# The Illegal Immigration Non-Crisis in the USA



## cots (Jul 4, 2019)

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/03/po...-facilities/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

The buzz in the news lately has been the overcrowded,  but generally better condition that a lot of people who have been crossing the Southern border of illegally have found themselves in. Current policies encourage people to illegally bypass our border checkpoints and cross in dangerous locations because the policies then allow them to get free health insurance (emergency Medicaid), food assistance (SNAP gives them the option to not have to provide or prove they are a legal resident of the USA) and free housing. That's if they successfully sneak into the country otherwise they may die or find themselves in worse conditions than the likely outcome, which is they are apprehended and put into detention facilities (as they are breaking the law).

So the current policies encourage them to risk their own lives along with their children's for a free shot at living large, which puts a burden on the USA economy, brings with it drug smuggling and people who sell children for sex and enables criminals, who are organizing caravans of thousands of migrants to profit. It also gives the certain people that are not only personally profiting financially more votes because in thier districts they allow non-citizens to vote, while both the general public and the immigrants suffer.

Well, I don't see the general condition they find themselves in worse than what most of them came from and they are still being treated better than our own citizens that are homeless, without food or an airconditioned place to sleep. I think we should get rid of the policies encouraging the illegals and anyone in our government that is supporting this lawless act and cut the current detainees daily meals to what you would find in the Arizona Maricopa County Jail and cut off their air conditioning and make them live in tents like our homeless people are having to do because the Illegal immigrants are more of a priority than they are.

With that said I'm wondering what people from other countries, specifically not the USA or any south of our borders what they think about these policies? How does your country handle Illegal immigration and do you think it's wise to have no sort of border system with countries not in your Union or what have you?


----------



## zomborg (Jul 5, 2019)

I'm not from another country but I agree with your viewpoint on Illegal aliens. Also they are not "just" undocumented migrants. They are illegal aliens. Illegal because they broke our law in crossing our border without permission and alien because they are citizens of another country.

Their key excuse for coming here illegally is to make a better life for they and family and we should not hold it against them for breaking our laws in an effort to provide a better future for their families. 

However, if I were to use their logic, then I would be justified if, in an attempt to make things better for my family, I go and rob a bank. Then after the authorities catch me, instead of jailing me, they give me food, free health care, free housing and a job as a reward for breaking the law.

My friend @Maluma did it by the book. He went through the process and became a legal citizen of the United States of America.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 5, 2019)

cots said:


> Well, I don't see the general condition they find themselves in worse than what most of them came from and they are still being treated better than our own citizens that are homeless


That's quite the low bar. It doesn't mean the conditions aren't deplorable, and the Republicans are responsible. The same goes for homelessness in the US.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 5, 2019)

zomborg said:


> I'm not from another country but I agree with your viewpoint on Illegal aliens. Also they are not "just" undocumented migrants. They are illegal aliens. Illegal because they broke our law in crossing our border without permission and alien because they are citizens of another country.
> 
> Their key excuse for coming here illegally is to make a better life for they and family and we should not hold it against them for breaking our laws in an effort to provide a better future for their families.
> 
> ...


Let's just ignore the fact we (united states) screwed several countries nearby, funded terrorist groups to overthrow their government because we didn't like what they were doing.
yeah. It's completely their fault that we fucked up their home, caused problems where they lived, and then proceed to piss off and act like we didn't do anything.
To then when the problem comes back to us in the ass we decide to give the middle finger to them.
I think I rest my case, look at the states when the intermingled with other county affairs, you might learn something.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 5, 2019)

So I see we're just going to ignore the fact that many of these people are seeking asylum legally and being subjected to near-torturous conditions.  Classic cots.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 5, 2019)

cots said:


> https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/03/politics/trump-border-patrol-facilities/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
> 
> The buzz in the news lately has been the overcrowded,  but generally better condition that a lot of people who have been crossing the Southern border of illegally have found themselves in.


Erm... Your source only mentions that trump said so. So it's not 'news that's being overcrowded', but reporters believing humanitarian workers rather than a notorious liar.



cots said:


> With that said I'm wondering what people from other countries, specifically not the USA or any south of our borders what they think about these policies? How does your country handle Illegal immigration and do you think it's wise to have no sort of border system with countries not in your Union or what have you?


First of all, we don't assume that migrants are criminals. They're refugees from unstable countries, that's all. There's somewhat of a tension between political groups here as well, in the sense that the debate is on whether sending them back is allowed or not.

The conditions... I think it's mostly the USA treating their unemployed and homeless like shit (sorry). The same politicians who want to send immigrants back also often criticize the 'pampering' of our unemployed, but the truth is that while we give them enough to survive, it's not really a large sum.
Immigrants get somewhat in the same area, but are restricted in their rights until it is decided (case by case based) on whether they can become citizens or not.

Admitted : Belgium is in a luxury position. Our neighbors are equally rich, so immigrants rarely come from there (or more to the point : these are the largest part, but we welcome them because they mostly move here because their new jobs are already here). When looking at Europe... We're in two minds. We're not fans of how Italy stops boats in the Mediterranean sea not turkey and Greece s policies on the mass migration from a while ago (it hasn't stopped, but slowed down a bit), but we're turning a blind eye.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jul 5, 2019)

There's just so much complete crap in the OP I don't even know where to begin. So I wont. I'll let someone else handle it. But really? This guy? Again????


----------



## Rolf12 (Jul 5, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> There's just so much complete crap in the OP I don't even know where to begin. So I wont. I'll let someone else handle it. But really? This guy? Again????


Quite a lot of it. I reckon this person is not feeling well mentally and has to take it out on other, or it is simply trolling. I mostly feel sorry for (probably) him.


----------



## notimp (Jul 5, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Their key excuse for coming here illegally is to make a better life for they and family and we should not hold it against them for breaking our laws in an effort to provide a better future for their families.
> 
> However, if I were to use their logic, then I would be justified if, in an attempt to make things better for my family, I go and rob a bank.


This follows the incredible intelligent logic of law is idol. So anyone who breaks law is bad and not as religiously pure as I am. The wrath of god shall strike them down.

Lets deal with this in steps.

Do you know about the concept of "theft of food" (Mundraub in german, we have a specific word for it)?

Its basically legal, although illegal. In every civilized society. So you go through the rigamarole of a legal process, then you let the accused party go.

In fact - I have a supermarket near me thats on the edge of an affluent part of the city and a not so well off one. Its privately run. (Although under a common brand). Every time the theft alarm goes off in there - which is maybe once every three months I am there - nobody does anything. We don't even look. Because if you are a poor person, that has to steal food at the end of the month just to get by - in our society - we don't pray upon you. We dont even call the police. We let it slide.

Do you know about the concept of law basically being a mirror of public opinion? Here is a morbid case law example - that touches very much on that point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens

If you understood those two concepts - the thing you are doing is basically just the following.

"I dont like people coming to my country - without a permit" - "because I dont like it" - with the social gratification of a law, that tells others collectively its ok to not like it - because its illegal.

Again - its nothing of substance. 

Circumstance is the deciding factor in case law - between 10% and 100% of a max sentence. If you leave it out of the argument - you are arguing legal issues - as principals - which doesnt work. In principal - it doesnt. The whole defendants, lawyers, judges thing? Is there because it doesnt.  Otherwise - police, lock em up and call it a day.. 


When it comes to asylum. All thats really needed to wave laws is a political directive, or even just a community complaining - that it is unfair to send someone back. If they complain loud enough - there a legal avenues to lift processes and proceedings.

Whats constitutes "legal" - in this case is directly corresponding to/with what happens in the world.

We as societies - don't have a problem with migrants. (In a legal sense.) We don't have a problem with migrants that migrate to "have a better life" (in a legal sense) - because historically - thats all migrants ever wanted. (With different levels of necessity - as in survival being the first, ...)

We have laws and regulations - because we have an issue - when migration pressure gets out of hand. We very much dont like that as societies.

And now - where that point is - isnt even defined. Its again - a matter of public reaction.

Meaning - even if there is a law that states - that migration from a certain country is illegal. It might become legal, if more people from that country start to migrate - having an accepted necessity to do so. So its a sort of law, thats only strict as long as you can still hand it to local authorities going all power trippy over it - and there are many concepts that superseed it.

Until an issue becomes so problematic, that we pivot back to being hardliners on it. 


Then as discussed in here many times before - there are different levels of allowing people from other countries in. Visas. Permits. Titles. Work permits. Asylum. Its not just do we let all of them in?

Its also - do we let some of them in for two years - then ship/fly them back - to save cost overall...

Its not - in fact it is never - lock them up for the crimes they have commited. (Because that would be the most costly.)

So in many, many senses - in fact - in all of them, it is NOT 'like robbing a bank'. At all.. 

So.

Now lets talk about migrant caravans. (Many people fleeing a war the US started, for example.) There is no rule of law on mass migration tracks. People more often than not, try to flee from their own countries, because of wars, oppression, lack of rule of law, economic reasons. So while they are 'fleeing' they cant resort to 'a state of law'. They are out of the law by definition. Meaning conditions are pretty awful. Meaning - that there are people praying on them for the duration of their journey - because humans.

So when they arrive - you have to deal with them. You never just say "go away". You say "go away" for the media in one or two isolated instances (Australia shooting migrant boats (then rescuing the people on them)). But you always attend to those people. Because - some of them really are in need of help.

You show "tough love" and "injustice" afterwards (to get numbers down), but you attend to them first.

All of that - again - is basic human decency. That gets less and less - the more migration pressure increases.

In general you at least owe them to hear out their story because thats also part of deciding if they can be "legal" or not. You dont just see a gaggle of migrants and pronounce them "illegals". Rule of law.

And again - none of this is like a bank robbery.


Last concept to learn. Being against illegal migrants, because of the law is "Sheriff has ordered, everyone in our town has to wear a hat, partner." type of legal sentiment. You may love it - but you probably do because of a feeling of authority. Its nothing that anyone has a real reason to be proud of. Its just odd, but "it works", and its presumably there for a reason.

Law is not fixed. Law is not moral. Law just is, and can be changed, and does change depending on circumstances.

If you break law - you arent necessarily a bad person. Look at circumstances first - they make all the difference. If you want a better life for you and your family - you are not a bad person. In fact, you are a freaking settler in american storytelling tropes.

Its just - that if societies for themselves decide, that they cant or that they dont want to deal with the numbers - that you enact laws against it.


Now tell me - if the native americans...

... if the dutch - would have never accepted people of other cultures...

you would have never gotten a Godfather from Mario Puzo, you wouldnt have gotten a Scarface, you wouldnt have... those are all parts of your cultural make up - and parts where you dont always rub it in - how legally moral or amoral they were.

Those are stories of human ambition, and hardship. Recognize that as well. As societies - we are quick to tell everyone "no we cant" anyhow. So at least dont paint perfect images of how things ought to be in an imperfect world - in one of the toughest circumstances out there.

And if you do - and if you then start to idolize and feshize them ('In our town, everyone wears a hat.'), you are still doing it wrong. 


And here is the only reason that you do. if it is hard for you to see economic development, an updraft in social mobility. People start looking around - because they judge their lives worth by comparison. And as long as they see a class of people that are still poorer that they can run their mouth about - they can still remain happy.

This is also something that just is. Part of how humans work.

But its also the part that allows Trump to enact massive tax breaks on the super rich. While economic growth hasnt reached wages (wage growth) in america in 40 years. If you understand that - you'll never vote for someone like Trump again (demagogue). But I understand, that this is the hardest part. Take your time, and if you dont - dont.  Think for yourselves.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jul 5, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> There's just so much complete crap in the OP I don't even know where to begin. So I wont. I'll let someone else handle it. But really? This guy? Again????


Lol exactly well at least for once he has managed to post without saying 

"I don't want my taxes being used for (insert whatever his current rant is about here) “

Like he does in every other thread he creates.


----------



## notimp (Jul 5, 2019)

Here is a the videoclip to end this thread, if you would take everything in here seriously. 

It basically shows you how everything in relation to the issue (currently in the US) works. How separation of power works. How laws are made, interpreted, argued, what a governments position can be - and so on and so forth.

Take the "this is concerning children" part out of it (emotion) - and you understand it exactly.

After watching it there is no place for "I don't want my tax money to be wasted there" - because you actually understand what the deliberations are.

Its somewhat of a perfect primer...


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jul 5, 2019)

I would like if we could them citizens, but I would also like if there was a way we could background check all of them first.... (wouldnt even mind if there was a windows like only if theyve sone somthing in x amount of years)


----------



## notimp (Jul 5, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> I don't mind if we would make them citizens, but I would like if there was a way we could background check all of them first....


Thats never the issue. Society is basically a free sky jail if you think about it.  (Insert Rorschach quote.  )

What you do instead is - have them live in facilities where they are under supervision for a while - and report those who show socially abnormal behavior.

Again - if they leave a country almost all crimes that some (few) of them might have commited in their home country, become non relevant by definition.

If they are fugitives on the run, and there is an open international warrant out for them - you just sweep them up. They usually come with passports if they can (identity protection). If they dont (smugglers taking the papers from them), chances that they are being kept in country are even lower to begin with.

And to mindhack a certain fear that this concept touches upon - in all kinds of internal revolutions in the past - amnesties for prison inmates were granted 'quite liberally' - with the people responsible for it simply stating 'dont behave badly'. And societies still survived. Australia was founded on being a prison colony for gods sake.. 

That added to the image of "there are murderers, and rapists, and some of them - I imagine even are good people", just doesnt add up to - you've got to be afraid of them in principal.

In Europe we took in houndreds of thousands of migrants  in the the recent peak years. You get half a dozen of instances in every county - where some culturally revolting crimes are commited, that you would rather have not read about - much less experienced, and then it "peters out" into normal crime statistic stuff. (Which the police for some reason always list by nationality of birth to argue where they have to send more officers to...  ).

Life is dangerous. If you are not going outside because of it - you are doing it wrong. And if you are weary of lets say 100.000 migrants, because a 5000th of them might commit crimes - you are doing it wrong again.

No space to argue here.

As societies - we dont have a problem with migration (Allthough its never as clean and sanetary and safe as you would like it to be) - unless the numbers (migration pressure) get too big. And what 'too big' is, is decided by public sentiment.

If your angle is "terrorism". Idk. watch less movies, and get over 9/11 as a nation. Please. You cant always make decisions with that in the back of your mind.

There are structures (think FBI, NSA) that are supposed to deal with stuff like that - when it comes down to it. Those are functions of societies that are still there and working.

The police is as well. You dont hear, that gangs have taken over neighborhoods much these days - so, something must be going ok... 

edit: Additional comment on the 'terrorism danger' scare. As the US has been quite active in the past a an active fraction of wars - they usually arent expected to take in many asylum seekers anyhow. Thats an argument that actually works on the international stage. Now - if you excuse my bluntness - I dont especially think, that the people coming from South America - want to flee to the US to become terrorists - because they'd have many more job opportunities in their native countries - for that line of work..  Also - and thats the good news, the US hasnt openly intervened in South American conflicts in the recent past - so people coming from those regions, usually have no reason to view the US as an enemy of any kind. Low terrorism risk - is what I'm hinting at. Probably. Havent read studies on that.


----------



## Rolf12 (Jul 5, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Lol exactly well at least for once he has managed to post without saying
> 
> "I don't want my taxes being used for (insert whatever his current rant is about here) “
> 
> Like he does in every other thread he creates.


Ash. So that's him. I remember him from the abortion thread....


----------



## notimp (Jul 5, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Ash. So that's him. I remember him from the abortion thread....


Dont single out individuals to shun. It doesnt help. Letting them voice opinions actually does. Trust in society - that we will not drum something up purely in the image of an 'extreme' POV.

We'll talk about it. We'll poke at fears. We'll poke at holes in the arguments. Then it'll all work out.


----------



## raystriker (Jul 5, 2019)

I see a few issues; 
-How many of these people are legitimately needing asylum? And how many of these people are leaving their country just because things got tough?
-USA has enough space to accompany these people, but after you let them in, then what? Where will they go? What jobs will they work in? What is the USA getting in return?


----------



## notimp (Jul 5, 2019)

Offtopic: Couldnt hurt to post it here - once. 

Curtesy of someone at Giantbomb.  (src: https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/off-topic-31/rorschachs-opening-monologue-237021/ )



> Rorschach's Journal.  October 12th, 1985:
> 
> Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach.  This city is afraid of me.  I have seen it's true face.  The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown.  The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"...
> 
> ...and I'll look down, and whisper "no."





> They had a choice, all of them.  They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father, or President Truman.  Decent men, who believed in a day's work for a day's pay.  Instead the followed the droppings of lechers and Communists and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late.  Don't tell me they didn't have a choice.
> 
> Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers... and all of a sudden, nobody can think of anything to say.



The thing is, if we go to the movie screening - we like that character. We do. 

Just don't overdo it...

(Too many purely right wing statements in this forum sometimes...  )


----------



## cots (Jul 5, 2019)

raystriker said:


> I see a few issues;
> -How many of these people are legitimately needing asylum? And how many of these people are leaving their country just because things got tough?



How many of these people were taken advantage of by people organizing the caravans? Look, I'm not against immigration. My family came over from Britain 4 or 5 generations ago, but they did it legally.

My problem is with the people who are sneaking across our borders, risking their lives along with their families and then are given all sorts of free services by people in power who support this kind of illegal nonsense (for votes to keep them in power), while the immigrants that are following the legal process are not a priority because of this. 

If you're just having a hard time or don't like where you're living or want to get free handouts then you shouldn't be allowed into the country. If you're actually being persecuted or need political asylum then you need to fill out the correct paperwork and get in line.

We don't have infinite resources. You can't just come and go as you please into Mexico or Canada and start living there, using their public services that are meant for legal citizens who are in poverty, ignore their laws and then expect them to not do anything about it.

I welcome immigrants. Legal immigrants, not illegal aliens. They can get the fuck out and I hope Trump keeps with the trend that the last President participated in and keeps arresting and deporting them. I also hope we can get rid of places and the people that ignore the laws and give these people free food, health care and housing, which would stop most of the incentive they have to come here to begin with.

Then after that, use the money that is being spent on the illegals to house and feed our own homeless population, who has to currently wait in line behind the illegal immigrants for services.



> -USA has enough space to accompany these people, but after you let them in, then what? Where will they go? What jobs will they work in? What is the USA getting in return?



Whatever they want to do. You're free as a USA citizen to work wherever you want or live whenever you want. You just have to make enough money or have the proper skill set to do these things. If you follow the legal immigration process and become a USA citizen then I see problem in allowing you to use food stamps, get free medical care and housing until you can get your bearings and get a job and place to live.

It's not about Race, Ethnicity or being against immigration. It's about protecting our borders, our economy and doing things to legal way. Open borders is a very bad idea. I mean, it's pretty easy right now to go to Canada or Mexico. You wait in line, show an ID, get your car checked (or if you're walking you get your belongings checked), you tell them why you're going into the country and how long you'll be there and you're allowed in). It's pretty simple. I know, I've done it. 

Having no checkpoints or not citizenship system would destroy our current way of life. Imagine running a business selling UHDTV's and having anyone being able to come into your store and simply take whatever they want and walk out without paying, when you had to pay for the stock.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 6, 2019)

AmandaRose said:


> Lol exactly well at least for once he has managed to post without saying
> 
> "I don't want my taxes being used for (insert whatever his current rant is about here) “
> 
> Like he does in every other thread he creates.


I mean, I don't want my tax dollars going to private prison companies running concentration camps for children, but here we are.  None of us gets to pick and choose where our taxes are spent.

For those interested in such information, 2600 magazine published a list of all the CBP facilities' addresses and phone numbers.  Not all of them are used as immigrant detention centers, but many are:

https://concentrationcamps.us/


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm... Your source only mentions that trump said so. So it's not 'news that's being overcrowded', but reporters believing humanitarian workers rather than a notorious liar.
> 
> 
> First of all, we don't assume that migrants are criminals. They're refugees from unstable countries, that's all. There's somewhat of a tension between political groups here as well, in the sense that the debate is on whether sending them back is allowed or not.
> ...


Bernie Sanders does not support illegal immigration. He says it’s a Koch Brothers proposal. Because they exploit illegals for cheap labor.

So there’s also Democratic politicians that do not support illegal immigration. And use to be the Democratic position from way before 2016. Right now Republicans have no problem with legal immigration. The issue with them isn’t immigration but illegal immigration. Blame gets put on Republicans for wanting a tighter system, and blame gets put on Democrat’s for loosening the asylum seeking system.


Fareed Zakaria of CNN says that Trump was right about the asylum system. Says that asylum seeking should be only for a very few people. But they are trying to game the system to by pass immigration laws. And immigration has gotten to a 240% increase from 2014. He says we need to tighten the immigration system because of the problem it’s becoming. It’s a big deal seeing a Trump bashing network saying he’s right.


The New York Times also caved in saying give Trump his boarder money, and the Democratic Party approved of Trumps 4.5 billion money because illegal immigration has become that much of a problem.

And a few Democratic members are secretly aiding in immigration fraud to coach people to lie about not knowing Spanish and to lie about having an illness to game the system.


All Democratic candidates raised their hand to give free health care to illegal immigrants. But that will encourage more people to illegally come to this country, making illegal problem worse, just to get free health care then go back to their home country. They will not live here, or work here, so they will not pay taxes here. They’ll just come for free health care then go back. Something we won’t be able to afford. U.S. is very different from European countries and is much bigger.




And a side topic about Mexico: Elizabeth Warren in the first round of the Democratic debates said LatinX. It’s basically feminists and activists calling the Spanish language sexist and perpetuating the Patriarchy because words are gendered, and they are not gender inclusive for trans. Like Latino and Latina. So they are trying to change the entire Spanish language and they way they spoke for decades by adding an X “LatinX” to the gendered words. But tell a Spanish speaker or a Linguist to use the X and you’ll be laughed at.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> All Democratic candidates raised their hand to give free health care to illegal immigrants. But that will encourage more people to illegally come to this country, making illegal problem worse, just to get free health care then go back to their home country. They will not live here, or work here, so they will not pay taxes here. They’ll just come for free health care then go back. Something we won’t be able to afford. U.S. is very different from European countries and is much bigger.


Hilarious considering that right now many Americans go to Mexico for affordable healthcare and prescription drugs.  But no, people from South America cannot go back to their home countries even if they wanted to, these countries are in crisis and most did not choose to leave willingly.

I don't see an issue with what was stated at the Democratic debate: the only way to keep our population healthy is to make sure everybody inside our borders is healthy.  Healthcare is a human right and should be treated as such.  Health insurance companies and private hospitals are running a price-fixing scam, and regular Americans are the ones burdened by the consequences.  If you need an ambulance ride to a hospital in Sweden and have to stay overnight, the average cost is around $50.  And that's without insurance.  In America you could potentially pay thousands for the same services even _with_ insurance.  The system is quite obviously broken.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Hilarious considering that right now many Americans go to Mexico for affordable healthcare and prescription drugs.  But no, people from South America cannot go back to their home countries even if they wanted to, these countries are in crisis and most did not choose to leave willingly.
> 
> I don't see an issue with what was stated at the Democratic debate: the only way to keep our population healthy is to make sure everybody inside our borders is healthy.  Healthcare is a human right and should be treated as such.  Health insurance companies and private hospitals are running a price-fixing scam, and regular Americans are the ones burdened by the consequences.


Are Americans paying for health care in Mexico or getting it for free? Two fundamentally different things.


The whole South American continent is not in chaos. So many will have no problem going back.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Are Americans paying for health care in Mexico or getting it for free? Two fundamentally different things.


It's so cheap that it's practically free.  Surgeries and prescriptions for pennies on the dollar compared to what they cost in the US.  Which is why...



SG854 said:


> The whole South American continent is not in chaos. So many will have no problem going back.


If South American immigrants were simply looking for cheap healthcare they would've got it in Mexico and then turned around and headed home.  What's actually happening is that coyotes are telling people that this is their last chance to get into the US before Trump closes the border entirely.  It's driving immigration up, not deterring it.

I've said it multiple times in other threads, though: the only way to effectively reduce illegal immigration is to punish the business owners and CEOs that continue to hire illegals.  As long as there are opportunities for them to get paying jobs, they'll keep coming.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's so cheap that it's practically free.  Surgeries and prescriptions for pennies on the dollar compared to what they cost in the US.  Which is why...
> 
> 
> If South American immigrants were simply looking for cheap healthcare they would've got it in Mexico and then turned around and headed home.  What's actually happening is that coyotes are telling people that this is their last chance to get into the US before Trump closes the border entirely.  It's driving immigration up, not deterring it.


They are still paying for it. So it’s not practically free.


If we create universal health care in the U.S. and Democrats give free health care to illegal immigrants like they say, people will come just for the free health care and nothing else. That will be costly to citizens that live here and pay taxes.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> If we create universal health care in the U.S. and Democrats give free health care to illegal immigrants like they say, people will come just for the free health care and nothing else. That will be costly to citizens that live here and pay taxes.


You realize that taxpayers already foot the bill for anyone visiting the ER/urgent care without any insurance, right?  That includes illegals.  Doctors can't turn away people in need of care.  The only difference with universal coverage/M4A is that the bill would be a lot lower in every instance.  Medicare is far more cost efficient than private insurance.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You realize that taxpayers already foot the bill for anyone visiting the ER/urgent care without any insurance, right?  That includes illegals.  Doctors can't turn away people in need of care.  The only difference with universal coverage/M4A is that the bill would be a lot lower in every instance.  Medicare is far more cost efficient than private insurance.


And giving free health care to illegals is whats contributing to driving up the costs and why it’s very expensive right now. Offering free health care to illegals and campaigning in Mexico like Beto O’ Rourke is doing will make the problem worse. 

Universal Coverage cost efficient but still a expensive problem giving it to illegals for free, and especially ones that just come for health care then go back. U.S. citizens pay for health care in Mexico as opposed to illegals getting it free here, very different comparisons.


We have a homeless crisis right now that’s not properly addressed. We should focused on taking care of our own first before we save the world.


----------



## orangy57 (Jul 7, 2019)

The reason our """""illegal"""" immigrants are in a """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""better condition"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" than that of homeless people is because they're literally in a makeshift prison for no reason. As long as the government locks them up, it's their responsibility to keep the immigrants alive, which they can't even do right. 6 kids have died so far in the government's care from lack of food or water, so i'm pretty sure they're not doing so hot right now.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Orangy57 said:


> The reason our """""illegal"""" immigrants are in a """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""better condition"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" than that of homeless people is because they're literally in a makeshift prison for no reason. As long as the government locks them up, it's their responsibility to keep the immigrants alive, which they can't even do right. 6 kids have died so far in the government's care from lack of food or water, so i'm pretty sure they're not doing so hot right now.


There there is a lot of blame right now. Democrat’s accuse Republicans of horrible conditions. Republicans blame Democrats for blocking Trumps funding which leads to poorly funded and horrible conditions where people die, then blame Republicans for the horrible conditions.

Republicans blame Democrat’s for secretly trying to game the immigration system which leads to the over crowding problem. Democrats blame Republicans for overcrowding because of them making immigration system difficult.

No one can agree on anything and it’s just a lot of back and forth fighting.


----------



## diggeloid (Jul 7, 2019)

I think there are way more fucked up things in the US to worry about than immigration issues. Trump has done a really good job of painting _illegals_ as comic-book style villains here to rape your women and eat your children. I'm willing to bet that more people die every year from not having access to healthcare than by being murdered by an illegal alien.

Trump is driven by anything that makes him look good. Whether you're far right or far left or somewhere in between, it's pretty hard to deny that aspect of his character. It's not necessarily a bad personality trait, but in his case I just think he takes shit too far. This "immigrant crisis" is a good example of that. He created a problem (immigration) and is selling us a solution (him).

I'm not saying that illegal immigration isn't a problem; it is and should be curbed somewhat. But if you believe the picture he paints of the issue, you'd probably think visiting a border town is a perilous journey that could cost you your life. It's not lol. Ripping children away from their families and stuffing people into tiny cages is not a proportional response. It isn't going to improve quality of life, and it's not going to put more money into our bank accounts.

And let's not forget the fact that this country was built by immigrants. Unless you're a native American, you're also an immigrant/come from a family of immigrants.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> And giving free health care to illegals is whats contributing to driving up the costs and why it’s very expensive right now.


I told you why it's expensive, private hospitals and private insurance are engaging in a price-fixing scheme.  Prescription drugs that cost $5 per bottle elsewhere in the world cost hundreds in the US.  Not even counting what they bill to insurance.



SG854 said:


> Universal Coverage cost efficient but still a expensive problem giving it to illegals for free, and especially ones that just come for health care then go back. U.S. citizens pay for health care in Mexico as opposed to illegals getting it free here, very different comparisons.


You're thinking of this from a US citizens' perspective.  People migrating hundreds, or even thousands of miles on foot to come here aren't going to leave if they have the choice.  They'll stay and pay taxes like everybody else.



SG854 said:


> We have a homeless crisis right now that’s not properly addressed. We should focused on taking care of our own first before we save the world.


BuT tHaT's SoCiAlIsM!  /s

It would actually cost less to give the homeless small townhouses than it costs us to deal with the fallout from them remaining homeless.  So I agree with you, but this is a problem with a very clear-cut solution, and one that can be dealt with alongside the immigration issue.  America is one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, but the vast majority of our wealth is being given away to people who couldn't spend the money they already have stockpiled in a hundred lifetimes.  It's ludicrous.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I told you why it's expensive, private hospitals and private insurance are engaging in a price-fixing scheme.  Prescription drugs that cost $5 per bottle elsewhere in the world cost hundreds in the US.  Not even counting what they bill to insurance.
> 
> 
> You're thinking of this from a US citizens' perspective.  People migrating hundreds, or even thousands of miles on foot to come here aren't going to leave if they have the choice.  They'll stay and pay taxes like everybody else.
> ...


Yup and I said in my previous post Universal Care would be cheaper then what we have right now. But I’m not talking about what system would be cheaper. I was saying Americans paying for health care in Mexico vs Illegals getting it free here. Those are two different comparisons.



Some people won’t go back. But some people would.



I not against socialist policies. And I was never 100% completely against it. I support them only if they make sense. And reject the ones that don’t. It’s a case by case pros and cons problem.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Yup and I said in my previous post Universal Care would be cheaper then what we have right now. But I’m not talking about what system would be cheaper. I was saying Americans paying for health care in Mexico vs Illegals getting it free here. Those are two different comparisons.


Sure, but my point is that either way the result of M4A is the same: Americans end up paying far less in personal healthcare costs and costs associated with uninsured hospital visits (from citizens and illegals).  Not to mention that it means fewer sick people in America, regardless of whether they're illegal or not.  Meaning less sickness that gets spread.

If private hospitals in America charged what private hospitals in Mexico do, nobody would be complaining, and even immigrants would be able to easily afford healthcare here.  It's clear that there's something wrong with our profit-driven system in particular.



SG854 said:


> Some people won’t go back. But some people would.


A very small minority, maybe.  The vast majority that go back do so through deportation.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Sure, but my point is that either way the result of M4A is the same: Americans end up paying far less in personal healthcare costs and costs associated with uninsured hospital visits (from citizens and illegals).  Not to mention that it means fewer sick people in America, regardless of whether they're illegal or not.  Meaning less sickness that gets spread.
> 
> 
> A very small minority, maybe.  The vast majority that go back do so through deportation.


Universal Care would be cheaper then the current one. But what system to replace our current one is a different argument, this is where Republicans and Democrats are in divide. This is where they blame different things for the expensive costs. Neither of them likes the current expensive system right now.


I don’t know how much more expensive giving and encouraging free health care to illegals would be TBH. And the encouragement right now for them to get it, campaigning on it as their strength compared to what the other party offers, and actually giving it to them could lead to an uptick in them coming here for free health care. So current numbers for giving illegals health care and how much it would cost us wont be useful, since in the future numbers could be higher. It’s a concern no? 



Ditto the above post with immigration. If we change the system that will change the numbers, so how many will go back vs how many will be deported? I don’t think you’ll have an answer to that now since we haven’t done the free health care to illegals yet as something to campaign on as far as I’m aware, I think it’s been discouraged before, so we have no numbers to compare.


----------



## cots (Jul 7, 2019)

Orangy57 said:


> The reason our """""illegal"""" immigrants are in a """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""better condition"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" than that of homeless people is because they're literally in a makeshift prison for no reason. As long as the government locks them up, it's their responsibility to keep the immigrants alive, which they can't even do right. 6 kids have died so far in the government's care from lack of food or water, so i'm pretty sure they're not doing so hot right now.



Six children died, caused by problems they either brought with them or had before they entered into the country illegally, out of hundreds of thousands that are crossing each month. Sounds a like a really big problem to me. No one likes when children die, but if you look at why they died or how little of them have died it's not really a big deal, just an emotional ploy from critics, who really don't care about the children, as they are encouraging them to into the system.

If you so worried about the children, why not look up the numbers of how many of our own countries poor, starving and homeless children die each month. I wonder what would happen if we were to invest the money being spent on fucking criminals on our own citizens.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



diggeloid said:


> I think there are way more fucked up things in the US to worry about than immigration issues. Trump has done a really good job of painting _illegals_ as comic-book style villains here to rape your women and eat your children. I'm willing to bet that more people die every year from not having access to healthcare than by being murdered by an illegal alien.
> 
> Trump is driven by anything that makes him look good. Whether you're far right or far left or somewhere in between, it's pretty hard to deny that aspect of his character. It's not necessarily a bad personality trait, but in his case I just think he takes shit too far. This "immigrant crisis" is a good example of that. He created a problem (immigration) and is selling us a solution (him).
> 
> ...



The country was created mainly from legal immigration and like Democrats often says "times have changed". We did indeed invade and take the land from the native Americans, I don't deny this, but after the initial break from the lands we came from we setup and have maintained a "legal" way to go about things, so we don't run into problems like we have now. If the law were being followed, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Like most families, mine came over on a boat and entered the country legally, many, many years ago and made their own mark. They didn't come over here and then beg for handouts and blame all of their problems on white men.

I'm personally effected by illegal immigrants in ways I rather not discuss. It may not directly effect someone living in northern Ohio, but I'm close to the border and I'm shit deep in the issue. I have to deal with the worse of them. Sure, there are immigrants who aren't law breakers, they are the ones who waited in line and entered the country legally.

I believe Trump is reacting just about the same as previous administrations have reacted (well, other than the tweeting). If you ignore that shitty site (I have no idea what Trump tweets because I don't follow twitter). Previous administrations and the democratic party, until Trump was elected had no problem breaking up families and locking them up in detention center. Who do you was in office when the last round of them were built?

The issue isn't about Trump, that's a cheap Democratic way to go about things, because their constituents see the word "Trump" and completely ignore anything else that's being said. Trump isn't God or really even that smart, he's not responsible for everything bad that happens. That's giving him way too much credit.

I don't think the system is "broken" in any way, other than the human factor, which involves people taking advantage of the system or completely ignoring it. Asylum isn't supposed to be for 100,000 people a month, but if you ask the people organizing the caravans and taking payments and promising "free shit" to these people, it is good for it to be that way.


----------



## diggeloid (Jul 7, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm personally effected by illegal immigrants in ways I rather not discuss.



If you're not going to discuss it, then it's irrelevant to this discussion.



cots said:


> They didn't come over here and then beg for handouts and blame all of their problems on white men.



Don't take this the wrong way man, but I think you might have drank some Kool-aid there. Most of the South Americans crossing the border barely speak English much less know anything about social welfare programs in the US. Go down to like any Home Depot and you'll find these people waiting around eager to work. A lot of Amazon fulfillment centers basically run entirely on labor from illegal aliens hired by shady contractors. These people come here wanting to work.

I will admit though that I'm ignorant on the economics of this issue, so I'm open to having my mind changed about it. I'd assume that the burden these immigrants actually place on welfare programs in the US are insignificant compared to the massive amount of people who are legally in the country and on welfare. Again, I'm just assuming here and if you have any credible sources that show the impact of illegal aliens on welfare programs (and maybe other programs) I'd be very interested in seeing them.




cots said:


> The issue isn't about Trump, that's a cheap Democratic way to go about things, because their constituents see the word "Trump" and completely ignore anything else that's being said. Trump isn't God or really even that smart, he's not responsible for everything bad that happens. That's giving him way too much credit.



I don't think anyone is saying Trump is responsible for everything bad that happens. I've certainly never heard a Democrat refer to Trump as a God either 


If you were around in the earlier days of Microsoft, you may have learned about the term called "FUD". This is an acronym for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". It's a tactic Microsoft used a lot to attack their competition. Wikipedia has a good article on it. This is the type of thing we see in the news all the time, not just from Trump and his administration, but from everyone. It's like a side effect of the click-bait industry. You just gotta keep an open mind and a healthy dose of skepticism about everything you hear, *especially* when they seem extremely one-sided and/or obvious (_like those damned illegals stealing our jobs, begging for handouts, and blaming the white man, etc_)


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

diggeloid said:


> If you're not going to discuss it, then it's irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You need to provide documentation to work at Amazon. Something to verify you can legally work in the U.S.

I looked up some articles and most mention them hiring people with H-1B Visas. 


Most STEM degrees in the U.S. are earned by immigrants. Hardly by U.S. born citizens. It’s probably because of our bad education system.


----------



## Thesolcity (Jul 7, 2019)

They shouldn't remain in the US, much less receive any benefits. Cali is out here handing driver's licenses to illegals and considering (if they haven't enacted legislation already) covering illegals until the age of 26 with medical/dental/vision insurance. Absolutely infuriates me as they should not be rewarded for being criminals, regardless of motivation. Canada will not let you cross the border if you have so much as a DUI and all-around has stricter policies regarding who can/can't cross. There are other developed nations that will shoot you on sight at the border, we should not stoop so low as to do that but we do need to increase our deportations. Anyone acting like the USA has the strictest policy regarding border security is either shamelessly lying to push an agenda or has not research any other developed nation's border policies.



SG854 said:


> You need to provide documentation to work at Amazon. Something to verify you can legally work in the U.S.
> 
> I looked up some articles and most mention them hiring people with H-1B Visas.
> 
> ...



If that is true I would suggest it is more of a cost of college/living issue as many seem to go for a semester or two then "take a break" or simply do not go at all and just seek employment. Certain groups have access to financial aid awards/scholarships/etc that others are deemed "too privileged". Only thing that illegals do not have full access to IIRC is FAFSA and even then I believe there is a portion they can still apply for as an illegal and receive.


----------



## cots (Jul 7, 2019)

notimp said:


> Here is a the videoclip to end this thread, if you would take everything in here seriously.
> 
> It basically shows you how everything in relation to the issue (currently in the US) works. How separation of power works. How laws are made, interpreted, argued, what a governments position can be - and so on and so forth.
> 
> ...




Finally watched this. Seems the conditions at this particular detention center are about on par with some overcrowded jails I've been to. Sure, it's not fun to sleep on the floor and eat crappy food, but at least they have a place to sleep and food to eat. If they don't like it maybe they shouldn't have illegally entered the country. I wonder if they had soap and tooth brushes with them when they were trekking across various countries and the desert.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh, by the way. Health Care isn't a "human right". It's a privilege that isn't free. Democrats claiming it's a human right are only doing so to try to stop any debate about it. So, if you see one claiming it's a human right, don't fall for that trap. Simply state that's it not, which is accurate.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Thesolcity said:


> They shouldn't remain in the US, much less receive any benefits. Cali is out here handing driver's licenses to illegals and considering (if they haven't enacted legislation already) covering illegals until the age of 26 with medical/dental/vision insurance. Absolutely infuriates me as they should not be rewarded for being criminals, regardless of motivation. Canada will not let you cross the border if you have so much as a DUI and all-around has stricter policies regarding who can/can't cross. There are other developed nations that will shoot you on sight at the border, we should not stoop so low as to do that but we do need to increase our deportations. Anyone acting like the USA has the strictest policy regarding border security is either shamelessly lying to push an agenda or has not research any other developed nation's border policies.
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true I would suggest it is more of a cost of college/living issue as many seem to go for a semester or two then "take a break" or simply do not go at all and just seek employment. Certain groups have access to financial aid awards/scholarships/etc that others are deemed "too privileged". Only thing that illegals do not have full access to IIRC is FAFSA and even then I believe there is a portion they can still apply for as an illegal and receive.


Immigrants hold a disproportionate amount of STEM degrees relative to their population size.


Fewer hold occupations in non STEM fields, but in STEM jobs at least 43% are immigrants. We rely heavily on immigrants for Tech innovation. More then half of PHD’s are earned by them.

https://www.nber.org/digest/nov16/w22623.html


----------



## EvilMakiPR (Jul 7, 2019)

Well in my case Im a American citizen even if I wasnt born in US(Well technically I was). But in my island we also get illegals from other islands and they get deported back if they are found breaking in. But a lot of them are already in and they live with us. But right now I live in US. I moved in a few months ago and I dont know what you guys feel about us(Puerto Rico).


----------



## cots (Jul 7, 2019)

diggeloid said:


> If you're not going to discuss it, then it's irrelevant to this discussion.



No it's not. I see first hand what the negative side of illegal immigration brings to my city. Do you think I just loaded up some Republican entertainment website and copied and pasted that they are on food stamps, get free health insurance and housing? No. I've seen it first hand and see how they are more of priority than our own citizens.




> Don't take this the wrong way man, but I think you might have drank some Kool-aid there. Most of the South Americans crossing the border barely speak English much less know anything about social welfare programs in the US. Go down to like any Home Depot and you'll find these people waiting around eager to work. A lot of Amazon fulfillment centers basically run entirely on labor from illegal aliens hired by shady contractors. These people come here wanting to work.



Sure, some of work, but sure as hell not around where I live, unless you count importing and distributing meth and heroin, or their side jobs of robbing local citizens and businesses. It's actually hard to get a steady job if you're an illegal immigrant, most reputable companies require verification that you're a citizen. You'll be stuck mowing lawns or waiting outside certain "hot spots" were you may or may not find someone that'll pick you up and pay you for manual labor that day.



> I will admit though that I'm ignorant on the economics of this issue, so I'm open to having my mind changed about it. I'd assume that the burden these immigrants actually place on welfare programs in the US are insignificant compared to the massive amount of people who are legally in the country and on welfare. Again, I'm just assuming here and if you have any credible sources that show the impact of illegal aliens on welfare programs (and maybe other programs) I'd be very interested in seeing them.



Comparing the two shouldn't even be considered as we aren't supposed to be handing out freebies to people that are in our country illegally. Giving a single illegal immigrant more priority than a legal citizen (which, is what is happening now) is not right. Let alone placing thousands of them in front of our own citizens. We should not make them a priority, if anything, they should have to get in the back of the line, but that's too much if you ask me. If they didn't bother to obey our laws to begin with I say kick them out.



> I don't think anyone is saying Trump is responsible for everything bad that happens. I've certainly never heard a Democrat refer to Trump as a God either



Glad to know you're aren't one of those easy to manipulate Trump haters that will change their entire belief structure on an issue if Trump simply mentions and agrees with it.



> If you were around in the earlier days of Microsoft, you may have learned about the term called "FUD". This is an acronym for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt". It's a tactic Microsoft used a lot to attack their competition. Wikipedia has a good article on it. This is the type of thing we see in the news all the time, not just from Trump and his administration, but from everyone. It's like a side effect of the click-bait industry. You just gotta keep an open mind and a healthy dose of skepticism about everything you hear, *especially* when they seem extremely one-sided and/or obvious (_like those damned illegals stealing our jobs, begging for handouts, and blaming the white man, etc_)



Fear is a great way to control the masses, but it's also dishonest and often abused. I often try to ask questions and do my own research, especially on local issues that effect me personally. I learned a long time ago, after being in the news and knowing others who have been in the news, that it's usually 90% made up bullshit based on 5% half truths that is based on 5% reality. I also know that Politicians in general, Democratic or Republican, base their entire career on lying to the public, but I didn't need Trump to tell me that the problem around me that I face every time I walk to the store is a problem. I hope, like under Obama, more detention facilities are constructed and millions are kicked out until we can get rid of the policies that make it so enticing for them to skip the legal process and cross our borders illegally.

Like I said, I have personal experience with most of the stuff I've been discussing. I'm sure not every single illegal immigrant mooches off the system. Take for example, the ones being manipulated by coyote's. They organize groups of people to come to the USA with promises that they will have a better life, often for personal profit as the Democratic policies encourage this type of behavior. 

