The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

Why can't their own country's welfare systems support them? Whatever make them think we are responsible for them?

What makes people think that we are responsible? I don't know....maybe the fact that the US, throughout the 1900s, overthrew democratically elected Central American governments and supported authoritarian and corrupt regimes that waged war against their own people in order to stay in power all in the name of protecting American interests (United Fruit Company, Panama Canal etc...) or fighting communism? American intervention for nearly a century prevented the region from ever stabilising. Costa Rica and Belize were the only countries free of this American meddling and guess what? They are fairly developed and stable countries and they are not a source of these mass migrations. El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras are a source and received heavy meddling from the US.

[Gatefan1976]

All of which adds up to "you don't want to solve the problem either".

I still haven't heard your suggestion for stopping the flow of illegals into this country. And I mean stopping it, cold. Or as close to 100% as we can get.

Because it is an impossible bar.
You might as well say find a way to stop all crime.
You need to manage the issue, because you will never end it. Have more agents, put border fences where they are useful. Use the issue to create more jobs for Americans rather than build a wall which will be circumvented by realatively simple means. Some wall will create jobs as well, and that's good too. Then, look at drug importation. All the stats are that relatively small amounts come over the southern border, they get in through aircraft or shipping lanes, so use the resources and manpower on that.

You need to look at the interconnected issues, because one, simple slogan will not get you what you want.

[Annoyed]

Because it is an impossible bar.
You might as well say find a way to stop all crime.
You need to manage the issue, because you will never end it. Have more agents, put border fences where they are useful. Use the issue to create more jobs for Americans rather than build a wall which will be circumvented by realatively simple means. Some wall will create jobs as well, and that's good too. Then, look at drug importation. All the stats are that relatively small amounts come over the southern border, they get in through aircraft or shipping lanes, so use the resources and manpower on that.

You need to look at the interconnected issues, because one, simple slogan will not get you what you want.

I've said that we can't ever stop it 100%. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Trump is again talking about closing the southern border this week in response to the current surge which is overwhelming resources at the southern border. And I hope to hell he does.

I haven't noticed hordes of illegals forming caravans in Northern Canada and heading towards the northern border.

But we are being inundated on the southern border. Mexico could easily block these people on the southern border of Mexico.

I hope this is what happens. Trump closes the southern border. So, these people can no longer come north into the US.

So Mexico will have a choice. Either detain and deport these people to their point of entry into Mexico, or Mexico can start picking up the tab for them. I don't care either way what they choose, all I care is that they can no longer come into the US. We are not the world's welfare office.

Any bets on what Mexico will do?

[Chaka-Z0]

Australian immigration laws are positively draconian, and I'm pretty fine with them. I am iffy on our "illegal immigrant laws" simply because they are broad based and stupid.

How can you say one thing then it's opposite immediately after? If you're fine with AUS immigration laws I'm sorry mate but you're a hypocrite for talking all that stuff about immigration. Australia basically is an à-la-carte immigration, not to mention the semi-legal moves of stopping immigrant convoys in international waters.

Austrlia doesn't have immigration, it has a recruitement program.

And I would never have the arrogance to move to a foreign nation where they speak French, German or whatever and ask that services be provided in English. It's my responsibility to learn to communicate in the language of where ever I'm going BEFORE going there.

lol? How the hell do you want to learn an other language if your country is devastated by war or other economic condition, rendering the possibility of going to school nil? That doesn't make sense. Initial immigration services must be provided in a common language, aka English, then steer immigrants towards learning the local language and then get them jobs or else. After that all bets are off, each countries have their official languages.

[Gatefan1976]

How can you say one thing then it's opposite immediately after? If you're fine with AUS immigration laws I'm sorry mate but you're a hypocrite for talking all that stuff about immigration. Australia basically is an à-la-carte immigration,

That's the bit I'm fine with.

not to mention the semi-legal moves of stopping immigrant convoys in international waters.

That's the bit I am not fine with, along with offshore detention and the crap that goes on in them.

Austrlia doesn't have immigration, it has a recruitement program.

Correct, why is that a wrong criteria for legal immigration?
Control your immigration, accept REFUGEE'S as needed, do it humanely (not like we do with "boat people")

[Chaka-Z0]

That's the bit I'm fine with.

That's the bit I am not fine with, along with offshore detention and the crap that goes on in them.

Correct, why is that a wrong criteria for legal immigration?
Control your immigration, accept REFUGEE'S as needed, do it humanely (not like we do with "boat people")

I wonder how many Australians would score less than the 45 points needed to immigrate? Perhaps they should be expelled?

What about what somebody could become, given the opportunity and chance to make a life for himself? You know some people aren't as lucky as us and can't afford to become what they want to become, how many genius are prevented from going to school?

Obviously regulations such as kicking out those that didn't find a job after X amount of time is acceptable.

You keep saying we must not become like the right, yet if you agree with this you agree with their mindset.

[Gatefan1976]

I wonder how many Australians would score less than the 45 points needed to immigrate? Perhaps they should be expelled?

You could say the same about any countries immigration laws.

