I’d say we need more “pro-democracy” influence down there, but obviously our central and south American “influence” in the past has been catastrophic, if not the actual root cause of these problems. Not sure if it can be solved with “foreign aid”, but we certainly need some stronger allies down there to stem the flows of migrants. Any influence or aid should be tied to propping up stability and rule of law. That’s the only way we see a positive ROI from foreign aid, by tangible and positive changes in conditions, and that’s not a thing that can be fixed overnight, it takes long term vision and commitment (a seriousness which sadly might not be possible in our degenerate modern culture). In the past it was more about securing oil rights or geopolitical checkers with Russia, not so much about human rights. This “migrant crisis” is the long form result of those past mistakes. Yet, morons still looking for the easy fix. Every society seems to have this ripe audience for a charlatan to promise “final solutions” to. Trump is a clown, probably the closest we had to our own Hugo Chavez.
Then we've never had a border. When, in our history, as our Southern border with Mexico been secure? And people coming in on foot looking for work are the same as people in tanks looking to take over a country? Well, if this is true, if you aren't a Native American, then you're the invader. Maybe you should leave? I also have zero fear from a desperate family coming here for work. I would have fear staring the barrel of a tank.
Thanks for explaining. I figured it was something like that. Also, it kind of makes my point. In my mind, metering is a logical step, if you believe we don’t have the capacity to let everybody who shows up at the border into the country, much less process them. So the result is these people are circumventing the process and entering illegally, then presenting themselves. That’s the point of border security, such as a wall/barrier at certain points. I will agree having all sorts of border or military personnel does little to keep people from entering illegally - it just expedites the presenting process, which does not keep people out. In my mind the asylum process is clearly broken. To be clear I have no ill feelings towards most of the people illegally entering, they are just trying to make a better life for themselves and many have gone through hell to get here. But at the end of the day you have to have limits and you just can’t let everyone in. Seems to me the laws should be changed such that if you enter illegally you aren’t eligible for asylum, at all. I’m sure you will respond we need more people to process them faster, and I agree.
Of course not. Your house is not the border though. You're drawing an equivalency between war over land occupation like in Israel/Palestine or Russia/Ukraine, and people fleeing to the United States so they can be part of the American system... some bad people and some moochers, others good people who just want to work. I agree we need to control the border. But I don't think we should be likening illegal aliens to Russians crossing the Ukrainian border or Palestinians trying to get into Israel. One group is just cutting the line and overwhelming the American system, the other is trying to destroy the country they are invading so they can occupy it.
Somewhere between a wall in high traffic areas and a wall on our entire southern border. Aka somewhere between hopefully an effective use of money and pissing away billions of dollars
Here are a couple of reasons in no particular order: Ability to vote in all elections Be able to partake in US safety net programs like Social Security Remove all fear of deportation
I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s. I know what racism is. For instance, segregation in schools, in restaurants, buses, etc, is clear racism. Today it is a popular and misused term used to describe whatever you disagree with. Inanimate objects (to wit, a wall) cannot be racist.
Wait, buses, restaurants, and schools are animate objects? Or can an inanimate object be used by racists for racist purposes?
I think I have come to understand your erroneous position. You believe that because a non citizen crossed the boarder without resistance in 1879, then it’s ok now. To put it kindly, that argument is dumb. We have laws in place now. End of story. The Native American thing is funny. No group killed more native Americans than other native Americans. It is true…we did conquer them, just like all the people, including native Americans, have been doing for centuries. Fear! Ha. If a desperate family wants to come here for work, then get in line and come through the front door, when invited. Otherwise, GTF out. And what about all the other A-holes that blend in with your desperate families. Turn the other cheek? What do you have to say to this family after their daughter was raped by one of your beloved desperate souls looking for work. He didn’t mean to violently rape the girl, he is just misunderstood, much like your pathetic argument. Suspect in U.S. illegally held without bond after Prattville rape
It only makes your point if you think we're doing it out of need, rather than to be punitive. Metering is not remotely necessary. It's politics. So I don't feel any sort of way towards the people who prioritize their own safety in trying to access a system we legally promised them access to. Hard disagree.
This is precisely why we can’t close our border. You think there is a relevant difference. There is not. In both instances uninvited people have crossed over a sovereign border. In both instances they do not belong. In both instances some of the invaders are killing the citizens of the sovereign nation. In both cases the illegal crossing is dangerous to the nation. The tank is not relevant to this discussion. Motives are not relevant to this discussion. The tank is the minutiae. Motives don’t grant authority. We need to address the actual problem: stop the invaders. Stopping the invaders is the common denominator in both scenarios.
So you're proposing this extraordinarily costly border security apparatus despite acknowledging that it's not going to solve our problems? People who are seeking asylum will continue to come. The people who come here seeking economic opportunity will have less incentive to enter illegally if we have an attainable system through which companies in need of their labor can seek it out using a legal process, they will lose access to that legal process if they enter illegally, and companies are not incentivized to hire undocumented labor both because there is a system that will provide the labor they need and an enforcement apparatus that will actually come down on them hard if they don't use that legal system. How does telling the people who are already here they can stay? It's simply a fairness issue to me. If these people have been here working, paying taxes, and following the law (outside of their immigration status), why wouldn't we want them to stay and continue to contribute to our economy? Putting them in a position where they can't access this program and remain without status only encourages people to continue to not follow the law, something we're trying to stop. The more people not following the law, the harder it is to enforce it.
So it’s your position that we can absorb however many asylum seekers choose to come? Do you agree that many of these asylum seekers, while certainly coming from difficult situations, don’t really qualify for asylum?
Yes. Yes. And if you want to put money into the system so you can process the claims faster, have at it.
Why do you think they do so? Probably various reasons, but in my experience, naturalized citizens are usually very proud and excited to become Americans.
We have a Presidential candidate, who previously said he wanted more immigrants from Norway but not these "s-hole countries," say that the immigrants were "poisoning the blood of the nation." Seems like pretty much the same motivation (purity of "blood" was a common theme of the folks that did the things you mentioned). Heck, the current immigration laws were originated by just such a person (an actual member of the KKK is who wrote the first bill generally restricting immigration, at the time, by national origin).