It's not that they are "trying to get in before Trump closes the border". It's because they want a better life, but are being manipulated and going about it the wrong way. Of course, there's also plenty of them that understand the illegal aspect of it, but also understand that the Democratic policies will allow them to mooch off the system. It isn't some "mad last rush" to the border.

If we weren't giving them free services after they illegally entered the country there would be little to no incentive for them to do it (unless, they are running drugs or planning on pimping out 6 year old girls). This is why I think the detention camps should be as about as rough as they can get. This is what a lot of prisoners, who are people that broke the law and got caught eat in the local jail where I live. Also, overcrowding is really bad, you'll be sleeping on the concrete floors (opposed to the concrete slabs they have for beds).

I see no reason to give people who broke the law coming into the country and better conditions then the ones who are in the country who broke the law. Aren't the Democrats talking about treating them equally?


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

EvilMakiPR said:


> Well in my case Im a American citizen even if I didnt born in US(Well technically I did). But in my island we also get illegals from other islands and they get deported back if they are found breaking in. But a lot of them are already in and they live with us. But right now I live in US. I moved a few months ago and I dont know what you guys feel about us(Puerto Rico).


You’re fine. No body will have a problem with you legally living in the U.S. And most people would be fine with Puerto Ricans.

Illegal immigrants in other countries get deported all the time. But it’s become so politicized in the U.S.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 7, 2019)

The facts are
1: They are not migrants or asylum seekers, they are illegal aliens.
2: When you cross the border illegally at a non entry point, that is also Illegal.
3: The Dems only want them here for votes, other than that, you are a useless POS to them.
4: A country without borders is NOT a country.
5: This is America and not Mexico!  I should not have to press 2 for english!
6: and last but not least, White Genocide in America will NEVER happen!

I also find it funny not 1 of the so called migrants are gay or trans!


----------



## cots (Jul 7, 2019)

EvilMakiPR said:


> Well in my case Im a American citizen even if I didnt born in US(Well technically I did). But in my island we also get illegals from other islands and they get deported back if they are found breaking in. But a lot of them are already in and they live with us. But right now I live in US. I moved a few months ago and I dont know what you guys feel about us(Puerto Rico).



I like your diet, well, one of my best friends growing up was from your country. His entire extended family lived around a 30 minute walk from my house, which I would walk over there often as he had a Super NES long before I got one. Anyway, his grandmother would cook these huge meals for the entire family every single day. To say the least, I ate a lot of your countries native dishes. I also believe that Puerto Ricans are considered USA citizens by default. So welcome to the main land and try to enjoy your stay!


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> And giving free health care to illegals is whats contributing to driving up the costs and why it’s very expensive right now. Offering free health care to illegals and campaigning in Mexico like Beto O’ Rourke is doing will make the problem worse.


The reason why your heath care system is so expensive is not illegals. Its because you are the only developed country in the world that hasnt socialized health ensurance so there is "more money to be made". You see unregulated capitalism failing here, because competition pressure is all but gamed out. Your system is failing - its not the illegals stealing your money, thats the problem - which is what you are implying. Same thing here in europe, all migrants get medical care for free. You are still paying twice the amount of countries like the UK.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries

With some regulation on prices and procedures available - you could at least save lets say 10-20 percent and increase coverage at the same time.

Beto isnt even an endorsed candidate yet. Campaigning in Mexico doesnt bring votes. Or is there a large expats community? If yes, you talk to expats differently than you would to illegal migrants. No "come illegaly to my country and vote for me" angle to be had, I'm afraid. Illegals dont get to vote.


----------



## cots (Jul 7, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> The facts are
> 1: They are not migrants or asylum seekers, they are illegal aliens.
> 2: When you cross the border illegally at a non entry point, that is also Illegal.
> 3: The Dems only want them here for votes, other than that, you are a useless POS to them.
> ...



I like #3. While I don't think that applies to every Democratic citizen, I think it mainly applies to the rich and powerful Democrats, mainly the business owners and politicians. Those do exist you know. You've got the 1% of rich and powerful old Democrats pulling the strings (on the left at least). 

While I agree with 1-5, I disagree with #6. If you're ever been to a larger city, you're going to run into various ethnic groups that either don't speak English at all or are terrible at it. English is our countries official language, but I don't have a problem with people that can't speak it. Maybe they just haven't had the opportunity to learn it yet. I wouldn't have to expect to learn Japanese to go to Japan (unless it was a requirement). I'm sure I'd pick up on it sooner or later, I mean, it would be hard if no one else spoke my language.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Universal Care would be cheaper then the current one. But what system to replace our current one is a different argument, this is where Republicans and Democrats are in divide. This is where they blame different things for the expensive costs. Neither of them likes the current expensive system right now.


I'm not so sure about that.  Republicans seem to want to eliminate Obamacare and go back to the "free market" system we had before, a system which could be exploited for even more profit and less comprehensive coverage.



SG854 said:


> I don’t know how much more expensive giving and encouraging free health care to illegals would be TBH. And the encouragement right now for them to get it, campaigning on it as their strength compared to what the other party offers, and actually giving it to them could lead to an uptick in them coming here for free health care. So current numbers for giving illegals health care and how much it would cost us wont be useful, since in the future numbers could be higher. It’s a concern no?


I don't think it's possible for our immigration system to get much more overwhelmed than it is already.  If we target the business owners and CEOs with harsh penalties and fines for hiring illegals, as well as make it clear that there's no planned "closure" of the border, I think you'd start to see illegal immigration decline sharply.  There's also plenty to be done in reforming and revitalizing our system for asylum seekers, but treating them like criminals as we do under the current administration is certainly not the answer.

Universal healthcare/M4A is more about taking care of our own citizens, anyway.  Making sure that illegal immigrants don't expose our citizens to sicknesses and disease is part of achieving that goal.  Additionally, healthcare as a human right is something we should be pushing to restore our moral standing on the world stage.



SG854 said:


> Ditto the above post with immigration. If we change the system that will change the numbers, so how many will go back vs how many will be deported? I don’t think you’ll have an answer to that now since we haven’t done the free health care to illegals yet as something to campaign on as far as I’m aware, I think it’s been discouraged before, so we have no numbers to compare.


At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if it's encouraged or discouraged.  People are going to continue illegally crossing the border without getting caught, and those people are going to need to visit the hospital at one point or another.  Either we leave the burden of those hospital visits on taxpayers at the ridiculously high price it's at now, or we bring that price down for everybody.  Seems a pretty simple choice.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

notimp said:


> The reason why your heath care system is so expensive is not illegals. Its because you are the only developed country in the world that hasnt socialized health ensurance so there is "more money to be made". You see unregulated capitalism failing here, because competition pressure is all but gamed out. Your system is failing - its not the illegals stealing your money - which is what you are implying. Same thing here in europe, all migrants get medical care for free. You are still paying twice the amount of countries like the UK.
> 
> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries
> 
> ...


Its one thing that drives up costs. It’s People getting health care drives up costs. Illegals getting health care drives up costs. It’s not the sole reason. And in others posts I said Universal Care would be cheaper then the current system we have right now.

There’s complaints about Health Care costs projected to get worse in places like Canada and the U.K. in the future.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> 3: The Dems only want them here for votes, other than that, you are a useless POS to them.


An illegal immigrant living in this country would have to be mentally challenged to register to vote.  They'd have ICE at their doorstep within 24 hours.  This is about the dumbest anti-immigrant line that comes from Republicans.  Hell, you're exponentially more likely to see an illegal immigrant working at a Trump hotel than standing in line at a voting booth.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm not so sure about that.  Republicans seem to want to eliminate Obamacare and go back to the "free market" system we had before, a system which could be exploited for even more profit and less comprehensive coverage.
> 
> 
> I don't think it's possible for our immigration system to get much more overwhelmed than it is already.  If we target the business owners and CEOs with harsh penalties and fines for hiring illegals, as well as make it clear that there's no planned "closure" of the border, I think you'd start to see illegal immigration decline sharply.  There's also plenty to be done in reforming and revitalizing our system for asylum seekers, but treating them like criminals as we do under the current administration is certainly not the answer.
> ...


Everyone wants to bring down the costs Republicans and Democrats. 

The last paragraph makes it seem like you’re arguing against someone whose against bringing down the costs. But that’s not it. We should bring down the costs whatever the best way possible. And that’s what many people are for.


----------



## cots (Jul 7, 2019)

notimp said:


> The reason why your heath care system is so expensive is not illegals. Its because you are the only developed country in the world that hasnt socialized health ensurance so there is "more money to be made". You see unregulated capitalism failing here, because competition pressure is all but gamed out. Your system is failing - its not the illegals stealing your money, thats the problem - which is what you are implying. Same thing here in europe, all migrants get medical care for free. You are still paying twice the amount of countries like the UK.
> 
> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries
> 
> ...



Our health care costs are extremely expensive, but the quality of the care is also better it you're willing to pay more. I'm not sure what other people are smoking, but if you don't have health insurance and show up in the ER they do the least amount possible to treat you and send you on your way. Don't expect any medication (unless you're dying) or preventive services. Got a broken arm? They'll set your bone, give you the cheapest shoulder sling they have, give you a prescription and send you on your way. You'll be luckily to get a single over the counter aspirin.

The problem I have with universal health care is that the quality of the service is probably going to get worse then what is currently is. Say, if you're on Medicaid now, don't expect to get the most cutting edge procedure or the care you'd get if you had private insurance. Expect to be treated less equally then the people who pay for their insurance. I suspect if we socialize health care, that the quality of the service in general is going to degrade. One of the appealing aspects of becoming a Doctor, is sadly, money. These people will just go elsewhere (I see it happening now, so I expect it to get worse). 

Ideally, we'd live in an Utopia where people just want to help other people and set their personal differences aside for the betterment of the human race. So people would become Doctor's not for monetary gain, but to help cure and heal. Hey, it sounds fantastic. If this was the case, socialism would work, but it's not the case. Look at Doctor's who perform abortions. Clearly, killing babies isn't any sort of good deed. It's been proven time and time again that due to "bad" people that the failed system of socialism doesn't work out (and you're always going to have bad people, sin is in our nature).

Shit just sucks and you can't control everyone. People like to play God. Especially people in power, like the rich Democratic leadership, who abuse their power on a daily basis for personal gain. I think if we're going to have an Utopia, these types of people need to vanish off the face of the Earth, and since that isn't going to happen, we're not going to have an Utopia. It's a pipe dream, a bedtime story, but we live in a world that will never be perfect and I realize this and I'm okay with that. 

I have my faith to get me through it. I don't need any more than that.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Everyone wants to bring down the costs Republicans and Democrats.
> 
> The last paragraph makes it seem like you’re arguing against someone whose against bringing down the costs. But that’s not it. We should bring down the costs whatever the best way possible. And that’s what many people are for.


I just don't hear Republican leadership talk about healthcare at all unless it's in the context of repealing Obamacare.  They've voted on that like 50+ times.  Which is absolutely ridiculous considering that it's basically Romney's healthcare plan with some slight changes.  Yes, we need something better, but it's not necessary to repeal the bare minimum we have already before it's replaced.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I just don't hear Republican leadership talk about healthcare at all unless it's in the context of repealing Obamacare.  They've voted on that like 50+ times.  Which is absolutely ridiculous considering that it's basically Romney's healthcare plan with some slight changes.


They have a different idea of reducing costs. They believe unregulated market will reduce it, they use examples with Lasik Eye Surgery or Plastic Surgery being unregulated, not provided by government and is cheaper. They believe government intervention is why costs are up.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They have a different idea of reducing costs. They believe unregulated market will reduce it, they use examples with Lasik Eye Surgery or Plastic Surgery being unregulated, not provided by government and is cheaper. They believe government intervention is why costs are up.


If government intervention was the reason for higher costs, Medicare would be far more expensive than private healthcare coverage.  Yet the opposite is true.  The profit motive drives costs up substantially, and some things should be off-limits to the profit motive, healthcare among them.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If government intervention was the reason for higher costs, Medicare would be far more expensive than private healthcare coverage.  Yet the opposite is true.  The profit motive drives costs up substantially, and some things should be off-limits to the profit motive, healthcare among them.


You would have to explain to Republicans why Lasik Eye and Plastic Surgery are not a good examples to use. Because they are fixated on them.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> You would have to explain to Republicans why Lasik Eye and Plastic Surgery are not a good examples to use. Because they are fixated on them.


They're not good examples because neither is a vital procedure.  Not to mention both are still far cheaper in Mexico and other countries.


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2019)

cots said:


> Our health care costs are extremely expensive, but the quality of the care is also better it you're willing to pay more.


Same here. We have private insurance on top of it (extra insurance). But all it actually gets you usually are reduced waiting times (when time is not of the essence), and sometimes - higher profile physicians. (Which arent always 'better'.) So it really can be argued, that it isn't needed at all.

What socializing healthcare actually does is set a fixed price on all default procedures, and helps to drive down cost of medicaments, because you have large bodies (ensurence companies), that represent close to everybody - going into price negotiations with the pharma industry.

It doesnt mean, that Pharma cant make any money - they still offer up some of the best paying jobs - if you are willing to drive around in the country and influence doctors out there. It just means, that one form of price gouging is eliminated.

There is also the part of "yes socializing also means, that you are paying for the poorest" - but then hopefully that part of the demographic is so small - that the average tax payer, especially in your country with at least 1/3 more in per customer spending than the rest of the world, doesnt even notice it, and pays less over all.

To "our medical system is the best though" - the reply is usually - canadas isnt so much worse - and look up its graph in the link above. 

A "two tier" class system will always exist in some form I bet. Its just, that the market alone in your instance doesnt fully work. (Because of basically market consolidation (monopolies)).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

In our country we actually have a multi tier system - where farmers for example get a little "better" (more well paying (for what its costing them)) insurance, because if they have health problems they are more at risk of loosing their livelihoods. That of course isnt very openly advertised, but anyone can look it up.  In general - our medical insurance system is solidarized (/socialized).

In terms of getting good physicians - all university level clinics are at least partly state sponsored - and are open to the public. Thats how you ensure that everyone can get high level care regardless of the issue. And yes, if it is necessary - it is free. You are just paying your base rates, and maybe a small fee everytime you visit a clinic instead of a local doctor (to disincentivize people always running to clinics first..  ).


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> They're not good examples because neither is a vital procedure.  Not to mention both are still far cheaper in Mexico and other countries.


What type of health care system Mexico has? Universal Health Care or Not? This should explain Mexico’s Eye Surgery prices.

I get different prices in the U.S. depending where you go from low end or high end. Lower end is around the same price as Mexico’s average. And Mexico can go up to $3,000.


Also what type of procedures are they doing in Mexico compared to U.S.? Are they doing lower end cutting which can give you dry eyes and night glare, or the more expensive more advance non cutting which will reduce these problems. You have to compare apples and apples, to see which is cheaper.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> An illegal immigrant living in this country would have to be mentally challenged to register to vote.  They'd have ICE at their doorstep within 24 hours.  This is about the dumbest anti-immigrant line that comes from Republicans.  Hell, you're exponentially more likely to see an illegal immigrant working at a Trump hotel than standing in line at a voting booth.



So far from the truth...


And Trump fired all the illegals that lied to get a job at a trump job!
https://apnews.com/4534e483fbf94e008622024dd0fc138b


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> What type of health care system Mexico has? Universal Health Care or Not? This should explain Mexico’s Eye Surgery prices.


I don't think it's universal, they just aren't quite to the level of crony capitalism that America is.  It's not just Mexico, either, as Americans will travel just about anywhere else in the world to get cheaper procedures.  Cosmetic or otherwise.



SG854 said:


> Also what type of procedures are they doing in Mexico compared to U.S.? Are they doing lower end cutting which can give you dry eyes and night glare, or the more expensive more advance non cutting which will reduce these problems. You have to compare apples and apples, to see which is cheaper.


I'm sure you can get either type done.



Cylent1 said:


>



Can you link me to an actual quote from Obama and not just two airheads blabbing on about nonsense that their viewers want to hear?  It doesn't change the fact that voting requires registration and registering would immediately get any illegal immigrant deported, but I'd be interested to hear this supposed quote anyway.



Cylent1 said:


> And Trump fired all the illegals that lied to get a job at a trump job!
> https://apnews.com/4534e483fbf94e008622024dd0fc138b


If you want to take Trump's word for it, sure.  Even most Republicans know his word isn't worth jack shit, though.  The fact of the matter is that he continued to employ illegals well after being elected.  It shows that he's personally benefiting from hard-line immigration stances, as he's able to pay them so much less that way.


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2019)

notimp said:


> What socializing healthcare actually does is set a fixed price on all default procedures


I just read that japan f.e. does this without socializing health care. And it also keeps their cost down. Japanese. Always finding a way to be counter progressive..


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Can you link me to an actual quote from Obama and not just two airheads blabbing on about nonsense that their viewers want to hear?  It doesn't change the fact that voting requires registration and registering would immediately get any illegal immigrant deported, but I'd be interested to hear this supposed quote anyway.



lets see you deny it now jist like every other SJW snot nosed brat does!
And I will tell you just like I tell every bit of you bearded ladies, that 1+ 1 does = 2 and not whatever your fantasy for the day prescribes for you!!


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> lets see you deny it now jist like every SJW does!



"When you vote...you are a citizen yourself, and there is not a situation where the voting rules somehow are transferred over and people start investigating et cetera.  The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential."

Sounds like he either misunderstood the question or Cavuto is trying to take the last sentence out of context to suit his needs, but nowhere did he say it was legal for non-citizens to vote.  And nowhere did he encourage that.  As I've said twice already: if you're living in this country illegally, you'd have to be a dipshit to register to vote.


----------



## th3joker (Jul 7, 2019)

natural selection should take its corse. america only wants the hard working aliens,  too soft to walk and swim across, your not good enough.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "When you vote...you are a citizen yourself, and there is not a situation where the voting rules somehow are transferred over and people start investigating et cetera.  The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential."
> 
> Sounds like he either misunderstood the question or Cavuto is trying to take the last sentence out of context to suit his needs, but nowhere did he say it was legal for non-citizens to vote.  And nowhere did he encourage that.  As I've said twice already: if you're living in this country illegally, you'd have to be a dipshit to register to vote.



I do agree with you that you have to be a real ignorant dumb ass to vote if you are illegal.
But when the Faux POTUS tells illegals they can vote, there lies a major problem the the actual real citizens of this country.
BRO...  HE DID NOT SAY IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL EITHER!  Are you the type of person that tries to stop a steel bladed fan with your hand?


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> But when the Faux POTUS tells illegals they can vote, there lies a major problem the the actual real citizens of this country.


They still cant vote though.

I wonder what that video tells you though.  To bad I will never know.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> I do agree with you that you have to be a real ignorant dumb ass to vote if you are illegal.
> But when the Faux POTUS tells illegals they can vote, there lies a major problem the the actual real citizens of this country.


Again, he didn't say that.  It's just Faux News spewing more garbage and putting words in his mouth.  When you vote, it is indeed confidential.  _Registering_ to vote, however, requires quite a lot of identifying information, and thus is far from confidential.



th3joker said:


> natural selection should take its corse. america only wants the hard working aliens,  too soft to walk and swim across, your not good enough.


Lol by that logic we should be deporting all the worthless idiots living in trailer parks chugging away at PBR every day.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 7, 2019)

notimp said:


> They still cant vote though.
> 
> I wonder what that video tells you though.  To bad I will never know.



You are right you will never know because you clearly do not know how to comprehend real life!


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I don't think it's universal, they just aren't quite to the level of crony capitalism that America is.  It's not just Mexico, either, as Americans will travel just about anywhere else in the world to get cheaper procedures.  Cosmetic or otherwise.
> 
> 
> I'm sure you can get either type done.
> ...


Mexico’s is mixed. Government with Private Industry. They have Universal Care but not every service is accessed free.

And Universal Care doesn’t always mean single payer system like in Europe or Canada. In a sense U.S. has Universal Care since we provide people and illegals medical care which tax payers have to foot the bill.


U.S. citizens scores higher then Mexico with Access to health care.

Mexico at 62 out of 100
U.S. at 81

For comparison the National Average for all countries is 53.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30818-8/fulltext


I don’t think Mexico’s covers LASIK Eye in their Universal Care.

You have to compare apples and apples. What type of LASIK Eye procedure is U.S. getting compared to Mexico. If most Mexicans are getting the cheaper cutting then the average price Mexicans pay will be lower then most U.S. getting the more expensive no cutting which the average price they pay is higher. So then comparing what averages they pay is then not useful.

You have to compare average prices for the services they offer to see what is cheaper instead of whats the average price they choose to pay.

Like for example if most Americans buys a Ferrari, and most Mexicans buys the cheaper Nissan and then you say Americans pay more for the same service, this is not an apple and apple comparison.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 7, 2019)

notimp said:


> Same here. We have private insurance on top of it (extra insurance). But all it actually gets you usually are reduced waiting times (when time is not of the essence), and sometimes - higher profile physicians. (Which arent always 'better'.) So it really can be argued, that it isn't needed at all.
> 
> What socializing healthcare actually does is set a fixed price on all default procedures, and helps to drive down cost of medicaments, because you have large bodies (ensurence companies), that represent close to everybody - going into price negotiations with the pharma industry.
> 
> ...



You're neglecting to mention that our health care system's quality is aboslute shite, that it's massively fucking over health care workers and disincentivzed working in health care to the point clinics are closing down entire wings.

I'm neither for nor against it, as there isn't a perfect solution and any solution will produce victims but just not mentioning that we're in the midst of a care crisis in Germany strikes my as lying by ommision and not engaging in a good faith argument.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Mexico’s is mixed. Government with Private Industry. They have Universal Care but not every service is accessed free.
> 
> And Universal Care doesn’t always mean single payer system like in Europe or Canada. In a sense U.S. has Universal Care since we provide people and illegals medical care which tax payers have to foot the bill.
> 
> ...


Again though, Mexico is just one of many examples.  Americans travel to other countries all the time, because even with the cost of travel, it's still way cheaper to get prescriptions filled and medical procedures done elsewhere.  Without insurance in the US, a single hospital stay can put you in debt for life.  The costs are undeniably out of control.  Access to healthcare is not the same as access to _affordable _healthcare.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Again though, Mexico is just one of many examples.  Americans travel to other countries all the time, because even with the cost of travel, it's still way cheaper to get prescriptions filled and medical procedures done elsewhere.  Without insurance in the US, a single hospital stay can put you in debt for life.  The costs are undeniably out of control.  Access to healthcare is not the same as access to _affordable _healthcare.


Which I’m for reducing costs the best way possible. So people won’t have to travel to other countries for cheaper prescriptions.


----------



## th3joker (Jul 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Again, he didn't say that.  It's just Faux News spewing more garbage and putting words in his mouth.  When you vote, it is indeed confidential.  _Registering_ to vote, however, requires quite a lot of identifying information, and thus is far from confidential.
> 
> 
> Lol by that logic we should be deporting all the worthless idiots living in trailer parks chugging away at PBR every day.


or deport all the black people  and mexicans who live off the government and say africa or mexico is better.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 7, 2019)

I just don't understand why if they hate America so much they will do anything to get here even if it involves child trafficking.
Also why is not Cory Booker in jail for escorting an illegal alien across our border?  He seriously went to Mexico and transported an illegal alien across the border!


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> You're neglecting to mention that our health care system's quality is aboslute shite, that it's massively fucking over health care workers and disincentivzed working in health care to the point clinics are closing down entire wings.
> 
> I'm neither for nor against it, as there isn't a perfect solution and any solution will produce victims but just not mentioning that we're in the midst of a care crisis in Germany strikes my as lying by ommision and not engaging in a good faith argument.


Not so in Austria (see OECD numbers..  ).  There is also a demographic issue currently which leads to many of those problems (minus closing of wings..  but still partly to wage gauging - because its the state that has to pay much of it).

Im only "from germany" if it suits the argument.. 

In Austria there are similar issues though. A large part of the population is older, so the part of GDP that has to be spent on them is larger. So the temptation is there to cut spending - where they might not notice it as much. Also - because its a demographic bump (there is a generation of mostly old people, then there is not), you dont want to invest into it - because after lets say 30 to 40 years you would be stuck with an industry thats suddenly much smaller in size. Solution: Robots..  (I'm joking..  Normally, import contracters from southeuropean countries.)

This wouldnt be much different, if it was mostly privately run.

The reason entire wings of hospitals are closing usually is - that "another hospital with the same capability is close by (as in close enough) and not used to capacity." This is done in an effort to prevent "double spending".

I have doctors in my family - they dont like it one bit..


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 7, 2019)

notimp said:


> Not so in Austria (see OECD numbers..  ).  There is also a demographic issue currently which leads to many of those problems (minus closing of wings..  but still partly to wage gauging - because its the state that has to pay much of it).
> 
> Im only "from germany" if it suits the argument..
> 
> ...



The state may pay for much of it when it comes to hospitals or clinics but that’s ignoring the bigger picture. We have a crisis across all sectors of care and state run nursing homes only make up about 10%, not to mention regular practices which are privately run. 

I also have both doctors and health care workers in my family which is why I know that a health care worker in a practice only starts approaching average income after 15 years and climbing to the highest union negotiated pay grades. This is also in the south which is one of the wealthiest regions. Nursing homes here barely have qualified personnel and heavily rely on underpaid staff that just takes a 6 month training.

It’s also worth mentioning other negative effects of price fixing like doctors in rural areas operating at much lower efficiency because of population density. House calls have a much bigger cost but get paid the same.

Working in health care is highly disincentivized here and the quality suffers.


----------



## notimp (Jul 7, 2019)

You are disabling market mechanisms, yes - but -

Population density would also be a "quality driver" in a purely market based economy as well though. I mean how does that argument go in physician cycles? "I want to relocate to the countryside - so I can jack up rates..?" 

The issues in the care side of the bussiness probably are "Harz 4" (efficiency push) meets demographic bump. If you havent planned for that - its hard to propose short term solutions. And again - if you train staff right now - better, they will be out of a job in 20-30 years. So the structural solution seems to be "hire temp workers" - actually.

(I know that there are agencies that hover up willing medical students or nurses in training (six months) from south european countries, because thats how Germany has decided to tackle the problem.

And "work 20 years in germany - then live for the rest of your life back in Greece or Italy where your savings might be worth more", is an actually viable concept, for germany and the people involved (Dont know if thats why wage structures are designed the way you describe them)). Not so great for the source countries though (brain drain).

That even bavarians have that issue is something that breaks my heart, really...


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 7, 2019)

notimp said:


> You are disabling market mechanisms, yes - but -
> 
> Population density would also be a "quality driver" in a purely market based economy as well though. I mean how does that argument go in physician cycles? "I want to relocate to the countryside - so I can jack up rates..?"
> 
> ...



Which is why I said I’m neither for nor against it. It’s a very difficult situation.
In rural areas you have to weigh access to expensive care against having any access at all.
Overall you have to weigh access against quality and exploitation of the workforce.
With regards to temp workers it’s fair to say the problem isn’t gonna vanish either, these workers will have made a home here over decades and are not gonna leave. If anything they will be more of a problem than better qualified personnel to the economy.
Also, studies are expecting the population above 64 years old to rise by almost 5 million until 2035. That’s 16 years out, so forgive me that I believe an estimation of 20-30 years needed for care workers to be quite incorrect. In reality it’s likely much closer to 45 years which means someone starting now would be able to retire properly. Again, it’s also missing the point that we’re already missing a shitton of workers NOW.


----------



## diggeloid (Jul 7, 2019)

Seems like everyone in this thread defending the mistreatment and deportation of immigrants are using the fact that they're criminals for entering the country illegally to justify their position.

So wouldn't a possible solution be to let them stay? Make it easier to enter the country legally and even gain citizenship? Because that would mean that they're not illegal aliens anymore, just regular aliens. @cots mentioned that immigrants in his area can't get jobs because some employers don't hire illegal aliens, which means they resort to crime to survive. So making them legal would make it easier for them to find a job, and will also reduce the crime rate.

It's also a more sustainable solution because even if we deport all the illegal aliens currently in the US, it's not going to stop more of them from coming in. Even if we build a border wall, the coyotes will find a way to get past it. I'm pretty sure they have ladders in Mexico, pickaxes, shovels, bulldozers, etc.

Of course, this won't solve the problem of _those damn brown people and non-english speakers in my country_. But that's a separate issue; we're not conflating the two as a way to have our cake and eat it too, right?


----------



## Pippin666 (Jul 7, 2019)

USA ctizens are just a bunch of wussies, scared of sick women and starving children. 

Those people have to sneak in the USA illegaly because because of the long waiting bureaucracy time. Most of those people live in poor country, under bad political condition and war because it fits US politics. 

Like, south american drug traffickers controlling and corrupting the police, abusing the population to do their durty work for the right to stay alive. Then the CIA let that drug enter the US in exchange of spy informations.

One would think that after 9/11 the US population would understand that their gvt is a piece of lying douchbag, but no. 

They believe in lies from a wife-cheating-narcissic-rapist-scamartist prick and elect him as president. 

Super rich, but can't see his tax report. Super genius, but can't see his school result. 

Americans washed their hands of everything by blaming other. 

Enough said.

Pip'


----------



## cots (Jul 7, 2019)

notimp said:


> Same here. We have private insurance on top of it (extra insurance). But all it actually gets you usually are reduced waiting times (when time is not of the essence), and sometimes - higher profile physicians. (Which arent always 'better'.) So it really can be argued, that it isn't needed at all.
> 
> What socializing healthcare actually does is set a fixed price on all default procedures, and helps to drive down cost of medicaments, because you have large bodies (ensurence companies), that represent close to everybody - going into price negotiations with the pharma industry.
> 
> ...



While I couldn't just your system I would welcome having the option to pay for private and better care, but as it is now promises like "you can keep your Doctors" fall on flat ears. With Medicare and Medicaid you're limited to receiving services from lower quality Doctors and facilities, basically whomever offers the lowest prices and usually what these insurance plans do is never pay the full amount of costs back to the doctors so the Doctors have to eat the costs, futher reducing the quality of care. Plus, you need authorization from your primary Doctor , who you can only choose from a short "approval list" to see any other type of Doctor and that also requires authorization from your insurance company and then you're limited even more to the places you can get these specialized services (like an endocrinologist). You're basically getting much poorer and limited quality services from using the current Obamacare system. If you have money though to spend, you can go to any Doctor you want and some of the best Doctors can only be seen this way. You won't see any Democratic leaders in the general public Doctors offices, they're using your tax money to get services you could never afford. Plus, it's not free as you're paying for it one way or the other. A mandated health care tax per person still means you're paying money for it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Which I’m for reducing costs the best way possible. So people won’t have to travel to other countries for cheaper prescriptions.



Did you hear Trump's now negotiating to pay drugmakers prices comparable to what they charge other countries. I wonder how the Liberal haters will try to spin that as a bad thing. Won't surprise me though, Trump wants to work out better prices for the shit China produces and suddenly the Lefties support child slavery and forced labor on minorities and then complain the next Switch may cost more. What exactly will the New Green Deal do to prices and will the results be temporary - answer, you'll be paying more for everything and it'll be permanent so a temporary price increase on your video gaming system will pail in comparison.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



diggeloid said:


> Seems like everyone in this thread defending the mistreatment and deportation of immigrants are using the fact that they're criminals for entering the country illegally to justify their position.
> 
> So wouldn't a possible solution be to let them stay? Make it easier to enter the country legally and even gain citizenship? Because that would mean that they're not illegal aliens anymore, just regular aliens. @cots mentioned that immigrants in his area can't get jobs because some employers don't hire illegal aliens, which means they resort to crime to survive. So making them legal would make it easier for them to find a job, and will also reduce the crime rate.
> 
> ...



They're criminals and being treated better than we treat some of our own citizens. Do it legally or GTFO.


----------



## cots (Jul 7, 2019)

Pippin666 said:


> USA ctizens are just a bunch of wussies, scared of sick women and starving children.
> 
> Those people have to sneak in the USA illegaly because because of the long waiting bureaucracy time. Most of those people live in poor country, under bad political condition and war because it fits US politics.
> 
> ...



You're right about the lying scum bag in power, but you forget to mention the rest of our wealthy leaders who are also full of shit. That includes all of them. If you're making 60-120k a year and say you can relate to people working 30 hours a week being paid less than $15 an hour you clearly can't be trusted.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> The state may pay for much of it when it comes to hospitals or clinics but that’s ignoring the bigger picture. We have a crisis across all sectors of care and state run nursing homes only make up about 10%, not to mention regular practices which are privately run.
> 
> I also have both doctors and health care workers in my family which is why I know that a health care worker in a practice only starts approaching average income after 15 years and climbing to the highest union negotiated pay grades. This is also in the south which is one of the wealthiest regions. Nursing homes here barely have qualified personnel and heavily rely on underpaid staff that just takes a 6 month training.
> 
> ...


It’s pretty much what i’ve read from Thomas Sowell’s books. Many doctors are from foreign countries, coming in with less then prestige medical education, because native citizens don’t see the benefits of getting a medical job in the current single payer system.

People have wrote off the native citizens as greedy only wanting to get a job for money but when you’ve gone through extremely long schooling which takes years to get a Doctorate you want to see the sacrifice you put in to pay off. If the pay off is low for all that work then you would pick a different career instead.


Price fixing has always led to more expensive prices. It did in the Soviet Union. Like it did with the Homeless Crisis in California and New York. Affordable Housing and Prices from price fixing usually turns out to be not affordable because of the Economics of how this stuff works. Setting below then what would naturally happen in the Market they end up not getting enough funding so housing quality degrades. To get around his they build unnecessary luxury homes which avoid price controls but are more expensive.

Putting land restrictions on what type of homes your allowed to build and how much you can build because of environmental concerns led to artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity leads to more expensive prices because people try to outbid each other for the limited supply. The short term fix was to call landlords greedy and do price controls. But price controls on artificial created limited supply led to more expensive housing. And we have a problem of enough housing but a homeless crisis. Doing price controls again won’t work because we’ve already tried that.

I’m for providing financial aid for right now to people that can’t afford housing but that won’t get to the core of what’s causing expensive housing. And is not a long term fix. Texas doesn’t have the same price controls and land restriction laws and has far cheaper housing. In California most of the expensive price is for the land rather then the house. People praised politicians for campaigning on affordable housing but just because it’s in the name doesn’t always mean it would happen.



Location of where you buy homes also affects prices. Near the coast it’s more expensive. And it’s not because of greed. I don’t think anyone would make an argument that Housing in areas with lots of smog and pollution are affordable because owners are more generous.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It’s pretty much what i’ve read from Thomas Sowell’s books. Many doctors are from foreign countries, coming in with less then prestige medical education, because native citizens don’t see the benefits of getting a medical job in the current single payer system.
> 
> People have wrote off the native citizens as greedy only wanting to get a job for money but when you’ve gone through extremely long schooling which takes years to get a Doctorate you want to see the sacrifice you put in to pay off. If the pay off is low for all that work then you would pick a different career instead.
> 
> ...



This doesn’t apply to Germany, we have more doctors than ever. However older doctors in rural areas can’t find successors to take care of their patients as efficiency and thus earnings are much lower there seeing how earnings have a direct correlation with volume with fixed prices.
There’s efforts to mitigate this like incentivizing commitment from students to go to rural areas through financial support. 
I can easily see as well how some changes to the system could cause student numbers to drop significantly. 

With regards to housing it’s very difficult and it’s something where you will see some of the weirdest stuff in German politics. The Green party in Germany is quite far to the left on social issues so you see them simultaneously jack up prices for building housing while decrying unaffordable housing. 
On the other hand it’s a necessity as housing is a huge part of our carbon footprint.
Right now we’re at a point where even the social democrat party is openly talking about expropriation and “overcoming capitalism”


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> This doesn’t apply to Germany, we have more doctors than ever. However older doctors in rural areas can’t find successors to take care of their patients as efficiency and thus earnings are much lower there seeing how earnings have a direct correlation with volume with fixed prices.
> There’s efforts to mitigate this like incentivizing commitment from students to go to rural areas through financial support.
> I can easily see as well how some changes to the system could cause student numbers to drop significantly.
> 
> ...


He does mention Germany in his book and he says the number of doctors per capita in Britain was half of Germany. So it matches what you’re saying. Where half the hospital beds in Germany are in private hands. Private non profit and private for profit.

http://leeconomics.com/01-Sowell-EconomicsMedicalCare.html



Here in the States rent controls has lead to degradation of housing with reduced painting and repairs. It creates artificial high demand with limited supply so landlords don’t have incentives to make repairs and make them look nice enough to attract payers since they know people are desperate for homes and will pay for them anyway.


Price controls and government paid services also creates the perception of cheaper/free services so people are more wasteful/greedy. They take more then necessary because it’s free so why not. This leaves less for everyone to else and the solution is to buy more which lead to higher costs.

And the people that benefit from affordable housing are upper class people because it’s cheaper housing for them. So they buy up more then they need. It contributes to the problem of enough housing but homeless people.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 7, 2019)

SG854 said:


> He does mention Germany in his book and he says the number of doctors per capita in Britain was half of Germany. So it matches what you’re saying. Where half the hospital beds in Germany are in private hands. Private non profit and private for profit.
> 
> http://leeconomics.com/01-Sowell-EconomicsMedicalCare.html
> 
> ...



Yep, that seems about right, lot’s of hospitals, nursing homes and care services are run by non profits like churches.
It’s an incredibly difficult discussion and one that requires to weigh different legitimate interests against one another and will probably end up with someone being thrown under the bus.

Regulation on the housing market here tried to control rent prices but they allowed to circumvent it for new buildings and buildings that received significant renovations in order to keep invective for investments. What ended up happening is that real estate corporations renovated their buildings and jacked up the rent. This increased the average rent which is what the regulation is based on.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Yep, that seems about right, lot’s of hospitals, nursing homes and care services are run by non profits like churches.
> It’s an incredibly difficult discussion and one that requires to weigh different legitimate interests against one another and will probably end up with someone being thrown under the bus.
> 
> Regulation on the housing market here tried to control rent prices but they allowed to circumvent it for new buildings and buildings that received significant renovations in order to keep invective for investments. What ended up happening is that real estate corporations renovated their buildings and jacked up the rent. This increased the average rent which is what the regulation is based on.


The majority of private seems to be non profit from what I’m getting here. About a third of them.

https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/germany/


It is a very difficult discussion on what’s contributing to lower Doctors in the UK but not Germany. Thomas Sowell attributes it to the private doing a better job then the Government.


That’s what they did a few years prior to the 2008 recession. People bought homes for cheap taking advantage of the gov policies at the time then renovated and sell it quickly to make a profit. It was one of the contributing factors that eventually lead to a bubble burst.



cots said:


> While I couldn't just your system I would welcome having the option to pay for private and better care, but as it is now promises like "you can keep your Doctors" fall on flat ears. With Medicare and Medicaid you're limited to receiving services from lower quality Doctors and facilities, basically whomever offers the lowest prices and usually what these insurance plans do is never pay the full amount of costs back to the doctors so the Doctors have to eat the costs, futher reducing the quality of care. Plus, you need authorization from your primary Doctor , who you can only choose from a short "approval list" to see any other type of Doctor and that also requires authorization from your insurance company and then you're limited even more to the places you can get these specialized services (like an endocrinologist). You're basically getting much poorer and limited quality services from using the current Obamacare system. If you have money though to spend, you can go to any Doctor you want and some of the best Doctors can only be seen this way. You won't see any Democratic leaders in the general public Doctors offices, they're using your tax money to get services you could never afford. Plus, it's not free as you're paying for it one way or the other. A mandated health care tax per person still means you're paying money for it.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I wonder what they are going to say with Trump using executive order to lower drug prices. I wonder how many will say there must be a hidden sinister thing we’re not told about. Then use Republican arguments why setting lower prices is not a good thing. Or this doesn’t mean anything because Trump does a lot of bad things. And try to find a negative because it’s Trump. 

He’s criticizing previous presidents for not doing anything about this.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 7, 2019)

Pippin666 said:


> USA ctizens are just a bunch of wussies, scared of sick women and starving children.
> 
> Those people have to sneak in the USA illegaly because because of the long waiting bureaucracy time. Most of those people live in poor country, under bad political condition and war because it fits US politics.
> 
> ...



This is what happens to a democratic controlled constitutional Republic!
They are domestic terrorist who don't belong here.  If I had it my way,  I would hang them all and pull of their toenails with pliers!


----------



## Xzi (Jul 7, 2019)

th3joker said:


> or deport all the black people  and mexicans who live off the government and say africa or mexico is better.


Sure, but the majority of those who receive government assistance are white.



			
				HuffPost said:
			
		

> The numbers reflect a significant overestimation of the number of black Americans benefiting from the largest programs. Medicaid had more than 70 million beneficiaries in 2016, of whom 43 percent were white, 18 percent black, and 30 percent Hispanic. Of 43 million food stamp recipients that year, 36.2 percent were white, 25.6 percent black, 17.2 percent Hispanic and 15.5 percent unknown. (Food stamps are formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.)



It's really a moot point though, none of these people are going to get deported simply for failing to contribute anything to the country.  Otherwise Trump would've been deported ages ago for living entirely off his father's wealth.  If we have the money to give out billions annually in corporate welfare, we have the money to pay for welfare for regular citizens.  It's just a matter of what takes priority, and our priority for far too long has been an unhealthy worship of the rich.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 8, 2019)

So here it is in a nutshell.....
A group of immigrants carrying their country flag marching toward our border is not migration, it is a invasion, A call for war!
If they truly wanted to come here and assimilate and be proud Americans, then they would carry no flag or at least an American Flag!
People are so naive and gullible that they cannot see the threat for what it truly is while they are looking at it!


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 8, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> So here it is in a nutshell.....
> A group of immigrants carrying their country flag marching toward our border is not migration, it is a invasion, A call for war!
> If they truly wanted to come here and assimilate and be proud Americans, then they would carry no flag or at least an American Flag!
> People are so naive and gullible that they cannot see the threat for what it truly is while they are looking at it!



I'm not sure if this is trolling or not.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 8, 2019)

Lacius said:


> That's quite the low bar. It doesn't mean the conditions aren't deplorable, and the Republicans are responsible. The same goes for homelessness in the US.


I thought California is a Democrat state?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> I thought California is a Democrat state?


I didn't mention California.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Sure, but the majority of those who receive government assistance are white.
> 
> 
> It's really a moot point though, none of these people are going to get deported simply for failing to contribute anything to the country.  Otherwise Trump would've been deported ages ago for living entirely off his father's wealth.  If we have the money to give out billions annually in corporate welfare, we have the money to pay for welfare for regular citizens.  It's just a matter of what takes priority, and our priority for far too long has been an unhealthy worship of the rich.



Yes you are correct!  I cannot believe I actually agree with you!
But there is a real bad problem in the farming states with Illegals taking OUR jobs at under wage which leaves us with nothing!
So in short the problem is purely greed!


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 8, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I didn't mention California.


But they have a homeless problem.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 8, 2019)

dAVID_ said:


> I'm not sure if this is trolling or not.



Only Troll's, Troll!


----------



## Xzi (Jul 8, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> Yes you are correct!  I cannot believe I actually agree with you!
> But there is a real bad problem in the farming states with Illegals taking OUR jobs at under wage which leaves us with nothing!
> So in short the problem is purely greed!


Glad we could find some common ground.  Until the CEOs and business owners see serious repercussions for hiring on illegal immigrants, they'll keep doing it.  And that will in turn keep incentivizing illegal immigration.



Snugglevixen said:


> But they have a homeless problem.


Along with all 49 other states?  Many of the homeless in California aren't originally from there, it's simply the hospitable climate which attracts them from across the entire country.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> But they have a homeless problem.


There are a lot of factors that contribute to the homelessness rate, but one of the big driving forces is the income inequality crisis in the United States, and it's a continuing issue due to a failure of politicians at the federal level to do anything substantive about it.


----------



## PityOnU (Jul 8, 2019)

This is an interesting thread, with a lot of actual, on-topic debate going on, so I just figured I'd pose a further question here (I have thought about it a lot recently):

So, I actually agree with OP in that the juxtaposition of immigration laws compared to the current support systems here in the USA really does encourage people to enter the country illegally - i.e. we strictly limit the number of people who can legally enter the country, but hand out free aid to everyone who manages to get in (legally or otherwise).

How would people feel about making this change: Remove the limit on the number of people who enter the country. However, we DO limit the number of those people who have access to the support structure. What you would end up with is a case where anyone is welcome to come if they are willing to take the risk of supporting themselves without a safety net, whereas those more cautious ones would need to wait for an application process, just like is done for immigration currently.

