folks in doing so are breaking our laws?

Why do you repeatedly ignore people who have informed you that they're separating people who HAVEN'T crossed the border and ARE trying to claim asylum at legal ports of entry?

Because every one I've seen it was show that they broke the law.

Can you provide sources where they're doing this? (I didn't go back in this thread when this was hopping)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It's not much of a high horse. Kinda short, actually. Not, like, Shetland pony-short, but not particularly high. I'm not surprised it looks that way if you can honestly defend a policy that should have Liam Neeson making threatening phone calls.

It is a dangerous journey, though. That actually isn't in dispute - although maybe those Border Patrol agents filmed kicking over water jugs thought it wasn't dangerous enough. So the rational, logical, detached question you want to be asking yourself is 'why would I bring my child on such a dangerous trip, so that we can declare asylum, a totally legal process which absolutely shouldn't result in my child being taken away from me?' Is it because something awful is going to happen to you or your child or both if you stay? Is it because you have nothing left to lose?

Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually)?

Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

There are US Consulate offices in Mexico and in Central/South America. If they want to claim Asylum, then can go there. Failing that, they can actually go to the US border crossing station itself (or any other port of entry), present themselves to any US Borders & Customs and legally claim asylum.

For some reason, these folks are convinced that they have to illegally cross the borders... can we first acknowledge that these folks in doing so are breaking our laws?

No, you cannot claim asylum at an embassy or consulate.

Wait... in that link you can claim temporary asylum... they'll then refer you to another department.

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It's not much of a high horse. Kinda short, actually. Not, like, Shetland pony-short, but not particularly high. I'm not surprised it looks that way if you can honestly defend a policy that should have Liam Neeson making threatening phone calls.

It is a dangerous journey, though. That actually isn't in dispute - although maybe those Border Patrol agents filmed kicking over water jugs thought it wasn't dangerous enough. So the rational, logical, detached question you want to be asking yourself is 'why would I bring my child on such a dangerous trip, so that we can declare asylum, a totally legal process which absolutely shouldn't result in my child being taken away from me?' Is it because something awful is going to happen to you or your child or both if you stay? Is it because you have nothing left to lose?

Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually)?

Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

There are US Consulate offices in Mexico and in Central/South America. If they want to claim Asylum, then can go there. Failing that, they can actually go to the US border crossing station itself (or any other port of entry), present themselves to any US Borders & Customs and legally claim asylum.

For some reason, these folks are convinced that they have to illegally cross the borders... can we first acknowledge that these folks in doing so are breaking our laws?

No, you cannot claim asylum at an embassy or consulate.

Wait... in that link you can claim temporary asylum... they'll then refer you to another department.

It clearly states:

Unfortunately, U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for this form of protection because, under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States (or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry).

Spinner is right, plus the current administration is never going to bring in refugees from embassies and consulates (who aren't equipped to provide asylum then and there as it clearly states below) outside of the US into the US if they are already turning people away at official entry points.

Temporary refuge is a form of short-term protection from physical danger when the danger is both immediate (for example, a person is being pursued by a mob) and exceptionally grave (most often when there is a risk of possible death or serious bodily injury). It is also available to people who are in immediate danger of persecution based on the traditional grounds for asylum (described above).

In practice, this option tends to apply to high-profile figures, but it may be open to a few others as well. It provides temporary shelter by allowing people who need protection to enter and stay in the embassy or consulate after closing hours, at least until the danger ceases or the person chooses to leave. This option does not involve getting any help leaving the host country.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Now I finally get why Trump supporters like walls so much. They resemble walls themselves! Impossible to reason with.

The towns North and East of Austin have built walls to keep in the zombie, er California hordes. Occasionally they get through, but they are easy to spot, ambling around cluelessly dressed all in black with a bluetooth on their head. We've learned how to humanely lead them back into the Austin Quarantine Zone by baiting traps with California rolls, bad pizza and Starbucks where they are tranqed and released back into the AQZ.

