• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

The Illegal Immigration Non-Crisis in the USA

  • Thread starter cots
  • Start date
  • Views 29,598
  • Replies 460
  • Likes 9

supersonicwaffle

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2018
Messages
262
Trophies
0
Age
37
XP
458
Country
Germany
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?
  1. 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.
  2. 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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
1,806
Trophies
0
XP
2,436
Country
China
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).

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

Banned!
OP
Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
1,533
Trophies
0
XP
1,952
Country
United States
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. "

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. B-) 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

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

Banned!
OP
Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
1,533
Trophies
0
XP
1,952
Country
United States
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

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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,020
Trophies
2
XP
4,597
Country
Germany
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.

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.

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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Messages
1,806
Trophies
0
XP
2,436
Country
China
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

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
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.

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 ---------------------------

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.
 
Last edited by SG854,
  • Like
Reactions: supersonicwaffle
D

Deleted-481927

Guest
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

cots

Banned!
OP
Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
1,533
Trophies
0
XP
1,952
Country
United States
^

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jayro

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
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. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AmandaRose

Jayro

MediCat USB Dev
Developer
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
12,884
Trophies
4
Location
WA State
Website
ko-fi.com
XP
16,777
Country
United States
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glyptofane and cots
D

Deleted-481927

Guest
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

Banned!
OP
Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
1,533
Trophies
0
XP
1,952
Country
United States
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 ---------------------------

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. :)

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

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
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.
 
Last edited by notimp,

cots

Banned!
OP
Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
1,533
Trophies
0
XP
1,952
Country
United States
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.

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?
 
Last edited by cots,

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
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.)
 
Last edited by notimp,
D

Deleted-481927

Guest
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 ---------------------------



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.
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
 

cots

Banned!
OP
Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
1,533
Trophies
0
XP
1,952
Country
United States
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
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.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    S @ salazarcosplay: I have seen the new 52 and dcau animated movies I think they take every opportunity to say his...