That seems as though it would solves most of the issues both sides have re: this topic.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Glad we could find some common ground.  Until the CEOs and business owners see serious repercussions for hiring on illegal immigrants, they'll keep doing it.  And that will in turn keep incentivizing illegal immigration.



Which will probably never happen for the simple fact money talks and bullshit walks, or something would have already been done and put in place to keep this from happening again.
We need to continue flushing out the Beaurocrats!


----------



## Xzi (Jul 8, 2019)

PityOnU said:


> How would people feel about making this change: Remove the limit on the number of people who enter the country. However, we DO limit the number of those people who have access to the support structure. What you would end up with is a case where anyone is welcome to come if they are willing to take the risk of supporting themselves without a safety net, whereas those more cautious ones would need to wait for an application process, just like is done for immigration currently.


What support structure, exactly?  As I've been pointing out, what supports illegals most is the fact that they're able to find employment in this country regardless of their citizenship status.  Fines mean nothing to businesses if they're offset by the amount of money they can save by undercutting minimum wage.  The penalty for CEOs/business owners needs to be jail time.  Instead we've got one such offender sitting in the White House, and he insures that other crony capitalists can continue to hire illegals with impunity, so it's no wonder nothing actually gets fixed.  Republican voters are entirely too focused on the illegal immigrants themselves, and not on the reasons why they're willing to risk immigrating illegally.


----------



## PityOnU (Jul 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What support structure, exactly?  As I've been pointing out, what supports illegals most is the fact that they're able to find employment in this country regardless of their citizenship status.  Fines mean nothing to businesses if they're offset by the amount of money they can save by undercutting minimum wage.  The penalty for CEOs/business owners needs to be jail time.  Instead we've got one such offender sitting in the White House, and he insures that other crony capitalists can continue to hire illegals with impunity, so it's no wonder nothing actually gets fixed.  Republican voters are entirely too focused on the illegal immigrants themselves, and not on the reasons why they're willing to risk immigrating illegally.



Support structure mentioned in OP's post. He is correct in stating that most of the current systems here in the USA allow people to claim benefits without having to show ID.

W.r.t. your concerns about employment - the laws are already in place to handle this (see: federal minimum wage). Employers are able to circumvent it in the case of illegal immigrants as they effectively become non-persons existing outside the law. I'm sure that no immigrants want to be working for below minimum wage, either. But because of the way the current system works, they have no legal protection or leverage otherwise, and are also scared to go the the authorities in case they are deported. So nothing is reported and things continue to slip under the radar.

Allowing any and all to enter the country freely - with full legal protections - would solve this problem.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 8, 2019)

PityOnU said:


> Support structure mentioned in OP's post. He is correct in stating that most of the current systems here in the USA allow people to claim benefits without having to show ID.



Only if you are white you have to show ID!


----------



## Xzi (Jul 8, 2019)

PityOnU said:


> Support structure mentioned in OP's post. He is correct in stating that most of the current systems here in the USA allow people to claim benefits without having to show ID.


None that I'm aware of.



PityOnU said:


> W.r.t. your concerns about employment - the laws are already in place to handle this (see: federal minimum wage). Employers are able to circumvent it in the case of illegal immigrants as they effectively become non-persons existing outside the law. I'm sure that no immigrants want to be working for below minimum wage, either. But because of the way the current system works, they have no legal protection or leverage otherwise, and are also scared to go the the authorities in case they are deported. So nothing is reported and things continue to slip under the radar.


As I said though, all we've got in place now are some fines for businesses that are found to be employing illegals.  These fines mean nothing to businesses once they've grown to a certain size.



PityOnU said:


> Allowing any and all to enter the country freely - with full legal protections - would solve this problem.


Sure, but if we're going to offer them all the same protections as citizens, at that point we might as well just offer a path to citizenship.  This is something that even GWB proposed, but the rest of his party was vehemently against it.


----------



## PityOnU (Jul 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Sure, but if we're going to offer them all the same protections as citizens, at that point we might as well just offer a path to citizenship.  This is something that even GWB proposed, but the rest of his party was vehemently against it.



I think that's another discussion entirely.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 8, 2019)

PityOnU said:


> I think that's another discussion entirely.


Not really, offering them 'full legal protections' under the constitution is basically offering them citizenship without any strings attached.  Whereas with a path to citizenship, there would be conditions which would have to be met before granting them those same legal protections.

As it stands now, we don't even offer the legal protections that are supposed to come with a request to be granted asylum.  We aren't following our own laws.


----------



## PityOnU (Jul 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not really, offering them 'full legal protections' under the constitution is basically offering them citizenship without any strings attached.  Whereas with a path to citizenship, there would be conditions which would have to be met before granting them those same legal protections.
> 
> As it stands now, we don't even offer the legal protections that are supposed to come with a request to be granted asylum.  We aren't following our own laws.



I think you are confusing "privileges of citizenship" with "basic rights"...

I don't think you need to be a citizen to be protected from, say, murder.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 8, 2019)

Lacius said:


> There are a lot of factors that contribute to the homelessness rate, but one of the big driving forces is the income inequality crisis in the United States, and it's a continuing issue due to a failure of politicians at the federal level to do anything substantive about it.


Of the factors are Drug Abuse, Mental Health Issues, High Housing Costs made worse by government policies creating artificial scarcity, and limited employment opportunities.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...in-san-francisco-taxed-to-texas/#628c68316fba


Land Restriction laws inflate housing prices.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...lues-drive-wealth-concentration/#7d6127e34698


Texas has less land restriction laws compared to California and Houston’s average rent is $996 compared to $2,420 in Los Angeles. It contributes to homelessness. And California has higher homeless rates then Texas. California’s population is 39% larger then Texas but homeless rates are 512% larger.

The artificial scarcity in homes, unable to build new housing because of gov land restriction laws, combined with the huge influx of immigration leads to even more artificial scarcity and leads to even higher housing prices making the homeless problem worse.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 8, 2019)

Shutting down the internet would be the fastest way to resolve any and all of the issues! PERIOD!


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Of the factors are Drug Abuse, Mental Health Issues, High Housing Costs made worse by government policies creating artificial scarcity, and limited employment opportunities.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...in-san-francisco-taxed-to-texas/#628c68316fba
> 
> ...





Lacius said:


> *There are a lot of factors that contribute to the homelessness rate*, but one of the big driving forces is the income inequality crisis in the United States, and it's a continuing issue due to a failure of politicians at the federal level to do anything substantive about it.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 8, 2019)

PityOnU said:


> I think you are confusing "privileges of citizenship" with "basic rights"...
> 
> I don't think you need to be a citizen to be protected from, say, murder.


I mean yeah, you'd think they'd be granted basic human rights regardless of their situation.  When we're cramming 150 people in cells designed to hold 30, however, it's obvious that many CBP agents are treating them as subhuman.



Cylent1 said:


> Shutting down the internet would be the fastest way to resolve any and all of the issues! PERIOD!


Silencing discussion about an issue doesn't make that issue go away, sorry.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 8, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> Silencing discussion about an issue doesn't make that issue go away, sorry.



Once again you are correct, 
but it would allow the real American loving patriots to get of their asses and take care of these matters physically if need be!
Everyone is too lazy to get of the damn couch and too worried about losing their jobs, their drugs and alcohol, their football, their video games,etc...
Once the internet gets shut off is when everyone (Including Liberals) will get pissed off to the point where everybody cracks!


----------



## Xzi (Jul 8, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> Everyone is too lazy to get of the damn couch and too worried about losing their jobs, their drugs and alcohol, their football, their video games,etc...
> Once the internet gets shut off is when everyone (Including Liberals) will get pissed off to the point where everybody cracks!


None of those things go away if the internet is shut down, though.  And anarchy only introduces a whole new set of problems to solve.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> Once the internet gets shut off is when everyone (Including Liberals) will get pissed off to the point where everybody cracks!


I don't use the internet.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> None of those things go away if the internet is shut down, though.  And anarchy only introduces a whole new set of problems to solve.



You are the one that mentioned anarchy,  I'm talking flat out Civil War!!!
I won't start it, but I will be sure as the hell be proud to participate, and try to end it!


----------



## Xzi (Jul 8, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> You are the one that mentioned anarchy,  I'm talking flat out Civil War!!!
> I won't start it, but I will be sure as the hell proud to participate, and try to end it!


I'm confused.  Civil war over what, exactly?  People who like the internet vs people who hate it?


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm confused.  Civil war over what, exactly?  People who like the internet vs people who hate it?



Now you are just being a Troll!


----------



## Xzi (Jul 8, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> Now you are just being a Troll!


No I actually really am confused about what you think it is that's worth fighting a civil war for.  I thought we were mostly in agreement about the root cause of mass illegal immigration.


----------



## cots (Jul 8, 2019)

PityOnU said:


> Support structure mentioned in OP's post. He is correct in stating that most of the current systems here in the USA allow people to claim benefits without having to show ID.
> 
> Allowing any and all to enter the country freely - with full legal protections - would solve this problem.



Kicking the current ones out and not letting any more in, unless they did it legally, would also solve the problem. Illegal immigrants taking benefits meant for USA citizens isn't the only problem caused by them being here.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Of the factors are Drug Abuse, Mental Health Issues, High Housing Costs made worse by government policies creating artificial scarcity, and limited employment opportunities.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...in-san-francisco-taxed-to-texas/#628c68316fba
> 
> ...



The current way of life in California, specifically in their larger Liberal run cities, is a prime example of what happens when Liberalism is forced on the masses. Homelessness is one of the side effects to their superior way of life. Prove me wrong.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 8, 2019)

cots said:


> The current way of life in California, specifically in their larger Liberal run cities, is a prime example of what happens when Liberalism is forced on the masses. Homelessness is one of the side effects to their superior way of life. Prove me wrong.


That's pretty easy to prove wrong considering California's economy is larger than many countries, it's the fifth largest economy in the world.  With the exception of Texas, red states have to be subsidized by blue states.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 8, 2019)

Illegal immigration is a problem because there is often times no registration of who is even in the country. Often times murderers that are illegal immigrants can hop the border once they are under pursuit and they are good as gone.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> Let's just ignore the fact we (united states) screwed several countries nearby, funded terrorist groups to overthrow their government because we didn't like what they were doing.
> yeah. It's completely their fault that we fucked up their home, caused problems where they lived, and then proceed to piss off and act like we didn't do anything.
> To then when the problem comes back to us in the ass we decide to give the middle finger to them.
> I think I rest my case, look at the states when the intermingled with other county affairs, you might learn something.



Let me teach you a quick history lesson. The United States was colonized by the English and Mexico was colonized by Spaniards. Before Mexico was colonized by Spaniards, the Aztec were sacrificing their own people and completely terrorizing other indigenous tribes like the Mayans. The Aztec actually had walls built out of human skulls and they ripped out peoples hearts while they were still alive. Mexico had deep problems before it was even called Mexico. A similar history applies to many other countries south of the border. The Spaniards conquest south of the border certainly caused some problems, but that region has been troubled for thousands of years. The United States did not cause the majority of the problems south of the border and to say that is the case is highly misleading.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 8, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Let me teach you a quick history lesson. The United States was colonized by the English and Mexico was colonized by Spaniards. Before Mexico was colonized by Spaniards, the Aztec were sacrificing their own people and completely terrorizing other indigenous tribes like the Mayans. The Aztec actually had walls built out of human skulls and they ripped out peoples hearts while they were still alive. Mexico had deep problems before it was even called Mexico. A similar history applies to many other countries south of the border. The Spaniards conquest south of the border certainly caused some problems, but that region has been troubled for thousands of years. The United States did not cause the majority of the problems south of the border and to say that is the case is highly misleading.


So your pretty much saying
"because they already had problems in 1521 that they must still have those same problems in the 1900s+. And so gives us the right for the United States to go ahead and do what ever the fuck they want to other countries. Despite any advancements they have made as a society."
I'm I reading this wrong?
Because your really are ignoring you know the few (but important) times when the states did a little double funding. Pretty much funding between two sides of a conflict, or you know, working around the check and balances system to get a war, underhandedly causing governments to fall. I could you know, pull out my old history binder if you really want me to go through the details. There's a pretty strong running theme with the states dicking other countries and it backfiring hard. (and by old I mean a year ago)


----------



## SG854 (Jul 8, 2019)

@Lacius

I was adding to what you were saying. Not trying to poke flaws in what you were saying. Since other people are reading these comments they can see what other factors also contribute.


For some reason I kinda thought that you would make a comment like that. And take it as a criticism right away when I wasn’t intending criticism of what you didn’t say.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 8, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That's pretty easy to prove wrong considering California's economy is larger than many countries, it's the fifth largest economy in the world.  With the exception of Texas, red states have to be subsidized by blue states.


New Mexico, Virginia, Maryland, Maine and Hawaii voted Obama but were the biggest tax money net recipients on a per capita basis.


Donor states tend to be more populous and have lots of wealthy people. And many big business are located there.


A lot of taxes are paid by the upper income brackets because of our progressive tax system. From about a household income of $101,000, that’s $50,000 a piece for two working couples, will put you in the top 20%. So these states will put more in taxes. Like California and New York because of more wealthy people.


There is also situational circumstances. Wyoming and Dakota aren’t thought of as populous and rich but they threw in lots of tax revenue because of the Fracking Boom they had in 2013.


Maryland and Virginia are both Democratic but we’re large recipients of tax money. They are also populous and rich. But they also have a lot of federal pensioners, government contractors, and federal office building that has money pouring in to pay for them, so it’s why they are big recipients.


It’s not as simple as you put it Blue States subsidies Red States. What affects federal transfer is Retirement Benefits, Non-Retirement Benefits, Grants, Government Contracts for Goods and Services, Salary and Wages.


----------



## Deleted-481927 (Jul 8, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> There's just so much complete crap in the OP I don't even know where to begin. So I wont. I'll let someone else handle it. But really? This guy? Again????


this

They have reasons - usually safety to cross the border illegally because the US immigration system + asylum is SHIT

They deserve healthcare, water, food, toothpaste, soap (they're getting water + food afaik but not much) while they're in these camps.

I don't care who initiated them (it was Obama but I don't even like him, I'm more of a Bernie supporter) - they just need to be stopped.

They've been deemed concentration camps for fucks sake the US needs to stop it.


----------



## cots (Jul 8, 2019)

samhhhhh said:


> this
> 
> They have reasons - usually safety to cross the border illegally because the US immigration system + asylum is SHIT
> 
> ...



You do know what happens in real concentration camps to the people? They sure as hell didn't get to see a judge before they were gassed to death. By breaking the law you lose your rights and by not being a legal citizen you don't have many rights to begin with. Providing water and food twice a day is sufficient, they don't need air conditioning or good food to survive. Giving them more than we give some of our own citizens is wrong. Don't like it? Don't break the law!


----------



## cots (Jul 8, 2019)

samhhhhh said:


> this
> 
> They have reasons - usually safety to cross the border illegally because the US immigration system + asylum is SHIT
> 
> ...



You do know what happens in real concentration camps to the people? They sure as hell didn't get to see a judge before they were gassed to death. By breaking the law you lose your rights and by not being a legal citizen you don't have many rights to begin with. Providing water and food twice a day is sufficient, they don't need air conditioning or good food to survive. Giving them more than we give some of our own citizens is wrong. Don't like it? Don't break the law!


----------



## Lacius (Jul 8, 2019)

cots said:


> You do know what happens in real concentration camps to the people? They sure as hell didn't get to see a judge before they were gassed to death. By breaking the law you lose your rights and by not being a legal citizen you don't have many rights to begin with. Providing water and food twice a day is sufficient, they don't need air conditioning or good food to survive. Giving them more than we give some of our own citizens is wrong. Don't like it? Don't break the law!



Immigrants seeking amnesty are not breaking the law.
Treating prisoners with "just what it takes to survive" was the mentality of a lot of concentration camps.
Children are being caged in deplorable conditions at no fault of their own.
Children have died while being held by the Trump administration.
Lots of immigrant Jews were rounded up first because they were "breaking the law and they shouldn't have done it."


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 9, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Immigrants seeking amnesty are not breaking the law.
> Treating prisoners with "just what it takes to survive" was the mentality of a lot of concentration camps.
> Children are being caged in deplorable conditions at no fault of their own.
> Children have died while being held by the Trump administration.
> Lots of immigrant Jews were rounded up first because they were "breaking the law and they shouldn't have done it."



1: Immigrants seeking asylum WILL go through the port of entries the legal way.
2: What happens to you if you are caught driving without a license?  You are treated like a dag and put in a cage.
3: You are right, the Parents need to be held responsible.  But most of these children are being trafficked by the losers that are trying to tear down our country.
4:  Children have died while being held by the Obama Admin also, Do your homework.
5: WTF?  They were breaking the law how?


----------



## Deleted-481927 (Jul 9, 2019)

cots said:


> You do know what happens in real concentration camps to the people? They sure as hell didn't get to see a judge before they were gassed to death. By breaking the law you lose your rights and by not being a legal citizen you don't have many rights to begin with. Providing water and food twice a day is sufficient, they don't need air conditioning or good food to survive. Giving them more than we give some of our own citizens is wrong. Don't like it? Don't break the law!


I didn't say it was concentration camps I forgot to add quotes.

It's essentially the same - minus the gassing and labour - theres been reports of staff RAPING people in there.

They do need AC at the fucking border if they're held their against their will.

Children didn't break the law - they're parents did anyway. Punishing them for that seems wrong, if punishing them at all doesn't seem wrong to you.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 9, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> 1: Immigrants seeking asylum WILL go through the port of entries the legal way.
> 2: What happens to you if you are caught driving without a license?  You are treated like a dag and put in a cage.
> 3: You are right, the Parents need to be held responsible.  But most of these children are being trafficked by the losers that are trying to tear down our country.
> 4:  Children have died while being held by the Obama Admin also, Do your homework.
> 5: WTF?  They were breaking the law how?



Immigrants are guaranteed a right to seek asylum, regardless of how they entered the US. At ports of entry, they are often blocked as well. We also need to be clear that the child separation policy was created to inflict harm as a deterrent. They admitted it.
First, you're not treated like a dag or any other type of animal if you're caught driving without a license. You still get basic human dignity that we are not seeing with detained immigrants and their children. Second, that's a crime, while seeking asylum is not. Third, people don't typically die in police custody after driving without a license.
First, asylum seekers didn't commit crimes. Second, commiting a kind of crime you're describing isn't a just reason for the deplorable conditions, deaths, and child-separation.
It has been more than a decade since a child has died while held by Customs and Border Protection. There's a false meme floating around that has been debunked (I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to, but it probably is). Do your homework, and don't use internet memes.
During the Holocaust, some of the very first Jews to be rounded up and forced to dig their own graves were immigrants who couldn't prove citizenship and were deported for being illegals.


----------



## Cylent1 (Jul 9, 2019)

samhhhhh said:


> I didn't say it was concentration camps I forgot to add quotes.
> 
> It's essentially the same - minus the gassing and labour - theres been reports of staff RAPING people in there.
> 
> ...



Damn Liberals will believe anything their Democratic heroes tell them including 2+2=5!  PROVE ME WRONG!
DON"T BREAK THE LAW!  AND SURE AS HELL DON'T TRAFFICK KIDS HERE THAT ARE NOT YOUR OWN OR ANY CHILD FOR THAT MATTER,  THATS WANTON ENDANGERMENT OF A CHILD!!  SIMPLE AS THAT!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Evading the law by crossing over our border is ILLEGAL!
I AM GETTING SICK AND TIRED OF YOU LIBS THINKING THAT CROSSING THE BORDER ILLEGALY AND NOT THROUGH THE PORT OF ENTRIES IS LEGAL!
IS YOUR MOTHER BEARDED BY ANY CHANCE?  ALSO DOES IT HAVE A PRETTY INTENSE RAINBOW DILDO COLLECTION ON IT'S BEDROOM SHELF ON DISPLAY FOR ALL TO SEE!


----------



## Deleted-481927 (Jul 9, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> Damn Liberals will believe anything their Democratic heroes tell them including 2+2=5!  PROVE ME WRONG!
> DON"T BREAK THE LAW!  AND SURE AS HELL DON'T TRAFFICK KIDS HERE THAT ARE NOT YOUR OWN OR ANY CHILD FOR THAT MATTER,  THATS WANTON ENDANGERMENT OF A CHILD!!  SIMPLE AS THAT!
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


i pray this is ironic lmao

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> Immigrants are guaranteed a right to seek asylum, regardless of how they entered the US. At ports of entry, they are often blocked as well. We also need to be clear that the child separation policy was created to inflict harm as a deterrent. They admitted it.
> First, you're not treated like a dag or any other type of animal if you're caught driving without a license. You still get basic human dignity that we are not seeing with detained immigrants and their children. Second, that's a crime, while seeking asylum is not. Third, people don't typically die in police custody after driving without a license.
> First, asylum seekers didn't commit crimes. Second, commiting a kind of crime you're describing isn't a just reason for the deplorable conditions, deaths, and child-separation.
> It has been more than a decade since a child has died while held by Customs and Border Protection. There's a false meme floating around that has been debunked (I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to, but it probably is). Do your homework, and don't use internet memes.
> During the Holocaust, some of the very first Jews to be rounded up and forced to dig their own graves were immigrants who couldn't prove citizenship and were deported for being illegals.


someone actually being smart here hank you


----------



## cots (Jul 9, 2019)

samhhhhh said:


> I didn't say it was concentration camps I forgot to add quotes.
> 
> It's essentially the same - minus the gassing and labour - theres been reports of staff RAPING people in there.
> 
> ...



You said they were being deemed concentration camps. People get raped in prison. It's not right, but if they weren't breaking the law they wouldn't be being raped. It's not about what they aren't receiving in the detention centers, it's about the fact they shouldn't be breaking the law and ending up in them, which is something they are risking because of Libreral policies. Having Air Conditioning in the desert isn't a human right nor it is needed to survive. I know, I live in the desert.  The children wouldn't be in this position if thier irresponsible parents wouldn't  of put them in it or the Liberal policies weren't encouraging coyotes to bring them Illegally into the country for personal profit. Have you ever been in a normal juvenile detention center for our own citizens? The conditions you'll find them in isn't much better than the conditions of the camps. Don't break the law and don't encourage others to do so, if you do and get caught no one with a hint of intelligence is going to feel sorry for you.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Cylent1 said:


> Damn Liberals will believe anything their Democratic heroes tell them including 2+2=5!  PROVE ME WRONG!
> DON"T BREAK THE LAW!  AND SURE AS HELL DON'T TRAFFICK KIDS HERE THAT ARE NOT YOUR OWN OR ANY CHILD FOR THAT MATTER,  THATS WANTON ENDANGERMENT OF A CHILD!!  SIMPLE AS THAT!
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...



Liberals don't care about the law unless thier own personal rights are being violated. Then they'll call the same police they trash talk and expect protection and the law to be followed. They are cowards who can't defend themselves nor probably wouldn't do more than post about things that outrage them. You won't find them lifting a finger to help these immigrants they encouraged to break the law, they cause the problem then expect everyone else to take care of it. They have little to no comphrension of the word personal responsibility.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Cylent1 said:


> Damn Liberals will believe anything their Democratic heroes tell them including 2+2=5!  PROVE ME WRONG!
> DON"T BREAK THE LAW!  AND SURE AS HELL DON'T TRAFFICK KIDS HERE THAT ARE NOT YOUR OWN OR ANY CHILD FOR THAT MATTER,  THATS WANTON ENDANGERMENT OF A CHILD!!  SIMPLE AS THAT!
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...



Letting them upset you is exactly what they're after. They don't care about themselves let alone Illegal immigrants. All they care about is emotional pleasure. It's not worth getting upset about. If you go around living life only going about how you feel and not what's right or real, you're delusional and if anything you should take pity on them and pray for thier souls.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 9, 2019)

SG854 said:


> And giving free health care to illegals is whats contributing to driving up the costs and why it’s very expensive right now. Offering free health care to illegals and campaigning in Mexico like Beto O’ Rourke is doing will make the problem worse.


If that were true, other places with actually high immigration would have also high medical bills. This isn't the case. Ergo: the cause of your high medical support isn't that.

I'm also not sure why you think this is an issue. You don't migrate to Europe for decent Healthcare, right? So why would others come to the USA if your medical bills were upgraded from "one of the worst in the world" to... Say... "average"?


----------



## cots (Jul 9, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> If that were true, other places with actually high immigration would have also high medical bills. This isn't the case. Ergo: the cause of your high medical support isn't that.
> 
> I'm also not sure why you think this is an issue. You don't migrate to Europe for decent Healthcare, right? So why would others come to the USA if your medical bills were upgraded from "one of the worst in the world" to... Say... "average"?



You have 15 million people using "free" health care, which is 15 million people x amount of their costs. Tell me how having to use our taxes to pay for their costs (aka, it's not FREE), doesn't increase the cost to normal citizens. (15 million is an estimated number, I don't have any real sources for it, but even if the number was 5 million, my point still stands).


----------



## notimp (Jul 9, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Illegal immigration is a problem because there is often times no registration of who is even in the country. Often times murderers that are illegal immigrants can hop the border once they are under pursuit and they are good as gone.


You've never leaned how statistics work in your life, havent you? Murderers that are illegal immigrants.
Often times.
Thats what having a moron president does to your collective psyche as a country.

edit: Here - percentage of murders (= higher than 'murderers' because presumably people in gangs or terror cells murder more than once) in comparison to the entire population "in the americas":
0.0163%

In europe:
0.003%

In the united states:
0.005%

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Now correlate per mill with entering the USA illegally, and you should get a value thats even lower. (Or higher - if only paid killers enter your country illegally - which would be an indication of your border control system working. -snip, skip personal attacks-)

Now correlate that with "this isnt DNA - mostly" so once they get into less violent societies, with a lower slums population, and less gang wars - guess what happens to the murder rate - even by nationality of immigrants?

I mean I know that your president sees mexicans as people that go to church on sunday, do work on monday, have a siesta on tuesday, and do murder on wednesday - but that still does make him a moron. And the leader of the free world. How about you dont copy statements from a moron though.


----------



## notimp (Jul 9, 2019)

Here is how you would spell this our for a moron - btw. South americas murder rate is 3 times that of the United States. Lets take away "some of that" for migrants in the US because of "the environmental (social) and political situation" in said countries.

Lets say when those people get put into a better working society - 'their' murder rate comes down to 2 times that of the United States (As you dont often have gang wars or one drug cartel wiping out another one in the US - this is very, very likely).

Now compare and contrast with europe.

The US has a murder rate 2 times that of europes.

Do you hear us utter the statement "the problem with the US is that they are murderers, and some of them, I guess even are good people" often?

Do you see us tremble in fear, when we hop on a plane to visit your country for business trips or vacations?

No. Why not? Because if you double very small, you still get - very small (percentage). Tadaa.


----------



## notimp (Jul 9, 2019)

No, no - but we only wan the good migrants. The ones you could background check (they smartphones are confiscated, their social accounts screened), ...

Oh grow up, would you?


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 9, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So your pretty much saying
> "because they already had problems in 1521 that they must still have those same problems in the 1900s+. And so gives us the right for the United States to go ahead and do what ever the fuck they want to other countries. Despite any advancements they have made as a society."
> I'm I reading this wrong?
> Because your really are ignoring you know the few (but important) times when the states did a little double funding. Pretty much funding between two sides of a conflict, or you know, working around the check and balances system to get a war, underhandedly causing governments to fall. I could you know, pull out my old history binder if you really want me to go through the details. There's a pretty strong running theme with the states dicking other countries and it backfiring hard. (and by old I mean a year ago)



I'm saying that it isn't the United States fault that these countries are failing.


----------



## Deleted-481927 (Jul 9, 2019)

cots said:


> You said they were being deemed concentration camps. People get raped in prison. It's not right, but if they weren't breaking the law they wouldn't be being raped. It's not about what they aren't receiving in the detention centers, it's about the fact they shouldn't be breaking the law and ending up in them, which is something they are risking because of Libreral policies. Having Air Conditioning in the desert isn't a human right nor it is needed to survive. I know, I live in the desert.  The children wouldn't be in this position if thier irresponsible parents wouldn't  of put them in it or the Liberal policies weren't encouraging coyotes to bring them Illegally into the country for personal profit. Have you ever been in a normal juvenile detention center for our own citizens? The conditions you'll find them in isn't much better than the conditions of the camps. Don't break the law and don't encourage others to do so, if you do and get caught no one with a hint of intelligence is going to feel sorry for you.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


ok so rape is ok if you cross the border

okay

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

nvm im dumb i misread that but it seems like ur justifying it happening

its not a consequence of the border crossing - it's a consequence of corrupt border patrol agents


----------



## erikas (Jul 9, 2019)

cots said:


> https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/03/politics/trump-border-patrol-facilities/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
> 
> The buzz in the news lately has been the overcrowded,  but generally better condition that a lot of people who have been crossing the Southern border of illegally have found themselves in. Current policies encourage people to illegally bypass our border checkpoints and cross in dangerous locations because the policies then allow them to get free health insurance (emergency Medicaid), food assistance (SNAP gives them the option to not have to provide or prove they are a legal resident of the USA) and free housing. That's if they successfully sneak into the country otherwise they may die or find themselves in worse conditions than the likely outcome, which is they are apprehended and put into detention facilities (as they are breaking the law).
> 
> ...


We don't have welfare and so there's no immigration problem.


----------



## smf (Jul 9, 2019)

cots said:


> I think we should get rid of the policies encouraging the illegals and anyone in our government that is supporting this lawless act and cut the current detainees daily meals to what you would find in the Arizona Maricopa County Jail and cut off their air conditioning and make them live in tents like our homeless people are having to do because the Illegal immigrants are more of a priority than they are.



I'd say that the way you treat all vulnerable people in the US is disgusting and needs to be improved if you ever want to become a real first world country.

So sure, treat everyone the same. But do it by bringing the standard up, not by driving it down.

Of course you'll need to figure a way to get rid of the endemic hate and resentment first.

The first step is realizing that the main cause of problems with immigration are caused by the US handling of immigration. The immigrants want to work, but you don't like the idea of that. Which is kinda weird for a country that you stole two hundred years ago. You turn them into criminals because of the way you treat them & then blame them for becoming criminals.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 9, 2019)

deleted


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 9, 2019)

smf said:


> I'd say that the way you treat all vulnerable people in the US is disgusting and needs to be improved if you ever want to become a real first world country.
> 
> So sure, treat everyone the same. But do it by bringing the standard up, not by driving it down.
> 
> ...



We are a first world country and the most powerful country in the world. How about you guys get rid of your outdated class system and treat the Pakistani immigrants with more respect first before you start pointing fingers at other countries.


----------



## Deleted-481927 (Jul 9, 2019)

Maluma said:


> We are a first world country and the most powerful country in the world. How about you guys get rid of your outdated class system and treat the Pakistani immigrants with more respect first before you start pointing fingers at other countries.


smh every country does bad shit

here in england we have Yarl's Wood

USA the camps on border

no one deserves this treatment


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 9, 2019)

cots said:


> You have 15 million people using "free" health care, which is 15 million people x amount of their costs. Tell me how having to use our taxes to pay for their costs (aka, it's not FREE), doesn't increase the cost to normal citizens. (15 million is an estimated number, I don't have any real sources for it, but even if the number was 5 million, my point still stands).


Sorry... Did you personally invent the US medical system? Because if not, there is no reason to take it personally, let alone play a game of 'my system is better than yours'.

But meh... Since you seem to care : I pray a yearly sum to a 'mutualiteit'... I think it's best translated as a state funded insurance (yes... Like Obamacare. He didn't invent the wheel). It's about 50 euro. On top of that there is a monthly tax derived monthly from everyone who works in Belgium. About 50 euro, roughly estimated. So per year, I guesstimate I pay around 650 euros.

'hey, that's not free!' 
Of course not. I'm not responsible for your ignorance, so when you're the one calling it free or "free", then that's your error, not mine. I just said yours was one of the worst in the forums and you're not proving me wrong.

Because what do I get for that contribution? More or less everything. When I visit the doctor, it's on average about 20 euros, which is refunded to me be my mutualiteit(meaning : those illegal aliens have to suck up that incredibly high sum of about a days meal). Medicine? More or less the same, unless you REALLY want a specific brand of medicine. 

That is certainly one of the main differences : our government curates medicine and pays back (roughly) the cheapest medicine that's proven to work. That way, medicines are on a race to the bottom in terms of price.
Americans (or at least your representatives) don't follow that reasoning. You don't consider this a task for the government, which means that companies who hold a patent can literally ask what they want for a medicine. And because the lobbying groups hold lots of political power, there is no incentive to change that.

...but ey: keep blaming the immigrants. It's not because it defies any logic that they are to blame that you can't blame them for it.


----------



## Rolf12 (Jul 9, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Sorry... Did you personally invent the US medical system? Because if not, there is no reason to take it personally, let alone play a game of 'my system is better than yours'.
> 
> But meh... Since you seem to care : I pray a yearly sum to a 'mutualiteit'... I think it's best translated as a state funded insurance (yes... Like Obamacare. He didn't invent the wheel). It's about 50 euro. On top of that there is a monthly tax derived monthly from everyone who works in Belgium. About 50 euro, roughly estimated. So per year, I guesstimate I pay around 650 euros.
> 
> ...


That is a nice system. Pretty much the same as here in sweden. Too bad that lately private insurances light, are making their way in. Involuntarily subsidized by government, so an insurance costs 75€. Making people believe "oh, private healthcare is so cheap and good". A real private would insurance costs about 500€ and up. Hope we dont go there.
To sum it up, free healthcare for all citizens! And some healthcare for everyone else.


----------



## smf (Jul 9, 2019)

Maluma said:


> We are a first world country and the most powerful country in the world.



Well you're certainly the best at stealing, which is why you elected a corrupt president.

I do wonder when you're going to get over britain though, we've moved on but you still keep dragging up the past every 4th of July like a drunken facebook stalk of an ex.


----------



## cots (Jul 10, 2019)

samhhhhh said:


> ok so rape is ok if you cross the border
> 
> okay
> 
> ...



No, rape isn't okay, but it happens everywhere. It's not inclusive to people in border patrol custody nor does it just happen by corrupt border patrol agents. When you put a bunch of criminals together the end result is usually a lot of Illegal activity. You're completely missing the point and not adressing the root cause of the problem. You're only adressing the symptoms, which isn't going to "cure" the issue.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> Sorry... Did you personally invent the US medical system? Because if not, there is no reason to take it personally, let alone play a game of 'my system is better than yours'.
> 
> But meh... Since you seem to care : I pray a yearly sum to a 'mutualiteit'... I think it's best translated as a state funded insurance (yes... Like Obamacare. He didn't invent the wheel). It's about 50 euro. On top of that there is a monthly tax derived monthly from everyone who works in Belgium. About 50 euro, roughly estimated. So per year, I guesstimate I pay around 650 euros.
> 
> ...



I'm not blaming Illegal immigrants for other problems not related to them that raise health care costs, I'm directly blaming them for how much they cost us normal citizens. Say, you have one on emergency Medicaid that visits the emergency room and gets a bill for $5,000. I'm blaming them for using our money regardless if thier bill is 5k or  ten dollars.  We shouldn't condone and encourage Illegal behavior, period.

Although,  I think debating legalities with a bunch of Liberal brats, that probably don't pay rent and bitch at Nintendo for the quality of the games they're stealing from them is pointless. Look, you either follow the law or you're a lousy peice of shit and I wish the worse happens to you are your people because you deserve it. I'll simply wave to you when you're drowning.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 10, 2019)

cots said:


> No, rape isn't okay, but it happens everywhere. It's not inclusive to people in border patrol custody nor does it just happen by corrupt border patrol agents. When you put a bunch of criminals together the end result is usually a lot of Illegal activity. You're completely missing the point and not adressing the root cause of the problem. You're only adressing the symptoms, which isn't going to "cure" the issue.


Jesus fucking Christ.  There goes any shred of credibility you might've had left and any chance of anyone here taking you seriously ever again.  If you're willing to excuse away government agents committing rape because "it happens everywhere," then why are you complaining about the much lesser crime of crossing the border outside authorized ports of entry?  By your logic, we might as well not have any established laws, because we aren't going to enforce them anyway.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 10, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm not blaming Illegal immigrants for other problems not related to them that raise health care costs, I'm directly blaming them for how much they cost us normal citizens. Say, you have one on emergency Medicaid that visits the emergency room and gets a bill for $5,000. I'm blaming them for using our money regardless if thier bill is 5k or  ten dollars.  We shouldn't condone and encourage Illegal behavior, period.


In a roundabout way, you say that the real problem is that us citizens tend to give these people jobs. If they didn't, they soon wouldn't have money left (if they had any to begin with). And more so : wouldn't be coming to the US to begin with.
Not sure what that last statement is about. But hey : if ending posts with hollowphrases that everyone agrees with is a thing, then I'll join in:
"The economy is money changing hands, period. "


cots said:


> Although,  I think debating legalities with a bunch of Liberal brats, that probably don't pay rent and bitch at Nintendo for the quality of the games they're stealing from them is pointless. Look, you either follow the law or you're a lousy peice of shit and I wish the worse happens to you are your people because you deserve it. I'll simply wave to you when you're drowning.


Wrong about Nintendo, but correct on the rent :I don't pay any. I own two houses(1), so I COLLECT rent instead. From a Pakistanian immigrant, no less.  Who entered the country legally (I feel embarrassed I even had to mention this) and has an honest job.

(1): while cool, it has its drawbacks. Most notable the mortgage, which I'll need to be paying for the next 25 years


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Sorry... Did you personally invent the US medical system? Because if not, there is no reason to take it personally, let alone play a game of 'my system is better than yours'.
> 
> But meh... Since you seem to care : I pray a yearly sum to a 'mutualiteit'... I think it's best translated as a state funded insurance (yes... Like Obamacare. He didn't invent the wheel). It's about 50 euro. On top of that there is a monthly tax derived monthly from everyone who works in Belgium. About 50 euro, roughly estimated. So per year, I guesstimate I pay around 650 euros.
> 
> ...



Excuse my ignorange on Belgium's health care system but I got a question.

Your numbers seemed to be way off, i.e. way too low to finance any amount of significant health care service. I tried looking it up and what I found was that in Belgium you pay roughly 45% of your gross income for social insurance with a split of 13% employee and 32% employer. Is that correct?
Estimating about a third of social insurance is health care, the cost is roughly 700€ per month for the average income of 61,135€ a year in Belgium.

With these estimations and numbers, 50€ a month turns out best out to be 1153€ gross monthly income which is singificantly below the poverty line.

So, how do you arrive at 50€, do you make so little? Do you ignore the employer share? Do you get benefits as a student? Am I missing something?


----------



## SG854 (Jul 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> If that were true, other places with actually high immigration would have also high medical bills. This isn't the case. Ergo: the cause of your high medical support isn't that.
> 
> I'm also not sure why you think this is an issue. You don't migrate to Europe for decent Healthcare, right? So why would others come to the USA if your medical bills were upgraded from "one of the worst in the world" to... Say... "average"?


The money has to come from somewhere right, to pay for those medical services. It only makes sense that the more people that use it the more expenses they have to pay.


I don’t think that people migrate here specifically to use the medical service. I think they use it since they are already here and go to the nearest clinic because its the closest instead of traveling cross country.


Although there are stories that pop up of leaders from around the world coming to the U.S. to use our medical service.


Like a Canadian politician. And a Saudi Prince.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/acutecoronarysyndrome/18279


And right here talks about how people from other countries that search for the most advance treatment come to the U.S. 38% from Latin America, 35% from the Middle East, 16% from Europe, 7% from Canada. So U.S. does have visitors specially for Medical Treatment.

https://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/h..._avd_outsourcing08_0529healthoutsourcing.html


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> If that were true, other places with actually high immigration would have also high medical bills. This isn't the case. Ergo: the cause of your high medical support isn't that.
> 
> I'm also not sure why you think this is an issue. You don't migrate to Europe for decent Healthcare, right? So why would others come to the USA if your medical bills were upgraded from "one of the worst in the world" to... Say... "average"?



So comparing health insurance cost is a bit janky because not the same things may be covered but according to the following article health insurance in the US is lower than a lot of places in Europe.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-spends-on-health-care.html

From your other post as well it seems like you're vastly underestimating the cost of the health care system.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 10, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> So comparing health insurance cost is a bit janky because not the same things may be covered but according to the following article health insurance in the US is lower than a lot of places in Europe.
> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-spends-on-health-care.html
> 
> From your other post as well it seems like you're vastly underestimating the cost of the health care system.


The Single Payer NHS system has its problems.

Thousands of patients were begging for hip replacements because they were rationing.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ents-beg-treatment-cuts-funding-a8453531.html



They are rationing MRI scans. Bureaucrats instead of doctors choose who has access to MRI Cancer scans.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...tion-cancer-scans-bureaucratic-directive.html




They had to ration cataracts surgery. And patients were at risk of going blind.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...g-cataracts-patients-nearly-blind-nhs-warned/




More rationing like drugs to treat arthritis was withheld.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-40485724



They are trying to cut costs so they don’t overspend government funds. When people perceive something to be free they use more of it and use it wastefully leaving less for other people. People become basically greedy. And people often go visit the doctor more often for minor things because it’s free so why not, when otherwise they wouldn’t have if the perception of free wasn’t there. This drives up costs and forces them to ration.

Prime minister had to beg citizens not to overuse health services.

https://fortune.com/2018/07/10/nhs-70-years-uk-britain-single-payer/


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 10, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The Single Payer NHS system has its problems.
> 
> Thousands of patients were begging for hip replacements because they were rationing.
> 
> ...



I'm aware of the struggles of single payer or multi payer models as we've discussed earlier that in Germany it lead to workforce exploitation and has driven down quality.
What I'm concerned with in this case is that people make it out to be really cheap and obfuscate the real cost. Maybe that's because these systems often require the employer to pay some amount of it so it looks much cheaper than it actually is.

@Taleweaver came up with a number of roughly 700€ a *year* when in reality (based on my research, which may be wrong) I estimate it to be closer to 700€ a *month *for the average citizen in Belgium. That's understating the cost by a factor of 12 and at that point you're not even making an argument anymore.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 10, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Excuse my ignorange on Belgium's health care system but I got a question.
> 
> Your numbers seemed to be way off, i.e. way too low to finance any amount of significant health care service. I tried looking it up and what I found was that in Belgium you pay roughly 45% of your gross income for social insurance with a split of 13% employee and 32% employer. Is that correct?
> Estimating about a third of social insurance is health care, the cost is roughly 700€ per month for the average income of 61,135€ a year in Belgium.
> ...


Fair point. In truth, our nett income is indeed nearly 50% of our gross income, meaning about half good to state (and is one of the highest in the world with that). However, social insurance is far more than health care. Subsidizes, unemployment wages, all taxes for services... Al of that is included in that package as well. The medical aspect is but one factor of that, so I'm certainly not below the poverty line (I'm about on the median, really).


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Fair point. In truth, our nett income is indeed nearly 50% of our gross income, meaning about half good to state (and is one of the highest in the world with that).



That's still ignoring what the employer pays on top of your gross income (32% of gross income for social insurances).



> However, social insurance is far more than health care. Subsidizes, unemployment wages, all taxes for services... Al of that is included in that package as well.



Which is why I estimated about a third of it is health care and I believe that's a fairly conservative estimation. Health care and Pension are usually the biggest factors here.



> The medical aspect is but one factor of that, so I'm certainly not below the poverty line (I'm about on the median, really).



Yes and if you take 50€ times it by 3 (because I assume health care makes up about a third) you get 150€ which is supposed to be 13% of your gross income if you use the most generous calculation, you arrive at 1154€ gross income a month.
You didn't say my research was incorrect so I assume the true cost for a median income Belgium citizen for health insurance to be somewhere around 700€ a month, while you were making the argument it's about 700€ a year.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 10, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The money has to come from somewhere right, to pay for those medical services. It only makes sense that the more people that use it the more expenses they have to pay.


Not really. The pharmaceutical industry always claims its mostly the cost of R&D that keeps the prices up. If more people use the service, the cost should go down, as all participants pay a smaller amount of the same r&d.