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL child abuse? Like bringing your children with you through burning deserts - where they might die of dehydration - picked up by human traffers or turned into prostitutes - all for a chance to live undocumented and illegal in a country that might cause you to be separated?

Really? Get off your moral high horse. If these were American citizens treating these children these parents would have their kids taken away. No money to feed your kid? We'd taken them away in a heartbeat.

Also - since you care so much...what would you recommend? Each boarder processing center have 10-12 nurseries so the kids of criminals have a nice place to stay before they get back to Mexico?

Why isn't your message to build nurseries and and have social workers who speak Spanish for each boarder processing center? So we can deport these people with kindness. Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually) due to the high volume of deportations going on?

Your inability to understand this situation is almost as staggering as your inability to differentiate between adult and child. Which honestly, frightens me.

Asking for asylum does not make you an illegal immigrant. It begins the process of legally entering the country. Full stop. No matter how hard you try to spin this another way, you are wrong.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It's not much of a high horse. Kinda short, actually. Not, like, Shetland pony-short, but not particularly high. I'm not surprised it looks that way if you can honestly defend a policy that should have Liam Neeson making threatening phone calls.

It is a dangerous journey, though. That actually isn't in dispute - although maybe those Border Patrol agents filmed kicking over water jugs thought it wasn't dangerous enough. So the rational, logical, detached question you want to be asking yourself is 'why would I bring my child on such a dangerous trip, so that we can declare asylum, a totally legal process which absolutely shouldn't result in my child being taken away from me?' Is it because something awful is going to happen to you or your child or both if you stay? Is it because you have nothing left to lose?

Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually)?

Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

There are US Consulate offices in Mexico and in Central/South America. If they want to claim Asylum, then can go there. Failing that, they can actually go to the US border crossing station itself (or any other port of entry), present themselves to any US Borders & Customs and legally claim asylum.

For some reason, these folks are convinced that they have to illegally cross the borders... can we first acknowledge that these folks in doing so are breaking our laws?

No, you cannot claim asylum at an embassy or consulate.

Wait... in that link you can claim temporary asylum... they'll then refer you to another department.

It clearly states:

Unfortunately, U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for this form of protection because, under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States (or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry).

Spinner is right, plus the current administration is never going to bring in refugees from embassies and consulates (who aren't equipped to provide asylum then and there as it clearly states below) outside of the US into the US if they are already turning people away at official entry points.

Temporary refuge is a form of short-term protection from physical danger when the danger is both immediate (for example, a person is being pursued by a mob) and exceptionally grave (most often when there is a risk of possible death or serious bodily injury). It is also available to people who are in immediate danger of persecution based on the traditional grounds for asylum (described above).

In practice, this option tends to apply to high-profile figures, but it may be open to a few others as well. It provides temporary shelter by allowing people who need protection to enter and stay in the embassy or consulate after closing hours, at least until the danger ceases or the person chooses to leave. This option does not involve getting any help leaving the host country.

I stand corrected. I thought the temporary request as one of the avenues. I did *clearly* state that they can claim asylum at the port of entry.

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Riquende wrote:
Well... yeah. If one party starts to unravel and break the tools of democracy, and the other side once in power do nothing to fix them and instead just break them harder and faster, then where does it stop?

I have to explain this constantly to 12 year olds on the school playground who seem to think that this is time that the punch they land will be the one that ends the argument forever, rather than just escalating the conflict, but depressingly it's just part of the human condition to react to being wronged with any sort of retribution rather than conciliation.

In real life in the world of politics there are no teachers to break up the fight. If a kid hits you, well then maybe you can try to back off one time, but when he comes at you time and again, sooner or later you can't keep getting hit and being nice. There comes a point when the only way the fight is ever going to end is when that kid realises that you are willing to hit back, and that kid is much better off not fighting because he's gonna get hurt as well.

In real life politics is a game not a existential bloodsport. If one of the teams I coach is playing a game and the other team is playing dirty or cheating I don't tell our kids to start playing dirty and cheating too, that would be counter productive to achieving our goals of playing well and winning the game with the added bonus of teaching them a terrible lesson. The real opponent you face in any game/sport is yourself, you want to play your best. If you perform at your best and the team collectively performs at a high level then your odds of winning will be as good as they can be. If the other team is playing dirty/cheating I want my team to get angry about and use that anger to be more focused, execute better, score more points and win the game. The individual goal for the kids on the team is to play their best, the team goal is to win the game. Instructing the kids to play dirty/cheat sabotages the individual goal and really doesn't improve the odds of achieving the team goal.
Wrestling with a pig in the mud and filth is just going to get you dirty and the pig is going to like it. Lowering your standards of behavior isn't impressive in the least, literally anyone can do it. You've spent several pages of posts across multiple US Politics threads arguing about the false equivalency of the idea that both Parties are bad and now you're advocating that the Democratic Party adopting a carbon copy of all of the gakky underhanded things the Republican Party does is the best way forward. How is having the Democrats literally behaving just as badly as the Republicans a practical solution? It seems like you're getting too invested in this and are missing the forest for the trees.
I know it's tough to imagine the Democrats suddenly prioritizing good governance and knuckling down and accomplishing stuff but that is their best way forward.

Now that you stand corrected. You want to post the actual quote in the article about Obama earlier or are you going to say it was paraphrased from something else again? Because, everybody is shocked i know, it clearly says in the first part of that article the "I Won" was paraphrased from a quote that did not contain the phrase "I Won" at all. Did you read it?

I think progressives across the world are realizing just how deeply fethed the US is going to be when it gets stuck with a few decades of nakedly partisan SCotUS rulings in a few months. That might explain the recent shift from "we can be better" to "feth this, now it's personal" rhetoric we are seeing.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Also - since you care so much...what would you recommend? Each boarder processing center have 10-12 nurseries so the kids of criminals have a nice place to stay before they get back to Mexico?

Why isn't your message to build nurseries and and have social workers who speak Spanish for each boarder processing center? So we can deport these people with kindness. Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually) due to the high volume of deportations going on?

I find it strange that a country that was built n immigration of people looking for a better life' that made it one of the most powerful at the present time has so many people opposed to immigration who want to make a better life for themselves (and hence almost certainly make it more powerful). After all strictly speaking the border that you cherished so much wasn't there just 5-6 generations ago (approx <1850's) and that at that time there was no border and those same people would have been able to travel freely back and forth across that arbitrary line. In that context what is immigration? It could just be argued that people are returning to part of a home from a few generations ago? A bit further back and it was 'spanish owned' and then you could argue that people from most of the americas would have been able to travel into those areas freely.

Personally I think the concept of immigration and especially 'illegal immigration' is an out dated concept and extremely divisive. They are just people looking for a better life for themselves and their children. By classifying someone as illegal you are already driving them to being a criminal by that very classification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

For some reason, these folks are convinced that they have to illegally cross the borders...

Are you somehow expecting them to know this? People that are likely to have come from the poorest backgrounds, likely only have a rudimentary ability to read/write are going to be able to understand the complexities of legislation? The poorest are those that take the risks, they are also the least likely to know 'your' laws. Should the punished for that reason?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
Well... yeah. If one party starts to unravel and break the tools of democracy, and the other side once in power do nothing to fix them and instead just break them harder and faster, then where does it stop?

I have to explain this constantly to 12 year olds on the school playground who seem to think that this is time that the punch they land will be the one that ends the argument forever, rather than just escalating the conflict, but depressingly it's just part of the human condition to react to being wronged with any sort of retribution rather than conciliation.

In real life in the world of politics there are no teachers to break up the fight. If a kid hits you, well then maybe you can try to back off one time, but when he comes at you time and again, sooner or later you can't keep getting hit and being nice. There comes a point when the only way the fight is ever going to end is when that kid realises that you are willing to hit back, and that kid is much better off not fighting because he's gonna get hurt as well.