Perhaps two real life examples might help :
1) I went on vacation in bulgary a couple years ago (one of the poorest countries in the EU, mind you). I had a middle ear infection there and had to see a doctor. Cost... Somewhere little under 100 euro.
2) a colleague of mine went to New York. Had something similar small. Was in a hospital for 15 minutes in total. Cost... About 200 bucks. Felt okay to be at first, considering how notorious your system is in the rest of the world.
But somewhere after he vexation, she got a call. How was she willing to pay the rest. The... Rest? Turns out that the medical bill was but a small part, and a whole slew of administrative costs and insurance weren't put into account. Total cost : over a thousand bucks.[/QUOTE]

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



supersonicwaffle said:


> So comparing health insurance cost is a bit janky because not the same things may be covered but according to the following article health insurance in the US is lower than a lot of places in Europe.
> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-spends-on-health-care.html
> 
> From your other post as well it seems like you're vastly underestimating the cost of the health care system.


Erm... Did you accidentally quote the wrong article? It doesn't compare anything, but mentions the worrying tends like your steady rise of costs and consequences.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm... Did you accidentally quote the wrong article? It doesn't compare anything, but mentions the worrying tends like your steady rise of costs and consequences.



No I didn't, I used the figures stated in the article to compare it to health care costs I stated in my earlier post or cost here in Germany (roughly 500€ for the average income person). This means the average american family pays more but a single person pays less according to the article.

With regards to worrying trends like steady rise of cost I'd suggest looking into the rise of costs for our health care systems over here. In Germany the percentage of gross income that you have to pay has nearly doubled in the last 50 years.


----------



## Youkai (Jul 10, 2019)

It should be easier to legaly immigrate but then again there need to be strict rules like some kind of "school" you have to visit first to learn how to behave in the specific country where you want to immigrate plus the requirements to be able to speak the language at least good enough to be able to communicate with people.

I often notice that the biggest problem seems that "foreigners" often don't know how to behave because stuff that might be okay in their country doesn't need to be okay wherever they go to.
(you often notice with tourists who behave like idiots even though thats not only because of not know but because of humans beeing idiots especially when they assume they won't see any of the people who see them behaving bad ever again)

in Germany we often have Woman complaining about foreigners that try to or even do touch them and stuff because they probably learned in their country that woman have to obey and you can do with them however you please ... but here it is not like that, still they just do it like they were thaught by their fathers. Or many of them using the train but don't "know?" that they need to actually buy a valid ticket ... even though I doubt that they really don't know.


Every Immigrant that fits in society and works, pays his taxes and is "nice" is a good Immigrant and a positive addition


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Not really. The pharmaceutical industry always claims its mostly the cost of R&D that keeps the prices up. If more people use the service, the cost should go down, as all participants pay a smaller amount of the same r&d.



Can you elaborate on how you make sense of that?

People using the service has no correlation to the cost of a pharmaceutical unless we're talking about something like Ibuprofen in dosages that require a prescription. Using specfic drugs is not a choice, in case of uncommon ailments even moreso.
Without looking into it I would assume wages to be a significant part of the cost. Which you would be driving up like crazy
In order to recoup the cost of R&D the manufacturers get a 20 year protection on their patents, once that expires every other manufacturer is allowed to make generics without stemming the cost of R&D which brings the price down.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 10, 2019)

Youkai said:


> in Germany we often have Woman complaining about foreigners that try to or even do touch them and stuff because they probably learned in their country that woman have to obey and you can do with them however you please ... but here it is not like that, still they just do it like they were thaught by their fathers. Or many of them using the train but don't "know?" that they need to actually buy a valid ticket ... even though I doubt that they really don't know.


The submissive oriental/Muslim women is a myth. Within their own society, women can be quite assertive. In the public space though, there are certain dress codes and wearing certain outfits - to them - is a signal for availability. Women do want to be approached (and even touched), just not by every man (more about that, see my latest thread). It is almost impossible for George Clooney (or whoever is adored nowadays) to rape a woman, even if he tried (rape comes from raptare and suggests kidnapping).



Youkai said:


> Every Immigrant that fits in society and works, pays his taxes and is "nice" is a good Immigrant and a positive addition


If you bring in large numbers, you can't expect them to assimilate. Germans do not assimilate either if there is a seizeable minority. It took two world wars and hundreds of years to make Germans speak Russian and they bring their stupid Oktoberfests wherever they go. Speaking of Oktoberfest - also not the safest place to be for a woman.

Anyways, I think this thread is about the United States so I will give my two cents: If an American thinks that Israel has a claim to Palestine because it used to belong to them long ago, then the people coming from Latin America have a better claim to the United States than Europeans who took the country by force. I think Latin Americans have a much higher percentage of relatedness to the Natives.


----------



## cots (Jul 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> In a roundabout way, you say that the real problem is that us citizens tend to give these people jobs. If they didn't, they soon wouldn't have money left (if they had any to begin with). And more so : wouldn't be coming to the US to begin with.
> Not sure what that last statement is about. But hey : if ending posts with hollowphrases that everyone agrees with is a thing, then I'll join in:
> "The economy is money changing hands, period. "
> 
> ...



Giving illegals that actually want to work jobs is part of the problem, because even though they might invest some of that money back into the USA via local sales taxes, they aren't paying any income taxes and a lot of them send the money back to their family in Mexico. Some may obtain illegal identification and then they would be paying Sate and Federal income tax, but those are a minority. Most of them that do work, work for cash and it's under the table. The rest simply don't work, collect benefits and/or their job is selling drugs and/or children.

Well, it's good to know you're not an pirate that rips of Nintendo and then bitches when the games they steal aren't up to their "standards". It makes me sick knowing that people spend months or years of their lives trying to produce something others can enjoy and then get ripped of by people that think they are entitled to anything and everything. Just like the Liberals who bitch about the 1% having a lot of money. Well, if you want some money then work for it. 

I'm not going to feel sorry for you if you're sitting on your ass and bitching you don't have money because you're sitting on your ass and not making any. Want to become a millionaire? Then stop smoking weed and get off your ass and go earn it. Seems, these Libtards have no problem if people in their own party are in the 1% and are white, but if it's the opposition then it's something to be looked down upon. Why don't they go ask their 1% members for handouts and see how far that gets them (or better yet, go make your own money).


----------



## cots (Jul 10, 2019)

Youkai said:


> It should be easier to legaly immigrate but then again there need to be strict rules like some kind of "school" you have to visit first to learn how to behave in the specific country where you want to immigrate plus the requirements to be able to speak the language at least good enough to be able to communicate with people.
> 
> I often notice that the biggest problem seems that "foreigners" often don't know how to behave because stuff that might be okay in their country doesn't need to be okay wherever they go to.
> (you often notice with tourists who behave like idiots even though thats not only because of not know but because of humans beeing idiots especially when they assume they won't see any of the people who see them behaving bad ever again)
> ...



I've got no problems with legal immigrants. Common sense would dictate that you should know the local culture and some of the language when entering into a foreign country, but like I've already stated in the USA there's so many different cultures and languages it's not a necessity to know English, but it will help you a lot. If immigrants who are seeking asylum legally didn't have to chance to prepare, then when they become citizens it would be respectful of them to learn English and adapt to our culture.

If you're ignoring our laws and bypassing our borders from the get go, I wouldn't expect any sort of common decency following that sort of action. It's funny how the Liberal cities that encourage this type of behavior, which is wrong, don't even want any more illegals in their own cities as they admit they are tapped for resources. You'd figure common sense would also apply in this case, but Liberals are so fucking out of touch with reality it's hard to know what the hell these lunatics are going to do next (well, unless it involves lying, cheating, breaking the law and/or doing drugs).


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jul 10, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The submissive oriental/Muslim women is a myth. Within their own society, women can be quite assertive. In the public space though, there are certain dress codes and wearing certain outfits - to them - is a signal for availability. Women do want to be approached (and even touched), just not by every man (more about that, see my latest thread). It is almost impossible for George Clooney (or whoever is adored nowadays) to rape a woman, even if he tried (rape comes from raptare and suggests kidnapping).
> 
> 
> If you bring in large numbers, you can't expect them to assimilate. Germans do not assimilate either if there is a seizeable minority. It took two world wars and hundreds of years to make Germans speak Russian and they bring their stupid Oktoberfests wherever they go. Speaking of Oktoberfest - also not the safest place to be for a woman.
> ...



I see this dumpsterfire of a thread is still going on and besides racists, liars, trolls and lying racist trolls, we can now welcome incels to the fray as well.
Thanks, I'm sure many women will rejoice to learn they weren't raped at all because they weren't kidnapped?

Jesus fucking christ.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 10, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> I see this dumpsterfire of a thread is still going on and besides racists, liars, trolls and lying racist trolls, we can now welcome incels to the fray as well.
> Thanks, I'm sure many women will rejoice to learn they weren't raped at all because they weren't kidnapped?
> Jesus fucking christ.


I do not identitfy as any of these things.
Besides, you misrepresented my claim. The origin of the word rape is connected to stealing/robbing. You can rest assured that (single) women who are approached by a poor average looking foreigner have a different reaction to a handsome millionaire. If there is full consent, there is no rape. Many (single) women would love to be "stolen" by a Christian Grey. When Shades of Grey was new I was working with female co-workers who literally said "he could rape me any time". 

Seems like somebody else is a troll.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 10, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Not really. The pharmaceutical industry always claims its mostly the cost of R&D that keeps the prices up. If more people use the service, the cost should go down, as all participants pay a smaller amount of the same r&d.
> 
> Perhaps two real life examples might help :
> 1) I went on vacation in bulgary a couple years ago (one of the poorest countries in the EU, mind you). I had a middle ear infection there and had to see a doctor. Cost... Somewhere little under 100 euro.
> ...



I was talking more about general use of medical service and not why drug prices are expensive. Or prices of medical services, where USA is un-needlessly expensive.

Like I was saying the more you use something the more expensive it is. Like electricity or car gas. The more you drive the more gas you need and the more you need to pay, regardless of whatever the different fluctuating prices are.

So one country charges $300 and another $100. Even though one is cheaper you can save even more with the cheaper price by not using it as much. If you get what I mean. Which applies to both the expensive price and the cheaper price, using less of both prices is overall better. And not being wasteful for minor things that don’t need doctor visits.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



supersonicwaffle said:


> I'm aware of the struggles of single payer or multi payer models as we've discussed earlier that in Germany it lead to workforce exploitation and has driven down quality.
> What I'm concerned with in this case is that people make it out to be really cheap and obfuscate the real cost. Maybe that's because these systems often require the employer to pay some amount of it so it looks much cheaper than it actually is.
> 
> @Taleweaver came up with a number of roughly 700€ a *year* when in reality (based on my research, which may be wrong) I estimate it to be closer to 700€ a *month *for the average citizen in Belgium. That's understating the cost by a factor of 12 and at that point you're not even making an argument anymore.


Ya, other people are also reading this thread. So even if you know I think the information can be useful for other people reading.

There’s a lot of hidden costs not accounted for. And it’s because people are so disconnected from their tax dollars. They don’t handle the budget or even know how the tax system works, it’s just money that gets taken out automatically every pay check so they don’t realize what the expenses are.



I think a flaw in arguments from the Right is comparing all government funded or single payer systems as if they are the same. But Canada’s System is very Different from the European one. And are not comparable as to why single payer might be bad. Different countries, income, wealth, populations, and a bunch of other things. And even different European countries will handle it differently.

It’s  probably better to look at an individual case by case to see what works and doesn’t. And why things are going bad for specific countries. Instead of writing off all single payer as bad.


----------



## Deleted-481927 (Jul 10, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Jesus fucking Christ.  There goes any shred of credibility you might've had left and any chance of anyone here taking you seriously ever again.  If you're willing to excuse away government agents committing rape because "it happens everywhere," then why are you complaining about the much lesser crime of crossing the border outside authorized ports of entry?  By your logic, we might as well not have any established laws, because we aren't going to enforce them anyway.


^

rape is never just a thing that we should be happy with if it 'happens anywhere'

this includes the border


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

samhhhhh said:


> ^
> 
> rape is never just a thing that we should be happy with if it 'happens anywhere'
> 
> this includes the border



Of course not, anyone that rapes someone should be dealt with as it's illegal. If the reports about children being raped come to be found true, then the people responsible should be punished. There are inherit risks with breaking the law, sort of like if you play with fire you're probably going to get burnt. It doesn't make it right, but you should probably avoid self destructive behavior if you don't want to deal with the consequences. Of course, these kids, aren't legally responsible for their actions. The people creating policies encouraging illegal immigration are responsible for the situation. 

The border patrol agents, who are supposed to be caring for these people, are also responsible and if they break the law they should be dealt with, but if you don't contact HIV to begin with you wouldn't have to deal with the complications caused by it. I'm not trying to justify their actions, simply looking at the root cause of the problem. The policies encouraging illegal immigration need to be remove, the people creating these policies need to be voted out of office; basically the people supporting illegal immigrants need to be jailed and if you cut off the head of the snake the body will die.

In the meantime we need to jail anyone abusing children, but regarding the adults, the actual responsible parties that are either sneaking across the border or organizing caravans, they don't deserve air conditioning let alone 2 meals a day. Those aren't necessities, those are luxuries. Don't like detention centers, jail or prison? Don't break the law.


----------



## notimp (Jul 11, 2019)

cots:
I have no problem with migration, if its not crisis based. 

cots:
If every migrant could please come with their own prepared folder of past works and their backgrounds, it would be much appreciated. 

real world:
Ehhm, nope.


----------



## Jayro (Jul 11, 2019)

I really hate it when people compare the U.S. holding illegal immigrants in detention centers for breaking the law to Nazi Germany and their concentration camps. There's one major difference here... The people being held in our custody came here illegally of their own free will. Nobody hunted them down to be here, they came voluntarily. And that caravan from Honduras could have stopped anywhere in Mexico for safety, instead of cutting through the entire country to shortcut here to the U.S. Mexico can help them, Mexico can keep them. We have no obligation to help them escape from their imaginary "wars" that they claim to be fleeing from. And why are people shocked about the separation of parents and children? If a U.S. citizen commits a crime and goes to jail, guess what? They don't jail their children with them! So it's no different than how we handle any other law-breaking asshole.


----------



## notimp (Jul 11, 2019)

But then - this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/ice-immigration-raids.html is also part of migration work. And a part that we as societies pretty much agree on. (To varying extents.)


----------



## Deleted-481927 (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> Of course not, anyone that rapes someone should be dealt with as it's illegal. If the reports about children being raped come to be found true, then the people responsible should be punished. There are inherit risks with breaking the law, sort of like if you play with fire you're probably going to get burnt. It doesn't make it right, but you should probably avoid self destructive behavior if you don't want to deal with the consequences. Of course, these kids, aren't legally responsible for their actions. The people creating policies encouraging illegal immigration are responsible for the situation.
> 
> The border patrol agents, who are supposed to be caring for these people, are also responsible and if they break the law they should be dealt with, but if you don't contact HIV to begin with you wouldn't have to deal with the complications caused by it. I'm not trying to justify their actions, simply looking at the root cause of the problem. The policies encouraging illegal immigration need to be remove, the people creating these policies need to be voted out of office; basically the people supporting illegal immigrants need to be jailed and if you cut off the head of the snake the body will die.
> 
> In the meantime we need to jail anyone abusing children, but regarding the adults, the actual responsible parties that are either sneaking across the border or organizing caravans, they don't deserve air conditioning let alone 2 meals a day. Those aren't necessities, those are luxuries. Don't like detention centers, jail or prison? Don't break the law.


food is a human right

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food

meals arent luxuries - you need them to live


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

samhhhhh said:


> food is a human right
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food
> 
> meals arent luxuries - you need them to live



Sure, food is required to live, but not 2 meals a day. I know, I only eat 1 a day, by choice and I'm fine, much healthier than someone eating 3. Plus, if you look at what they feed people in Prison, the illegals are getting much better quality foods.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



notimp said:


> cots:
> I have no problem with migration, if its not crisis based.
> 
> cots:
> ...



Hey moron, don't take what I'm saying out of context. I have a problem with illegal immigration, period. If it's illegal, I don't support it. 

I never said anything about having people seeking entry at legal ports to be required to have all of the necessary paperwork. There's processes setup for those are couldn't do that.

I stand by my words by calling you a moron, for stating I'm saying things I'm not and taking my words out of context.

And I see the lacky who is going to "like" anything anyone says that disagrees with me is also following you around like a lost dog.


----------



## notimp (Jul 11, 2019)

It was meant lovingly. 

Yes everyone would prefer if immigration was based on more qualified and thoughtful people actually informing themselves where they are headed, and fully assimilating - at least in public. But then you cant ever have that - really.

I mean, you demand directed ambition, and contemplation, and willingness to learn and flexibility - and then call them the good ones, that you'd actually want. And the rest you'd have an issue with.

Thats an idealized version of societies at best.

There is an ethos of "if you work hard - you can make it" that just doesnt hold true in western societies anymore (statistically - there are always cases where it does).

There are issues connected with what we'd call brain drain (getting the best from certain countries into others).

There are issues with a "quick and thorough assimilation" - its only possible in low numbers, it costs real money, sometimes its not even wanted (because f.e. as a state you plan on them leaving again).

What happens to peoples motivations, depends on their outlook, the current economic circumstances, luck, ... and in the end it kind of takes all kinds.

From a sentiment part of view - you are not necessarily wrong. Thats really the people you'd like to have the most. The problem moreso is, that "filter and reject" kind of doesnt work the way you'd like it to.

So you have them live in cheaper parts of a town first - if they can develop economies, they all help each other and the economy of that part of town as well. You need social acceptance, that they can get business opportunities. You need language skills for the same and even more reasons. Cultural assimilation, usually is done through "majority" processes, so if you want that you would actually need to distribute people better (based on skills), which is one approach thats actually actively looked into currently ('big data'), which coincidently is also an approach that produces high resistance in small local populations (at first at least), ...

And as soon as people move because of necessity - you have to deal with masses, so the individual becomes less important, even in managing them. That said. Social media screenings are a reality. Language courses, in my country are mandated. Cultural learning courses as well. People who show more motivation - usually get absorbed by the professional sector quicker, ... But in the end you can't always demand the best of the crop and even indicate - that you think, that the others may be part of an issue.

Not everybody makes it - f.e. and they need something to fall back on as well.

The case that pops into my mind is the one of a highly educated (languages), highly motivated, migrant, an ARTE documentary group accompanied on his way to france - and simply because of waiting times, and the disparity between hopes and the realities for migrants during the mass influx in Europe, he basically became disillusioned and depressed. Another one not even half his caliber might hit a strike of luck and develop an economy that scales very well - and develop lots of job opportunites for others out of that.

Perfect integration/assimilation, and "insert culture - towns" also have pros and cons.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

notimp said:


> It was meant lovingly.
> 
> Yes everyone would prefer if immigration was based on more qualified and thoughtful people actually informing themselves where they are headed, and fully assimilating - at least in public. But then you cant ever have that - really.
> 
> ...



Yes, ideally, we'd want immigrants that are prepared to enter our country with enough resources to have a place to live, buy their own food and find a job, along with speaking our language, but in the case of asylum, these things aren't generally required, because the process, which is being abused, was meant for people in emergency situations who needed help.

I've got no problem with legal immigration that includes people seeking asylum. I don't see why it's so hard to comprehend that if something is illegal then that's breaking the law and should be discouraged and the people actually breaking the law should be punished, but like I said, I'm likely replying to people that have no problem with breaking the law.

Do you go around only following laws you agree with? Meaning, do you disregard the law and break it and support others breaking the law?


----------



## notimp (Jul 11, 2019)

Here is how thats conceptualized in my mind.  The law is a story until it is enforced. If you enforce stuff, and how stringently, is often political. And law (some of it) changes over time.

This does not concern matters of life and death or highly amoral crimes, or crimes that inflict acute suffering on parts of victims - we don't talk about those. For those I'm almost in line with your point of view.

But then you have to notice one thing. If you play Joe Arpaio - on every single issue, costs explode, and to compensate you might end up with economies in prison populations, that now develop a draw for more intake - which weighs on the way law is enacted. This is a worst case scenario, bust just think it through theoretically.

If you fly or drive all of the people back you have a cost issue that you actually cant bare (they have to be legally deported, which means legal costs, enforcement costs, ...), and you'd have a political issue on your hands on top of that - keeping people alive at a base level is actually not that costly - even for years.

If you just refuse them entry - and would really produce a "fenced out scenario" - the amounts of issues you'd have at that border, from people not shrugging their shoulders and going back into the dessert are homogeneous. If tragedies start to happen there - and they are documented, and they are widely acknowledged. You'd have populations in the street trying to stop those, just because people don't want to loose their humanity in looking at it and doing nothing.

So what you do instead - basically is to work with the source countries (if they are stable enough), and you play "theatre" for the media. (Deport 2000 illegal immigrants in consolidated action). That theatre has a very real effect, as it reduces the influx.

So - in some sense, the real "barrier" to enter society always is "how to become a legal citizen" - the rest is often inaction, because actually doing something would be more costly. So high concept moral standards dont count for much there. You will never send people back into a dessert in masses. You just wont.

You might help build up a certain region where large parts of them are from, and keep their living conditions low - so some of them actually might want to go back - when they start to see that as a viable option.
This usually is most cost effective.  Making people want to do it on their own. You might bribe transition countries, not to let them through on their way in. In europe we even pay immigrants to go back in many instances. Give them starting capital, so they can tell their "adventure story" in their home countries, and tell them that its not so bad there, and even have higher social status, because - they could now buy a shop from european state money (which is worth more there). And the effort is mostly PR, and driven by cost analysis.

So in a sense what I'm saying is - that calling them illegals (which we do), and equate illegal with bad - doesnt accomplish anything towards solving the issue. And even if you call them bad your whole life, because they are illegals - you still will never force them back into desserts, you just wont.

But then also - you will want to give them lower status and call them illegals, if you want them to grab onto opportunities to leave.

Its entirely improbable to even let a tenth of them see a court house from within - at which point you might have to look at forms of living without rule of state law (camps, slums (gang issues)) - which all is a factor of numbers, social care and opportunities. But you still will never just send them back into the dessert.

So its most easy to not let those situations develop in the first place - which is why half of europe is so hyped up on the climate issue currently. (Its cheaper to deal with it through "foreign aid" and "millitary assistance". But both of those can go wrong as well.)

(A 'america first' policy with states on your southern border, actually hightens the issue - that also something you could look into. Populists might actually be interested in it continuing to stay as an issue of daily importance - at least when voting season comes along.

'America first' in international trade deals is something else that doesnt necessarily follow that logic. You have a responsibility for the political and economical state of the countries bordering you, is what I am saying.)


----------



## Deleted-481927 (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> Sure, food is required to live, but not 2 meals a day. I know, I only eat 1 a day, by choice and I'm fine, much healthier than someone eating 3. Plus, if you look at what they feed people in Prison, the illegals are getting much better quality foods.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


As someone with an eating disorder - I've been told by professionals that 1 meal is not enough and you'll eventually die by losing weight - same with 2. 

A) you prolly should if its a disorder get that checked out or just eat 3
b) 2 meals isnt enough


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 11, 2019)

Lacius said:


> That's quite the low bar. It doesn't mean the conditions aren't deplorable, and the Republicans are responsible. The same goes for homelessness in the US.



This. Just because conditions are better doesn't mean they should be treated like shit.


----------



## cots (Jul 11, 2019)

notimp said:


> But then - this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/ice-immigration-raids.html is also part of migration work. And a part that we as societies pretty much agree on. (To varying extents.)



@Jayro was specifally talking about the people illegally enterting the country at the bordr


samhhhhh said:


> As someone with an eating disorder - I've been told by professionals that 1 meal is not enough and you'll eventually die by losing weight - same with 2.
> 
> A) you prolly should if its a disorder get that checked out or just eat 3
> b) 2 meals isnt enough



It depends on your diet, but generally speaking, you could, with a "normal" diet get away with 2 meals a day, which is what you're going to get in most Prisons. I'm on the keto diet and it's totally safe, healthy and viable to eat only 1 meal a day and live just fine. My point was that it isn't necessary to to provide them with what you would consider good food 3 times a day. They broke the law, so they have little to no rights, which is as it should be. We shouldn't be making detention center stays "nice and comfy". The point is to deter illegal activities.

Simply put, do you generally support breaking the law? Do you think the law only should apply in certain cases? If that's the fact you can just stop replying to me, because I don't want anything to do with criminal scum nor care what you have to say if you support breaking the law.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 11, 2019)

Lacius said:


> That's quite the low bar. It doesn't mean the conditions aren't deplorable, and the Republicans are responsible. The same goes for homelessness in the US.


democrats are just as responsible, dont kid yourself.


----------



## notimp (Jul 11, 2019)

The Boston Tea party didnt support the law.  Police in certain law cases have whats called an area of discretion - where even though a crime was committed, they might not persecute a certain offense.

The law system in many cases is just that (and extrajudicial financial agreements  ) simply to reduce the number of cases.

But you have to be specific. You cant say "are you for, or against the law" because in that case I'm for the law.

If you rephrase that into "are you for persecuting every illegal alien that does nothing more unlawful than live in the united states for 10 years" - than, no I'm not for that - even though you cant make "official exceptions".


Here is the "fudge factor" thats still part of your system:

"In the 105 years between 1892 and 1997, the United States deported 2.1 million people."

"Between 1997 and 2001, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, about 870,000 people were deported from the United States."

"Between 2001 and 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, about 2 million people were deported from the United States."

"Between 2009 and 2016, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, about 2.9 million people were deported from the United States.[4]"

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_and_removal_from_the_United_States

Currently the illegal immigration rate is estimated at 500.000 people a year.

Removal rates even during Bush or Obama were lower than that. (With Obama they were higher in comparison, because the average illegal immigration rate spiked way above 500k/year during that time).

So your illegal immigrant population is always growing on average. It never wasnt.

When migration pressure from south american states was not that high, you didn't even call it a problem.  Now it is - but you simply cant make the problem go away "by law". So the law withstanding, you have still to deal with those populations.

(Looking at the numbers, forced deportation might actually be cheaper in the US; than in Europe, ...)

It also shows, that it is an issue the US is dealing with. So no action also isnt a possibility.

Its just that simply fetishising illegal = bad, doenst help either way, so why would you do it in lets say - an individual case? As someone thats not working for a deportation department.


----------



## notimp (Jul 11, 2019)

Here is why you have so many deportations, many of your illegal immigrants are from Mexico. Thats not that far away... 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

Read this, its a good exploration of the issue.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 11, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> democrats are just as responsible, dont kid yourself.


What's going on with immigrant-holding and child-separation in this country is purely because of Trump and the Republicans.


----------



## Deleted-481927 (Jul 11, 2019)

cots said:


> @Jayro was specifally talking about the people illegally enterting the country at the bordr
> 
> 
> It depends on your diet, but generally speaking, you could, with a "normal" diet get away with 2 meals a day, which is what you're going to get in most Prisons. I'm on the keto diet and it's totally safe, healthy and viable to eat only 1 meal a day and live just fine. My point was that it isn't necessary to to provide them with what you would consider good food 3 times a day. They broke the law, so they have little to no rights, which is as it should be. We shouldn't be making detention center stays "nice and comfy". The point is to deter illegal activities.
> ...


I don't support it generally speaking - BUT in situations for asylum, where you can't apply from ur home country I support it.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 11, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> democrats are just as responsible, dont kid yourself.


They uploaded a picture of children in cages blaming Trump but then quickly took it down because they realized it was from 2014 when Obama was president.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1695534001


They say Obama had more humane conditions for the illegals then Trump. But then why use a picture from the Obama era? Even if it was a mistake. They used the picture because the conditions looked bad, which they tried to pin on Trump. After using that picture they can’t then now say well we may have used the pictures because conditions looks horrible but they were better treated.


They are willing to call out Trump but not Obama. Only this picture is bad if it’s from Trump era essentially. But now with Obama, he’s more humane. So these bad looking picture are humane now.


This isn’t he first time they’ve done this either. They uploaded pictures from the Obama era before.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 12, 2019)

The truth is, you can vote for whoever you want, the differences are minor.
The Greeks learned that democracy is an illusion after a far-leftist was no different than the previous conservative government. I learned it around the time I came of age when the worker's party betrayed the worker and their socialist ideals (not increasing the value-added tax was one of their key demands but when they came to power they increased it even more than their accused opponents had planned).

You already mentioned Obama's dealing with illegals. He also announced the pivot to China. Even if Cortez came to power next, there wouldn't be much of a change. You'd still be Iran's arch enemy, buddies with the Saudis etc.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They uploaded a picture of children in cages blaming Trump but then quickly took it down because they realized it was from 2014 when Obama was president.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1695534001
> 
> ...


The deplorable conditions we are seeing now are nowhere close to what they were like in 2014. Kids also weren't dying in 2014.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The deplorable conditions we are seeing now are nowhere close to what they were like in 2014. Kids also weren't dying in 2014.


Protecting criminals from their own idiocy is not our responsibility. I do feel really bad for the children, but their parents chose to endanger them, not our shitty government. The parents need to be held accountable and accept responsibility.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Protecting criminals from their own idiocy is not our responsibility. I do feel really bad for the children, but their parents chose to endanger them, not our shitty government. The parents need to be held accountable and accept responsibility.





Lacius said:


> Immigrants seeking amnesty are not breaking the law.
> Children are being caged in deplorable conditions at no fault of their own.
> Children have died while being held by the Trump administration.


Our government absolutely endangered children and needs to be held responsible.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Our government absolutely endangered children and needs to be held responsible.


They are not seeking amnesty in my opinion. These people are too stupid to even know what amnesty means. It's an invasion, and as such, our resources built for dealing with their influx decades ago are currently overwhelmed.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> They are not seeking amnesty in my opinion. These people are too stupid to even know what amnesty means. It's an invasion, and as such, our resources built for dealing with their influx decades ago are currently overwhelmed.


Many of them are objectively seeking asylum.

It's not an invasion, and it's prejudice to call a group of people stupid.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The deplorable conditions we are seeing now are nowhere close to what they were like in 2014. Kids also weren't dying in 2014.


The ACLU has 1,000’s of documentation from the freedom of information act of widespread abuse of child immigrants in U.S. custody.

The dates in the report are from 2009-2014 during Obama’s era.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases...-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody




Obama was known as the Deporter-In-Chief a name not given lightly and for no reason.



Obama Administration deported 2.5 million, the highest number for any President ever. He deported more people in 8 years in office then all the previous 20th century presidents combined. His immigration budget was 18 million which is 3 million more then all the major domestic law enforcement agencies combined.



Obama said deportation were people with criminal records, felons, threats to national security. But a study in 2014 says that two-thirds, the majority of deportations were for minor infractions like traffic violations or no criminal record at all.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...tions-follow-minor-crimes-data-shows.amp.html




And this snopes article says that under the Obama Administration they placed children with human traffickers. That they were handed of to a human trafficking ring.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-obama-administration-children-human-traffickers/


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The ACLU has 1,000’s of documentation from the freedom of information act of widespread abuse of child immigrants in U.S. custody.
> 
> The dates in the report are from 2009-2014 during Obama’s era.
> 
> ...


Why are you talking to me about deportations?


----------



## notimp (Jul 12, 2019)

But Obama, but Trump, but Obama, but Trump.

Do you even realize that the reasons for why stuff changed under Obama and Bush, are already on this page? Why are you continuing on with stupid namecalling despite it?

So the "invasion" (that is no invasion) began under Clinton, and under Obama deportation increased to a temporary high - which is why he became "deporter in chief" (entirely useless term), because he deported about 140.000 people more a year than the previous president. But then illegal migration numbers were almost double of those today in some of those years as well. From a "base level" of 500.000 a year.

Overall numbers are steeply declining since 2007 (that was before Obama) but from a high base level.

Conditions in camps probably werent great under the Obama administration, but at least you had no (?) publicized cases of children being seperated, held in cages, and the government having forgotten who their parents were, because they didnt think to ask before seperating them.

Thats plain and utter stupidity mixed with cruelty. Thats illegal as well. And that kind of sounds like a thing that stupid people who already are desensetized or racist would do, because they were now thinking they could - because the president was one of them. No proof, but it 'has that smell'. When orders from courts came to reunite them, the fuckers really just responded with "we havent got the information". I mean fuck.

Probably nothing Trump 'did' by anything other than settng a moral example.

Excuses, that the problem is so much worse currently (in terms of the amount of people coming in) are wrong. And were wrong during Obama. The most people came in illegally under Bush actually.

Excuses, that the issue is that border patrol is underfunded are wrong, because the problem existed on the same level it does currently since 2002 (Bush). (Look at the graphs, If you cant interpret them - you have to listen to people who can, you cant "intuitively feel" your way to be on the right side of "truth" here.)

Excuses, that the problem is becoming worse as we speak are wrong because the numnbers are actually leveling out.

Ideas to build a 'wall' are actually stupid, the mere idea of people dying at the wall in great numbers would 'shock' american society even more than 9/11 did. Probably. So the wanted effect of a wall would be that of a 'signal' (PR) - and you can have that easier, than by building a wall. Part of the mistreatment of children, is also exactly that - a signal - until very recently you werent stupid enough though to actually "loose" parents of children.

Excuses, that the parents should have known, that that was coming are wrong, because no civilized country in the world does that. Even courts say - you cant, that what you did was illegal and plain stupidity.

So - if numbers of illegal immigrants were declining (and trafficers currently resort to raising demand, by telling potential buyers, that its now or never, because Trump will build wall), why has it become such an important topic under the current administration? They arent declining fast enough?

Probably not - probably more likely, because raising fear and uncertainty - is about the only thing the current administration - kind of does well.

Also - by doing those "america first" deals with Mexico - you added to the issue. You realize that? People are 'invading' because they can't get decently paying jobs in the border areas, or even center mexico the draw here actually comes from the wealth gap. So if you dont want to make Texas poorer - which I'm sure you dont want - you have to actually help to make mexico richer. America first is the opposite of that.

Now at least under Trump the number of illegal immigrants is 'remaining steady' despite his politics. It kind of stopped declining though.

Look at this graph:







The decline of illegal migrants from mexico can be interpreted as a result of Trumps "tough hand border programs". But the incline of immigrants from other countries can very well be interpreted as a result of "america first" economic policies. So Trump actually kind of increased the issue - so he could talk about it more?

So he could say, that border programs are historically underfunded? When the problem was highest in 2005 (Bush)?



Glyptofane said:


> They are not seeking amnesty in my opinion. These people are too stupid to even know what amnesty means. It's an invasion, and as such, our resources built for dealing with their influx decades ago are currently overwhelmed.


If they are from a war/terrorism torn country, they are seeking amnesty - if they are not they are not (on average). All of them try to get better life and job conditions in 'merica. Noone is "invading". Invading is, when you do that thing with weapons drawn, which they arent.

Also - if you read up on it - the number of illegal immigrants in your country streadily increased under all previous (even more than three) administrations (including deportations). So its structural. The answer has to be structural as well (economic programs with mexico).

Or wall. But wall doesnt work. It would just be blocking your view of continuing tragedy. And it wouldnt even do a very good job at that, because journalists would use ladders to take pictures. Or migrants woudl send them via Wifi. (The wall concept is really that stupid. Those people tracked through desserts for months, do you really think a very long - but not that high border wall would stop them? In terms of signaling, that you dont want them - it would produce a decline. But you could have that cheaper - without loosing your humanity. Look at the graph again.)


----------



## notimp (Jul 12, 2019)

Also - I was wrong, that your illegal immigrant population was always slowly growing - it actually declined from 2007-2012. Apart from that it was right.

Also (probably late) 2017 is kind of early to interpret the impact of Trumps measures. Next version of the graph would be more helpful for that.

Also would you please start clicking on source links and not wait for someone to make you a presentation on your scrolly feed screen on the forum/social media platform you like? Its one click. You can do it.


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 12, 2019)

How do we know the numbers went down around 2010? And even the liberal media reported that Obama fudged the numbers. I would link but I am too new it seems...  After typing a mega reply... it all was for nothing because I must have 5 posts to link it seems. 
_*




















*
_


----------



## SlasherGamer21 (Jul 12, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> There's just so much complete crap in the OP I don't even know where to begin. So I wont. I'll let someone else handle it. But really? This guy? Again????



As soon as I saw "cnn.com" I stopped reading as everything CNN says is absolute bullshit. Anyways on the topic...those illegal shits get what they deserve. They think they can just come up in here and take over our jobs so us Americans have less jobs to choose from and etc but nope they can't. The day America starts opening up their border freely is the day pigs fly. Case closed.


----------



## notimp (Jul 12, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> How do we know the numbers went down around 2010? And even the liberal media reported that Obama fudged the numbers. I would link but I am too new it seems...  After typing a mega reply... it all was for nothing because I must have 5 posts to link it seems.



PEW research center. Look it up.

Also - its a trend covering three adminstrations.
Also - if people established how to do the "counting" procedure - they kind of dont change that - because 'the president' tells them to.
Also - because those reseach centers arent "tha media".

How you usually 'attack' those numbers is, that you produces different research centers, that provide different numbers.

Also - if you ask google, it tells you this:





Also - talk is cheap, and producing numbers usually isn't. So what ever an administration "says" (Obama so liberal sentiment, while he was actually 'deporter in chief') - usually is less reliable than statistics.

Also democracies kind of don't work with goons in every institution that write what a president tells them to. Not even in tha media.

But we have established, that there is a slight (not that bad) liberal bias in media, that probably won't go away.

But its a smaller issue than - half of america getting their news from FOX TV and Breitbart - because those are not "center" news outlets, those are far right.

Simpsons said it. (Not just them, its just - at already has reached pop culture, at this point. Is the point.)

If nothing is true, and everything is a lie - and only the president knows the numbers, but he doesnt publish them - the chances are, that you arent entirely rational.

As soon as you publish numbers - every side is able to attack them. If they do it with arguments, and not just feels, the institution who publishes them gets a bad reputation. PEW research center hasnt.

If feels don't line up with numbers, thats an issue of PR or public reception - not polling.

That feels don't line up with numbers is basically caused by 'bubbles' on social media. We know that as well. Facebook don't care - because bubbles increase engagement - meaning more ad money for them.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Why are you talking to me about deportations?


Why not? This is a illegal immigration thread. And it adds that immigration things handled by the Obama administration weren’t handled so great, so it’s not entirely on Trump and Republicans, it’s an on going problem from before. 



notimp said:


> But Obama, but Trump, but Obama, but Trump.
> 
> Do you even realize that the reasons for why stuff changed under Obama and Bush, are already on this page? Why are you continuing on with stupid namecalling despite it?
> 
> ...


My post wasn’t a but Obama but Trump. I was replying to someone else. Adding to what they already said. It wasn’t even look at Obama so don’t look at Trump.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 12, 2019)

SlasherGamer21 said:


> Anyways on the topic...those illegal shits get what they deserve. They think they can just come up in here and take over our jobs so us Americans have less jobs to choose from and etc but nope they can't.


Yes, they can.  And your anger over that is understandable, but entirely misdirected.  Try blaming the corporations and business owners who are hiring illegals at well below minimum wage.  As long as they can keep getting away with it, they'll keep doing it.  As long as the law continues to be applied so unevenly between those at the top and everybody else, nothing is going to change.


----------



## notimp (Jul 12, 2019)

What happened much more likely is the following.

Wages didn't rise in america in 40 years. The american dream of social mobility died (it did so as well in the rest of the world (edit: apart from China, India (and now South America again (free trade agreement with the EU)))). Make america great again' sounded great in that environment.

Economically you didn't achieve as much - but you kept down your foot heavily on the poorer nations again under Trump (america first), which raised immigration pressures again.

Which is just what the Trump administration likes - because it will order stumping down with an even heavier boot - and people like that.

At one point the boot becomes so heavy - that people in your own societies will rebell against it (think dead people in front of border walls). That point isn't now, or in the near future. Law and order is always something that they kind of like.

What did Trump actually achieve for your economy (despite continuing the fracking and gas boom - which does help (ruining the climate though)). I mean Apple is producing the Mac Pros in China again - they said publicly what the president said in terms of them wanting to produce two beautiful factories in america was wrong - and they never said it...

Just one example, but Trump certainly hasn't bootstrapped new economies. He actually punched a little heavier to increase margins.

And the result of that - actually is, and should be more immigration pressure towards the US - thats kind of how that works.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> Which is just what the Trump administration likes - because it will order stumping down with an even heavier boot - and people like that.


Exactly, everything is working as intended.  His supporters get to cheer for the concentration camps, but meanwhile, more than enough illegals are still making their way into the country to provide cheap labor for all the corporations and businesses that want it.  It's a win-win for the oligarchy.


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> Also - talk is cheap, and producing numbers usually isn't. So what ever an administration "says" (Obama so liberal sentiment, while he was actually 'deporter in chief') - usually is less reliable than statistics.



That is my point, you throw out things like this, and I saw it wasn't so... (remember I can't post links yet)

_*December 2010:  Internal ICE Emails Reveal Padded Deportation Statistics*_

_On October 8, 2010, Secretary Napolitano and ICE Director Morton announced that in 2010, ICE had “removed more illegal aliens than in any other period in the history of our nation.” On December 6, 2010, however, the Washington Post reports that internal ICE emails show that ICE padded its deportation statistics by including 19,422 removals from the previous fiscal year. The article also describes how ICE extended a Mexican repatriation program beyond its normal operation dates, adding 6,500 to its final removal numbers. 

BTW... I don't get my news from any sources you claimed.... Not Fox, not CNN... but even if I did, it is a fallacy to condemn those sources just on saying they are bias. I hate the Washington Post, they are left wing nuts, but that does not mean some of what they report is not factual. 

I just think that time has shown that the border has proven it lets more over than reported. Heck all one has to do is look at the demographics around you. _

I just don't know how PEW knows how many illegals (and what country) is getting through when _*February 26, 2013:  DHS Admits It Has No Metrics for Determining Whether Border Is Secure*


None.... yet PEW knows. 


*April 24, 2013:  Attorney General Eric Holder Declares Amnesty Is a “Civil Right”

March 12, 2014:  DHS Secretary Admits that Obama Administration Manipulates Deportation Statistics 

Testifying before the House Secretary Johnson admits that more than half of the 368,000 deportations reported by ICE for fiscal year 2013—touted as a record number of deportations—were actually due to arrests by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and would not have counted toward Ice's removal totals UNDER PREVIOUS Administrations. 

*_


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 12, 2019)

Sorry seems I doubled posted... not used to this forum yet...
_*
*_


----------



## notimp (Jul 12, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> 19,422 removals from the previous fiscal year


Doesnt matter in the overall statistics much. Yearly deportations of the Obama administration f.e. were 420.000 on average. 19k of that are 4.5% that doesnt reverse the trend.

Sounds like someone fudged numbers to reach goals. Somone in middle management probably (this is just a plain guess). It doesnt mean that the trend of a decline wasn't taking place - someone padded it though, and the media caught and reported on it. Thats the system working.

That should not be a reason to not trust public numbers at all. The lesson here is 'dont trut them blindly'. As said before, as soon as numbers are public - everyone can look at results and methods and criticize them.

Also PEW research center is independant, and probably doesnt only rely on state reported numbers in this case. So thats a plus as well.


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 12, 2019)

notimp said:


> Doesnt matter in the overall statistics much. Yearly deportations of the Obama administration f.e. were 420.000 on average. 19k of that are 4.5% that doesnt reverse the trend.
> 
> Sounds like someone fudged numbers to reach goals. Somone in middle management probably (this is just a plain guess). It doesnt mean that the trend of a decline wasn't taking place - someone padded it, and the media caught and reported on it. Thats the system working.



But they did it more than once... notice the 2013 numbers were fudged also. More than half were not truly deported. When you take half away, I don't see how "deporter in chief" is still accurate.


----------



## notimp (Jul 12, 2019)

Ok they did. Probalbly not all angels either.  Doesnt reverse the trend.  (Not a huge scandal with the scope of "OMG the government is lying to us, we make decisions based on mostly minformation...", just a small - scandal no less.  )


----------



## cots (Jul 12, 2019)

Sorry guys, I'm dropping out of the debate. Due to the moderation not being neutral (regarding the politics section) and then blatant hate shown towards the USA, our leadership and our way of life, I can no longer, in good faith participate on this site. If you're looking for any of my previous hosted guides and/or utilities, you won't find them here. Adios!


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 12, 2019)

Sorry to hear that Cots... I just got here, I may do the same, who knows. 

On subject....

_*September 12, 2014:  Associated Press Reports Deportations Lowest Since 2007

According to an analysis of DHS data by the Associated Press, the Obama Administration is on pace to remove the fewest number of illegal immigrants since 2007. The report also notes that “as of early September, only 319 of the more than 59,000 immigrants who were caught traveling with their families have been returned to Central America.”