In real life politics is a game not a existential bloodsport. If one of the teams I coach is playing a game and the other team is playing dirty or cheating I don't tell our kids to start playing dirty and cheating too, that would be counter productive to achieving our goals of playing well and winning the game with the added bonus of teaching them a terrible lesson. The real opponent you face in any game/sport is yourself, you want to play your best. If you perform at your best and the team collectively performs at a high level then your odds of winning will be as good as they can be. If the other team is playing dirty/cheating I want my team to get angry about and use that anger to be more focused, execute better, score more points and win the game. The individual goal for the kids on the team is to play their best, the team goal is to win the game. Instructing the kids to play dirty/cheat sabotages the individual goal and really doesn't improve the odds of achieving the team goal.
Wrestling with a pig in the mud and filth is just going to get you dirty and the pig is going to like it. Lowering your standards of behavior isn't impressive in the least, literally anyone can do it. You've spent several pages of posts across multiple US Politics threads arguing about the false equivalency of the idea that both Parties are bad and now you're advocating that the Democratic Party adopting a carbon copy of all of the gakky underhanded things the Republican Party does is the best way forward. How is having the Democrats literally behaving just as badly as the Republicans a practical solution? It seems like you're getting too invested in this and are missing the forest for the trees.
I know it's tough to imagine the Democrats suddenly prioritizing good governance and knuckling down and accomplishing stuff but that is their best way forward.

But what is the point behind playing your best if the other team can just start breaking your legs and their win still counts, with no ifs ands or buts? Or if you're a boxer and your opponent just shoots you in the face? You're never going to win when the deck is stacked so heavily against playing fairly.

Facts are useless against delusion.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/
LOL and consider - these are just the Apprehensions. How many do you think DON'T get caught? No one really knows that number.

Lol, by your own source the estimated total number of illegals in the US is 11 million. That's an impossible number if as you say millions cross illegally each year, unless you also believe millions are crossing the other way. The downtrend is also clearly visible in your source, but why look at it from a reasonable angle when we pretend only 1% gets caught and millions are swarming across each years

Lots don't stay for very long. A lot get caught and sent back. A lot go back and sneak in again. The estimation of 11 million illegal pop is exactly that - it is an extremely unintelligent guess to. How exactly do you calculate how many people are avoiding being counted? I've seen it estimated as high as 20 million.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do you guys know what an average is? I said millions per year. So lets say over the past 20 years - what has been the average?

About half those years are over a million caught at the board and half are under. with the max being 1.6 million and the min being .4 million. This is around a 1 million average.

This doesn't even include the people that don't get caught.

The illegal immigrant population is estimated to be relatively stable if shrinking. You would need to deport hundreds of thousands a year at least if millions come in. So the people who do this for a living make a estimation and you call it "extremely unintelligent"? What does that make the numbers you're bringing up now?

You said millions a year, now you're backtracking to a million. You're using numbers no longer relevant from 10 years ago. What happened 10 years ago should not dictate policy now.

Millions does include a million. I'm not backtracking at all. There were years in the past 2 decades where 2-3 million were crossing a year. I don't understand why you can't acknowledge these facts. Plus I have made my point clear now. Argue the issue - not my word choice before I clarified my meaning which actually is accurate with the facts.

These numbers aren't made up - you can find them directly at .gov sites too. There is a small amount of estimation required in figuring how many people make it past border protection (there is no way to know exactly) Just the amount they catch is staggering even if it is declining.

Man I leave this thread for a day and it gets *weird*.

Setting aside the partisan/DvsR/Trump stuff for right now, focusinf just on the border topic, most people acknowledge and understand undertaking hardship for a chance at a better life, especially for one's kids.

That is a very different thing from not feeding your kid because you're a gakky parent that chooses not to provide or cannot manage their own affairs. It is also usually considered to be important for the government to have mechanisms in olace for reuniting these families, just saying "hey whenever you get released, call this number at a different agency with no idea of your circumstances and maybe someone will know something".

More to the point, we generally dont imprison people and take away their children just for misdemeanor crimes, especially not before they're proven guilty in a court of law.

This nation was built by immigrants. A big part of the US economic engine has been immigration. The US continues to grow thanks in large part to immigration, especially relative to other developed nations, many of which are facing declining populations. We have been sucking up many of the worlds best and brightest and most motivated for a hundred years, and reaped the rewards in literally every aspect of life.