*


_


----------



## Rolf12 (Jul 12, 2019)

cots said:


> Sorry guys, I'm dropping out of the debate. Due to the moderation not being neutral (regarding the politics section) and then blatant hate shown towards the USA, our leadership and our way of life, I can no longer, in good faith participate on this site. If you're looking for any of my previous hosted guides and/or utilities, you won't find them here. Adios!


Sorry you feel like that. I definitely don't agree with a lot regarding the USA: leadership, social setup etc. Including some of your views. I believe that to many they are extreme, maybe even unhuman. Even provocatively so.
In other settings I have been too much and this resulted in me being expelled from that social setting. I realise not everybody wants to hear or accept too much without reacting strongly. Please try to have an objective view of yourself also, and find out if not you as well are to blame for the treatment here. Which seems to be not nice since you experience it like this.

I never had anything against you. May you find peace somewhere else, or even here if you decide to stay.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jul 12, 2019)

SlasherGamer21 said:


> As soon as I saw "cnn.com" I stopped reading as everything CNN says is absolute bullshit. Anyways on the topic...those illegal shits get what they deserve. They think they can just come up in here and take over our jobs so us Americans have less jobs to choose from and etc but nope they can't. The day America starts opening up their border freely is the day pigs fly. Case closed.



Nice bait attempt. Cracks me up. You are obviously 100% clueless. 



cots said:


> Sorry guys, I'm dropping out of the debate. Due to the moderation not being neutral (regarding the politics section) and then blatant hate shown towards the USA, our leadership and our way of life, I can no longer, in good faith participate on this site. If you're looking for any of my previous hosted guides and/or utilities, you won't find them here. Adios!



As if you're the one to talk about being neutral. Can you please move out of the USA too? The majority of us don't want you here. Russia or North Korea will probably welcome you with open arms. C'ya. Bye.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> What's going on with immigrant-holding and child-separation in this country is purely because of Trump and the Republicans.


It was happening before Trump, yet its because of him?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 12, 2019)

cots said:


> Sorry guys, I'm dropping out of the debate. Due to the moderation not being neutral (regarding the politics section) and then blatant hate shown towards the USA, our leadership and our way of life, I can no longer, in good faith participate on this site. If you're looking for any of my previous hosted guides and/or utilities, you won't find them here. Adios!



A gaming forum should not suffer due to political differences. Hope you rethink your decision.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jul 12, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> A gaming forum should not suffer due to political differences. Hope you rethink your decision.



Not I. Cots brings this on themself each and every time. Over and over and over and over and...

They don't like or can't stand the heat? Then stop posting ones own political beliefs that have already been proven to be in the minority here, just to intentionally get a rise out of people. And anyone who has even so much as glanced at their typical posts realizes that it's exactly that. Trying to get a rise out of people, then crying about how everyone is against them and being treated unfairly. Boo hoo. Maybe shouldn't constantly try to push a heavy right-wing agenda under the guise of being completely neutral. Most of us see right through the act.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 12, 2019)

Does the user Cots consist of more than one person?

Anyway I just read his opening post and I wouldn't call it a "heavy right-wing agenda". However, I didn't follow the whole thread. If enforcing the border is right-wing, then most countries on this planet are right-wing, including communist ones.

That said, I do have sympathy with e.g. Venezuelans. Their government has made mistakes, but nobody can deny the economic warfare the USA engages in when it dislikes a country. The US has a history of treating its neighbors to the south badly, e.g. the Panama invasion of 1989 (the pretence was very similar to what Russia did in Ukraine, but the US only claimed to protect tens of thousands and hadn't already military stationed there; as far as I know). Also you could argue that the "mexification" of the southern border is sort of poetic justice for the American-Mexican war.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Why not? This is a illegal immigration thread. And it adds that immigration things handled by the Obama administration weren’t handled so great, so it’s not entirely on Trump and Republicans, it’s an on going problem from before.
> 
> 
> My post wasn’t a but Obama but Trump. I was replying to someone else. Adding to what they already said. It wasn’t even look at Obama so don’t look at Trump.





kevin corms said:


> It was happening before Trump, yet its because of him?


Because I wasn't talking about deportations. I was talking about deplorable holding conditions, holding times, child separation, and child deaths.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 12, 2019)

Are the immigrants only held due to the asylum process? Is there a limit to the detention time and what happens afterwards?


----------



## zomborg (Jul 12, 2019)

cots said:


> Sorry guys, I'm dropping out of the debate. Due to the moderation not being neutral (regarding the politics section) and then blatant hate shown towards the USA, our leadership and our way of life, I can no longer, in good faith participate on this site. If you're looking for any of my previous hosted guides and/or utilities, you won't find them here. Adios!


Sorry Cots my friend. I do not want to see you go. You could do like I have been doing recently. 

 Instead of letting them drive you off, just step back a little and take a break. That's what I did after the abortion thread. I would even make a conscious effort to not visit the politics forum. 



Loyalty said:


> Sorry to hear that Cots... I just got here, I may do the same, who knows.
> 
> On subject....
> 
> ...


Welcome to GBAtemp LOYALTY!
It is nice to see you here. By the way, you picked a tough one for your first debate
Notimp is probably the Temps toughest debater or at least the longest winded. Lol

As for the point you are making? I agree, I'm not confident that there was a drop in immigrants during that time period. If anything, I believe (although I have no evidence) that the obama administration were bringing immigrants to our country in secret.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Because I wasn't talking about deportations. I was talking about deplorable holding conditions, holding times, child separation, and child deaths.


And children had horrible conditions during Obama Administration as with also Trump Administration.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> And children had horrible conditions during Obama Administration as with also Trump Administration.


It was not the policy of the Obama administration to separate children from parents at the border.  There are times it still happened, usually because the child was suspected to be in danger, but it wasn't the policy across the board as it has been under Trump.  Now CBP and ICE _are_ the danger to these children because they either lose track of the parents, sexually assault these children in custody, or in several cases, let them die in custody.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It was not the policy of the Obama administration to separate children from parents at the border.  There are times it still happened, usually because the child was suspected to be in danger, but it wasn't the policy across the board as it has been under Trump.  Now CBP and ICE _are_ the danger to these children because they either lose track of the parents, sexually assault these children in custody, or in several cases, let them die in custody.


It was the policy before Trump came in of the 9th circuit courts that ruled it in-humane to keep kids and parents in jail holding cells in the Reno V. Flores case 1993.


And they can’t be released to anyone other then a parent or guardian. So if the maybe parents is in jail for illegally coming in the country then the children are placed in a children’s detention center until the parents hearing. To verify that the kids aren’t victims of child trafficking and to verify they are actually the real parents.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> And children had horrible conditions during Obama Administration as with also Trump Administration.


There was no child separation policy under Obama. Children weren't dying under Obama. Children weren't being denied basic necessities under Obama.

Also, the lie that "Obama did it too" wouldn't do anything to absolve the Trump administration if it were true.

Edit: Also, this doesn't address my question of why you were talking to me about deportations in the first place.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> There was no child separation policy under Obama. Children weren't dying under Obama. Children weren't being denied basic necessities under Obama.
> 
> Also, the lie that "Obama did it too" wouldn't do anything to absolve the Trump administration if it were true.


I never said anything about Obama doing it too to absolving anything under Trump administration.

I gave you a link of thousands of  documents from the ACLU collected from the freedom of information act of wide spread child abuse during Obama’s era.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I never said anything about Obama doing it too to absolving anything under Trump administration.
> 
> I gave you a link of thousand of document from the ACLU collects form the freedom of information act of wide spread child abuse during Obama’s era.


If I condemn the Trump administration, posting "Obama did it too" is pointless unless your intention is to absolve the Trump administration.

Also, as I already said, there was no child separation policy under Obama. Children weren't dying under Obama. Children weren't being denied basic necessities under Obama.

I asked why you were talking to me about deportations, and you don't seem to be able to answer me.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If so condemn the Trump administration, posting "Obama did it too" is pointless unless your intention is to absolve the Trump administration.
> 
> Also, as I already said, there was no child separation policy under Obama. Children weren't dying under Obama. Children weren't being denied basic necessities under Obama.
> 
> I asked why you were talking to me about deportations, and you don't seem to be able to answer me.


I was just addressing a point that someone saying conditions weren’t bad under Obama is not true. That is all. There is no hidden thing or other intention besides that.

There was a child separation policy under Obama, and it was there before Obama came in.


And I already gave you an answer to the last point. It was just to add things weren’t also good under Obama. It was just extra added information that is all. That’s just how I like doing things because other people are reading.

There’s no need to take it directly to yourself, as a criticism of something you didn’t say. And let’s say I didn’t have a point to saying it. What exactly are you trying to get at? And how will that debunk or whatever your intention is to keep on pressing on it? It’s not really a big deal, for just for a little extra information I like to add.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I was just addressing a point that someone saying conditions weren’t bad under Obama is not true. That is all.


Except conditions weren't nearly as bad under Obama, as the agencies were running far more efficiently.  Families would spend a maximum of two weeks in detainment before being deported or having their asylum hearings.  Under Trump the average time in detainment has gone up by a number of months, and the private companies overseeing detainment are providing minimal care in order to maximize profits.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I was just addressing a point that someone saying conditions weren’t bad under Obama is not true. That is all. There is no hidden thing or other intention besides that.
> 
> There was a child separation policy under Obama, and it was there before Obama came in.
> 
> ...


There was no child separation policy under Obama. This false narrative needs to die.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 12, 2019)

How is there money to be made? The government pays the companies?


----------



## Xzi (Jul 12, 2019)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> How is there money to be made? The government pays the companies?


Yes, the Trump administration has given out contracts to private companies who either built detainment centers or repurposed existing buildings to use as detainment centers.  The facilities are completely insufficient for this purpose, however, and in most there are maybe 3-4 showers for 1000+ detainees.  Most other basic needs are going unfulfilled too.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 12, 2019)

I think something we tend to forget and that we do not need to lose sight of, is the fact that regardless of who is sitting in the presidents chair and regardless of how our government (past and present administrations) handles the aliens illegally crossing our border, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the parents who are unlawfully bringing those children over here.

They are the ones placing them in harms way.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 12, 2019)

zomborg said:


> I think something we tend to forget and that we do not need to lose sight of, is the fact that regardless of who is sitting in the presidents chair and regardless of how our government (past and present administrations) handles the aliens illegally crossing our border, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the parents who are unlawfully bringing those children over here.
> 
> They are the ones placing them in harms way.


Bullshit.  The US government is placing them in harm's way, by design, in order to serve the profit motive.  Not to mention we're spending way more locking them up than it would cost to place them in temporary shelters/homes.  The only reason to continue this practice is out of sheer malice.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 12, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Bullshit.  The US government is placing them in harm's way, by design, in order to serve the profit motive.  Not to mention we're spending way more locking them up than it would cost to place them in temporary shelters/homes.  The only reason to continue this practice is out of sheer malice.


If our government intends to inflict harm upon these illegal aliens, even though that is a bad thing, maybe it will serve as encouragement to not cross our border illegally. A hard lesson is sometimes the most effective deterrent.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 12, 2019)

zomborg said:


> If our government intends to inflict harm upon these illegal aliens, even though that is a bad thing, maybe it will serve as encouragement to not cross our border illegally. A hard lesson is sometimes the most effective deterrent.



Our government has no excuse inflicting harm on innocent children, regardless of whether or not their parents have technically broken the law.
Many of the people we are talking about are legitimate asylum seekers who *have not broken the law*.
The policies of the Trump administration, specifically the child separation policy, were created to do as much harm as possible to serve as a disincentive and to rally the conservative base, not as punishments for breaking the law.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 12, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Our government has no excuse inflicting harm on innocent children, regardless of whether or not their parents have technically broken the law.
> Many of the people we are talking about are legitimate asylum seekers who *have not broken the law*.
> The policies of the Trump administration, specifically the child separation policy, were created to do as much harm as possible to serve as a disincentive and to rally the conservative base, not as punishments for breaking the law.


Even IF your words are true. It may still provide a valuable lesson for future illegals. They may decide it's not worth the risk


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> If our government intends to inflict harm upon these illegal aliens, even though that is a bad thing, maybe it will serve as encouragement to not cross our border illegally. A hard lesson is sometimes the most effective deterrent.


So far, the opposite is being proven true: hard-line immigration stances only manage to drive the rate of illegal immigration up.  It certainly doesn't help that we've cut off aid to most South American countries in the midst of their economic and governmental crises. 

As I said previously, things are working as intended.  Trump supporters get to cheer for the concentration camps and pretend that they're an effective deterrent, while at the same time, more than enough illegals are still getting past the border to provide businesses and corporations with cheap labor.  The racism and xenophobia keep us divided and keep the focus off of all the crimes happening at the top, in plain sight.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> So far, the opposite is being proven true: hard-line immigration stances only manage to drive the rate of illegal immigration up.  It certainly doesn't help that we've cut off aid to most South American countries in the midst of their economic and governmental crises.
> 
> As I said previously, things are working as intended.  Trump supporters get to cheer for the concentration camps and pretend that they're an effective deterrent, while at the same time, more than enough illegals are still getting past the border to provide businesses and corporations with cheap labor.  The racism and xenophobia keep us divided and keep the focus off of all the crimes happening at the top, in plain sight.


Just curious. Why would the thought of going to a "concentration camp, placing yourself and your family in harms way and submitting yourself and your family to" deplorable conditions " serve to encourage illegally crossing our border?

 An intelligent person, when they do not know how to swim, will not willingly jump into water that is over their heads.

Edit: Fact: If my uncle broke the law and illegally crossed the border with his family into another country seeking a better standard of living and they were tortured and starved, I would not willingly submit my family to the same situation and I would tell all of my friends not to go there.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Just curious. Why would the thought of going to a "concentration camp, placing yourself and your family in harms way and submitting yourself and your family to" deplorable conditions " serve to encourage illegally crossing our border?


Several possible reasons. 

1. There's a chance they won't be caught.  
2. Staying in their home countries puts their families at more risk than potentially being caught.
3. Coyotes can exploit the fear that people like Trump will 'shut down' the border entirely.
4. As I've stated several times, there are tons of employment opportunities in the US for illegals.

The US has been built on cheap/slave labor.  Mexicans and Asians are just the latest in a long line of groups we've exploited to get our fix.  There have always been people willing to perform mental gymnastics in order to justify it, but it's not any more justifiable now than it was with the Irish.  Morally and ethically, this country is regressing under Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Even IF your words are true. It may still provide a valuable lesson for future illegals. They may decide it's not worth the risk



That is a despicable reason. There's a special place in Hell for people who torture and irreparably harm children in the name of reducing immigration numbers.
It doesn't dissuade immigration. See below.
You should look into the conditions many of the asylum seekers are fleeing.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 13, 2019)

Lacius said:


> There was no child separation policy under Obama. This false narrative needs to die.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy



You are right, Obama had the children locked up in the same area as viscous criminals. Stop being brainwashed by the liberal media and learn to think by yourself.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> You are right, Obama had the children locked up in the same area as viscous criminals. Stop being brainwashed by the liberal media and learn to think by yourself.



I don't think you mean *viscous* criminals.
Don't conflate immigrants with *vicious* criminals. Stop being brainwashed by the conservative media and learn to think for yourself.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> You are right, Obama had the children locked up in the same area as viscous criminals. Stop being brainwashed by the liberal media and learn to think by yourself.


"Vicious criminals," otherwise known as the parents with no criminal record other than attempting to cross the border.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Several possible reasons.
> 
> 1. There's a chance they won't be caught.
> 2. Staying in their home countries puts their families at more risk than potentially being caught.
> ...


Still, at least 3 of the reasons you stated were traditional, historic reasons to illegally cross our border.
The threat of mistreatment would not make the huddled masses bellow like a Norse god and say: "CHARGE!" "Let's go loved ones! I hear they are torturing illegal aliens in concentration camps in the USA, I want to go join the fun!"


----------



## SG854 (Jul 13, 2019)

Lacius said:


> There was no child separation policy under Obama. This false narrative needs to die.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy


Ok, I am convinced.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Still, at least 3 of the reasons you stated were traditional, historic reasons to illegally cross our border.
> The threat of mistreatment would not make the huddled masses bellow like a Norse god and say: "CHARGE!" "Let's go loved ones! I hear they are torturing illegal aliens in concentration camps in the USA, I want to go join the fun!"


The numbers don't lie man.  Word has had plenty of time to travel that immigrants are being mistreated in these detention centers, but immigration numbers continue to rise none the less.  It's by design.  Trump gets to talk a big game while simultaneously providing his crony capitalist buddies with all the cheap labor they could possibly need or want.  For that matter, there's no guarantee that even Trump's businesses have stopped hiring illegals.  It's not like they can speak out with the threat of deportation looming over their heads.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Even IF your words are true. It may still provide a valuable lesson for future illegals. They may decide it's not worth the risk


From what I’ve been reading Trump ended child separation last year but because of loopholes it continues to exists.

And from what i’ve been getting from opinions which I have not verified yet, was that separation would still happen even without Reno v. Flores Case.

It seems it was created to cause damage to deter immigrants from coming. Which even not all Republicans agree on, as well as Democrats who call using it in this way to deter people in-humane.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

Is it any wonder that we're seeing a boom in illegal crossings and an overburdened system for seeking asylum?  These are literally the only two options for South American and Mexican immigrants.  If they try to enter through the legal ports, they're guaranteed to be turned away.

The bottom line is that we need a path to citizenship.  Otherwise we're only ensuring that the system of exploitation for cheap labor continues on unchecked.  Elizabeth Warren unveiled a comprehensive immigration plan just yesterday that I'm in support of, which includes a path to citizenship.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

Popcorn tastes real good right now. Especially with cots giving up because too many people are just "fake news" to him.
In regards the problem with the states it's been exploiting people for a long time. And this really is just the next step. Health care system gouges people, people are more often incarnated than to get mental help, let alone also end up likely developing mental problems after being incarcerated. Meanwhile all these companies get to further extend profit. And also because of the price of health care, getting meds for people who actually need them to function well in a society can't in certain conditions, along with wages being way too low for what time people put in. And I can't be possibly surprised that we are failing at a society level. You cut people's access to function in  a society and it slowly develops a culture of morons, combine this with the internet echo chamber, and it's ripe for extreme polarization which is then able to be banked off of further. I'm not saying people should work a ludicrously small amount of time, you get what you earn. But I don't exactly think waking up 6:00 in the morning and then getting home at 4pm and then repeat that for six days straight and get one day off for what is pretty much near minimum wage is kind of idk, unbalanced.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 13, 2019)

I was able to temporarily access youtube and listened to an interesting discussion between two Jewish intellectuals

(1:16:33, goes on for 5min)

The topic is Japan and how they don't accept migrants (1 to 2 asylum seekers per year). Sam asks why we couldn't call Japanese racists for not accepts migrants (1:20:20) and his interview partner basically says because the Japanese don't care. 
In conclusion, every country receives the amount of migrants and the type of migrant it wants. It basically comes down to perception by others. Merkel didn't want ugly scenes at the borders and speaks of migrants as a gift, while at the same time desperately trying to limit the influx by paying Erdogan money and trying to force others within the EU to do the same. So in the end, there is nothing to be done. It is the will of the people in different countries. If you feel the need to give a dollar to a homeless person because others look at you, you shouldn't blame the homeless  person.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 13, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Popcorn tastes real good right now. Especially with cots giving up because too many people are just "fake news" to him.
> In regards the problem with the states it's been exploiting people for a long time. And this really is just the next step. Health care system gouges people, people are more often incarnated than to get mental help, let alone also end up likely developing mental problems after being incarcerated. Meanwhile all these companies get to further extend profit. And also because of the price of health care, getting meds for people who actually need them to function well in a society can't in certain conditions, along with wages being way too low for what time people put in. And I can't be possibly surprised that we are failing at a society level. You cut people's access to function in  a society and it slowly develops a culture of morons, combine this with the internet echo chamber, and it's ripe for extreme polarization which is then able to be banked off of further. I'm not saying people should work a ludicrously small amount of time, you get what you earn. But I don't exactly think waking up 6:00 in the morning and then getting home at 4pm and then repeat that for six days straight and get one day off for what is pretty much near minimum wage is kind of idk, unbalanced.



Didn't you make a post that broke the rules because you couldn't control your temper so you decided to quickly delete it before you got banned from your favorite website?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Is it any wonder that we're seeing a boom in illegal crossings and an overburdened system for seeking asylum?  These are literally the only two options for South American and Mexican immigrants.  If they try to enter through the legal ports, they're guaranteed to be turned away.
> 
> The bottom line is that we need a path to citizenship.  Otherwise we're only ensuring that the system of exploitation for cheap labor continues on unchecked.  Elizabeth Warren unveiled a comprehensive immigration plan just yesterday that I'm in support of, which includes a path to citizenship.



We don't owe it to other countries to support a path of citizenship. As we are now, Hispanics will be a majority by 2060. When Israel supports a path of citizenship for non Jews,then they can feel free to start influencing our countries policies. Until then, I think we should make the Jews practice what they preach in America.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Sorry Cots my friend. I do not want to see you go. You could do like I have been doing recently.
> 
> Instead of letting them drive you off, just step back a little and take a break. That's what I did after the abortion thread. I would even make a conscious effort to not visit the politics forum.


I personally don’t like blocking people or any of that stuff. Because you won’t learn or get to hear what other people say which I hate.


The fact you took a break shows that you really believe in what you say, and you were drained from all this. I won’t knock on people for that. A break is good sometimes, to refresh yourself.


TBH I have no idea what’s going on anymore. The more I learn the more i’m like I have no idea. I read a lot to try to find answers buts it’s all muffled in politics. With everything else I can find quick answers with facts very fast, like how does a dolphin breath underwater. But not with Politics, it’s a big mess because of interests involved. With many sides at it.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The numbers don't lie man.  Word has had plenty of time to travel that immigrants are being mistreated in these detention centers, but immigration numbers continue to rise none the less.  It's by design.  Trump gets to talk a big game while simultaneously providing his crony capitalist buddies with all the cheap labor they could possibly need or want.  For that matter, there's no guarantee that even Trump's businesses have stopped hiring illegals.  It's not like they can speak out with the threat of deportation looming over their heads.


Ok, for the benefit of doubt, I do not agree with you that they are exploiting illegals for financial gain, but for the sake of argument let's say you are right. 

 Plain and simply, this country is over crowded already. Yes, once long ago, we actually needed more migrants to strengthen our economy but we've reached the tipping point. No, we have far exceeded the tipping point. We started out needing migrants but we have reached the point where now it does our economy and nation as a whole more harm. 

Picture this if you will. You have a small boat that has a capacity of 50 people but when you start out you only have a few people so you begin to invite more. Soon you have 50 and the boat still stays afloat. Then, unbidden, 15 more people sneak aboard. The boat still stays afloat but now it is lower in the water. Eventually extra people continue to sneak aboard until finally the boat sinks.
Sound familiar?


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> We don't owe it to other countries to support a path of citizenship. As we are now, Hispanics will be a majority by 2060. When Israel supports a path of citizenship for non Jews,then they can feel free to start influencing our countries policies. Until then, I think we should make the Jews practice what they preach in America.


We owe it to ourselves to become the shining city on a hill we've always proclaimed to be, rather than regress into 1930s Germany.  Israel has nothing to do with our own domestic policy decisions, and they're certainly not setting the type of example we should be following with Netanyahu.



zomborg said:


> Plain and simply, this country is over crowded already. Yes, once long ago, we actually needed more migrants to strengthen our economy but we've reached the tipping point. No, we have far exceeded the tipping point. We started out needing migrants but we have reached the point where now it does our economy and nation as a whole more harm.


Nonsense.  If there are jobs available for them as illegals, and there are, then there are certainly jobs available for them as citizens.  In return they pay taxes and help prop up the economy with buying power like any other group of workers.  If as a country "we're full," somebody definitely forgot to tell Wyoming.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 13, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I don't think you mean *viscous* criminals.
> Don't conflate immigrants with *vicious* criminals. Stop being brainwashed by the conservative media and learn to think for yourself.



Conflate isn't a synonym for confuse just so you know. Using big words to try to appear smart usually has the opposite effect.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Didn't you make a post that broke the rules because you couldn't control your temper so you decided to quickly delete it before you got banned from your favorite website?
> Don't exactly have a favorite website... And I'm pretty sure you have me mixed for someone else. And then from a argument stand point of view, why would that matter? How does this relate to this thread?


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> We owe it to ourselves to become the shining city on a hill we've always proclaimed to be, rather than regress into 1930s Germany.  Israel has nothing to do with our own domestic policy decisions, and they're certainly not setting the type of example we should be following with Netanyahu.



Most of the MSM is owned by Jews that push narratives that they themselves would never support in their country. We are nothing like Nazi Germany. Our president is a moderate that for some reason the liberal media hates. The guy was a registered Democrat in the 2000s and all of a sudden he is being hailed as an extreme right wing individual.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Conflate isn't a synonym for confuse just so you know. Using big words to try to appear smart usually has the opposite effect.


* conflate *

transitive verb
To bring together; meld or fuse.
transitive verb
To combine (two variant texts, for example) into one whole.
To blow together; bring together as if by convergent winds. 
Someone forgot to check their vocab.
Lacius used it properly. He's saying don't mix the two.
Edit: proof of what I mean 
"Don't conflate immigrants with *vicious* criminals. Stop being brainwashed by the conservative media and learn to think for yourself."
replace conflate with combine or mix
don't mix immigrants with vicious criminals.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Most of the MSM is owned by Jews that push narratives that they themselves would never support in their country.


Most of the MSM is center-right at best, and in support of the corporate status quo.  As an example: they're obsessed with Joe Biden and mention Bernie Sanders as little as possible, if at all.  Biden v Trump is the oligarchy's wet dream, because things would stay the same regardless of who wins that race.



Maluma said:


> We are nothing like Nazi Germany. Our president is a moderate that for some reason the liberal media hates. The guy was a registered Democrat in the 2000s and all of a sudden he is being hailed as an extreme right wing individual.


Trump is a populist with authoritarian tendencies who heaps praise on the world's dictators while simultaneously denouncing the US' traditional allies.  He was a Democrat in name only so that he wouldn't be rejected by celebrities and movie stars, but his actions as president have revealed his true character and beliefs.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Most of the MSM is center-right at best, and in support of the corporate status quo.  As an example: they're obsessed with Joe Biden and mention Bernie Sanders as little as possible, if at all.  Biden v Trump is the oligarchy's wet dream, because things would stay the same regardless of who wins that race.
> 
> 
> Trump is a populist with authoritarian tendencies who heaps praise on the world's dictators while simultaneously denouncing the US' traditional allies.  He was a Democrat in name only so that he wouldn't be rejected by celebrities and movie stars, but his actions as president have revealed his true character and beliefs.


They are not center right. Not with all the Trump bashing articles. 


They are a money making place. Whatever story can generate lots of views and money. They Attacked Hillary and Trump during the Election. They went on about her emails, and they bashed Trump calling him stupid.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They are not center right. Not with all the Trump bashing articles.
> 
> They are a money making place. Whatever story can generate lots of views and money. They Attacked Hillary and Trump during the Election. They went on about her emails, and they bashed Trump calling him stupid.


They can bash Trump all they want, but they got him elected in the first place with all the free advertisement he was given during 2016.  Even CNN and MSNBC aired several of his rallies without any commentary whatsoever.  They ignored everything Bernie did back then too.

You're correct that many news outlets are in business purely for profit, but that only reinforces what I stated: they're in support of the corporate status quo.  If they stray too far from that, they lose sponsors and advertising.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 13, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Popcorn tastes real good right now. Especially with cots giving up because too many people are just "fake news" to him.
> In regards the problem with the states it's been exploiting people for a long time. And this really is just the next step. Health care system gouges people, people are more often incarnated than to get mental help, let alone also end up likely developing mental problems after being incarcerated. Meanwhile all these companies get to further extend profit. And also because of the price of health care, getting meds for people who actually need them to function well in a society can't in certain conditions, along with wages being way too low for what time people put in. And I can't be possibly surprised that we are failing at a society level. You cut people's access to function in  a society and it slowly develops a culture of morons, combine this with the internet echo chamber, and it's ripe for extreme polarization which is then able to be banked off of further. I'm not saying people should work a ludicrously small amount of time, you get what you earn. But I don't exactly think waking up 6:00 in the morning and then getting home at 4pm and then repeat that for six days straight and get one day off for what is pretty much near minimum wage is kind of idk, unbalanced.




Lets be real, many people are ignoring the real problems at the border just because they dont like how Trump has handled it. The cartel has pretty much taken over mexico, and the secret service has helped them.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> They can bash Trump all they want, but they got him elected in the first place with all the free advertisement he was given during 2016.  Even CNN and MSNBC aired several of his rallies without any commentary whatsoever.
> 
> You're correct that many news outlets are in business purely for profit, but that only reinforces what I stated: they're in support of the corporate status quo.  If they stray too far from that, they lose sponsors and advertising.


Hilary got tons of coverage too and free advertisement for her. And Biden.

Bernie Sanders is just not out there so there’s no juicy story they can get out of him. But Trump is an easy target for that. Or Biden’s scandals. They love scandals. And all the memes that come from it.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

With how it currently is I don't even really think news outlets (or at least ones that are looking for sheer profit alone) have one political bias, it's the one that suits best for profit in that time.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kevin corms said:


> Lets be real, many people are ignoring the real problems at the border just because they dont like how Trump has handled it. The cartel has pretty much taken over mexico, and the secret service has helped them.


So people dying is not a real problem.......... Well then I guess we should also pull the plug on granny... oh wait the healthcare industry already did it for us.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jul 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Just curious. Why would the thought of going to a "concentration camp, placing yourself and your family in harms way and submitting yourself and your family to" deplorable conditions " serve to encourage illegally crossing our border?
> 
> An intelligent person, when they do not know how to swim, will not willingly jump into water that is over their heads.
> 
> Edit: Fact: If my uncle broke the law and illegally crossed the border with his family into another country seeking a better standard of living and they were tortured and starved, I would not willingly submit my family to the same situation and I would tell all of my friends not to go there.


Most of them make it to the US. I have no actual data, but from my experience living in SoCal and being Hispanic, I'd guess that very few are caught, maybe 1 in 10 or so. The journey really sucks, but it's very doable. There are also many people who used a visa. Considering that these people live in extreme poverty, I think attempting to illegally cross makes a lot of sense from their point of view, which is why so many do it.

Imagine instead that not just one of your uncle's, but six of them actually did cross and actually did greatly improve their quality of life. Now tell your friends not to go there.

If the US wants to stop illegal immigration just jail anyone that gives them work. I really believe it's that simple.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 13, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> With how it currently is I don't even really think news outlets (or at least ones that are looking for sheer profit alone) have one political bias, it's the one that suits best for profit in that time.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Google and facebook have a monopoly on information these days, Google seems to push more left wing ideas at the moment because they see it as a path to start their utopian cities.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> With how it currently is I don't even really think news outlets (or at least ones that are looking for sheer profit alone) have one political bias, it's the one that suits best for profit in that time.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


What kind of straw man argument is this? I reject that statement, try saying something that makes sense. This border issue isnt simply a Trump issue, more and more people are coming to the border and somebody needs to step up and come up with a real plan.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Google and facebook have a monopoly on information these days, Google seems to push more left wing ideas at the moment because they see it as a path to start their utopian cities.


So why is the reason they haven't been broken up.... oh right
*PROFIT*
why? Because our government is broken.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Hilary got tons of coverage too and free advertisement for her. And Biden.


Precisely, because both of them were/are good insurance policies to reinforce the corporate status quo.  They're center-left at best.



SG854 said:


> Bernie Sanders is just not out there so there’s no juicy story they can get out of him. But Trump is an easy target for that. Or Biden’s scandals. They love scandals. And all the memes that come from it.


Bernie draws crowds and viewers, but the reason MSM doesn't like him because he uses only individual donors and stays away from corporate money.  Therefore they know he's not beholden to corporate interests like almost every other politician.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Conflate isn't a synonym for confuse just so you know. Using big words to try to appear smart usually has the opposite effect.


_Conflate_ is the word I meant to use.

Trying to change the subject doesn't impress me.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 13, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So why is the reason they haven't been broken up.... oh right
> *PROFIT*
> why? Because our government is broken.


With Google it goes way beyond profit, they actually use their information monopoly to "prove" whatever point they want in court. Many times they just pay huge fines and continue on as well.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Google and facebook have a monopoly on information these days, Google seems to push more left wing ideas at the moment because they see it as a path to start their utopian cities.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


It's not a strawman. Pay attention to sub-context. There are industries that profit on other people's suffering. Who would profit off a broken health care system. Companies. Who profits over having immigration issues? Companies, and that also makes a good news story, just so happens to fit also for companies. No one is going to do what is right. Because their pockets are lined.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Precisely, because both of them were/are good insurance policies to reinforce the corporate status quo.  They're center-left at best.
> 
> 
> Bernie draws crowds and viewers, but the reason MSM doesn't like him because he uses only individual donors and stays away from corporate money.  Therefore they know he's not beholden to corporate interests like almost every other politician.


There are many reasons MSM dosnt like Bernie, but the biggest is because hes anti war.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> With Google it goes way beyond profit, they actually use their information monopoly to "prove" whatever point they want in court. Many times they just pay huge fines and continue on as well.


Yes and let me describe it again. Why hasn't that been fixed.
Right. Companies. We live in unchecked capitalism right now. there is a lack of regulation. I'm not just pointing my finger at trump if you figured it out yet.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 13, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> It's not a strawman. Pay attention to sub-context. There are industries that profit on other people's suffering. Who would profit off a broken health care system. Companies. Who profits over having immigration issues? Companies, and that also makes a good news story, just so happens to fit also for companies. No one is going to do what is right. Because their pockets are lined.


It is a straw man when you try to say I want to let people die. i dont even want to point the finger at anyone because to be honest the problem is combination from both sides and their inability to come up with any kind of real solution. All the democrats and republicans are doing is trying to make the others look bad, not much concern about the actual people involved (and that includes the men and women who work at the border).


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> There are many reasons MSM dosnt like Bernie, but the biggest is because hes anti war.


The billionaires hate him for speaking the truth about economic inequality, so the MSM hates him because they're owned by the billionaires.  It's as simple as that.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

And I don't mean socialism is a good alternative at all. We just need regulation to be fixed.  (along with where the hell the budget is going)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kevin corms said:


> It is a straw man when you try to say I want to let people die. i dont even want to point the finger at anyone because to be honest the problem is combination from both sides and their inability to come up with any kind of real solution. All the democrats and republicans are doing is trying to make the others look bad, not much concern about the actual people involved (and that includes the men and women who work at the border).


Yes while simultaneously calling people dying at the border not a real problem. Kind of see the hypocrisy there?
I could of worded it a bit better. But still it's hypocritical to say that's not a issue.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 13, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> And I don't mean socialism is a good alternative at all. We just need regulation to be fixed.  (along with where the hell the budget is going)
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Thats another straw man, I said no such thing. People have been dying at the border (and on the way to it) for decades, Trump was just the first one in power to get real loud about it even if he is handling it all wrong.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> We owe it to ourselves to become the shining city on a hill we've always proclaimed to be, rather than regress into 1930s Germany.  Israel has nothing to do with our own domestic policy decisions, and they're certainly not setting the type of example we should be following with Netanyahu.
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  If there are jobs available for them as illegals, and there are, then there are certainly jobs available for them as citizens.  In return they pay taxes and help prop up the economy with buying power like any other group of workers.  If as a country "we're full," somebody definitely forgot to tell Wyoming.


Having the land mass for more people to live on is different from having the resources to support more people. People may argue and try to say that we still have plenty of resources to support an ever enlarging population but to hear the environmentalists talk, we are using our resources up at a rate we cannot sustain. 
 There is much to be said for being a wise steward with the resources we have. If we wait until it's too late there will not be anything we can do. A prime example is Mexico. They do not have the resources to support their population so citizens seek somewhere else to live. Yes they've never had an abundance of resources but we do not want to be unwise and end up with a land that can't support the population.
Where do we turn then?


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> Lets be real, many people are ignoring the real problems at the border just because they dont like how Trump has handled it. The cartel has pretty much taken over mexico, and the secret service has helped them.


So in other words. People dying at the border is not a problem.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> They can bash Trump all they want, but they got him elected in the first place with all the free advertisement he was given during 2016.  Even CNN and MSNBC aired several of his rallies without any commentary whatsoever.  They ignored everything Bernie did back then too.
> 
> You're correct that many news outlets are in business purely for profit, but that only reinforces what I stated: they're in support of the corporate status quo.  If they stray too far from that, they lose sponsors and advertising.



They got him elected because they thought that the negative publicity on Trump was going to deter people from voting for him. They made a mistake assuming that they would be able to defeat the Great Donald Trump at a publicity game. You can't out pizza the hut.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 13, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So in other words. People dying at the border is not a problem.


How do you get that out of what I said?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Maluma said:


> They got him elected because they thought that the negative publicity on Trump was going to deter people from voting for him. They made a mistake assuming that they would be able to defeat the Great Donald Trump at a publicity game. You can't out pizza the hut.


He won because he ran against one of the worst candidates in history, people basically said you know what... I would rather an orange bafoon in the office before Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> *Lets be real, many people are ignoring the real problems at the border* just because they dont like how Trump has handled it. The cartel has pretty much taken over mexico, and the secret service has helped them.


This implies that the problems at the border we have right now are not real problems. Maybe you meant something else, but with how it was worded, it does imply that.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Having the land mass for more people to live on is different from having the resources to support more people. People may argue and try to say that we still have plenty of resources to support an ever enlarging population but to hear the environmentalists talk, we are using our resources up at a rate we cannot sustain.


What resources exactly are we running out of?  And if that's the case, why haven't we put a cap on the number of children that each couple is allowed to have?  This line of reasoning is simply ridiculous.  A bigger workforce provides us with more resources, not fewer.  Particularly as we transition away from finite energy sources like coal and oil.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 13, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> This implies that the problems at the border we have right now are not real problems. Maybe you meant something else, but with how it was worded, it does imply that.


Nope it doesnt mean that, and people dying is a direct consequence of people ignoring the real problems at the border that they want to call manufactured.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> He won because he ran against one of the worst candidates in history, people basically said you know what... I would rather an orange bafoon in the office before Hillary Clinton.


The election was fucked regardless. It wouldn't matter either way.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> They got him elected because they thought that the negative publicity on Trump was going to deter people from voting for him. They made a mistake assuming that they would be able to defeat the Great Donald Trump at a publicity game. You can't out pizza the hut.


You failed to address the fact that much of their coverage was neutral, not negative.  Trump's victory was also a victory for the corporate sponsors of CNN and MSNBC, but really they couldn't lose once the race was locked in as Hillary vs Trump.  The "great" Donald Trump has done nothing but keep people divided as a distraction while the oligarchs continue to pillage this country.


----------



## kevin corms (Jul 13, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> The election was fucked regardless. It wouldn't matter either way.


True, but on the bright side Hillary would have had the army attack Iran or Russia by now.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 13, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> True, but on the bright side Hillary would have had the army attack Iran or Russia by now.


Meanwhile Trump has pissed off and made us a joke to the whole world.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> True, but on the bright side Hillary would have had the army attack Iran or Russia by now.


Nah, Hillary wouldn't have torn up the nuclear inspections agreement we had with Iran, nor would she have hired on warmongers like John Bolton to her administration.  She would've been beholden to the oligarchy just as Trump is, but in every other respect she still would've been a better president.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2019)

kevin corms said:


> True, but on the bright side Hillary would have had the army attack Iran or Russia by now.


You have no idea what you're talking about. See Xzi's post above.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 13, 2019)

Lacius said:


> You have no idea what you're talking about.


What an asshole response.


We have no idea what a Hilary Presidency would be like. So you can’t say with confidence what would and wouldn’t have happened.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 13, 2019)

SG854 said:


> We have no idea what a Hilary Presidency would be like.



Not hard to imagine though.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2019)

SG854 said:


> What an asshole response.
> 
> 
> We have no idea what a Hilary Presidency would be like. So you can’t say with confidence what would and wouldn’t have happened.


Hillary's position on the Iran Nuclear Deal was very clear, and they were keeping up their end. My point was that you apparently didn't know this.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 13, 2019)

When's the last time you drove down the road & thought "there's not enough cars here", or waited in line at a store and thought "these lines should be longer"

We don't need _any_ immigration, legal or otherwise.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Not hard to imagine though.



God forbid the president take a stance against dictators who slaughter their own citizens by the thousands, right?  They're supposed to fall in love with dictators like Trump did with Kim Jong Un.  /s



Haloman800 said:


> When's the last time you drove down the road & thought "there's not enough cars here", or waited in line at a store and thought "these lines should be longer"
> 
> We don't need _any_ immigration, legal or otherwise.


So the entire country is overcrowded because you choose to live in a dense population center?  It doesn't quite work that way.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> God forbid the president take a stance against dictators who slaughter their own citizens by the thousands, right?  They're supposed to fall in love with dictators like Trump did with Kim Jong Un.  /s
> 
> 
> So the entire country is overcrowded because you choose to live in a dense population center?  It doesn't quite work that way.


Not an argument, also, starting your response with "so" is a tell that you're responding with emotions.

We have enough people in the country, we especially don't need poor, uneducated 3rd worlders, the majority of which go on the public dole.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> Not an argument, also, starting your response with "so" is a tell that you're responding with emotions.


If mine isn't an argument then neither is the completely anecdotal evidence that you provided.  I have no clue where you got that stupid idea in your head about the word "so," it's just a word like any other.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> God forbid the president take a stance against dictators who slaughter their own citizens by the thousands, right?  They're supposed to fall in love with dictators like Trump did with Kim Jong Un.  /s



How about instead of parroting the same horse shit you have peddled in the past on this topic you actually spend some time reading up on reports released after the (largely intentional) cluster fuck that was western intervention in Libya?

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/119.pdf

Edit - fantastic summary here for anyone else interested : 
https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-...ow-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> How about instead of parroting the same horse shit you have peddled in the past on this topic you actually spend some time reading up on reports released after the (largely intentional) cluster fuck that was western intervention in Libya?
> 
> https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/119.pdf


How about realizing that we didn't engage in the practice of nation building in Libya like we did with Afghanistan and Iraq?  Their fate was their own to decide after Gaddafi was out of the picture, as it should be.  I'm not sure how you can argue that continued civil war would've resulted in anything different.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If mine isn't an argument then neither is the completely anecdotal evidence that you provided.  I have no clue where you got that stupid idea in your head about the word "so," it's just a word like any other.
> 
> 
> By that logic, we need to put restrictions on breeding for all the white trash in the South, because the immigrant population are much more dedicated workers.


Objectively false. Native-born Americans are on welfare at a lower rate than immigrants (both legal and illegal).


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> Objectively false. Native-born Americans are on welfare at a lower rate than immigrants (both legal and illegal).


"Objectively false" he says, providing no evidence or source to back his claim.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...cans-are-opposing-government-welfare-programs



			
				NPR said:
			
		

> Despite those perceptions, other research has found that white people are the biggest beneficiaries of the government safety net. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, white people made up the the largest share — at 52 percent — of people lifted from poverty by safety-net programs, while black people made up less than a quarter of that share. When it comes to receiving Medicaid, white people make up about 43 percent of recipients, Hispanics about 30 percent, African-Americans 18 percent, with 9 percent identified as other, according to Wetts.


So are all these white people immigrants (who can't apply for government assistance anyway), or are you just full of shit?


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> How about realizing that we didn't engage in the practice of nation building in Libya like we did with Afghanistan and Iraq?  Their fate was their own to decide after Gaddafi was out of the picture, as it should be.  I'm not sure how you can argue that continued civil war would've resulted in anything different.



From the Salon article -


> Before the 2011 NATO bombing, on the other hand, Libya had been the wealthiest nation in Africa, with the highest life expectancy and GDP per capita. In his book "Perilous Interventions," former Indian representative to the U.N. Hardeep Singh Puri notes that, before the war, Libya had less of its population in poverty than the Netherlands. Libyans had access to free health care, education, electricity and interest-free loans, and women had great freedoms that had been applauded by the U.N. Human Rights Council in January 2011, on the eve of the war that destroyed the government.



Take your intervention and 'nation building' and choke on it you fucking tool.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "Objectively false" he says, providing no evidence or source to back his claim.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...cans-are-opposing-government-welfare-programs
> 
> ...


Your link doesn't refute my post, and you're also using racial slurs against whites, racist.
https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> From the Salon article - Take your intervention and 'nation building' and choke on it you fucking tool.


I made the point that I'm _against_ the practice of nation building.  And your quote doesn't refute my argument that civil war would've led to the same collapse in Libya regardless of Western intervention.



Haloman800 said:


> Your link doesn't refute my post, and you're also using racial slurs against whites, racist.


"White trash" only refers to a certain subsection of white people, not all of them in general, and I think you're very much aware of that.



Haloman800 said:


> https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs


I appreciate the fact that you provided a source, and it seems the point you were making is correct.  But while you like to lay the blame for high welfare usage on individual immigrants and workers, I lay the blame where it rightfully belongs: on businesses and corporations that prioritize profits over people.  Almost nowhere in this country will a full-time, minimum wage job provide enough income to live off of.  As a result, you can have a full-time job and still be forced to rely on government assistance.  Because of this, both citizens and non-citizens recognize that the system is rigged against them, and a lot of people simply give up trying.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "White trash" only refers to a certain subsection of white people, not all of them in general, and I think you're very much aware of that.


If you had made your above statement about "the N word" referring to "only a certain subsection of black people", you would agree that it's racist. Using a racial slur against _any_ member of a group is racist.



> I appreciate the fact that you provided a source, and it seems *the point you were making is correc*t.  But while you like to lay the blame for high welfare usage on individual immigrants and workers, I lay the blame where it rightfully belongs: on businesses and corporations that prioritize profits over people.  Almost nowhere in this country will a full-time, minimum wage job provide enough income to live off of.  As a result, you can have a full-time job and still be forced to rely on government assistance.  Because of this, both citizens and non-citizens recognize that the system is rigged against them, and a lot of people simply give up trying.



I'm glad you now understand that they are a net drain on our society. We have enough poor people here already, let's take care of them first.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I made the point that I'm _against_ the practice of nation building.  And your quote doesn't refute my argument that civil war would've led to the same collapse in Libya regardless of Western intervention.



The intervention crippled almost any ability the Libyan national army had to form a cohesive response and emboldened the fundamentalist factions that made up the vast majority of the (foreign backed + armed) 'rebellion'.

It wasn't a fucking civil war - it was a regime change operation fought via proxy.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> If you had made your above statement about "the N word" referring to "only a certain subsection of black people", you would agree that it's racist. Using a racial slur against _any_ member of a group is racist.


The N-word comes from a time when all black people in this country were slaves, perhaps you'd have a point if there was ever a similar period of history for the entire white population.  There are slurs that reference the entire Irish and Italian populations that I'll not be using.



Haloman800 said:


> I'm glad you now understand that they are a net drain on our society. We have enough poor people here already, let's take care of them first.


We have the resources to take care of everybody, but as it stands now we choose to be bootlickers for the ultra-wealthy instead.  It's simply a matter of priorities.  In addition, we've always been a melting pot of immigration, it's one of our biggest strengths.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Jul 13, 2019)

The term white trash is racist because 
-it assumes there are no other forms of trash, only in the white population (white inferiority)
-it assumes white people are usually and uniquely not trashy, just a subsection of them (white superiority)


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 13, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> The election was fucked regardless. It wouldn't matter either way.


Sure it would. Had Hillary been in office, she would've done so much better than Trump, with the peoples' actual interest at heart. I think the nay-sayers about her _really _need to do their reaserch about her prior to just bandwagon-clinging to what they've read in the media. She has in office experience, actually cares, and her husband did a LOT to help America financially in his time and was a pretty good president! The ones who say otherwise, and the ones (like the dude above) who say how they prefer trump over Hillary are fucking *morons* who know absolutely nothing about politics and ride the Trumpdick that the media shares around. I bet they know absolutely nothing about US politics, nor the accomplishments of the officials, nor what they even stood for. It's clear that the person you're replying to is politically-retarded. Anyone who believes that Trump is better than Hillary are morons who know nothing of politics, and just follow the "build that wall" bandwagon mentality.

Also, Trump totally took the wall idea from Arrested Development. Calling it now.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> The intervention crippled almost any ability the Libyan national army had to form a cohesive response and emboldened the fundamentalist factions that made up the vast majority of the (foreign backed + armed) 'rebellion'.
> 
> It wasn't a fucking civil war - it was a regime change operation fought via proxy.


We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.  Even without US assistance, the rebels had enough manpower and resources to continue on fighting for months, if not years.  And Gaddafi _did_ threaten his own people.  Regardless of the mistranslation there's no guarantee that he would've been careful or selective about which ones he killed.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The term white trash is racist because
> -it assumes there are no other forms of trash, only in the white population (white inferiority)
> -it assumes white people are usually and uniquely not trashy, just a subsection of them (white superiority)


If it's an example of both white inferiority and white superiority at the same time, doesn't it balance itself out?


----------



## blahkamehameha (Jul 13, 2019)

The illegal aliens are coming here for better lives, better opportunities. It's pragmatic -  they don't really care if they have to break a couple of laws in the meantime. I think everyone understands that, and respects it to a certain extent. Who can blame them? 

Where the respect can often get lost is when it's framed dishonestly and weasly. Year after year, millions after millions of illegal immigration, then all of a sudden it's now "seeking asylum", then even much more newer absurd claims like it's somehow related to climate change. Please, spare us. Passing through multiple countries to then start claiming asylum... Breaking the law to come to a better land - hey, I get it. Breaking the law, then being deceptive in the motivation for breaking the law - that's when people like me want the big, beautiful Wall to go up ASAP.


----------



## notimp (Jul 13, 2019)

@Haloman800:
Change your signature picture please? Maybe? How do you think that we could hold a discussion with someone sporting a "I think the other side should be locked up in jail" message all the time?

Its a little trolly, but mostly not current, not topical, not representative of your person, and basically a reminder that democracy is being highjacked by memes, with every post that you make.

Here is why that meme is so catastrophic. It circumvents separation of power.NO political candidate EVER should run on a platform of 'I'm honestly thinking about sending my opponent to jail if I win (which he could)', no police action EVER should be made because of public sentiment. No judicial decision EVER should be influenced by a popularity campaign. And the factual content of the claim/chant is freaking low, doesnt know anything about political immunity, while holding an office, and is making an elefant out of a moskito. While at the same time hinting at conspiracy theory tropes - that some of us try to prevent from propagating, by holding some edgy discussions here as well.

In a sense you are ruining everything. Stop ruining everything, please? Stop holding an opinion that the far right knows best, and societies should be managed in an authoritarian fashion.

Please?

So you trigger every intelligent human being into not wanting to take part in any conversation with you, and then you win? Then you can spew your viewpoint and recruit more people in a videogames forum to your political camp? How does this work?


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You failed to address the fact that much of their coverage was neutral, not negative.  Trump's victory was also a victory for the corporate sponsors of CNN and MSNBC, but really they couldn't lose once the race was locked in as Hillary vs Trump.  The "great" Donald Trump has done nothing but keep people divided as a distraction while the oligarchs continue to pillage this country.



The coverage was beyond negative. There are youtube videos of CNN and other left leaning networks with the hosts getting visibly upset at Trump winning the election. The rigged polls that had Clinton up 8 points are also concerning.

It's beyond common sense that the left is brainwashing youth. Every single university pushes a liberal narrative and all of your favorite celebrities are democrats. I am not sure why people here like to pretend they are enlightened when they have the same beliefs as celebrities and rappers. Thinking outside of the box does not mean nodding your head up and down at everything your favorite celebrities say.


----------



## Rolf12 (Jul 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> The coverage was beyond negative. There are youtube videos of CNN and other left leaning networks with the hosts getting visibly upset at Trump winning the election. The rigged polls that had Clinton up 8 points are also concerning.
> 
> It's beyond common sense that the left is brainwashing youth. Every single university pushes a liberal narrative and all of your favorite celebrities are democrats. I am not sure why people here like to pretend they are enlightened when they have the same beliefs as celebrities and rappers. Thinking outside of the box does not mean nodding your head up and down at everything your favorite celebrities say.


Is caring about others than yourself and your inner circle a terrible and evil leftist agenda? For me that's what socialism is about. Spreading resources more evenly than pure capitalism would (free schools and healthcare for example), increasing trust in society, keeping critical services such as water distribution in state hands, investing in infrastructure, keeping an open journalism landscape where any accusation or argument can be neutralized with "fake news".


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> The coverage was beyond negative.


Some of it.  I specifically remember examples of "left-wing" networks giving him and his rallies tons of coverage with no commentary whatsoever.  And whether negative or neutral, they gave Trump far more free air time than any other candidate in the Republican or Democratic primaries.



Maluma said:


> It's beyond common sense that the left is brainwashing youth. Every single university pushes a liberal narrative and all of your favorite celebrities are democrats. I am not sure why people here like to pretend they are enlightened when they have the same beliefs as celebrities and rappers. Thinking outside of the box does not mean nodding your head up and down at everything your favorite celebrities say.


Yet Republicans are the only ones willing to elect presidents whose qualifications begin and end at being in movies/reality TV.  Democrats reject vapid 'celebrity' candidates like Marianne Williamson.  Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 13, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Some of it.  I specifically remember examples of "left-wing" networks giving him and his rallies tons of coverage with no commentary whatsoever.  And whether negative or neutral, they gave Trump far more free air time than any other candidate in the Republican or Democratic primaries.
> 
> 
> Yet Republicans are the only ones willing to elect presidents whose qualifications begin and end at being in movies/reality TV.  Democrats reject vapid 'celebrity' candidates like Marianne Williamson.  Ironic, isn't it?



The entertainment industry pushes a liberal agenda and people that are obsessed with video games and other forms of entertainment usually fall for the trap. There is a reason people become more conservative as they start getting older, people eventually realize that the world isn't Disneyland. I don't know of your particular situation, but a good percentage of the liberals that cry about open borders and other "free" things are usually upper middle class white folk that live in bubbles where they don't have to deal with any of the problems caused as a result of these measures. In other words, rich white people like to virtue signal to feel better about themselves, but the reality is that they don't live anywhere near illegal immigrants or even minorities for that matter. I hope that you don't belong to said group of people and you actually can back up your words.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2019)

Maluma said:


> There is a reason people become more conservative as they start getting older


There is a reason for that, yes.  Without guarding against it, the natural tendency is to become more self-centered as you grow older, less concerned with what's being done to the country at large.  As a result, conservatives usually end up fleecing themselves with presidents like GWB and Trump who only help the already-rich to grow richer.  Liberals believe that a rising tide raises all ships, and it's hard to find flaws in that logic.  When the people at the bottom have more money in their pockets, the corporations at the top see increased profits from increased spending.



Maluma said:


> In other words, rich white people like to virtue signal to feel better about themselves, but the reality is that they don't live anywhere near illegal immigrants or even minorities for that matter.


I don't see how living in certain places has anything to do with being consistent about one's virtues.  Should people instead be acting upon tribalism and their worst instincts 24/7?



Maluma said:


> I hope that you don't belong to said group of people and you actually can back up your words.


I've lived in shitty neighborhoods and I've lived in nice neighborhoods.  People are people wherever you go.  You either choose to see the best qualities in everyone, or the worst qualities in everyone.  It's easy to pretend that whatever race/ethnic group you belong to has fewer flaws than the others, but at the end of the day you're only fooling (and making a fool of) yourself.


----------



## Rolf12 (Jul 13, 2019)

I don't want to refer to studies, but the quite common conclusion that increased equality raises trust and quality of life for all citizens I consider to be true. Whether you are white and middle-class or immigrant doing cleaning jobs. An increase in for example minimum wage which back in 2009 was set to 7.25$ would benefit the nation as a whole. Same goes for increasing tax on stock earnings and lowering it for work. How to deal with labour outside of tax system (illegal)? Perhaps to stop illegalise people would be a start.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Hillary's position on the Iran Nuclear Deal was very clear, and they were keeping up their end. My point was that you apparently didn't know this.


I’m well aware of Hilary’s positions. Politicians sometimes never do what they promise. So we have no idea how a Hilary presidency will be like. All we can do is speculate with hints of things she’s said, and wars she’s signed and agreed on in the past.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2019)

SG854 said:


> All we can do is speculate with hints she’s said


She has been very consistent on the issue of Iran. To say "we would have gone to war" is to ignore the evidence and make up your own. I'd criticize you for speculating, but it's less speculation and more imagination. You're just making stuff up.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2019)

Lacius said:


> She has been very consistent on the issue of Iran. To say "we would have gone to war" is to ignore the evidence and make up your own. I'd criticize you for speculating, but your speculations have no basis in fact. You're just making stuff up.


No I’m not.


She has said if they attacked Israel she would send us to war with Iran. And you don’t know what the future holds.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2019)

SG854 said:


> No I’m not.


Yes you are. We can, based on her comments on the Iran Nuclear Deal between 2016-now, say with a very reasonable degree of certainty that Hillary Clinton would not have pulled out of the deal. There is also literally zero indication that she would have gone to war with Russia. You're talking out of your ass.



SG854 said:


> She has said if they attacked Israel she would send us to war with Iran.


Considering Iran hasn't attacked Israel in the manner you're describing, I'm not sure how this is relevant to your comments that we "would have gone to war with Iran by now."



SG854 said:


> And you don’t know what the future holds.


You've been doing this a lot since I first called you out for not knowing what you're talking about. If you're going to say "Hillary would have gone to war with Iran and Russia" and then criticize me because "you don't know what the future holds" and "all we can do is speculate" when I point out what she more likely would have done, that makes you a hypocrite.

In other words, you said Hillary would have done X. I said Hillary actually wouldn't have done X. Your rebuttal was "We can't say if Hillary would or wouldn't have done X."

Your mental gymnastics are getting boring.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Yes you are. We can, based on her comments on the Iran Nuclear Deal between 2016-now, say with a very reasonable degree of certainty that Hillary Clinton would not have pulled out of the deal. There is also literally zero indication that she would have gone to war with Russia. You're talking out of your ass.
> 
> 
> Considering Iran hasn't attacked Israel in the manner you're describing, I'm not sure how this is relevant to your comments that we "would have gone to war with Iran by now."
> ...


What mental gymnastics are you talking about?

I didn’t say we would have gone to war with Iran someone else said it. I’m saying we don’t know what the future holds.

And how is me saying that a criticism? You are taking things way to personal. I’m just saying no one knows everything, and we aren’t some kind of fortune teller.

You’re on edge, we’re just here talking on this thread.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2019)

SG854 said:


> What mental gymnastics are you talking about?


Your hypocrisy.



SG854 said:


> I didn’t say we would have gone to war with Iran someone else said it. I’m saying we don’t know what the future holds.


It is a double standard to say I can't respond to a claim about the future (that she would have gone to Iran) by acknowledging what Clinton has said about not leaving the Iran Nuclear Deal.



SG854 said:


> And how is me saying that a criticism?


Are you saying it's appropriate to claim Hillary would have gone to war with Iran, but it's inappropriate for me to contradict that with actual evidence? If so, that's hypocritical.

Are you saying it's inappropriate to claim Hillary would have gone to war with Iran? If so, it's appropriate for me to contradict that.



SG854 said:


> I’m just saying no one knows everything, and we aren’t some kind of fortune teller.


If that was your intention, you responded to the wrong person. I'm not the one who made a baseless claim about what the future would be like with Hillary Clinton as President.



SG854 said:


> You’re on edge, we’re just here talking on this thread.





SG854 said:


> You are taking things way to personal.


Nothing bores me more than when someone says something that calls for the operation of my mind, and instead that person projects his or her own feelings onto me. I'm not taking anything personally. I'm calling you out on your biases.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Your hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> It is a double standard to say I can't respond to a claim about the future (that she would have gone to Iran) by acknowledging what Clinton has said about not leaving the Iran Nuclear Deal.
> ...


What hypocrisy?


I never said you can’t respond to a claim about the future. I’m just saying stuff happens, you can make an educated guess, but even with evidence the future is still unexpected.


My whole point was your comment came out as assholish. You can talk about reason why we wouldn’t or would go to war with Iran but no need to be assholish about it. And you seem to be on edge on this thread. And im saying calm the F down, we are just talking here. And that goes the same for everyone else here that’s on edge.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2019)

SG854 said:


> What hypocrisy?


I've explained it twice. I'm not going to explain it again.



SG854 said:


> I never said you can’t respond to a claim about the future. I’m just saying stuff happens, you can make an educated guess, but even with evidence the future is still unexpected.


Then there was no point in criticizing my post.



SG854 said:


> My whole point was your comment came out as assholish. You can talk about reason why we wouldn’t or would go to war with Iran but no need to be assholish about it.


If a person is going to say something as ridiculous as "Hillary would have started a war with Iran and Russia" without apparently understanding the history behind the Iran Nuclear Deal, then that post is subject to ridicule, by definition. I didn't say he was dumb. I didn't say he should feel bad. I didn't call his character into question. I didn't put him down. I didn't bully him. I said he didn't know what he was talking about, which was correct. If you're going to criticize my response by saying something that applies more to the original post then my response (without addressing the original post), you're a hypocrite. If you're going to waste my time by pearl-clutching in response to my acceptable choice of words, I'm not interested, which is probably why I didn't address your high-horse statement in the first place.



SG854 said:


> And you seem to be on edge on this thread. And im saying calm the F down, we are just talking here. And that goes the same for everyone else here that’s on edge.


You're the one throwing around terms like "asshole," "calm the F down," pearl-clutching, etc. I'm not the one getting personal. I'm not the one who seems to be on edge.

There's also a chance you're going to get this thread locked.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 14, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Sure it would. Had Hillary been in office, she would've done so much better than Trump, with the peoples' actual interest at heart. I think the nay-sayers about her _really _need to do their reaserch about her prior to just bandwagon-clinging to what they've read in the media. She has in office experience, actually cares, and her husband did a LOT to help America financially in his time and was a pretty good president! The ones who say otherwise, and the ones (like the dude above) who say how they prefer trump over Hillary are fucking *morons* who know absolutely nothing about politics and ride the Trumpdick that the media shares around. I bet they know absolutely nothing about US politics, nor the accomplishments of the officials, nor what they even stood for. It's clear that the person you're replying to is politically-retarded. Anyone who believes that Trump is better than Hillary are morons who know nothing of politics, and just follow the "build that wall" bandwagon mentality.
> 
> Also, Trump totally took the wall idea from Arrested Development. Calling it now.


Meanwhile was the wife of Bill Clintion... Not much more to say. However maybe I'm wrong and she would of done things better as a president vs what trump has done. But in my opinion, both are ass and are the least optimal choice
Edit: and she also lied about something as basic a emails.... (granted important emails) but in a position like that you have to admit you fucked up.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 14, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Meanwhile was the wife of Bill Clintion... Not much more to say. However maybe I'm wrong and she would of done things better as a president vs what trump has done. But in my opinion, both are ass and are the least optimal choice
> Edit: and she also lied about something as basic a emails.... (granted important emails) but in a position like that you have to admit you fucked up.


Not much more to say? So you know actually the great things Bill had done for the United States? I lived there when he was president and he was actually really helpful and did a good job... or are you just one of those ignorant trump supporters who thinks they know what they're talking about, by reading comments regurgitated by morons on Facebook pages? Especially with that last paragraph, it's clear you blindly follow politics by what you hear being regurgitated by politically-ignorant idiots. I'd suggest you actually even simply ATTEMPT to do your research if you hold such (ignorant) disdain for Hillary, and think shes even REMOTELY comparable to Trump. Shes infinitely smarter, and infinitely less crooked, as well as far more morally just. Your opinion of her, as well as Bill, shows your political ignorance. Hell, I'm from Britain and I know more than you do about your own government...

Please do your research. And stop following regurgitated ignorance... that makes you part of the problem.


Honestly, to everybody; I think we should take away the right to vote from anyone and everyone who voted for Tump. Sure, its not politically right, and yes, it's taking away a freedom, but if you cant even do your research prior to voting, and you decide to vote with ignorance, then you're not mature enough, nor are you responsible enough to vote. This goes for every and all Trump voters. There should be repercussions. Look how he's ruining the United States. Had any supporter of his actually watched even a snip of any of his speeches, they'd know he is NOT fit to be president, and they'd know that hes a crooked conman, and a senile, horrible excuse for a human being. He is the absolute WORST of humanity. He is a racist, a rapist, a white supremacist, and an overall HORRIBLE human being with an absolutely shattered moral compass. I cannot emphasize just how HORRIBLE of a human being he is. He raped a 13 year old girl. And that's probably FAR from the worst thing this guy has done. If I read he killed 200 people, honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. He has no empathy for anyone and only cares about his immature, selfish, HORRIBLE self. What a fucking cunt this waste of human existence is. The day he dies, I would love to personally buy a plane ticket to defecate on his grave, and dig, "cunt" into his grave stone. I obviously wouldn't do that, because of legal reasons, but it's up there on my day dream list. I cant emphasize enough just jow horrible this human being is. Certainly one of the worst I can think of. Anyway. If you cant vote responsibly, then you shouldnt be allowed to vote. Especially after seeing this twat damage your country.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 14, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> Not much more to say? So you know actually the great things Bill had done for the United States? I lived there when he was president and he was actually really helpful and did a good job... or are you just one of those ignorant trump supporters who thinks they know what they're talking about, by reading comments regurgitated by morons on Facebook pages? Especially with that last paragraph, it's clear you blindly follow politics by what you hear being regurgitated by politically-ignorant idiots. I'd suggest you actually even simply ATTEMPT to do your research if you hold such (ignorant) disdain for Hillary, and think shes even REMOTELY comparable to Trump. Shes infinitely smarter, and infinitely less crooked, as well as far more morally just. Your opinion of her, as well as Bill, shows your political ignorance. Hell, I'm from Britain and I know more than you do about your own government...
> 
> Please do your research. And stop following regurgitated ignorance... that makes you part of the problem.
> 
> ...


One word. Impeached. Hillary also lied about emails. Also if you read what I said before you clearly understand that I don't support trump.

A president needs integrity and intelligence. Lack one or the other in my book and it's not a good president. She may be smart, but she lacks integrity.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> One word. Impeached. Hillary also lied about emails. Also if you read what I said before you clearly understand that I don't support trump.
> 
> A president needs integrity and intelligence. Lack one or the other in my book and it's not a good president. She may be smart, but she lacks integrity.


Hillary Clinton was by far the lesser of two evils.

And, to be clear, I generally liked Hillary Clinton (albeit I voted for Sanders in the primary).


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2019)

It doesn't seem like this thread is about illegal immigration anymore. I can fix that.  I would also urge everyone to try and stay civil, I see a lot of name calling, and a lot of passive-aggressive jabs, which aren't any better.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 14, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Hillary Clinton was by far the lesser of two evils.
> 
> And, to be clear, I generally liked Hillary Clinton (albeit I voted for Sanders in the primary).


For me I wasn't old enough to vote. (Now am)


----------



## Josshy0125 (Jul 14, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It doesn't seem like this thread is about illegal immigration anymore. I can fix that.  I would also urge everyone to try and stay civil, I see a lot of name calling, and a lot of passive-aggressive jabs, which aren't any better.


Yeah a lot of that was me. I'm sorry. Thay was entirely my fault and I apologize. I get very heated over this subject, and that's entirely my fault.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 14, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It doesn't seem like this thread is about illegal immigration anymore. I can fix that.  *I would also urge everyone to try and stay civil*, I see a lot of name calling, and a lot of passive-aggressive jabs, which aren't any better.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 14, 2019)

I'm done with this forum to be honest. The moderators target conservatives and let the liberal majority here say whatever they please. There is only one user here that is blatantly disrespecting everyone that answers him and the mods chose to target those that don't agree with their narrative. My post that got deleted wasn't even flaming and there are multiple posts on this thread that are highly disrespectful that are still up for discussion. I'm not even sure why we have a politics forum on GBAtemp if there is going to be biased moderating in the first place.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 14, 2019)

Can I take back my original Profile Picture then? /s


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 14, 2019)

Maluma said:


> I'm done with this forum to be honest. The moderators target conservatives and let the liberal majority here say whatever they please. There is only one user here that is blatantly disrespecting everyone that answers him and the mods chose to target those that don't agree with their narrative. My post that got deleted wasn't even flaming and there are multiple posts on this thread that are highly disrespectful that are still up for discussion. I'm not even sure why we have a politics forum on GBAtemp if there is going to be biased moderating in the first place.


No. We get reports, then we investigate to see if the complaint in that report is valid. If you think someone is breaking the rules or are out of line, then report them instead of engaging in a flame war. Not only do I not care what side you're on or what you're debating, I dont always have time to sit and read every comment in a 20 page thread. Use the report button.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 14, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> No. We get reports, then we investigate to see if the complaint in that report is valid. If you think someone is breaking the rules or are out of line, then report them instead of engaging in a flame war. Not only do I not care what side you're on or what you're debating, I dont always have time to sit and read every comment in a 20 page thread. Use the report button.


Well you see that's the thing. I'm a grown man and most of the time even if someone does post something flaming or derogatory towards me, I am man enough to handle it. I don't have to file a complaint with the mods. The majority of the time I just move on. I don't think I have ever hit the report button on any forum I've ever been on.
 But a certain group of people in today's world are extremely immature, almost like a grown up version of a kindergartener. Instead of taking comments and criticism like a mature adult, they get offended and since they can't run to mommy about it, they hit the report button.

I can see why members like @cots and @Maluma get frustrated. Sometimes I just have to back away from this forum. And just read the switch forums instead.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2019)

The accusation that out moderation team is _"too liberal"_ and _"targets conservatives"_ is ridiculous. I myself am a right-wing Trump-supporting lolbertarian, I think I should know more than anyone if the team _"punishes people for their ideology"_ given the fact that mine is quite atypical and yet I somehow clawed myself up to the prestigeous title of Global Boot Squad Leader-- wait a minute, let's not lose track of what's important.

Moderation decisions are not up for discussion, but this one time I'll indulge you. The reason why the team is reacting the way they're reacting here is because I asked for civility earlier and some users _didn't listen_. It has nothing to do with the team taking sides and everything to do with, well, _moderating_ the discussion. I'm not going to go back in time and punish people for what they've said _prior to my arrival_ - that's silly. I sure am going to react to people who can't heed a clear warning though, that's fair game, don't you think? I'm trying to save the thread because I think discussing the matter of illegal immigration is important and worthwhile, but you're not making it easy if you keep throwing mud at each other.

The funny thing about this job, if you could call it that, is that everyone we ever work with feels _"targeted"_, and I can understand that due to the nature of our work. From the ultra-conservative to the ultra-liberal, everyone's a victim when we step in. There's a grain of truth in that because I hate you all equally and will persecute you accordingly-- uhh, whoops, Freudian slip, what I meant to say was _"we endeavour to resolve disputes fairly and don't favour any side"_.

I hope that clears things up. If anyone feels that they're being persecuted, that's a complex they have to deal with. The moderating team fulfills one function here, keeping the peace, and they'll keep doing that regardless of political alignment.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 14, 2019)

Sort of a threadjack of sorts, but let's remember that this whole non-crisis crisis started because when it was still a month until the first caravan would reach the southern border, instead of pushing for (1) funding for more judges, (2) resources to provide for asylum seekers, and (3) negotiating with Mexico to provide some sort of south border camp while more judges are spun up and while the almost certainly dragged out asylum cases go through, we had a president hammering on about the need for a wall and an impending invasion--something wall funding wouldn't stop because it'd take way more than a month to build a substantial amount of wall--while condemning the legitimate asylum process and doing nothing to really to fix it except you start jailing everyone to try to instill fear in anyone who crossed, no matter how legally they did it.  And when that didn't get funding, instead of using emergency funding to provide for more judges or resources for asylum seekers, money was grabbed to fund said wall.  Even now with conditions considered pretty deplorably by the Vice President, who usually goes along with everything Trump says, we're still seeing no emergency funding by anyone.

Honestly, it's all a very bad joke.  It's like arguing the disaster of Fukushima would never of happened if we should have just stopped the earthquake.  *sigh*  At least arguing for a (bigger) wall there would have made some sense.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 14, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> Sort of a threadjack of sorts, but let's remember that this whole non-crisis crisis started because when it was still a month until the first caravan would reach the southern border, instead of pushing for (1) funding for more judges, (2) resources to provide for asylum seekers, and (3) negotiating with Mexico to provide some sort of south border camp while more judges are spun up and while the almost certainly dragged out asylum cases go through, we had a president hammering on about the need for a wall and an impending invasion--something wall funding wouldn't stop because it'd take way more than a month to build a substantial amount of wall--while condemning the legitimate asylum process and doing nothing to really to fix it except you start jailing everyone to try to instill fear in anyone who crossed, no matter how legally they did it.  And when that didn't get funding, instead of using emergency funding to provide for more judges or resources for asylum seekers, money was grabbed to fund said wall.  Even now with conditions considered pretty deplorably by the Vice President, who usually goes along with everything Trump says, we're still seeing no emergency funding by anyone.
> 
> Honestly, it's all a very bad joke.  It's like arguing the disaster of Fukushima would never of happened if we should have just stopped the earthquake.  *sigh*  At least arguing for a (bigger) wall there would have made some sense.



Did you used to be around more on the 3ds subforum? I feel like I saw your avi before except the fish was facing in a different direction, what game is your avi from?


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 14, 2019)

Maluma said:


> Did you used to be around more on the 3ds subforum? I feel like I saw your avi before except the fish was facing in a different direction, what game is your avi from?



More gba subforums, but I'm pretty sure I've posted on the DS and 3DS subforums.  That's not a fish, it's a stag beetle, the kuwagata, from Mega Man X.

Edit - And if you're at all interested in it, you can google "kuwagata samurai" to get an idea of where the Kuwanger design came from.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Jul 14, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> More gba subforums, but I'm pretty sure I've posted on the DS and 3DS subforums.  That's not a fish, it's a stag beetle, the kuwagata, from Mega Man X.
> 
> Edit - And if you're at all interested in it, you can google "kuwagata samurai" to get an idea of where the Kuwanger design came from.



I'm confusing you with a different user I think that had a fish with similar colors to your avi. I think his name was @Carpa or something. I can't find him now though.

Edit: Found him his name was @cearp.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I've explained it twice. I'm not going to explain it again.
> 
> 
> Then there was no point in criticizing my post.
> ...


You didn’t do a good job at all explaining the hypocrisy. Because there was none.


I’ve been getting negative vibes from you in this thread and with the posts you replied to me also. And I’m saying don’t act assholish. That is all. Getting this thread locked just for saying don’t act assholish is ridiculous. And I criticized you acting assholish I didn’t call you an asshole.



And what high horse statement? Just for saying don’t act assholish. You are using some twisted ass logic just to make a non point. And the fact you are saying “you have no idea what you’re talking about” is exactly what i’m getting. That’s you on a high horse statement. That’s you with a cocky statement. I’m telling you to get off your high horse and calm down.


Xzi told me that I was too aggressive in previous threads. So I apologized and I haven’t been calling people names and such. And this thread I wasn’t doing that. And I am not biased like you accused me of because I accepted the comment you made about Obama’s immigration, though I’m might change my opinion again on that. I only say things like idiot and moron when it’s necessary in some circumstances but I avoid it as much as I can. So it’s no way a got ya contradiction. Because of the situation things sometimes deserve it. And people like to manipulate that to get an argumentative advantage, but it’s not.


Mods don’t shut this thread down because of this back and forth between me and Lucius. I’m cool with him and not overly angry, I just felt he came off too arrogant on his comments and commented on that.

And Lacius fine make the comments the way you do. But I’m just saying man, you come off as angry and arrogant. And other people too in this thread, on both sides and these threads sometimes goes down in non sense. Instead of just commenting I disagree and here’s why, you instead say you have no idea what your talking about. We are all just gathering the information the best we can and getting information is pretty hard. And i’m sure you don’t know everything to be making a comment like that. And saying your acting assholish in no way a gotcha hypocritical statement, especially when my intent of saying that is to get people to not be rude to each other and to be nicer.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2019)

SG854 said:


> You didn’t do a good job at all explaining the hypocrisy. Because there was none.
> 
> 
> I’ve been getting negative vibes from you in this thread and with the posts you replied to me also. And I’m saying don’t act assholish. That is all. Getting this thread locked just for saying don’t act assholish is ridiculous. And I criticized you acting assholish I didn’t call you an asshole.
> ...


Long and negative posts about me instead of the topic are what are going to get this thread locked.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Long and negative posts about me instead of the topic are what are going to get this thread locked.


Dude I’m trying to be cool with you ok. Try not be be so defensive please. I just felt you came to aggressive.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Dude I’m trying to be cool with you ok. Try not be be so defensive please. I just felt you came to aggressive.


Telling you what is going to get this thread locked isn't me being "defensive," "aggressive," or "uncool." I'd argue those are the things you're doing by not letting it go.

If you can't let things be, use my PM box instead of derailing the thread.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Telling you what is going to get this thread locked isn't me being "defensive," "aggressive," or "uncool." I'd argue those are the things you're doing by not letting it go.
> 
> If you can't let things be, use my PM box instead of derailing the thread.


Ok, fine. I just think this is whatever now. And like chill now.


I guess mods can remove comments between me and Lucius, since they don’t contribute to this thread. I usually don’t like comments removed but I don’t think anyone cares about the back and forth between us two.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> Sort of a threadjack of sorts, but let's remember that this whole non-crisis crisis started because when it was still a month until the first caravan would reach the southern border, instead of pushing for (1) funding for more judges, (2) resources to provide for asylum seekers, and (3) negotiating with Mexico to provide some sort of south border camp while more judges are spun up and while the almost certainly dragged out asylum cases go through, we had a president hammering on about the need for a wall and an impending invasion--something wall funding wouldn't stop because it'd take way more than a month to build a substantial amount of wall--while condemning the legitimate asylum process and doing nothing to really to fix it except you start jailing everyone to try to instill fear in anyone who crossed, no matter how legally they did it.  And when that didn't get funding, instead of using emergency funding to provide for more judges or resources for asylum seekers, money was grabbed to fund said wall.  Even now with conditions considered pretty deplorably by the Vice President, who usually goes along with everything Trump says, we're still seeing no emergency funding by anyone.
> 
> Honestly, it's all a very bad joke.  It's like arguing the disaster of Fukushima would never of happened if we should have just stopped the earthquake.  *sigh*  At least arguing for a (bigger) wall there would have made some sense.


From where I'm sitting, the U.S. is suffering from a big problem with separation of power. The country is in a situation where the legislative branch cannot properly legislate and the executive cannot execute due to the judiciary blocking just about every attempt at improving the situation. It's a catch 22 situation where everybody harps on Congress and the Oval Office for not addressing the border crisis while simultaneously blocking any and all attempts at reforming the system. There's a lot of talk about the possibility of impeachment regarding the president, I think it's about time a couple of federal judges were impeached. The power of judicial review has morphed into something it was never meant to be, I have a hard time imagining that the founding fathers wanted the judiciary to usurp the power of the legislature and the executive by only enforcing the laws they approve of while blockading everything else. To quote Hamilton:


> "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." - Federalist no.78


The massive overreach on the part of the judiciary is tying the hands of the rest of the government, and until that's addressed, I doubt we'll see any progress. The power of judicial review, although inferred from the Constitution, has been grossly misinterpreted and should be reigned in accordingly.


----------



## grind3r4rlz (Jul 15, 2019)

cots said:


> The buzz in the news lately has been the overcrowded,  but generally better condition that a lot of people who have been crossing the Southern border of illegally have found themselves in. Current policies encourage people to illegally bypass our border checkpoints and cross in dangerous locations because the policies then allow them to get free health insurance (emergency Medicaid), food assistance (SNAP gives them the option to not have to provide or prove they are a legal resident of the USA) and free housing. That's if they successfully sneak into the country otherwise they may die or find themselves in worse conditions than the likely outcome, which is they are apprehended and put into detention facilities (as they are breaking the law).
> 
> So the current policies encourage them to risk their own lives along with their children's for a free shot at living large, which puts a burden on the USA economy, brings with it drug smuggling and people who sell children for sex and enables criminals, who are organizing caravans of thousands of migrants to profit. It also gives the certain people that are not only personally profiting financially more votes because in thier districts they allow non-citizens to vote, while both the general public and the immigrants suffer.
> 
> ...



After seeing why you left the page in your post in the Discord for this site I thought I should sign up and give my two cents. While I can't speak about the moderators here due to no experience with them I can see how deleting your post because you generalized when this entire thread contains generalizations would be frustrating. Did you know that like @Foxi4 said someone must have reported you? I think it's crap that @DinohScene asked why someone hasn't assassinated the president yet. I think that is something the secret service should be notified about.

My take on this topic is that if you're doing something that's illegal and get caught that you have to deal with the fallout. I have no pity for people that start off by entering our country and the first thing they do is break the law. The conditions in our own jails aren't that great and are pretty comparable to what these criminals are having to deal with. The children are their resposibility, they did this to their own kids. I don't think that a toothbrush and shower are too much to ask, but those aren't human rights and I don't think they had those on the long trip over here as they are claiming their conditions were worse where they were coming from. Two hots and a cot in an air conditioned building is about right. Plus the condition of the children is only a symptom of the problem and we should be focusing on the root issue and not be distracted by people that would use emotional issues for political gain.

I also agree that the Democrats creating policies and ignoring the law are to blame the most and it's good that ICE is rounding up the criminals that had their due process and still refused to leave the country. I pray for our agents safety and if any of these criminals resists arrest with force I hope the ICE agents aim is spot on just like in the gun ranges they practice in. After ICE is done deporting the illegal population they should then focus on the people who supported them and I don't think that when you arrest our own citizens and send them to Prison that their kids get to come along with them. Maybe a bounty on illegals would help solve this problem? Shoot straight and God bless.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

grind3r4rlz said:


> After seeing why you left the page in your post in the Discord for this site I thought I should sign up and give my two cents. While I can't speak about the moderators here due to no experience with them I can see how deleting your post because you generalized when this entire thread contains generalizations would be frustrating. Did you know that like @Foxi4 said someone must have reported you? I think it's crap that @DinohScene asked why someone hasn't assassinated the president yet. I think that is something the secret service should be notified about.
> 
> My take on this topic is that if you're doing something that's illegal and get caught that you have to deal with the fallout. I have no pity for people that start off by entering our country and the first thing they do is break the law. The conditions in our own jails aren't that great and are pretty comparable to what these criminals are having to deal with. The children are their resposibility, they did this to their own kids. I don't think that a toothbrush and shower are too much to ask, but those aren't human rights and I don't think they had those on the long trip over here as they are claiming their conditions were worse where they were coming from. Two hots and a cot in an air conditioned building is about right. Plus the condition of the children is only a symptom of the problem and we should be focusing on the root issue and not be distracted by people that would use emotional issues for political gain.
> 
> I also agree that the Democrats creating policies and ignoring the law are to blame the most and it's good that ICE is rounding up the criminals that had their due process and still refused to leave the country. I pray for our agents safety and if any of these criminals resists arrest with force I hope the ICE agents aim is spot on just like in the gun ranges they practice in. After ICE is done deporting the illegal population they should then focus on the people who supported them and I don't think that when you arrest our own citizens and send them to Prison that their kids get to come along with them. Maybe a bounty on illegals would help solve this problem? Shoot straight and God bless.


Trump is using ICE and the roundups as political tools. Aside from being an illegal immigrant, we also aren't talking about criminals.

Talking about children in detainment, they should not be tortured in the way the Trump administration is torturing children because of anything their parents did. Adults who crossed the border illegally also don't deserve the deplorable conditions they're receiving.

Also talking about the children and adults in detainment, *many of them did not break the law*. They are legal asylum seekers.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 15, 2019)

This thread makes me disappointed about humanity: a comedic mix of maliciousness, naivety, ignorance, arrogance.

It's one of those things that makes you feel sad pity. I will have brighter days once I unfollow the thread.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Trump is using ICE and the roundups as political tools. Aside from being an illegal immigrant, we also aren't talking about criminals.
> 
> Talking about children in detainment, they should not be tortured in the way the Trump administration is torturing children because of anything their parents did. Adults who crossed the border illegally also don't deserve the deplorable conditions they're receiving.
> 
> Also talking about the children and adults in detainment, *many of them did not break the law*. They are legal asylum seekers.


I like how in your estimation these detainment facilities popped up like mushrooms, they just appeared overnight and totally didn't exist under previous administrations. Family separation didn't start with Trump and it isn't going to end with Trump either. If we're talking about things being used as political tools,_ "the children"_ are a model example of something that gets trotted out whenever it's convenient. ICE is doing the best they can with the limited resources they've got. If you want the situation at the border to improve, you would lobby for a larger border security budget. Of course it's more politically expedient for Democrats to just hold their arms in the air and tell people to _"think of the children"_ while doing absolutely nothing - it serves their ultimate goal of deposing the president, especially in the run up to the 2020 election. As for illegal immigrants, they're de facto criminals - illegal entry is prosecuted as a crime, especially now with the zero tolerance policy in place. The president signed an executive order to halt family separation on June 20th, that's more than Democrats have done in this regard, before or since. Sadly, this order won't apply in every case as, ultimately, border patrol must operate in accordance with pre-existing law, which only underlines the urgency of immigration reform.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2019)

When native citizens commit a dui crime or some other crime when they are with their child and are sent to jail, they are separated from their kids. Because the kids shouldn’t go to jail for the parents crime.

Entering the country illegally is in violation of 8 United States Code 1325.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

Assylum seekers are entering illegally if they enter anywhere other then the port of entry. To seek asylum legally you must go to the port of entry to do it the legal way.


Majority of Americans do not blame our government for people willingly coming to this country illegally, and violating the laws and putting their kids through this and for separation. They blame the parents.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/394244-americans-blame-law-breaking-parents-not-trump-for-border-separation?amp


Prisons are overcrowded with many illegal migrants.

Separation was recommended to protect kids from sexual assault from being in prisons that are overcrowded.


Rapid DNA testing in Texas shows that a third of migrants faked relationships with children to claim asylum. Tested either all migrants or only those that raise red flag, situation unclear. And there are many kids that come to this country already separated.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...-migrants-faked-family-relationship-kids.html



Democrats and Obama administration officials warns that open boarders and decriminalization would be costly.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452531-democrats-warn-push-for-border-crossing-decriminalization-will-prove-costly?amp


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I like how in your estimation these detainment facilities popped up like mushrooms, they just appeared overnight and totally didn't exist under previous administrations. Family separation didn't start with Trump and it isn't going to end with Trump either. If we're talking about things being used as political tools,_ "the children"_ are a model example of something that gets trotted out whenever it's convenient. ICE is doing the best they can with the limited resources they've got. If you want the situation at the border to improve, you would lobby for a larger border security budget. Of course it's more politically expedient for Democrats to just hold their arms in the air and tell people to _"think of the children"_ while doing absolutely nothing - it serves their ultimate goal of deposing the president, especially in the run up to the 2020 election. As for illegal immigrants, they're de facto criminals - illegal entry is prosecuted as a crime, especially now with the zero tolerance policy in place. The president signed an executive order to halt family separation on June 20th, that's more than Democrats have done in this regard, before or since. Sadly, this order won't apply in every case as, ultimately, border patrol must operate in accordance with pre-existing law, which only underlines the urgency of immigration reform.


The child separation policy is a Trump policy that didn't exist before Trump. This myth needs to die.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy

Please don't spread misinformation.


----------



## grind3r4rlz (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Trump is using ICE and the roundups as political tools. Aside from being an illegal immigrant, we also aren't talking about criminals.
> 
> Talking about children in detainment, they should not be tortured in the way the Trump administration is torturing children because of anything their parents did. Adults who crossed the border illegally also don't deserve the deplorable conditions they're receiving.
> 
> Also talking about the children and adults in detainment, *many of them did not break the law*. They are legal asylum seekers.



I disagree. 

Entering the country illegally is breaking the law and their conditions aren't deplorable nor are the children being tortured. Most of the detainees are not seeking asylum through normal ports of entry and due to this the ones that aren't doing it legally are finding themselves waiting longer. By no means is being detained in overcrowded air conditioned detention facilities with food and water related to torture. Have you ever personally seen the conditions our overcrowded jails and prison are in and what our own legal citizens who broke the law eat? That's not a question I want you to answer, just more of something you might want to look into before claiming that these criminals are having a rough time.

You won't find a drop of pity coming from me on this issue only gratefulness for our ICE agents and people that support our great country. I've read this thread back to front and I see you like to argue based on absolutes and rare occurrences as if they are the de facto standard. Being too narrow minded has it's downsides and if you want to be more relatable, grounded and mature then generalizing is more useful then specializing. That's all I have to say to you. I've read your posts and have no desire to participate in conversation with someone as far left as yourself. Take that however you want to as however you take it won't bother me in any way, shape or form. 