However, by the same token, it should also be noted that the US, or any nation, can't just take anyone and everyone who wants to immigrate, that has to be structured and go through a process and cheating that process can inflict harm on society, and that our current system is not coping well for most anyone.

Walls and toddler internment camps and jailing french teenagers out for a jog arent going to fix that, just as completely open borders will not. We cannot deport our way out of this, nor can we take anyone and everyone who wants in whenever they want, but being dicks to desperate people isnt the answer either.

We need to acknowledge our immigration process needs a major overhaul to better address those issues. There are probably no easy answers, a lot of emotion on all sides, a lot of misinformation in general, and a lot of time that will be required.

For my own perspective, I would like to see the annual limit increased to allow in more people (and reduce the incentive to enter illegally), more services to better integrate them, a greater enforcement penalties against employers for hiring illegal labor, a reduction in the H1B program (lets make those people citizens, not disposable professionals who are employed as a cost cutting measure to avoid prevailing market wages of domestic professionals), mechanisms put in place to direct people to ports of entry instead of crossing out in the desert, a greater emphasis on deporting people convicted of violent crimes (this would include at the state and local level too, including sanctuary cities), and protections for people who came as children and are effecticely American for all practical purposes except the sheet of paper.

As an addon, promoting stability and growth in our neighbors to the south will reduce the incentive and need to come to the US. We have historically not done well with that, not that it has been entirely in our hands, but we have exacerbated things more than once.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/
LOL and consider - these are just the Apprehensions. How many do you think DON'T get caught? No one really knows that number.

Lol, by your own source the estimated total number of illegals in the US is 11 million. That's an impossible number if as you say millions cross illegally each year, unless you also believe millions are crossing the other way. The downtrend is also clearly visible in your source, but why look at it from a reasonable angle when we pretend only 1% gets caught and millions are swarming across each years

Lots don't stay for very long. A lot get caught and sent back. A lot go back and sneak in again. The estimation of 11 million illegal pop is exactly that - it is an extremely unintelligent guess to. How exactly do you calculate how many people are avoiding being counted? I've seen it estimated as high as 20 million.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do you guys know what an average is? I said millions per year. So lets say over the past 20 years - what has been the average?

About half those years are over a million caught at the board and half are under. with the max being 1.6 million and the min being .4 million. This is around a 1 million average.

This doesn't even include the people that don't get caught.

The illegal immigrant population is estimated to be relatively stable if shrinking. You would need to deport hundreds of thousands a year at least if millions come in. So the people who do this for a living make a estimation and you call it "extremely unintelligent"? What does that make the numbers you're bringing up now?

You said millions a year, now you're backtracking to a million. You're using numbers no longer relevant from 10 years ago. What happened 10 years ago should not dictate policy now.

Millions does include a million. I'm not backtracking at all. There were years in the past 2 decades where 2-3 million were crossing a year. I don't understand why you can't acknowledge these facts. Plus I have made my point clear now. Argue the issue - not my word choice before I clarified my meaning which actually is accurate with the facts.

These numbers aren't made up - you can find them directly at .gov sites too. There is a small amount of estimation required in figuring how many people make it past border protection (there is no way to know exactly) Just the amount they catch is staggering even if it is declining.

Millions is more than a million. You're reducing your numbers to suit your argument.

Yes, there were years in the past that millions might have crossed, just like the Soviet Union used to exist. Making policy based on the past is worthless. Its declining steadily and the overall number is on the decline. Yet we're pretending they're crossing in 'unpresidented' numbers.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Also - since you care so much...what would you recommend? Each boarder processing center have 10-12 nurseries so the kids of criminals have a nice place to stay before they get back to Mexico?

Why isn't your message to build nurseries and and have social workers who speak Spanish for each boarder processing center? So we can deport these people with kindness. Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually) due to the high volume of deportations going on?