I don't mind much if someone finds what I say offensive and in turn their feelings get hurt. People need to grow a pair if they want to live in the real world. I've got no sympathy for people who seek to live in a constant pity party or those who hate our country and won't say otherwise when questioned about it.

MAGA 2020


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> When native citizens are separated by dui or some crime when they are with their child and are sent to jail, they are separated from their kids. Because the kids shouldn’t go to jail for the parents crime.
> 
> Entering the country illegally is in violation of 8 United States Code 1325.
> 
> ...



Asylum seekers have a legal right to seek asylum regardless of how they entered the country. In addition, the Trump administration has made crossing at ports of entry often impossible.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Asylum seekers have a legal right to seek asylum regardless of how they entered the country. In addition, the Trump administration has made crossing at ports of entry often impossible.


How so?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

grind3r4rlz said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Entering the country illegally is breaking the law and their conditions aren't deplorable nor are the children being tortured. Most of the detainees are not seeking asylum through normal ports of entry and due to this the ones that aren't doing it legally are finding themselves waiting longer. By no means is being detained in overcrowded air conditioned detention facilities with food and water related to torture. Have you ever personally seen the conditions our overcrowded jails and prison are in and what our own legal citizens who broke the law eat? That's not a question I want you to answer, just more of something you might want to look into before claiming that these criminals are having a rough time.
> 
> ...



The conditions are deplorable.
Child separation alone is objectively torture.
Children are dying under the "care" of the Trump administration.
Many asylum seekers are crossing the border "illegally" because ports of entry have become nearly impossible to use under Trump.
Asylum seekers have a legal right to asylum, even if they didn't cross at a port of entry.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The child separation policy is a Trump policy that didn't exist before Trump. This myth needs to die.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy


Absolute nonsense. Under Obama children have been separated from their guardians in very specific circumstances - if the adults accompanying them posed a danger to them _or _if they had prior criminal convictions which needed to be resolved. The situation was similar under Bush. This policy is long-standing and exists to comply with the Flores settlement which prohibits long-term detention of minors. The separation issue is a direct result of pre-existing legal precedent, and your own source lists it. If anyone is spreading misinformation, it's you. This is a situation where multiple laws created by multiple administrations have a cumulative negative effect, which means they should be streamlined into something more sensible.


----------



## grind3r4rlz (Jul 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> How so?



He's right. You can claim Asylum if you enter the country illegally, but it doesn't change the fact you're breaking the law and should be detained until your hearing. Then if you're denied your claim and ordered to leave the country and do not then ICE is in their legal right to remove you. I think the laws need to be updated to deny anyone the ability to claim Asylum if they don't do it at a legal port of entry.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2019)

grind3r4rlz said:


> He's right. You can claim Asylum if you enter the country illegally, but it doesn't change the fact you're breaking the law and should be detained until your hearing. Then if you're denied your claim and ordered to leave the country and do not then ICE is in their legal right to remove you. I think the laws need to be updated to deny anyone the ability to claim Asylum if they don't do it at a legal port of entry.


In the video I linked the ice official says it’s not. To do it legally the must go to point of entry to verify.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Under Obama children have been separated from their guardians in very specific circumstances - if the adults accompanying them posed a danger to them


Yes. That's not the child separation policy we are talking about.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Yes. That's not the child separation policy we are talking about.


Oh, so families were separated before Trump came along, and his policy is just harsher, as advertised during his 2016 run? It's beginning to look a whole lot like the _"Well yes, but actually no" _meme. Just to be clear, nobody _wants_ to separate families, but what's the more humane alternative? Would you prefer if they were just turned around at the border and asked to venture back into the wilderness with guns pointed at them? Or would you prefer if we at least _tried_ to provide them with humane living conditions until the adults at fault can be processed accordingly and either prosecuted or granted asylum? I ask that because an Open Borders policy is a non-starter, and that's, non-negotiable, so in your parlance, you have to pick the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> In the video I linked the ice official says it’s not. To do it legally the must go to point of entry to verify.


That official is wrong. U.S. law and international treaties guarantee refugees a way to seek asylum, regardless of how they entered the country.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The conditions are deplorable.
> Child separation alone is objectively torture.
> Children are dying under the "care" of the Trump administration.
> Many asylum seekers are crossing the border "illegally" because ports of entry have become nearly impossible to use under Trump.
> Asylum seekers have a legal right to asylum, even if they didn't cross at a port of entry.


Child separation may be traumatic. But if a native citizen commits a crime and goes to jail who fault is it? The person committing the crime or the people throwing them in jail?

Separation was recommend to protect them from sexual assault.

Condition are overcrowded and conditions are not properly funded. The officials that commit crimes to children are of their own choice and no way the fault of Trumps administration. The administration can do what they can to levitate the issue, but you can’t stop all crime, just like you can’t stop all murderers. So how much can you blame him for conditions or due to lack of funding.


----------



## grind3r4rlz (Jul 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> In the video I linked the ice official says it’s not. To do it legally the must go to point of entry to verify.



The way to go about things if you get happen to get caught illegally crossing the border is to claim asylum. If you get caught that's your best option. This is the "illegal" way of claiming asylum and there's the also the "legal" way you mentioned. It's a loophole that needs to be closed. The people who are crossing the border illegally never intended to get caught and are only using it as a last resort. 

Their intentions were to make it to a sanctuary city and then take advantage of all of the resources the Liberals are taking from tax paying citizens and handing to them. They are just like any other criminal who gets caught in the act of committing a crime. There's not much difference when it comes to how they respond when they get apprehended. I'm sure this method is being taught to them by the people who support their illegal activities.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, so families were separated before Trump came along, and his policy is just harsher, as advertised during his 2016 run? It's beginning to look a whole lot like the _"Well yes, but actually no" _meme. Just to be clear, nobody _wants_ to separate families, but what's the more humane alternative? Would you prefer if they were just turned around at the border and asked to venture back into the wilderness with guns pointed at them? Or would you prefer if we at least _tried_ to provide them with humane living conditions until the adults at fault can be processed accordingly and either prosecuted or granted asylum? I ask that because an Open Borders policy is a non-starter, and that's, non-negotiable, so in your parlance, you have to pick the lesser of two evils.


The child separation policy is a Trump policy that didn't exist before Trump. Saying "yeah, but children were sometimes separated from their parents if they were in danger" isn't the family separation policy. Please don't confuse the two.

The Trump adminstration *wants* to separate children purely as a disincentive, and even if they didn't want to, they don't have to.

There is no defense for this policy, evidence by the people here struggling and failing to defend it without lies.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Child separation may be traumatic. But if a native citizen commits a crime and goes to jail who fault is it? The person committing the crime or the people throwing them in jail?
> 
> Separation was recommend to protect them from sexual assault.
> 
> Condition are overcrowded and conditions are not properly funded. The officials that commit crimes to children are of their own choice and no way the fault of Trumps administration. The administration can do what they can to levitate the issue, but you can’t stop all crime, just like you can’t stop all murderers. So how much can you blame him for conditions or due to lack of funding.


The child separation policy has nothing to do with protecting people from sexual assault. In fact, it allegedly led to sexual assault in some cases.

Either do more research or stop lying.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The child separation policy is a Trump policy that didn't exist before Trump. Saying "yeah, but children were sometimes separated from their parents if they were in danger" isn't the family separation policy. Please don't confuse the two.
> 
> The Trump adminstration *wants* to separate children purely as a disincentive, and even if they didn't want to, they don't have to.


It wants it so bad that it stopped it by Executive Order on June 20th. Once again, if the adults are to be prosecuted for illegal entry, the children must be separated from them de facto in order to comply with the Flores settlement. Something's got to give, and you don't seem to have an alternative solution, so that's a dead end in this discussion.


Lacius said:


> That official is wrong. U.S. law and international treaties guarantee refugees a way to seek asylum, regardless of how they entered the country.


Yes and no. Immigrants can apply for asylum regardless of whether they entered via a port of entry or not, but there are some additional conditions in terms of eligibility. It's also worth noting that asylum is not equivalent to citizenship and it can be terminated without judicial review.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim#0-0-0-192


----------



## grind3r4rlz (Jul 15, 2019)

I support separating the children from the adults to protect the children. The same thing happens if you break the law if you're a citizen. Your kids don't come with you to prison. Yeah, let's start encouraging that next or better yet just do away with prisons and decriminalize crime. Criminals should be given less rights not more especially if they aren't citizens of our country. The United States of America comes first! 

I don't find not linking to any sort of article to link that that goes along with my point of view making me right or wrong. It's not like simply linking to a 3rd party source makes my claim valid or invalid as with this issue as it's not about facts just about how you think it should be done. There's no right or wrong answer and it's the way I see things and that's good enough for me. I trust my own judgement and I definitionally don't trust Liberal snakes.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It wants it so bad that it stopped it by Executive Order on June 20th.



That was in response to backlash.
The motives behind the child separation policy were explicitly stated.
Child separation has illegally continued.
Did you not know this?



Foxi4 said:


> Yes and no. Immigrants can apply for assylum regardless of whether they entered via a port of entry or not, but there are some additional conditions in terms of eligibility. It's also worth noting that assylum is not equivalent to citizenship and it can be terminated without judicial review.
> 
> http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim#0-0-0-192



That makes many of them legal asylum seekers.
Whether or not they're illegal asylum seekers does not change legal limits on how long they're allowed to be detained.
It's not excuse for the detainment conditions they're receiving under the Trump administration.
Children are dying.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> That official is wrong. U.S. law and international treaties guarantee refugees a way to seek asylum, regardless of how they entered the country.


This new rule just entered last year says they can’t enter other then the ports of entry.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1934635002


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

grind3r4rlz said:


> I support separating the children from the adults to protect the children. The same thing happens if you break the law if you're a citizen. Your kids don't come with you to prison. Yeah, let's start encouraging that next or better yet just do away with prisons and decriminalize crime. Criminals should be given less rights not more especially if they aren't citizens of our country. The United States of America comes first!
> 
> I don't find not linking to any sort of article to link that that goes along with my point of view making me right or wrong. It's not like simply linking to a 3rd party source makes my claim valid or invalid as with this issue as it's not about facts just about how you think it should be done. There's no right or wrong answer and it's the way I see things and that's good enough for me. I trust my own judgement and I definitionally don't trust Liberal snakes.


We are not talking about separating children to protect them from bad adults. We are talking about the separation of just about every child from every family in order to disincentivize illegal immigration.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The child separation policy is a Trump policy that didn't exist before Trump. Saying "yeah, but children were sometimes separated from their parents if they were in danger" isn't the family separation policy. Please don't confuse the two.
> 
> The Trump adminstration *wants* to separate children purely as a disincentive, and even if they didn't want to, they don't have to.
> 
> ...


The Ice Official said it was for child protection im not lying.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> That was in response to backlash.
> The motives behind the child separation policy were explicitly stated.
> Child separation has illegally continued.
> Did you not know this?
> ...


More _"think of the children"_, thanks for that. I'm well-aware of why the order was signed, it was signed for the same reason why this conversation persists. Your attempts at emotional manipulation are futile, children will continue to suffer until there's a feasible solution to the border issue, and unfortunately it's one of those problems that you have to throw money at until it's fixed. You can tell me that_ "children are dying"_ until you're blue in the face, that won't make detention centers any less underfunded and overcrowded, only stronger border security and a higher budget can help with that.


----------



## grind3r4rlz (Jul 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The Ice Official said it was for child protection im not lying.



I'd want protection from my own parents if they dragged me across hundreds of miles without adequate food, water, housing and toothpaste to illegally enter a country. I'd beg for it. If any USA citizen would do that to their own children they'd have them taken away. Every single illegal immigrant regardless if they are seeking asylum through legal means are still criminals for illegally crossing the border and should be treated as such.

There's also no way to tell if the adults they are with, that's if they are with any adults have any sort of criminal record other then the one they just created by illegally entering the country. The policy just makes sense, that's why the Liberals hate it. It's also a symptom of the problem. Why not focus on killing the cancer and not just treating the side effects? That's a pretty simple answer for Liberals too. Liberals need votes. They crave power and are using less fortune people as pawns. I say we send ICE after the Liberals after they're done deporting the illegals.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jul 15, 2019)

how some people seem to see it is, if i take my kid with me to rob a bank i should be free to walk away if i get caught, if someone setup that system you would suddenly get a lot more people actively choosing to take their kids along with them to rob banks, stripping away that loophole to "dissisentivize" people dragging their kids along to dangerous criminal activities isn't a bad idea, if you don't want people committing certain crimes, you can't start adding loopholes that encourage people to take kids along with them on a dangerous activity

i'm sorry but if someone thinks its a great idea to take their small children with them on a dangerous activity, i'm pretty sure under any other circumstance removing the child from their "care" would be a typical response


----------



## Minox (Jul 15, 2019)

grind3r4rlz said:


> After seeing why you left the page in your post in the Discord for this site I thought I should sign up and give my two cents. While I can't speak about the moderators here due to no experience with them I can see how deleting your post because you generalized when this entire thread contains generalizations would be frustrating.


Nice try cots.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> We are not talking about separating children to protect them from bad adults. We are talking about the separation of just about every child from every family in order to disincentivize illegal immigration.


Maybe they shouldn't travel across the dangerous border with young children.


gamesquest1 said:


> how some people seem to see it is, if i take my kid with me to rob a bank i should be free to walk away if i get caught, if someone setup that system you would suddenly get a lot more people actively choosing to take their kids along with them to rob banks, stripping away that loophole to "dissisentivize" people dragging their kids along to dangerous criminal activities isn't a bad idea, if you don't want people committing certain crimes, you can't start adding loopholes that encourage people to take kids along with them on a dangerous activity
> 
> i'm sorry but if someone thinks its a great idea to take their small children with them on a dangerous activity, i'm pretty sure under any other circumstance removing the child from their "care" would be a typical response


You're not thinking of the children enough, why would you assume that they're being used as legal meat-shields by adults who have chosen to enter the country illegally? Who would do such a thing? Makes no sense to me.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> how some people seem to see it is, if i take my kid with me to rob a bank i should be free to walk away if i get caught, if someone setup that system you would suddenly get a lot more people actively choosing to take their kids along with them to rob banks, stripping away that loophole to "dissisentivize" people dragging their kids along to dangerous criminal activities isn't a bad idea, if you don't want people committing certain crimes, you can't start adding loopholes that encourage people to take kids along with them on a dangerous activity
> 
> i'm sorry but if someone thinks its a great idea to take their small children with them on a dangerous activity, i'm pretty sure under any other circumstance removing the child from their "care" would be a typical response


With an article I linked earlier some people even fake families to claim asylum. 

Kids should not be punished for the crimes of the parents. And they use kids to manipulate the situation. 

Native citizens are separated from their kids when they commit crimes and the same was going to happen with illegal immigrants.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Minox said:


> Nice try cots.


Honk honk, cue the Benny Hill theme song!


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This new rule just entered last year says they can’t enter other then the ports of entry.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1934635002



The rule change was after the full swing of the Trump child separation policy, so it's largely irrelevant to that specific issue.
It doesn't affect many asylum seekers.
It arguably doesn't affect any asylum seekers, but that's a matter for the courts.
It is illegal to block the ability to seek asylum at ports of entry, which is what's happening.
The rule change has no bearing on the laws being broken with regard to detaination time, conditions, etc.
Children are still dying, regardless of the rule.



SG854 said:


> The Ice Official said it was for child protection im not lying.


That's objectively false. This has nothing to do with child protection.



Foxi4 said:


> More _"think of the children"_


My post had a lot more to say than "think of the children," including very specific facts about the law.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm well-aware of why the order was signed


They admitted the policy and the harm it caused served the purpose of deterring illegal immigration.



Foxi4 said:


> Your attempts at emotional manipulation are futile


Acknowledging the plights and children (and adults) at the border isn't "emotional manipulation." They are important issues. If you want to say, "I don't care about the children and adults at the border," be my guest. Until then, you can't justifiably criticize me bringing it up as emotional manipulation.



Foxi4 said:


> children will continue to suffer until there's a feasible solution to the border issue


Children will continue to suffer until there's a different administration that, among other things, doesn't see suffering as a deterrent that should be used as such.



Foxi4 said:


> and unfortunately it's one of those problems that you have to throw money at until it's fixed.


Objectively, money is not the cause of the deplorable detainment conditions. It's definitely not the cause of the child separation policy.



Foxi4 said:


> You can tell me that_ "children are dying"_ until you're blue in the face, that won't make detention centers any less underfunded and overcrowded



Underfunding is not the problem.
Overcrowding is one of many problems.
Telling you that children are dying might cause you (if you were an American) to vote for politicians who will actually fix the problem, since that is what it takes.



Foxi4 said:


> only stronger border security and higher budget can help with that.


Whether or not we agree that border security is important, it's irrelevant to detaination conditions, child-separation, etc. And, as I said earlier in this post, the budget is not the issue.



grind3r4rlz said:


> I'd want protection from my own parents if they dragged me across hundreds of miles without adequate food, water, housing and toothpaste to illegally enter a country. I'd beg for it. If any USA citizen would do that to their own children they'd have them taken away. Every single illegal immigrant regardless if they are seeking asylum through legal means are still criminals for illegally crossing the border and should be treated as such.
> 
> There's also no way to tell if the adults they are with, that's if they are with any adults have any sort of criminal record other then the one they just created by illegally entering the country. The policy just makes sense, that's why the Liberals hate it. It's also a symptom of the problem. Why not focus on killing the cancer and not just treating the side effects? That's a pretty simple answer for Liberals too. Liberals need votes. They crave power and are using less fortune people as pawns. I say we send ICE after the Liberals after they're done deporting the illegals.





gamesquest1 said:


> how some people seem to see it is, if i take my kid with me to rob a bank i should be free to walk away if i get caught, if someone setup that system you would suddenly get a lot more people actively choosing to take their kids along with them to rob banks, stripping away that loophole to "dissisentivize" people dragging their kids along to dangerous criminal activities isn't a bad idea, if you don't want people committing certain crimes, you can't start adding loopholes that encourage people to take kids along with them on a dangerous activity
> 
> i'm sorry but if someone thinks its a great idea to take their small children with them on a dangerous activity, i'm pretty sure under any other circumstance removing the child from their "care" would be a typical response





Foxi4 said:


> Maybe they shouldn't travel across the dangerous border with young children, who are not eligible for asylum, by the way.
> You're not thinking of the children enough, why would you assume that they're being used as legal meat-shields by adults who have chosen to enter the country illegally? Who would do such a thing? Makes no sense to me.


I suggest you research why asylum seekers are fleeing their homes. The "dangerous conditions" part is rare, and it usually exists out of a desperate need. If seeking asylum were actually doable at ports of entry and not being mostly blocked by the Trump administration, these dangerous treks wouldn't happen. In other words, illegal border crossing by asylum seekers, including the dangerous ones, are the fault of the Trump administration.



SG854 said:


> With an article I linked earlier some people even fake families to claim asylum.


That's a minority.



SG854 said:


> Kids should not be punished for the crimes of the parents.



That's what the Trump administration is doing to kids.
Aside from crossing the border illegal, the vast majority aren't criminals.
Many of the asylum seekers are legal asylum seekers.



SG854 said:


> Native citizens are separated from their kids when they commit crimes and the same was going to happen with illegal immigrants.



Aside from crossing the border illegal, the vast majority aren't criminals. We don't separate children from parents for traffic tickets, for example.
Many of the asylum seekers are legal asylum seekers.
The Trump administration had no plan to reunite the families.
The children are being held in deplorable conditions.
Children are dying.
The illegal crossings are often happening because asylum seekers have no way to seek asylum at the ports of entry.


----------



## grind3r4rlz (Jul 15, 2019)

Minox said:


> Nice try cots.





Foxi4 said:


> Honk honk, cue the Benny Hill theme song!



I'm not @cots. From what I can tell about the person is that they are an Independent and that goes against more core values. I'm a Republican not someone who can't make up their mind. The only reason I came here is because of the moderator encouraging the assassination of our president that I found out about by lurking in your Discord server. I've reported that to the proper authorities. It's hard not to read what cots had to say when he's been 1 of the only 2 active chatters in the #chat channel for the last two or three months. I pinged him. Let's see what he has to say about it.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

grind3r4rlz said:


> I'm not @cots. From what I can tell about the person is that they are an Independent and that goes against more core values. I'm a Republican not someone who can't make up their mind. The only reason I came here is because of the moderator encouraging the assassination of our president that I found out about by lurking in your Discord server. I've reported that to the proper authorities. It's hard not to read what cots had to say when he's been 1 of the only 2 active chatters in the #chat channel for the last two or three months. I pinged him. Let's see what he has to say about it.


In this thread, no one encouraged the assassination of anybody.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's a catch 22 situation where everybody harps on Congress and the Oval Office for not addressing the border crisis while simultaneously blocking any and all attempts at reforming the system.



I'll agree with that argument the second Congress actually does something.  Btw, do you feel the same about Obamacare?

Edit - And to be clear, the reason I bring up Obamacare is because there's multiple Republican Senators on the record stating that hope Obamacare is stricken down by the courts.  Some of that seems to be to remove any claims of culpability for repealing Obamacare and hence possibly losing votes.  Others indicate they want it because they think it might spur further discussion of some sort of "compromise" legislation.  Regardless, the point is that Congress seems intentionally punting to the courts just as much as they are to the Executive, but both sides bitch about it only when the outcome doesn't match their expectations.  It's not really some core, principled stance for most politicians.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Thinking of the children intensifies



I wonder how tall the wall will have to be until children can no longer scale it safely. On a more serious note, the detention centers are overcrowded because illegal immigrants are not processed fast enough, which is a joint failure of the executive and the judiciary, and the border is not secure enough, which is a failure of the legislature. The Trump administration at least broached the issue, for which it deserves a lot of credit - we wouldn't even be talking about the deplorable conditions at the border if not for Trump's strong push for immigration reform, a staple of his 2016 run which effectively won him the election. Ideally I too would like the ports of entry to be fully equipped with both the resources and the legal power to determine asylum eligibility there and then, but that will take both money and effort of Congress to achieve. I hope to see such reform in my lifetime, but I won't hold my breath with both sides of the debate blockading each other.


kuwanger said:


> I'll agree with that argument the second Congress actually does something.  Btw, do you feel the same about Obamacare?


I think healthcare, just like any other service, should be fully privatised. As an extra spicy kicker I'll also say that Social Security should be dismantled, although to be fair, the latter is well in its way to dismantling itself as the Social Security trust fund is rapidly running out of money due to Social Security not being used for its original purpose - helping the poor and destitute, as opposed to being a second kitchen renovation fund for boomers who are already well-off.


----------



## kuwanger (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I think healthcare, just like any other service, should be fully privatised.



I think you're missing my point.  tl;dr of my edit above, Obamacare is (possibly) being stricken down by the courts.  Regardless of whether you think healthcare should be privatized or not, Congress pretty clearly passed legislation on multiple occasions (Medicare/Medicaid and Obamacare) to make it at least quasi-public.  So, the courts acting to strike it down is clearly going against Legislative intent.  Meanwhile, Congress has continued to not act on the border situation leaving it up to previous legislation, the executive branch, and court lawsuits over whether the executive branch is exceeding authorities delegated to it by Congress.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

grind3r4rlz said:


> I'm not @cots. From what I can tell about the person is that they are an Independent and that goes against more core values. I'm a Republican not someone who can't make up their mind. The only reason I came here is because of the moderator encouraging the assassination of our president that I found out about by lurking in your Discord server. I've reported that to the proper authorities. It's hard not to read what cots had to say when he's been 1 of the only 2 active chatters in the #chat channel for the last two or three months. I pinged him. Let's see what he has to say about it.


You can stop now. We know. It only gets more embarrassing as you continue. You can just use your original account, you won't lose more face than you already have.






kuwanger said:


> I think you're missing my point.  tl;dr of my edit above, Obamacare is (possibly) being stricken down by the courts.  Regardless of whether you think healthcare should be privatized or not, Congress pretty clearly passed legislation on multiple occasions (Medicare/Medicaid and Obamacare) to make it at least quasi-public.  So, the courts acting to strike it down is clearly going against Legislative intent.  Meanwhile, Congress has continued to not act on the border situation leaving it up to previous legislation, the executive branch, and court lawsuits over whether the executive branch is exceeding authorities delegated to it by Congress.


I understand your question now. Yes, relying on the courts to do the job of the legislature is a dangerous game and I think the Republicans are sleeping with the devil here as they're loading the exact same gun they've been shot with before. They should endeavour to remove power from the courts, not enshrine it - this is not their job.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The rule change was after the full swing of the Trump child separation policy, so it's largely irrelevant to that specific issue.
> It doesn't affect many asylum seekers.
> It arguably doesn't affect any asylum seekers, but that's a matter for the courts.
> It is illegal to block the ability to seek asylum at ports of entry, which is what's happening.
> ...



When the Ice Official said the Zero Tolerance Memo the source of this and he says he recommended things to secure the boarder and save lives. The family separation is like what it is with every other Native U.S. citizen that commits a crime.


Getting a traffic ticket is not the same as going to jail for committing a crime. Unless people want kids to go to jail with their parents they are separated.

The vast majority of illegal crossings are illegal, and are criminals under 8 U.S. code section 1325. And the ones that aren’t are doing it legally.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> When the Ice Official said the Zero Tolerance Memo the source of this and he says he recommended things to secure the boarder and save lives. The family separation is like what it is with every other Native U.S. citizen that commits a crime.
> 
> 
> Getting a traffic ticket is not the same as going to jail for committing a crime. Unless people want kids to go to jail with their parents they are separated.
> ...


TIL illegally crossing the border is illegal, and for some reason needed to be explained.


----------



## grind3r4rlz (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You can stop now. We know. It only gets more embarrassing as you continue. You can just use your original account, you won't lose more face than you already have.



I'm not this @cots fellow so whatever you think you know is wrong. Wouldn't creating two accounts be a bannable offense? If so then ban us both. I'm not sure how he would take it, but I just got here and have already said what needed to be said.



SG854 said:


> When the Ice Official said the Zero Tolerance Memo the source of this and he says he recommended things to secure the boarder and save lives. The family separation is like what it is with every other Native U.S. citizen that commits a crime.
> 
> Getting a traffic ticket is not the same as going to jail for committing a crime. Unless people want kids to go to jail with their parents they are separated.
> 
> The vast majority of illegal crossings are illegal, and are criminals under 8 U.S. code section 1325. And the ones that aren’t are doing it legally.



There's the severity of the crime to think about. If you're a licensed citizen legally driving a that gets a minor ticket for going a little above the marked speed limit that's not that big of a deal compared to a foreign invader that you have no record of or know their intentions. I believe the current system is too lenient. While the border could use more resources I think that anything that encourages illegal activity and anything that helps illegals once they are here should be outlawed and that the people responsible for these things should be jailed in the process. Walls would help and so would armed guards. Possibly some sniper drones and land mines.


----------



## Chary (Jul 15, 2019)

grind3r4rlz said:


> If so then ban us


Ask and you shall receive.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> (false quote attributed to me)





Foxi4 said:


> (nonsense video)





Foxi4 said:


> (Two "On a more serious note" posts in a row, with one not being serious)


Are you having a stroke?



Foxi4 said:


> On a more serious note, the detention centers are overcrowded because illegal immigrants are not processed fast enough, which is a joint failure of the executive and the judiciary, and the border is not secure enough, which is a failure of the legislature.


They're overcrowded because of a broken immigration system and because of Trump administration policies. You also seem to have forgotten about the bipartisan immigration reform bill that was killed by the Republicans during Obama's presidency because, well, he was Obama. An inability to reform immigration now is the fault of Trump and the Republicans, and anything other than border security is not one of their priorities.



Foxi4 said:


> The Trump administration at least broached the issue, for which it deserves a lot of credit


Trump killed immigration reform. He deserves no credit.



Foxi4 said:


> we wouldn't even be talking about the deplorable conditions at the border if not for Trump's strong push for immigration reform



We wouldn't be talking about the deplorable conditions at the border if not for Trump's deplorable conditions at the border.
Trump's "strong push" for immigration reform is predominantly a.) A border wall, and b.) Less legal immigration.



Foxi4 said:


> a staple of his 2016 run which effectively won him the election.


Being anti-immigrant is what helped him win the election. Things that also helped him win the election include (but aren't limited to):

A broken Electoral College system
Russian interference



Foxi4 said:


> Ideally I too would like the ports of entry to be fully equipped with both the resources and the legislative power to determine asylum eligibility there and then, but that will take both money and effort of Congress to achieve.


Trump has practically blocked asylum seeking at the port of entries arbitrarily, not because there was any reason to. Doing this is also, arguably, illegal.



Foxi4 said:


> I think healthcare, just like any other service, should be fully privatised.


And how did that work out?



Foxi4 said:


> As an extra spicy kicker I'll also say that Social Security should be dismantled, although to be fair, the latter is well in its way to dismantling itself as the Social Security trust fund is rapidly running out of money due to Social Security not being used for its original purpose


In what world is Social Security running out of money, let alone rapidly? That's objectively false, but I don't expect you to concede anything.



Foxi4 said:


> helping the poor and destitute, as opposed to being a second kitchen renovation fund for boomers who are already well-off.


Many people use it for the former, not the latter.



SG854 said:


> When the Ice Official said the Zero Tolerance Memo the source of this and he says he recommended things to secure the boarder and save lives.


That's not the purpose of the child separation policy. They've already admitted the purpose of it and the harm it caused was to deter illegal immigration. There is nothing about the Trump family separation policy that "saves lives" or does any good.



SG854 said:


> The family separation is like what it is with every other Native U.S. citizen that commits a crime.


Not all crimes are equal. US families don't get separated with many/most crimes. As I said earlier:

Aside from crossing the border illegal, the vast majority aren't criminals. We don't separate children from parents for traffic tickets, for example.
Many of the asylum seekers are legal asylum seekers.
The Trump administration had no plan to reunite the families.
The children are being held in deplorable conditions.
Children are dying.
The illegal crossings are often happening because asylum seekers have no way to seek asylum at the ports of entry.



SG854 said:


> Getting a traffic ticket is not the same as going to jail for committing a crime. Unless people want kids to go to jail with their parents they are separated.


We aren't talking about jail or crimes big enough to cause one to go to jail. We are talking about illegal border crossings, detainment, and processing. And, again, for many asylum seekers, they are legal asylum seekers.

Family separation is deplorable, and it's psychological trauma. It should only be reserved in dire circumstances, and illegal border crossings isn't one of those circumstances. I don't know why you or anyone else are defending this.



SG854 said:


> The vast majority of illegal crossings are illegal, and are criminals under 8 U.S. code section 1325. And the ones that aren’t are doing it legally.



Many of the asylum seekers are legal asylum seekers.
Aside from the illegal border crossing itself, the vast majority of these people are not criminals.
The detainment conditions are deplorable.
Child-separation is deplorable.
Children are dying.
There was no plan to reunite the families.
Illegal crossings are often happening because the Trump administration has illegally blocked seeking asylum at ports of entry.
Understandably, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I'm probably going to limit my posts in this thread at some point in the near future.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> TIL illegally crossing the border is illegal, and for some reason needed to be explained.


Yes, that's precisely the problem.  There is no legal means by which to cross into the US now that Trump has criminalized the asylum process.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> TIL illegally crossing the border is illegal, and for some reason needed to be explained.



Many of the asylum seekers are legal asylum seekers.
Aside from the illegal border crossing itself, the vast majority of these people are not criminals.
The detainment conditions are deplorable.
Child-separation is deplorable.
Children are dying.
There was no plan to reunite families with regard to the Trump family separation policy.
Illegal crossings are often happening because the Trump administration has illegally blocked seeking asylum at ports of entry.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Yes, that's precisely the problem.  There is no legal means by which to cross into the US now that Trump has criminalized the asylum process.


*Illegally *criminalized the asylum process, per federal law and international treaties.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Are you having a stroke?
> 
> They're overcrowded because of a broken immigration system and because of Trump administration policies. You also seem to have forgotten about the bipartisan immigration reform bill that was killed by the Republicans during Obama's presidency because, well, he was Obama. An inability to reform immigration now is the fault of Trump and the Republicans, and anything other than border security is not one of their priorities.
> 
> ...


Well-spotted accidental repeat, predictive text betrays me once more, I've corrected it now. It's a shame that you didn't quite get the joke - let it simmer, it will dawn on you eventually. On the subject of fully privatised healthcare, I'm not sure how it would work out, first it would have to be tried - right now the system suffers from a lot of government interference and needless regulation that stifles competition between providers. There's a bigger problem in the system as well, associated more with the insurance side of things than with the care itself. I wouldn't trust my employer to choose toppings on my pizza, but in the American system it's the employer who collectively bargains with insurers on behalf of the employees, and I don't think their interests align, but that's a subject for a different thread altogether.

Regarding Social Security, it is absolutely set to go broke because it's a _"self-funding"_ system - it has to operate on an income that exceeds expenditure in order to operate. With a decline in birthrate and the increase of lifespan Social Security recipients are more numerous than projected and withdraw more funds than they've been allotted when they entered the pool. The trust fund for disability and retirements is expected to run out by 2034-2035, the system will be able to sustain itself until around 2090 at which point it will end up in the same situation as in the 1980's - the program will have to be shored up, the government will have to issue more bonds and the funding mechanism will have to be changed, to the detriment of the newly enrolled. I'm not in the habit of _"conceding"_ things I'm objectively right about, the numbers don't lie, but that's also a subject for another thread.

*EDIT:* Just figured I would add a source, since this seems to be a newsflash for some. Social Security expenditure is on the verge of exceeding income, that's projected to happen in 2020, at which point the program will rapidly fall off a cliff. Expect cuts, higher taxation and other shenanigans in the near future.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/soc...benefits-track-reduced-2035/story?id=62557507


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> TIL illegally crossing the border is illegal, and for some reason needed to be explained.


When Ocasio Cortez said conditions are like holocaust concentration camps many holocaust survivors and anti defamation leagues came after her criticizing her.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.jt...-controversial-concentration-camp-comment/amp



People said that rhetoric like this comparing to the holocaust is dangerous because some crazy psycho would come along and guess what happened? An Antifa guy fire bombs an Ice facility and get shot and killed.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...sen-antifa-detention-centre-a9004131.html?amp


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yes, that's precisely the problem.  There is no legal means by which to cross into the US now that Trump has criminalized the asylum process.


You always have the option to request it at a point of entry. 9 times out of 10 the application will be rejected, but I imagine it's a superior alternative to incarceration. The whole process definitely needs to be streamlined, so it's a matter of weighing priorities. The priority for the current administration is patching up the border first and dealing with methods of entry later, which is one way to approach this. There's no "good" way that I can think of, not in the current adversarial atmosphere.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> When Ocasio Cortez said conditions are like holocaust concentration camps many holocaust survivors and anti defamation leagues came after her criticizing her.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.jt...-controversial-concentration-camp-comment/amp
> 
> ...



Plenty of groups have come out supporting AOC's comparisons.
Many of those who have been critical of AOC's comments have also been *very* critical of the detention camps.
While the detention camps a very different from concentration camps, the comparisons are fair.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> You always have the option to request it at a point of entry.


Respectfully, that's a false narrative used to make people feel better about what's going on. Many people are illegally being turned away without going through the application procedures. Some are even told to come back another day over and over again.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Plenty of groups have come out supporting AOC's comparisons.
> Many of those who have been critical of AOC's comments have also been *very* critical of the detention camps.
> While the detention camps a very different from concentration camps, the comparisons are fair.


Minus the whole _"purposeful extermination"_ aspect of concentration camps, sure, it's an apt comparison, applicable to any detention center, from juvies to prisons. My question is as follows - what do you expect border security to do better? It's a fairly simple question you should have no problems answering, what would be a satisfactory resolution of the problem to you? Keep in mind that the solution must operate in accordance with pre-existing law.



Lacius said:


> Respectfully, that's a false narrative used to make people feel better about what's going on. Many people are illegally being turned away without going through the application procedures. Some are even told to come back another day over and over again.


It's also the official procedure. Perhaps border patrol agents would have more time to deal with those queries if they had more resources and didn't have to deal with as many illegal crossings. If only there was some solution to those two problems, I can't imagine what it could be though.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You always have the option to request it at a point of entry. 9 times out of 10 the application will be rejected, but I imagine it's a superior alternative to incarceration. The whole process definitely needs to be streamlined, so it's a matter of weighing priorities. The priority for the current administration is patching up the border first and dealing with methods of entry later, which is one way to approach this. There's no "good" way that I can think of, not in the current adversarial atmosphere.


The priority for the current administration is criminalizing all immigration.  If their priority was to encourage legal immigration, they would've already provided a better means to legally immigrate.  There's no reason that couldn't be accomplished while simultaneously working to patch security holes/physical holes in the existing barriers on the border.  It's completely different departments/personnel that deal with each of these things.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Minus the whole _"purposeful extermination"_ aspect of concentration camps, sure, it's an apt comparison, applicable to any detention center, from juvies to prisons. My question is as follows - what do you expect border security to do better? It's a fairly simple question you should have no problems answering, what would be a satisfactory resolution of the problem to you? Keep in mind that the solution must operate in accordance with pre-existing law.
> 
> It's also the official procedure. Perhaps border patrol agents would have more time to deal with those queries if they had more resources and didn't have to deal with as many illegal crossings. If only there was some solution to those two problems, I can't imagine what it could be though.


I don’t get it. Why would they want to come to this country? Conditions are so bad for U.S. workers, can’t even get a $15 an hour and have to work multiple jobs. But migrants from all over the world want to come into a Trumps racist country.

We don’t even have universal health care. And they exploit the common person with overly high medical prices. Black and brown people are discriminated against and locked up. Women are paid less. And school shootings with our gun crazy country. We have a homeless crisis, a growing gap between rich and poor, we are becoming third world. 


The migrants don’t know any better we must warn them.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I don’t get it. Why would they want to come to this country? Conditions are so bad for U.S. workers, can’t even get a $15 an hour and have to work multiple jobs. But migrants from all over the world want to come into a Trumps racist country.
> 
> We don’t even have universal health care. And they exploit the common person with overly high medical prices. Black and brown people are discriminated against and locked up. Women are paid less. And school shootings with our gun crazy country. We have a homeless crisis, a growing gap between rich and poor, we are becoming third world.
> 
> ...


You should look into the conditions some of the asylum seekers are fleeing.

The history of how the United States caused a lot of those issues is also very interesting.


----------



## Rolf12 (Jul 15, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I don’t get it. Why would they want to come to this country? Conditions are so bad for U.S. workers, can’t even get a $15 an hour and have to work multiple jobs. But migrants from all over the world want to come into a Trumps racist country.
> 
> We don’t even have universal health care. And they exploit the common person with overly high medical prices. Black and brown people are discriminated against and locked up. Women are paid less. And school shootings with our gun crazy country. We have a homeless crisis, a growing gap between rich and poor, we are becoming third world.
> 
> ...


That is some serious stuff. Well written. And may the trend turn...


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The priority for the current administration is criminalizing all immigration.  If their priority was to encourage legal immigration, they would've already provided a better means to legally immigrate.  There's no reason that couldn't be accomplished while simultaneously working to patch security holes/physical holes in the existing barriers on the border.  It's completely different departments/personnel that deal with each of these things.


And yet hundreds of thousands of people travel to and from America every year without any issues. Like I said earlier, the Trump administration's winning ticket for 2016 was a harsher stance on immigration. This manifested itself in reality via Jeff Session's zero tolerance policy which treats each and every illegal crossing at the border as a prosecutable criminal offense, and not a civil offense as it used to be the case. Since the adults are now charged with a crime and the children are obviously not, in order to comply with previous legal precedent, including the Flores agreement, they were separated from families and put either in foster care or in detention centers where they're cared for to the best of border security's abilities. There is nothing more and nothing less to it, and imputing motives to this policy isn't going to help the two sides find common ground. Claiming that Trump sat down one day with his Council of Evil and decided that going forward he'll start putting kids in cages for his amusement is a disingenuous tactic used by people with ulterior motives who are less interested in the well-being of the children in question and more interested in doing as much damage to the administration as possible, which is why I will continue to relentlessly mock it. Does it disincentivize illegal migration? I'm sure it does, but it's a byproduct of existing legislation, intentional or not. Ultimately, illegal entry is a crime, that's how the cookie crumbles. Just because law enforcement was lenient about this in the past doesn't mean they would always be, or that they should be. It's sad to see the poor conditions in those centers, but they can only improve if we throw money at the border, which the Democrats refuse to go along with. This is a bipartisan issue with no bipartisan support, at least that's how I see it. The border does need to be patched, and unless there is unilateral support for both tackling immigration policy _and_ increasing border security, which entails funding, it's just not going to work out.


----------



## morvoran (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Claiming that Trump sat down one day with his Council of Evil and decided that going forward he'll start putting kids in cages for his amusement is a disingenuous tactic used by people with ulterior motives who are less interested in the well-being of the children in question and more interested in doing as much damage to the administration as possible



To add onto this, putting kids in cages was a part of the Obama "aka the deporter in Chief" administration.  People seem to always forget or ignore that fact.  A couple days ago, Democrats used pictures of illegals in fenced areas from Obama's time in office for some tweets about their "kids in cages" hearing to fight against Trump and had removed them twice.


----------



## depaul (Jul 15, 2019)

In reality, most of those called "developing countries" have rich natural resources and lower living costs. If only they could improve their governance system (economy, less corruption...) everyone could live very happily there without even having to immigrate.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jul 15, 2019)

You know what would help? First, end the reliance on the welfare state. Next, legalize and regulate recreational drug use, sale, and manufacture. This would give cartel members ans smugglers far less incentive to cross the border.

The government can also punish industries more harshly that utilize illegal labor (Meat packers, travelling amusement park companies, etc.). There are so many things we can try before we build a super expensive wall. Besides, I feel like a wall would do a better job keeping people in than it would keeping them out. I would like my family to be able to flee in the event that martial law and civil war breaks out while I can stay and fight without endangering them.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 15, 2019)

This Representative who has lots of experience with the border issue, what he says is well said, it’s emotional but well said.


Cartels know about the immigration loopholes and are exploiting it pretending to be a family to smuggle people in. Exploiting catch and release that was under the previous administrations, that Obama failed to close. Cartels are using this to bring cheap labor workers to the U.S. to work them like slaves. Republican business owners say tighten borders while exploiting illegals for cheap labor. They are trying to close these loop holes so that cartels won’t abuse this and to protect people but they call those people racist for trying to restrict immigration access. And they write this off as not common. And they refuse to tighten the boarder to stop these things so that illegals won’t be exploited because of political party bickering.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...n-trafficking-crisis-texas-lawmaker-says/amp/



These facilities lack resources and staff. The Agents are overwhelmed and exhausted. Exhausted working in the field over 100 degrees, exhausted working 10 hr shifts processing hundreds of illegals, exhausted that countless of mothers and fathers saying their child is sick and needs attention,


Working in a overcrowded facility that can hold only 300 detainees but is now holding 1,200, that came there because of immigration loopholes that brought them there in the first place,


Obama had 760 million dollars for Ice to deal with migrants, but they can’t even get 4.5 billion for Trump without controversy because Democrats and Ocasio Cortez keep blocking him. They don’t trust him they say, so they rather not even have any attempt to fund it at all because they don’t trust him. Then they say money is not the issue, workers and Trump are just horrible people and child murderers.



Workers are seeing horrible things of decomposing bodies and people left behind by cartels because of an injury, the workers should go home and unwind to relax after seeing these things, they are doing their best with the limited resources they have. But instead they get shitted on by Media and by politicians and social media calling them shitty people, a murderer of kids, of running concentration camps and gas chambers. While they blocking funding for migrants and then blaming them for the horrible underfunded conditions and refusing to tighten immigration loopholes. They stand near chain linked fences taking pictures, making up hyperbole about these facilites, just to get clicks, twitter followers and political support.

Imagine how a worker would feel after going through all this trying their best with the limited stuff they have then gets constantly shitted on.


----------



## notimp (Jul 15, 2019)

Issue here is, that people will always game a system.

Its expected. Its not "and this is the reason, why we need to make everything good again", no - all societal systems (think checks and balances) are there to coutneract, to make this work.

The concept of the "just and unfaltering sheriff type" also was mostly a TV serials invention of the 50s.