I find it strange that a country that was built n immigration of people looking for a better life' that made it one of the most powerful at the present time has so many people opposed to immigration who want to make a better life for themselves (and hence almost certainly make it more powerful). After all strictly speaking the border that you cherished so much wasn't there just 5-6 generations ago (approx <1850's) and that at that time there was no border and those same people would have been able to travel freely back and forth across that arbitrary line. In that context what is immigration? It could just be argued that people are returning to part of a home from a few generations ago? A bit further back and it was 'spanish owned' and then you could argue that people from most of the americas would have been able to travel into those areas freely.

Personally I think the concept of immigration and especially 'illegal immigration' is an out dated concept and extremely divisive. They are just people looking for a better life for themselves and their children. By classifying someone as illegal you are already driving them to being a criminal by that very classification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

For some reason, these folks are convinced that they have to illegally cross the borders...

Are you somehow expecting them to know this? People that are likely to have come from the poorest backgrounds, likely only have a rudimentary ability to read/write are going to be able to understand the complexities of legislation? The poorest are those that take the risks, they are also the least likely to know 'your' laws. Should the punished for that reason?

Are you seriously trying to suggest these people don't know they aren't supposed to sneak into the country? That is just silly man. You know they know.

The US was built on immigration - yes. Different time - different world. Now we have cars and machines to do all of our work - we don't need laborers - we don't even have enough labor for our own people. We don't need more mouths to feed. We don't need a bunch of illiterate people that contribute nothing to society and drain social services.

At some point - your ship is full - and you have to leave some behind or the boat will capsize. We are very nearly there. This is not the time for idealism - it is time to survive.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/
LOL and consider - these are just the Apprehensions. How many do you think DON'T get caught? No one really knows that number.

Lol, by your own source the estimated total number of illegals in the US is 11 million. That's an impossible number if as you say millions cross illegally each year, unless you also believe millions are crossing the other way. The downtrend is also clearly visible in your source, but why look at it from a reasonable angle when we pretend only 1% gets caught and millions are swarming across each years

Lots don't stay for very long. A lot get caught and sent back. A lot go back and sneak in again. The estimation of 11 million illegal pop is exactly that - it is an extremely unintelligent guess to. How exactly do you calculate how many people are avoiding being counted? I've seen it estimated as high as 20 million.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do you guys know what an average is? I said millions per year. So lets say over the past 20 years - what has been the average?

About half those years are over a million caught at the board and half are under. with the max being 1.6 million and the min being .4 million. This is around a 1 million average.

This doesn't even include the people that don't get caught.

The illegal immigrant population is estimated to be relatively stable if shrinking. You would need to deport hundreds of thousands a year at least if millions come in. So the people who do this for a living make a estimation and you call it "extremely unintelligent"? What does that make the numbers you're bringing up now?

You said millions a year, now you're backtracking to a million. You're using numbers no longer relevant from 10 years ago. What happened 10 years ago should not dictate policy now.

Millions does include a million. I'm not backtracking at all. There were years in the past 2 decades where 2-3 million were crossing a year. I don't understand why you can't acknowledge these facts. Plus I have made my point clear now. Argue the issue - not my word choice before I clarified my meaning which actually is accurate with the facts.

These numbers aren't made up - you can find them directly at .gov sites too. There is a small amount of estimation required in figuring how many people make it past border protection (there is no way to know exactly) Just the amount they catch is staggering even if it is declining.

Millions is more than a million. You're reducing your numbers to suit your argument.

Yes, there were years in the past that millions might have crossed, just like the Soviet Union used to exist. Making policy based on the past is worthless. Its declining steadily and the overall number is on the decline. Yet we're pretending they're crossing in 'unpresidented' numbers.

BS the past two decades is part of the present situation. If you can't acknowledge that get outta here.

The idea that the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world is facing an existential crisis because of illegal immigration is laughable.

You claim to be dispassionate and objective, yet you use ludicrous rhetoric like "it is time to survive". Come on.

 whembly wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It's not much of a high horse. Kinda short, actually. Not, like, Shetland pony-short, but not particularly high. I'm not surprised it looks that way if you can honestly defend a policy that should have Liam Neeson making threatening phone calls.

It is a dangerous journey, though. That actually isn't in dispute - although maybe those Border Patrol agents filmed kicking over water jugs thought it wasn't dangerous enough. So the rational, logical, detached question you want to be asking yourself is 'why would I bring my child on such a dangerous trip, so that we can declare asylum, a totally legal process which absolutely shouldn't result in my child being taken away from me?' Is it because something awful is going to happen to you or your child or both if you stay? Is it because you have nothing left to lose?

Isn't it because what you really want is open boarders so you have chosen to be outraged by a process that is necessary (and put in place by democrats actually)?

Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

There are US Consulate offices in Mexico and in Central/South America. If they want to claim Asylum, then can go there. Failing that, they can actually go to the US border crossing station itself (or any other port of entry), present themselves to any US Borders & Customs and legally claim asylum.

For some reason, these folks are convinced that they have to illegally cross the borders... can we first acknowledge that these folks in doing so are breaking our laws?

Why do you repeatedly ignore people who have informed you that they're separating people who HAVEN'T crossed the border and ARE trying to claim asylum at legal ports of entry?

Because every one I've seen it was show that they broke the law.

Can you provide sources where they're doing this? (I didn't go back in this thread when this was hopping)

No, go back and check yourself. I'm not wasting my time on something you can do, especially when you were quoted more than once on this exact subject, and exact claim.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
Well... yeah. If one party starts to unravel and break the tools of democracy, and the other side once in power do nothing to fix them and instead just break them harder and faster, then where does it stop?

I have to explain this constantly to 12 year olds on the school playground who seem to think that this is time that the punch they land will be the one that ends the argument forever, rather than just escalating the conflict, but depressingly it's just part of the human condition to react to being wronged with any sort of retribution rather than conciliation.

In real life in the world of politics there are no teachers to break up the fight. If a kid hits you, well then maybe you can try to back off one time, but when he comes at you time and again, sooner or later you can't keep getting hit and being nice. There comes a point when the only way the fight is ever going to end is when that kid realises that you are willing to hit back, and that kid is much better off not fighting because he's gonna get hurt as well.

In real life politics is a game not a existential bloodsport. If one of the teams I coach is playing a game and the other team is playing dirty or cheating I don't tell our kids to start playing dirty and cheating too, that would be counter productive to achieving our goals of playing well and winning the game with the added bonus of teaching them a terrible lesson. The real opponent you face in any game/sport is yourself, you want to play your best. If you perform at your best and the team collectively performs at a high level then your odds of winning will be as good as they can be. If the other team is playing dirty/cheating I want my team to get angry about and use that anger to be more focused, execute better, score more points and win the game. The individual goal for the kids on the team is to play their best, the team goal is to win the game. Instructing the kids to play dirty/cheat sabotages the individual goal and really doesn't improve the odds of achieving the team goal.
Wrestling with a pig in the mud and filth is just going to get you dirty and the pig is going to like it. Lowering your standards of behavior isn't impressive in the least, literally anyone can do it. You've spent several pages of posts across multiple US Politics threads arguing about the false equivalency of the idea that both Parties are bad and now you're advocating that the Democratic Party adopting a carbon copy of all of the gakky underhanded things the Republican Party does is the best way forward. How is having the Democrats literally behaving just as badly as the Republicans a practical solution? It seems like you're getting too invested in this and are missing the forest for the trees.
I know it's tough to imagine the Democrats suddenly prioritizing good governance and knuckling down and accomplishing stuff but that is their best way forward.

But what is the point behind playing your best if the other team can just start breaking your legs and their win still counts, with no ifs ands or buts? Or if you're a boxer and your opponent just shoots you in the face? You're never going to win when the deck is stacked so heavily against playing fairly.