People will always say "lets have more law and order" - but the reality is, that you'll never get it with lets say - doing everything that border patrol agent could come up with.

Simply put "but people will game systems" can never be a reason to not lets say put up a policy and trying your best to enact it. Or a reason why it would never work.

To separate the world in good and bad, and just and unjust - works in Disney movies - but mostly not on the real world. Think also - politics is compromise. The border agent is an expert on his field. But the problem is larger.

Wall might help border control agent most (or not - didnt watch video yet), but the problem is larger.

(This is basically explaining, why you need 'management', or politicians.. )


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jul 15, 2019)

If we're handing them our jobs, I'd argue they'd be stupid to refuse them. If you want to get to the root of the problem you have to look at this from their perspective.

First off, there is no legal way for them to immigrate without immediate family members who are already citizens. So you can't just yell "do it legally like my grandparents!".

Remember that these people are living in extreme poverty so they're desperate for any improvement.

The chances of being caught are small. The vast majority make it through fine, but a few do get caught and there are horror stories where people die due to lack of preparation. It's rare, though.

Finding a job isn't that tough. They have friends or family members that can point them in the right direction.

It's almost a guarantee that their life and their children's lives will improve.

Really, they'd almost be stupid not to attempt the crossing. The obvious solutions are to take away their incentive to cross or provide a path to legal immigration, however we're not doing that. Instead people want to pour money into border security.

The reward far outweighs the risk for them.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> And yet hundreds of thousands of people travel to and from America every year without any issues.


US tourism is way down under Trump, so is immigration from countries that aren't in crisis.  But yeah, the administration has no problem letting white people into the country, that's not something you really needed to clarify.



Foxi4 said:


> Like I said earlier, the Trump administration's winning ticket for 2016 was a harsher stance on immigration.


His "winning ticket" was the Southern Strategy, same as it's been for Republicans for decades.  Only difference is that Trump uses a bullhorn instead of a dog whistle, and he was up against the worst candidate the Democrats could've possibly picked.  I fear we'll shoot ourselves in the foot again by nominating Biden, but only time will tell.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2019)

Xzi said:


> US tourism is way down under Trump, so is immigration from countries that aren't in crisis.  But yeah, the administration has no problem letting white people into the country, that's not something you really needed to clarify.
> 
> His "winning ticket" was the Southern Strategy, same as it's been for Republicans for decades.  Only difference is that Trump uses a bullhorn instead of a dog whistle, and he was up against the worst candidate the Democrats could've possibly picked.  I fear we'll shoot ourselves in the foot again by nominating Biden, but only time will tell.


It will be interesting to see who's going to take the seat, Trump or one of the 3,568,785 Democratic candidates. I myself am quite happy that the base is split, it always makes for funny debates.


----------



## brunocar (Jul 15, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Let's just ignore the fact we (united states) screwed several countries nearby, funded terrorist groups to overthrow their government because we didn't like what they were doing.
> yeah. It's completely their fault that we fucked up their home, caused problems where they lived, and then proceed to piss off and act like we didn't do anything.
> To then when the problem comes back to us in the ass we decide to give the middle finger to them.
> I think I rest my case, look at the states when the intermingled with other county affairs, you might learn something.


im from argentina, can confirm :/


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It will be interesting to see who's going to take the seat, Trump or one of the 3,568,785 Democratic candidates. I myself am quite happy that the base is split, it always makes for funny debates.


It's a very different political landscape than it was 10-20 years ago.  Moderates will vote for a progressive, progressives won't vote for a moderate.  Both 2016 and 2018 proved this to be true for Democrats.  Trump certainly didn't win by trying to appeal to moderates or independents, either.


----------



## zomborg (Jul 16, 2019)

Here is a short video clip. This is a clip of President Trump giving sound advice to those who are displeased, unsatisfied or angry about the current political climate, policy decisions by our current administration or the status quo. While not aimed directly at those who are disgruntled over the so called "concentration camp" situation, I think it aptly applies to you as well.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Here is a short video clip. This is a clip of President Trump giving sound advice to those who are displeased, unsatisfied or angry about the current political climate, policy decisions by our current administration or the status quo. While not aimed directly at those who are disgruntled over the so called "concentration camp" situation, I think it aptly applies to you as well.



The opposite is true.  Anybody who wants to live in an all-white ethnostate needs to move to Russia already, because America has never been, and never will be that.  It's fucking ridiculous that we're still dealing with 1950s-style racism in 2019.


----------



## luisedgarf (Jul 16, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I don’t get it. Why would they want to come to this country? Conditions are so bad for U.S. workers, can’t even get a $15 an hour and have to work multiple jobs. But migrants from all over the world want to come into a Trumps racist country.
> 
> We don’t even have universal health care. And they exploit the common person with overly high medical prices. Black and brown people are discriminated against and locked up. Women are paid less. And school shootings with our gun crazy country. We have a homeless crisis, a growing gap between rich and poor, we are becoming third world.
> 
> ...



If you want to start looking for culprits, you can start blaming Hollywood and its tendency to glorify the American way of life. They are the ones who, partly because of patriotic pride and partly because of U.S. government propaganda, are the ones who promote the supposed values of American society and its supposed superiority over all others. I am surprised that Americans still have the nerve to complain about how many people want to go and live in their country, considering how much the U.S. government spends to promote their country and say how beautiful and wonderful America is.

However, if a nation dares to ban an American film for the simple reason of promoting its culture with impunity, it could receive economic sanctions from the American government, something that has already happened to a lesser extent in some countries that are supposed to be allies of the U.S. for trying to limit the corrosive impact that American culture has on their own countries.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's a very different political landscape than it was 10-20 years ago.  Moderates will vote for a progressive, progressives won't vote for a moderate.  Both 2016 and 2018 proved this to be true for Democrats.  Trump certainly didn't win by trying to appeal to moderates or independents, either.


I think you're wrong about that, depending on your definition of "moderate". It's not that appealing to the moderates doesn't win elections anymore, rather it's the extreme ends that get amplified so much that you don't get to hear what moderates think anymore. In the era of social media and ideological brownie points the only people you see are caricatures of either side, the moderates don't get involved in the mud slinging, or they pretend to be one or the other for personal reasons and only manifest their true beliefs at the voting booth.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> So I see we're just going to ignore the fact that many of these people are seeking asylum legally and being subjected to near-torturous conditions.  Classic cots.



It's the "fuck you got mine" mentality. No one knows what it's like to go through something like that, so they don't care and only think of themselves.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 16, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It will be interesting to see who's going to take the seat, Trump or one of the 3,568,785 Democratic candidates. I myself am quite happy that the base is split, it always makes for funny debates.


They are a gift that keeps on giving. They are trying to pass a house resolution to condemn Trumps tweets.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/453090-pelosi-announces-house-resolution-to-condemn-trump-comments?amp



So basically this is how it goes.
“Do we all condemn Trumps tweets”
“yes we do”
“Ok, that is all thank you for you time”


Trump is playing them, and they fell for it. He knows how to distract them and play them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2019)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> It's the "fuck you got mine" mentality.  No one knows what it's like to go through something like that, so they don't care and only think of themselves.


Or, alternatively, everyone is familiar with the "my dog ate my homework" mentality and thus is skeptical of any asylum seeker that was caught crossing the border illegally. It can't be considered a "get out of jail" card, you don't get to claim asylum just because you were caught. Some sensible restrictions must apply here.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 16, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Or, alternatively, everyone is familiar with the "my dog ate my homework" mentality and thus is skeptical of any asylum seeker that was caught crossing the border illegally. It can't be considered a "get out of jail" card, you don't get to claim asylum just because you were caught. Some sensible restrictions must apply here.


There’s a lot of people abusing asylum. Why don’t they seek asylum in one of these South American countries? People go through several South American countries to get here, some that offer asylum. Why not go there instead? Mexico offers Asylum.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 16, 2019)

luisedgarf said:


> If you want to start looking for culprits, you can start blaming Hollywood and its tendency to glorify the American way of life. They are the ones who, partly because of patriotic pride and partly because of U.S. government propaganda, are the ones who promote the supposed values of American society and its supposed superiority over all others. I am surprised that Americans still have the nerve to complain about how many people want to go and live in their country, considering how much the U.S. government spends to promote their country and say how beautiful and wonderful America is.
> 
> However, if a nation dares to ban an American film for the simple reason of promoting its culture with impunity, it could receive economic sanctions from the American government, something that has already happened to a lesser extent in some countries that are supposed to be allies of the U.S. for trying to limit the corrosive impact that American culture has on their own countries.


A lot of people think U.S. standard of living is higher. So they refuse to take the offer of asylum in South American countries they pass through, some that are nice countries, to come here. They want work with high pay and high standard of living but abuse the asylum system.


----------



## Loyalty (Jul 16, 2019)

SG854 said:


> There’s a lot of people abusing asylum. Why don’t they seek asylum in one of these South American countries? People go through several South American countries to get here, some that offer asylum. Why not go there instead? Mexico offers Asylum.



Everyone knows the answer to that... "free stuff".... Use the emergency rooms as free healthcare (abusing the system),welfare,food stamps, housing, schooling... The problem is there is running out of people to actually pay for that free stuff... Borrowing is putting a strain on everything... and the debt (sorry Trump-worshippers but Trump has not helped one bit with is record budgets) is gonna bite and bite hard one day soon. The leftist loons think free just magically appears, and they talk about science but can't tell a male from a female and deny the math is gonna bit back. Politicians play the pass the buck game to the next generation of politicians. The USA can not absorb the whole of the world... in trying to do so it is destroying itself and pushing for a one world government.... which is the globalists goal anyway....


----------



## zomborg (Jul 16, 2019)

Loyalty said:


> Everyone knows the answer to that... "free stuff".... Use the emergency rooms as free healthcare (abusing the system),welfare,food stamps, housing, schooling... The problem is there is running out of people to actually pay for that free stuff... Borrowing is putting a strain on everything... and the debt (sorry Trump-worshippers but Trump has not helped one bit with is record budgets) is gonna bite and bite hard one day soon. The leftist loons think free just magically appears, and they talk about science but can't tell a male from a female and deny the math is gonna bit back. Politicians play the pass the buck game to the next generation of politicians. The USA can not absorb the whole of the world... in trying to do so it is destroying itself and pushing for a one world government.... which is the globalists goal anyway....


Good point. In the early days of our country we may have needed an influx of migrants to help settle the wild land but today, as you so accurately stated, we cannot absorb the entire world's population. The end result, if not global government, would be that instead of America taking in the huddled masses, we would BE the huddled masses. Looking for someone to take us in, feed and clothe us.


----------



## Smoker1 (Jul 16, 2019)

Unless someone can prove absolutely without a doubt actual Documented, Valid Proof that Qualified Trump's Wife for a Einstein Visa, her ass better be one of the first to get Deported.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I think you're wrong about that, depending on your definition of "moderate". It's not that appealing to the moderates doesn't win elections anymore, rather it's the extreme ends that get amplified so much that you don't get to hear what moderates think anymore. In the era of social media and ideological brownie points the only people you see are caricatures of either side, the moderates don't get involved in the mud slinging, or they pretend to be one or the other for personal reasons and only manifest their true beliefs at the voting booth.


If I'm wrong, the results of the last two elections certainly don't show it.  Progressives voted for Obama hoping for real change, what they got instead was a moderate president that they were willing to tolerate because he was otherwise a strong leader.  But that frustration of still wanting to see real change manifested when we were offered yet another status quo candidate in Hillary.  If the moderate vote mattered more than the progressive vote, it would've been enough to hand her the victory.  Instead, Trump won by playing to the hard-right base.  It's come down to progressives versus regressives.



SG854 said:


> There’s a lot of people abusing asylum. Why don’t they seek asylum in one of these South American countries? People go through several South American countries to get here, some that offer asylum. Why not go there instead? Mexico offers Asylum.


I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself: it's because businesses and corporations in the US offer so many job opportunities to illegals.  It's also because the gangs and drug cartels that operate in South America operate in Mexico too.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 16, 2019)

zomborg said:


> Good point. In the early days of our country we may have needed an influx of migrants to help settle the wild land but today, as you so accurately stated, we cannot absorb the entire world's population. The end result, if not global government, would be that instead of America taking in the huddled masses, we would BE the huddled masses. Looking for someone to take us in, feed and clothe us.


Looks like Mexico is having a Migrant problem too. Mexican president gets some backlash and they are being overrun by migrants.


https://www.apnews.com/aa60885718a04002b61b09975622303c


So U.S. is being overrun by migrants they have to process, verify, provide resources, check if cartels are abusing immigration loop holes. Too much political bickering and refusal to provide money and resources to deal with this problem no matter how much they beg for more resources.


They told Mexico to crack down on Migrants so that U.S. is not over run. But now Mexico is overrun, and they are having a migrant problem.

Politicians yell at U.S. Boarder agents, and boarder agents yell back at congress that these rules they are enforcing is their problem they created. If you have a problem then change your laws.

They tried to call the boarder agent racist because of the conditions of migrant children then he gets pissed off and yells back telling them congress isn’t doing it’s job to fix this problem and won’t give them resources which Democrats keep on blocking. This is in addition to another video I linked with a different person, a representative, yelling at politicians for the same reason.


That same boarder agent offers solutions to help the problem many times which congress refuses to do while calling him a racist.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 16, 2019)

The easy answer to all of this... is an old saying, follow the money. Why would anyone want non documented illegal people in the country? (any country.) The answer is a pool or easily exploited cheap labor that you don't have to pay minimum wage or provide any sort of benefits for... Sounds fun? They pay zero taxes, have no insurance, and make very little money. So the healthcare system has to put money out taking care of these people, meanwhile they put nothing back in unless it's sales tax but a large chunk of hospital funding comes from the federal government. 

"With the exception of the Federal hospitals, which are funded entirely from Federal tax revenues, hospital _funding_ comes from a variety of sources, including:


Medicare and Medicaid for patients covered by those Federal programs
Local tax revenues for some of the local governmental hospitals
Insurance companies
Out-of-pocket payments from patients
Donations
Grants

I have been working in various hospitals for the last year, Florida doesn't have a huge illegal immigrant problem. I still see them from time to time but in general, I don't see a lot of them. 

One thing missing from that quote, is the tax write off issue... Just as an example as a fictitious person Susan has no insurance and no social security number, she falls and breaks 3-4 bones in her body because she was drunk at the beach and tried to do a backwards somersault off of a bench. So of course she goes to the hospital, the Dr's perform some cool surgeries like pins and casts and fusing bones back together, X-rays and MRI's and CT scans and all those cool tests to make sure she is going to be A OK! She wont pay a dime but the hospital bill would be 10's of thousands of dollars... Possibly even more. The hospital knows it will never collect on this money, the Dr's will never get paid, so they all write if off as a tax deduction... Taxes that normally would be flowing back into the government. 

So Susan isn't paying taxes, but she also nuked a huge tax bill for the hospital! Win Win! unless your paying your taxes and you get a little pissed off at that whole situation. 

I can see why people are angry on one side, the other side... I am not sure what they are angry about. No country is responsible for how well another country is or isn't doing. If people are worried about how country X is doing... maybe they should help them improve that country so bad stuff can really stop happening. Helping a small % of immigrants isn't going to provide long term change in that country and may actually harm it. Imagine if all your best and brightest just up and left...


----------



## zomborg (Jul 16, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Looks like Mexico is having a Migrant problem too. Mexican president gets some backlash and they are being overrun by migrants.
> 
> 
> https://www.apnews.com/aa60885718a04002b61b09975622303c
> ...



When members of our own congress are turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the solutions our brave border patrol agents are presenting them and even calling him a racist, it proves that our main enemy is not without but instead within. We are fighting harder against enemies who want to destroy us from within.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Politicians yell at U.S. Boarder agents, and boarder agents yell back at congress that these rules they are enforcing is their problem they created. If you have a problem then change your laws.


Disingenuous garbage.  McConnell blocks anything and everything that comes from the House, _especially_ if the aim is humanitarian aid to immigrants.  Republicans don't want to change the laws for the better, and they'll keep up this two-faced bullshit as long as it continues serving corporate interests while simultaneously riling up the people with confederate flag bumper stickers.

"I was just following orders."  Now where have we heard that excuse before?


----------



## SG854 (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Disingenuous garbage.  McConnell blocks anything and everything that comes from the House, _especially_ if the aim is humanitarian aid to immigrants.  Republicans don't want to change the laws for the better, and they'll keep up this two-faced bullshit as long as it continues serving corporate interests while simultaneously riling up the people with confederate flag bumper stickers.
> 
> "I was just following orders."  Now where have we heard that excuse before?


And Democrats don’t wanna do shit. They refuse aid.

It’s not his fault that they refuse to close immigration loop holes that cartels abuse.

He’s telling them solutions to fix the problem. But they refuse. That’s not disingenuous garbage if he’s offering solutions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If I'm wrong, the results of the last two elections certainly don't show it.  Progressives voted for Obama hoping for real change, what they got instead was a moderate president that they were willing to tolerate because he was otherwise a strong leader.  But that frustration of still wanting to see real change manifested when we were offered yet another status quo candidate in Hillary.  If the moderate vote mattered more than the progressive vote, it would've been enough to hand her the victory.  Instead, Trump won by playing to the hard-right base.  It's come down to progressives versus regressives.


Have you considered the distinct possibility that the Democrat discourse has shifted so far to the left that it left moderates far behind? People who used to be called centrist are now considered right-leaning - moderates didn't disappear from the race, you guys just left the field altogether. As for the "progressive versus regressive" dichotomy, I have some problems with it, not all "progressive" goals entail progress. In fact, in many ways they're regressive, but that's a subject for another thread.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2019)

SG854 said:


> And Democrats don’t wanna do shit. They refuse aid.


The Democrats voted to pass the Senate funding bill, and yet there hasn't been any improvement in conditions for immigrants.  It's simply not a priority for the Republicans, and they'll gladly redirect that money elsewhere when given the chance.



SG854 said:


> It’s not his fault that they refuse to close immigration loop holes that cartels abuse.
> 
> He’s telling them solutions to fix the problem. But they refuse. That’s not disingenuous garbage if he’s offering solutions.


If you believe the GOP talking points, every two-year-old child crossing the border is a member of the cartel.  It's complete horseshit.  The government is breaking the law by criminalizing those seeking asylum.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Have you considered the distinct possibility that the Democrat discourse has shifted so far to the left that it left moderates far behind?


Nah, our most leftist candidate isn't even a Democrat, he's an Independent.  And he's only about as "extremist" as FDR was.  So if anything, we're just getting back to our roots of being the party of the working class.



Foxi4 said:


> People who used to be called centrist are now considered right-leaning - moderates didn't disappear from the race, you guys just left the field altogether.


That's because the center has shifted to the right.  Decades of everlasting war have numbed us to corporate influence in our elections and profiteering from human suffering.  If 'centrists' are willing to turn a blind eye to the blatant racism and indecency that Trump has used the presidency to amplify, they were never really centrists.  If that means we get to purge a few DINOs from the party and still come out on top as we did in 2018, even better.



Foxi4 said:


> As for the "progressive versus regressive" dichotomy, I have some problems with it, not all "progressive" goals entail progress. In fact, in many ways they're regressive, but that's a subject for another thread.


Trump identifies himself as a "50s guy," and that's exactly the decade he's trying to regress us back to.  Sure, not every progressive idea can be a winner, but that's because they're NEW ideas, not the same old shit that's been proven time and again to fail.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nah, our most leftist candidate isn't even a Democrat, he's an Independent.  And he's only about as "extremist" as FDR was.  So if anything, we're just getting back to our roots of being the party of the working class.
> 
> 
> That's because the center has shifted to the right.  Decades of everlasting war have numbed us to corporate influence in our elections and profiteering from human suffering.  If 'centrists' are willing to turn a blind eye to the blatant racism and indecency that Trump has used the presidency to amplify, they were never really centrists.  If that means we get to purge a few DINOs from the party and still come out on top as we did in 2018, even better.
> ...


I disagree with the assessment, but at least you were willing to answer earnestly. The center hasn't moved much, the Republican stance has softened over the years, but the discourse on the Democratic side of the spectrum has definitely shifted leftwards. The *candidates* they nominate are fairly moderate, but that's specifically because they realise how far the base has gone off the beaten track - appealing to "the base" would mean having to embrace ideas from Loonbagia that do not have popular support which would  alienate most of the country. As for the "progressive" ideas themselves, I disagree with the notion that they're hit and miss because they're new and haven't been tried before - this sounds a whole lot like "real communism hasn't been tried before". A lot of them can't and won't work because they're completely unrealistic, or proven to be ineffective - they're so progressive that they're regressive.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The center hasn't moved much, the Republican stance has softened over the years


It WAS softening with candidates like Romney, but Trump swallowed the party whole and took a hard right with it.  He and McConnell are not moderate or centrist by any stretch of the imagination, and neither makes any attempt to appeal to the center, because they know it's not a winning strategy.



Foxi4 said:


> As for the progressive ideas, I disagree with the notion that they're hit and miss because they're new and haven't been tried before


Well you're right, many of these ideas have been implemented and proven to work just fine in other first-world countries.  It's pathetic that the USA has fallen so far behind the curve, rather than continuing to be a leader on the world stage in every category.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It WAS softening with candidates like Romney, but Trump swallowed the party whole and took a hard right with it.  He and McConnell are not moderate or centrist by any stretch of the imagination, and neither makes any attempt to appeal to the center, because they know it's not a winning strategy.
> 
> Well you're right, many of these ideas have been implemented and proven to work just fine in other first-world countries.  It's pathetic that the USA has fallen so far behind the curve, rather than continuing to be a leader on the world stage in every category.


Donald Trump is not a Republican. In terms of policy he's barely even "Conservative" in the traditional sense. Until 5 minutes ago in historical terms he'd be considered a normal New York Democrat with some kooky ideas on trade. As I said, the Democratic "base" has moved so far to the left that it alienated large swathes of people, leaving them to fend for themselves in what used to be the center. They no longer identify with the more radical incarnation of the party, so naturally they leaned towards the now-softened Republican party, or towards lesser known alternatives.

According to Pew Research less and less people hold a mix of Liberal and Conservative opinions - they now skew one way or the other, and they go all-in. Moreover, the ideological divide between the right and the left is deeper than it's ever been, and the survey they've conducted shows that Liberals specifically have moved in their positions to the extreme left, and they did so very rapidly compared to previous decades.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-co...47/10-05-2017-Political-landscape-release.pdf

As for "things that work in other countries", you will have to be more specific. I live in one of those countries, so I can tell you what works and what doesn't thanks to first-hand experience. Immigration is certainly a less sore subject on the Old Continent, in the sense that we don't feel guilty for deporting people who entered the country illegally. The contingent of "open borders" people is relatively small compared to the U.S., perhaps that's the difference.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Donald Trump is not a Republican. In terms of policy he's barely even "Conservative" in the traditional sense.


GWB wasn't a conservative either, which goes to show that the party has been drifting away from its roots for some time now.



Foxi4 said:


> Until 5 minutes ago in historical terms he'd be considered a normal New York Democrat with some kooky ideas on trade.


Oh give me a break.  A Lincoln-era Democrat, maybe.  He's a self-described nationalist, and he worships authoritarians because he wants to be like them.  And let's not dance around it: he's an unapologetic racist, to the point that even the NIXON administration sued him over discriminatory housing practices.



Foxi4 said:


> According to Pew Research less and less people hold a mix of Liberal and Conservative opinions - they now skew one way or the other, and they go all-in. Moreover, the ideological divide between the right and the left is deeper than it's ever been, and the survey they've conducted shows that Liberals specifically have moved in their positions to the extreme left, and they did so very rapidly compared to previous decades.


None of the statements in that polling are indicative of a shift to the "extreme left," and the study doesn't claim to represent that.  The widening gap in opinions is not surprising, however, as Democrats are growing tired of attempts to compromise which just come back to bite them in the ass later.  The polling on immigrants strengthening the country is encouraging, but only if that 42% of Republicans shows the courage of their convictions.  On so many other issues, it's hard to find common ground when most Trump supporters refuse to acknowledge even basic scientific fact.



Foxi4 said:


> As for "things that work in other countries", you will have to be more specific. I live in one of those countries, so I can tell you what works and what doesn't thanks to first-hand experience.


Many of the biggest problems center around our broken healthcare system, of course.  Mental healthcare and taking care of our veterans falling under that same category.  I'm sure your country has far superior systems in place for all of these issues.



Foxi4 said:


> Immigration is certainly a less sore subject on the Old Continent, in the sense that we don't feel guilty for deporting people who entered the country illegally. The contingent of "open borders" people is relatively small compared to the U.S., perhaps that's the difference.


Deportation isn't a point of contention here either.  Obama deported a lot of people, the difference being that his administration treated deportees humanely.  I imagine there would be a bit of an uproar if Poland was keeping 150 immigrants in cages meant for 30, and those people were being held for 400+ days.  Or, even worse, children were being molested and dying from neglect in said cages.


----------



## notimp (Jul 16, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They told Mexico to crack down on Migrants so that U.S. is not over run. But now Mexico is overrun, and they are having a migrant problem.


So the next step would be to try and pay mexico to keep them in country. because if you don't do that - they are incentivized to 'not look' if the migrants are moving onward towards the US.

Its usually less expensive to pay for people being given humanitarian care in mexico, that in the US. And mexico longterm - has a higher potential working population, if they can build economies around that, so you should help them do that. But now the issue fo them may become stability (young people, out of work, wages dropping...).

Instead you want to tax them more - so that they start to really dont care.  Someone tell the far right, that they are producing the issue they are trying to win elections on.  At least partly.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> GWB wasn't a conservative either, which goes to show that the party has been drifting away from its roots for some time now.
> 
> Oh give me a break.  A Lincoln-era Democrat, maybe.  He's a self-described nationalist, and he worships authoritarians because he wants to be like them.  And let's not dance around it: he's an unapologetic racist, to the point that even the NIXON administration sued him over discriminatory housing practices.
> 
> ...


The study proves it directly, actually. The survey was very simple - it's 10 questions that have more liberal or more conservative answers, it tests political alignment. The graph shows exactly what I claimed it does - the Democrat curve veered *hard* to left and created a spire whereas the Republican curve flattened.




Republicans are *less consistently conservative*, Democrats are *more consistently liberal*, it's right there.

As for Trump, he's not a racist. Having a fondness for strong leadership, aka what you call "authoritarianism" is neither left nor right-wing, history shows that both left and right-wing authoritarianism is a possibility. The political compass has two axes - the left-right axis and the authoritarian-libertarian axis. He does describe himself as a nationalist, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, although it does have a negative connotation.

In terms of his political alignment, the Democrats have been advocating for the construction of a physical barrier at the border for as long as I remember, this includes Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Shumer who all supported the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I won't even get into Hillary's statements regarding "super predators" or other tasty treats from recent history. You might have amnesia, but I don't - Trump stands precisely where Democrats used to stand not so long ago. He's nowhere near matching Deporter in Chief, Trump's numbers are lagging behind his predecessor. Of course coincidentally Democrat mayors refuse to cooperate with his administration even in the cases of immigrants who received their final notices, I wonder if it has something to do with the party label. In any case, it's not "Lincoln-Era Democrat", it's "5 minutes ago Democrat".

Regarding healthcare, the last thing you want is an NHS-style entity. It's colossaly wasteful and its supposed efficiency is grossly overestimated.

On a less serious note, you are giving Poland a lot of undue credit. I can assure you that it's undeserved.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Republicans are *less consistently conservative*, Democrats are *more consistently liberal*, it's right there.


My point being that more liberal =/= more leftist from a world and historical perspective.  Liberals are still capitalists and tend to glance over the faults inherent in a capitalist system, just as conservatives do.



Foxi4 said:


> As for Trump, he's not a racist.


This is no longer up for debate after his recent remarks on Twitter.  "Go back to your country" is the same line that's been used by racists and segregationists for over a century now.



Foxi4 said:


> Having a fondness for strong leadership, aka what you call "authoritarianism" is neither left nor right-wing, history shows that both left and right-wing authoritarianism is a possibility.


Dictators who starve their citizens and deprive them of basic human rights are not strong leaders, they're selfish and weak.  It's no wonder Trump sees so much of himself in them.



Foxi4 said:


> As for his political alignment, the Democrats have been advocating the construction of a physical barrier at the border for as long as I remember, this includes Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and Chuck Shumer who all supported the Secure Fence Act of 2006.


Indeed, and they've been willing to provide funding for such a venture from the beginning, but Trump wouldn't accept anything less than a wasteful and overly-expensive wall.  Probably just so he can put his name on it in large gold letters to temporarily satisfy his NPD.



Foxi4 said:


> I won't even get into Hilary's statements regarding "super predators" or other tasty treats from recent history.


Why do you think so many Democrats refused to vote for her in 2016?  Same thing is going to happen to Biden if he gets the nomination.  Just reinforces my point that Democrats are sick of "Republican lite" candidates.



Foxi4 said:


> He's nowhere near matching Deporter in Chief, Trump's numbers are lagging behind his predecessor since, miraculously, Democrat mayors refuse to cooperate with him even in the cases of immigrants who received their final notices.


It also helps keep deportation numbers low when he's holding immigrants in cages well past point when the law demands they be released.  Inefficiency and incompetency, the defining traits of the Trump administration.



Foxi4 said:


> Regarding healthcare, the last thing you want is an NHS-style entity. It's colossaly wasteful and its supposed efficiency is grossly overestimated.


Easy to say from the comfort of a country where citizens don't risk lifelong bankruptcy over a single illness or necessary surgery.



Foxi4 said:


> On a less serious note, you are giving Poland a lot of undue credit. I can assure you that it's undeserved.


Maybe so, but it's just one of several first-world countries that are leaving the US in the dust when it comes to nearly any standard of living metric.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> My point being that more liberal =/= more leftist from a world and historical perspective.  Liberals are still capitalists and tend to glance over the faults inherent in a capitalist system, just as conservatives do.
> 
> This is no longer up for debate after his recent remarks on Twitter.  "Go back to your country" is the same line that's been used by racists and segregationists for over a century now.
> 
> ...


The reason why I enjoy chatting with you about these things is that we can both look at the same set of facts and draw two completely different conclusions from them. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on all accounts, particularly regarding the NHS. I've lived in the UK for many years now, I'm a legal immigrant, I own a property and pay my taxes, but the one thing I haven't done and don't intend to ever do is partake in the NHS. All I need to make up my mind is seeing how my better half is being treated, complete with consistent misdiagnosis, surgeries delayed ad infinitum and 4-hour long wait times at the A&E, at minimum. Thankfully I'm healthy and the only attention I need is the occasional check-up at the dentist, but when it's time for a visit, I travel all the way back to Poland and do it privately. Sadly, I don't get to choose whether I pay for the NHS circus or not, which is a bit of a shame since it's a service imposed upon me that I will never use. With some luck it will go bankrupt within my lifetime so that it can be replaced with a more preferable free market alternative, but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Skelletonike (Jul 16, 2019)

Sadly centrists are now seen and treated the same as being extreme right. 
In my country for example, there are two parties which are extremely similar, PS and PSD, one leans more to the left and the other more to the right, at their core however, they are extremely similar. Or were supposed to. 4 years ago PSD legally won the ellection, however PS was upset with that and did something which wasn't 100% correct, it aligned itself with all the strong left parties, which are all extreme left.

Just to get a win, they went against their principles and allied themselves with the extreme left and bigot every suggestion the PSD and any of the more right wing parties suggest. It was and is total BS. People are too obsessed with being right or left these days. 


Regarding illegal migrants, for the most part they end up being parasites. Portugal has a lot of poor people in the streets, but even so we had to give houses and money to those migrants, when our own homeless remain in the streets. All of this is because it looks nice in the picture. They don't give a damn.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Sadly, I don't get to choose whether I pay for the NHS circus or not, which is a bit of a shame since it's a service imposed upon me that I will never use.


That's not really something you can guarantee, though.  People never _choose_ to have sudden medical emergencies.

One of the main grievances I have with conservatives here in the US is that they complain constantly about taxation, yet they'll gladly take their fill of all the services those taxes help pay for.  Especially Social Security and Medicare, but also of course including public parks and highways.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That's not really something you can guarantee, though.  People never _choose_ to have sudden medical emergencies.
> 
> One of the main grievances I have with conservatives here in the US is that they complain constantly about taxation, yet they'll gladly take their fill of all the services those taxes help pay for.  Especially Social Security and Medicare, but also of course including public parks and highways.


I can guarantee you that if my head is hanging off my neck on a sliver of skin, I will go to the nearest vet instead of the local hospital because I'll have better chances for timely recovery.  Remember, taxation is theft, keep on keeping on, buddy!


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 18, 2019)

Note: I'm somewhat necrobumping a post of mine from something I said on page 8, and which was halfway off-topic to begin with (meaning: ignore this post if you don't care). Sorry for the confusion, but I grossly underestimated things. It's not fun to admit being wrong, but it has to be said: the truth is a whole lot closer to what @supersonicwaffle claimed than my own post.

About a week ago, I said...


Taleweaver said:


> But meh... Since you seem to care : I pray a yearly sum to a 'mutualiteit'... I think it's best translated as a state funded insurance (yes... Like Obamacare. He didn't invent the wheel). It's about 50 euro. On top of that there is a monthly tax derived monthly from everyone who works in Belgium. About 50 euro, roughly estimated. So per year, I guesstimate I pay around 650 euros.


Since it was met with criticism (by @supersonicwaffle ), I decided to check with our HR department. Monthly contributions to the medical sector in Belgium - or at least for me (which is still about the median for a Belgian employee) - are around 13% of gross monthly income.
...and that's way above 50 euro's indeed. It's actually around 390-400 euro per month. So my yearly contribution to the sector is around 4850 euro's. Still cheaper than the US, but the margin is far less than I'd had hoped. 

/offtopic


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jul 18, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Note: I'm somewhat necrobumping a post of mine from something I said on page 8, and which was halfway off-topic to begin with (meaning: ignore this post if you don't care). Sorry for the confusion, but I grossly underestimated things. It's not fun to admit being wrong, but it has to be said: the truth is a whole lot closer to what @supersonicwaffle claimed than my own post.
> 
> About a week ago, I said...
> 
> ...



Thank you for getting back to us with this information, really appreciate it.
Basically my assumption that 1/3 of social securitiy expenses being for health care was conservative is pretty much spot on. I'd be interested in more details regarding the health care system in Belgium and will research when I find some time.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 21, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Note: I'm somewhat necrobumping a post of mine from something I said on page 8, and which was halfway off-topic to begin with (meaning: ignore this post if you don't care). Sorry for the confusion, but I grossly underestimated things. It's not fun to admit being wrong, but it has to be said: the truth is a whole lot closer to what @supersonicwaffle claimed than my own post.
> 
> About a week ago, I said...
> 
> ...





supersonicwaffle said:


> Thank you for getting back to us with this information, really appreciate it.
> Basically my assumption that 1/3 of social securitiy expenses being for health care was conservative is pretty much spot on. I'd be interested in more details regarding the health care system in Belgium and will research when I find some time.


Wow, I completely forgot the whole Health Care thing was in this thread. I was a lot calmer and less attacky then till a certain person ticked me off. And I read others saying the same thing about him in other threads so I know I’m not the only one that thought the same.



You know when it comes to Obama Care Rep. Jim Jordan makes a good point, peoples premiums went way up and their Health Care choices reduced. Deductibles didn’t decline, people didn’t get to keep their doctor if they liked them, they didn’t get to keep the plan they liked.

They said Co-ops were these wonderful things, 23 were created but most, 19, went bankrupt and only 4 are left now. A failed thing of Obama Care.

https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/888844/579

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...-op-disaster-an-unfunny-comedy-of-errors/amp/



Jonathan Grubber the architect of Obama Care called Americans stupid for buying the lies of Obama care.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d44ff59cb2e8



Now that Trump wants to get rid of Obama Care and replace it with something better, he’s getting a lot of resistance just because he is Trump.





Just like the border issue Democrats are so busy resisting Trump that they wouldn’t sign off more funding to help the kids no matter how much boarder agents begged for more money and resources. Now that they barely got the resources conditions have improved.

They don’t want to close loop holes cartels are abusing, the family are contained for 20 days then released loophole which cartels are taking advantage of to smuggle kids in for slave labor.


And they say they are keeping kids separated to deter people, but the Trump administration reunited 95% of kids with their families. They separated kids to verify they are not victims of cartels. And to not imprison them for their parents crimes of illegally entering. Asylum seeking should be at ports of entry. Not in between ports where there is miles of dessert where people can dehydrate and die. There is a reason why it’s discourage.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/49632/report-trump-administration-has-reunited-95-ashe-schow?amp



And the “cages” they complain about they were all built under the Obama administration. Not a single one under the Trump administration. The facilities built under the Trump administration all have air conditioning, water, and people to administer health care supplies.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Now that Trump wants to get rid of Obama Care and replace it with something better, he’s getting a lot of resistance just because he is Trump.


For years before Trump we had heard Republicans make the claim that they want to replace it with "something better," yet no healthcare plan has ever materialized from them.  Perhaps because Obamacare was already a compromise and an offshoot of Romneycare.  I agree there are better options, but so far all those options are coming from Democratic candidates.  If Trump has an equally palatable solution, he needs to present it.



SG854 said:


> Just like the border issue Democrats are so busy resisting Trump that they wouldn’t sign off more funding to help the kids no matter how much boarder agents begged for more money and resources. Now that they barely got the resources conditions have improved.


There is no evidence that conditions have improved, or you would've provided it.  Recent publicized visits to the detention centers (such as Pence's) have shown otherwise.



SG854 said:


> They don’t want to close loop holes cartels are abusing, the family are contained for 20 days then released loophole which cartels are taking advantage of to smuggle kids in for slave labor.


Sounds like something that corporations would want in on, and not like something that Republicans would actually care to do something about.



SG854 said:


> And they say they are keeping kids separated to deter people, but the Trump administration reunited 95% of kids with their families. They separated kids to verify they are not victims of cartels. And to not imprison them for their parents crimes of illegally entering. Asylum seeking should be at ports of entry. Not in between ports where there is miles of dessert where people can dehydrate and die. There is a reason why it’s discourage.


Children have died in custody.  Children have been raped and sexually abused in custody.  The cartels cannot hold a candle to the danger presented to migrant children by the Trump administration.  EDIT: Okay, that's a bit hyperbolic, but the Trump administration does present the same type of dangers that the cartels do, and unlike cartel members, ICE officers don't have to worry about facing criminal charges.



SG854 said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailywire.com/news/49632/report-trump-administration-has-reunited-95-ashe-schow?amp


The Daily Wire is tabloid garbage.  And if they're basing their reporting on government-provided numbers, those are entirely misleading.



SG854 said:


> And the “cages” they complain about they were all built under the Obama administration. Not a single one under the Trump administration. The facilities built under the Trump administration all have air conditioning, water, and people to administer health care supplies.


As usual, Jim Jordan is full of shit.  Three more ICE detention centers were opened as recently as last month.  And it's largely irrelevant if they're being freshly built or not, the bigger issue is the Trump administration's over-reliance on private prison companies to run these centers.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Aug 5, 2019)

It feels a bit weird and ironic that people in US are against immigration when the majority of them are immigrants. Europeans, Africans and Asians all travelled from their own continents over to US, what's also known as the New World. Native Indians are the indigenous people of the Americas continent.

The natives of US lost their own country as the colonizers were too many and well armed to take over. So, don't hold a grudge at the word 'immigrant' but rather if it's a _legal_ or _illegal_ immigrant, legals have the right to stay while illegals tend to be deported as their application was rejected.

Some might not know that European-Americans went through the process of picking the definitive flag for the country they snatched from the Native Indians.



Spoiler












And Brazil, too.



Spoiler











I really wish my ancestors had just stayed in their own country and mind their own business than 'discover' land (despite there was people already living in).

P.S. Changing from Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day was a good call, but not enough.

P.P.S. I listen to the Texas radio "The Ranch" for its country music (one of most European-American things you can get) but the moment they play FOX News and how 'America is the greatest country in the world that we made and them immigrants ain't gonna take it from us' leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I already explained why.

At the very least I'd just wish people would be respectful and get along.


----------



## Jayro (Aug 5, 2019)

Lacius said:


> What's going on with immigrant-holding and child-separation in this country is purely because of Trump and the Republicans.


Go ahead and commit a crime, ANY crime here in the U.S., and see if you get to be locked up _WITH_ your children. Don't be stupid.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 5, 2019)

Jayro said:


> Go ahead and commit a crime, ANY crime here in the U.S., and see if you get to be locked up _WITH_ your children. Don't be stupid.



*Many of the asylum seekers are not committing a crime by coming here.*
The "crime" of coming here doesn't fit the punishment of family separation.
The border family separation policy did not exist before Trump.
The family separation policy exists solely as a punitive measure and deterrent, which is immoral.
There are crimes in the US that don't involve jail, let alone family-separation.
Children typically aren't forcibly separated from their families here in the US, unless there's an actual good reason and it's in the best interest of the child. There is nothing about the child's best interest involved in the child separation policy at the border.
Border separations are being done with no real system in place to reunite families.
Children at the border are being held in deplorable conditions.
Children at the border are dying.
Don't be stupid. If you are going to be stupid, you probably shouldn't tag someone who is going to call you out on it.


----------



## Jayro (Aug 5, 2019)

There's a right way to come in, and they chose the wrong way. So they broke the law. Now I do agree that their living conditions are atrocious. Everyone deserves basic care, detained or not. That DOES need to change. But keeping our borders secured (Like all other countries do, mind you) is a must. And no, I don't like or support Trump, he sucks.


----------



## mikefor20 (Aug 5, 2019)

They brought their kids to a criminal endeavor.  You know if i commit a felony they would put my kid in foster care if there wasn't an appropriate responsible LEGAL adult to watch him.

Illegally crossing the border is a crime.  They are illegal. They should have left their spawn at home.

LACIUS. Obama separated kids too.

Closely monitoring the boarder is necessary. Don't be stupid.  I don't like trump but the border is an issue. All the bleeding hearts will be sorry in the end. You better hope we protect your wishy washy ass when the shit hits the fan. secure the country.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 5, 2019)

Jayro said:


> There's a right way to come in, and they chose the wrong way.


When the process of seeking asylum is criminalized, there is no longer a "right way."  The cartels that operate in their home countries also operate in Mexico, so these people do not have years to wait around while some Trump-appointed judge reviews their paperwork and eventually decides to deny them entry anyway.  Like so many other institutions in the US, our immigration system is completely broken right now, and the people who could potentially fix it are either maliciously complacent or criminally incompetent.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 5, 2019)

Jayro said:


> There's a right way to come in



No, there actually isn't. At least, not for a Mexican living in poverty. There is only the "wrong way" for those.


----------



## Jayro (Aug 5, 2019)

invaderyoyo said:


> No, there actually isn't. At least, not for a Mexican living in poverty. There is only the "wrong way" for those.


Well by all means, let them move in with you, if you're so inclined to help them. Mexico is a shithole, and that's not our problem. They need to fix their government, just like we need to fix ours.


----------



## Rolf12 (Aug 5, 2019)

Jayro said:


> Well by all means, let them move in with you, if you're so inclined to help them. Mexico is a shithole, and that's not our problem. They need to fix their government, just like we need to fix ours.


While you are correct that both governments need to be fixed  there is an unnnice and long history of USA messing about in South America. What responsabilities that amounts in afterwards is not easy to say. Not to mention what Spain and Portugal did there before the US where running wild...


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 5, 2019)

Jayro said:


> Well by all means, let them move in with you, if you're so inclined to help them. Mexico is a shithole, and that's not our problem. They need to fix their government, just like we need to fix ours.


You say that, but it has clearly become our problem. This "shithole" is right nextdoor to the US. There are millions of these people in the US.


----------



## Jayro (Aug 5, 2019)

invaderyoyo said:


> You say that, but it has clearly become our problem. This "shithole" is right nextdoor to the US. There are millions of these people in the US.


In my personal opinion, these "sanctuary cities" that are just running rampant with illegals need to be cracked down on. There's no reason to protect them. If anything, it would help us get out of the housing crisis our own people are in.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 6, 2019)

Jayro said:


> In my personal opinion, these "sanctuary cities" that are just running rampant with illegals need to be cracked down on. There's no reason to protect them. If anything, it would help us get out of the housing crisis our own people are in.


You know there are like 11million, right? Going after them directly is too much work and most of them won't get caught anyway. They come here for jobs so take away the jobs. Employers who knowingly hire them should be fined, repeat offenders maybe even jailed.


----------