What is the obstacle that you think Democrats are facing that is keeping them from nurturing good candidates, proposing well conceived legislation, making cogent arguments to persuade the electorate and providing good governance when they achieve political office?
I think we've gotten too caught up with analogies and have lost track of the subject. Democrats don't need to lie, insult, obfuscate, disregard laws, implement reprehensible policies and be extreme legislative obstructionists in order to convince people they're better politicians than Trump. Granted, they've made plenty of missteps already but if they get their act together they should be able to present a better strategy for winning the presidency in 2020 than simply having a candidate that isn't Trump. I'm already getting a Bush v Kerry 2004 vibe about 2020 and the Democrat candidate will rely on the ability to say Well at least I'm not Trump, as the key to victory.

*
*
*

Hi Folks! I'm trying to grab your attention. If I could have a moment, I'd like to ask that the excessive use of quotes end. It makes it difficult to make use of the "ignore" function and makes skimming through this thread for "good" content more difficult. You can address another user by name, if you wish to direct your comments to someone particular.

Thank you.

*
*
*

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Riquende wrote:
Well... yeah. If one party starts to unravel and break the tools of democracy, and the other side once in power do nothing to fix them and instead just break them harder and faster, then where does it stop?

I have to explain this constantly to 12 year olds on the school playground who seem to think that this is time that the punch they land will be the one that ends the argument forever, rather than just escalating the conflict, but depressingly it's just part of the human condition to react to being wronged with any sort of retribution rather than conciliation.

In real life in the world of politics there are no teachers to break up the fight. If a kid hits you, well then maybe you can try to back off one time, but when he comes at you time and again, sooner or later you can't keep getting hit and being nice. There comes a point when the only way the fight is ever going to end is when that kid realises that you are willing to hit back, and that kid is much better off not fighting because he's gonna get hurt as well.

In real life politics is a game not a existential bloodsport. If one of the teams I coach is playing a game and the other team is playing dirty or cheating I don't tell our kids to start playing dirty and cheating too, that would be counter productive to achieving our goals of playing well and winning the game with the added bonus of teaching them a terrible lesson. The real opponent you face in any game/sport is yourself, you want to play your best. If you perform at your best and the team collectively performs at a high level then your odds of winning will be as good as they can be. If the other team is playing dirty/cheating I want my team to get angry about and use that anger to be more focused, execute better, score more points and win the game. The individual goal for the kids on the team is to play their best, the team goal is to win the game. Instructing the kids to play dirty/cheat sabotages the individual goal and really doesn't improve the odds of achieving the team goal.
Wrestling with a pig in the mud and filth is just going to get you dirty and the pig is going to like it. Lowering your standards of behavior isn't impressive in the least, literally anyone can do it. You've spent several pages of posts across multiple US Politics threads arguing about the false equivalency of the idea that both Parties are bad and now you're advocating that the Democratic Party adopting a carbon copy of all of the gakky underhanded things the Republican Party does is the best way forward. How is having the Democrats literally behaving just as badly as the Republicans a practical solution? It seems like you're getting too invested in this and are missing the forest for the trees.
I know it's tough to imagine the Democrats suddenly prioritizing good governance and knuckling down and accomplishing stuff but that is their best way forward.

Politics is only a game if you believe that it doesn't matter. The current actions of the GOP are making life worse for a lot of people. US Citizens who have mixed status families that are split because the travel ban (https://www.npr.org/2018/06/28/624165102/yemeni-american-reacts-to-supreme-court-upholding-travel-ban). The EPA being defanged and the US stepping away from the Paris Accords. The upcoming trade war that will lead to layoffs of US workers. The Tax cut that will increase the deficit and will be used to justify cut social benefits to our most vulnerable. The Alienation of our traditional allies. This hurts.

While I don't fully agree with Seb that the Democrats need to get in the mud, when I look around and see the GOP continues to be rewarded for ignoring and destroying decorum...I can understand the sentiment.

And before I hear anyone talk about "Bork," do you not know the problems with him? He was the one who stepped up for Nixon for the "Saturday Night Massacre." He also stated posthumously that Nixon promised him the next seat on the Supreme Court. And the legal justification used for Dronenburg v. Zech compared to previous cited cases is...interesting.(https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Dronenburg_v_Zech_DC_circuit_1984.pdf) I can definately see why he was attacked so harshly .