What about what somebody could become, given the opportunity and chance to make a life for himself? You know some people aren't as lucky as us and can't afford to become what they want to become, how many genius are prevented from going to school?

You could once more say that in damn near any country that does not provide free K-12 education, and programs for offsetting higher education debts until you have found employment over a certain threshold.
We have both, along with several other programs, some specifically tailored for refugee's.

Obviously regulations such as kicking out those that didn't find a job after X amount of time is acceptable.

When did I say that?
"Pretty fine", does not mean it could still do with some work, nothing is perfect.

You keep saying we must not become like the right, yet if you agree with this you agree with their mindset.

I mean in what is deemed acceptable in getting what you want. Hate to tell you, But I'm pretty centrist -except- in social issues where I veer further left. Every nation has the absolute right to deal with LEGAL immigration any way they wish, REFUGEE's are another matter because they are a global concern, and Illegals are a third issue because oftentimes the humanitarian aspect is forgotten. Sometimes Illegals have more in common with refugee's and should be treated as such, some really are just trying to jump the queue and jump on the "government handout train" and I have no issue with humanely deporting them back to where they came from. Off shore processing, separating kids from their families, are inhumane, and I want no part of that. That's not humanity, that's sheer tribalism and fear of the other.
It's a nuanced and interconnected issue, and I see no reason why a good response to it should not be equally nuanced.

[Chaka-Z0]

You could say the same about any countries immigration laws.

Wrong. Unlike Australia many countries such as my own have different categories of immigration, including skilled workers, but not limited to.

You could once more say that in damn near any country that does not provide free K-12 education, and programs for offsetting higher education debts until you have found employment over a certain threshold.
We have both, along with several other programs, some specifically tailored for refugee's.

We're obviously talking about developped countries here, cmon don't use the ''go elsewhere if you don't like it'' argument.

You know, some planets in our solar system don't have an atmosphere so you should be lucky to breath oxygen, go on Pluto freeze your arse off if you don't like it. Still think your argument is logically valid? You want to go down that idiotic road that MAGA tinfoil hatters use all the time?

The number of refugees and humanitarian entrants Australia accepts has varied in recent years. As of 2015-2016, Australia accepted 17,555 refugees in total

Nice programs. I'm sure the select 17k are happy with those programs, must be a huge tax payers money burden for the state eh? /s

When did I say that?
"Pretty fine", does not mean it could still do with some work, nothing is perfect.

You didn't, I was just giving an example. I just want you to know that I'm not going full koombaya and keep even the criminals or leeches in at any costs.

I mean in what is deemed acceptable in getting what you want. Hate to tell you, But I'm pretty centrist -except- in social issues where I veer further left. Every nation has the absolute right to deal with LEGAL immigration any way they wish, REFUGEE's are another matter because they are a global concern, and Illegals are a third issue because oftentimes the humanitarian aspect is forgotten. Sometimes Illegals have more in common with refugee's and should be treated as such, some really are just trying to jump the queue and jump on the "government handout train" and I have no issue with humanely deporting them back to where they came from. Off shore processing, separating kids from their families, are inhumane, and I want no part of that. That's not humanity, that's sheer tribalism and fear of the other.
It's a nuanced and interconnected issue, and I see no reason why a good response to it should not be equally nuanced.

Except your response isn't nuanced. It is categoric denial of entry unless they are elites. Nuanced is day, AUS policies are night.

People are people,, no matter where they were born.
If you accept that X people do not matter, why should anyone accept you? You are just a number in that system, and you are far past your use by date.

Second quote is a post from what, one or two days ago?

That's what I'm talking about when I'm calling you hypocrite. You can't say ''accept everyone equally'' and then support policies that goes against that very principle. Also calling you on that ''don't become like them'' posts you've made very clear with Soul. Decide where you stand man.

[mad_gater]

I've said that we can't ever stop it 100%. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Trump is again talking about closing the southern border this week in response to the current surge which is overwhelming resources at the southern border. And I hope to hell he does.

I haven't noticed hordes of illegals forming caravans in Northern Canada and heading towards the northern border.

But we are being inundated on the southern border. Mexico could easily block these people on the southern border of Mexico.

I hope this is what happens. Trump closes the southern border. So, these people can no longer come north into the US.

So Mexico will have a choice. Either detain and deport these people to their point of entry into Mexico, or Mexico can start picking up the tab for them. I don't care either way what they choose, all I care is that they can no longer come into the US. We are not the world's welfare office.

Any bets on what Mexico will do?

probably because one of those northern borders is with the People's Republic of NY and even they don't wanna deal with Don Cuomo the wannabe mafioso

[Annoyed]

That's the bit I'm fine with.

That's the bit I am not fine with, along with offshore detention and the crap that goes on in them.

Correct, why is that a wrong criteria for legal immigration?
Control your immigration, accept REFUGEE'S as needed, do it humanely (not like we do with "boat people")

The definition of refugee is someone fleeing political persecution at home. This does not include people fleeing an economy that is in the toilet.

By definition, the vast majority of the people invading the US are not refugees.

Go Home. Or better yet, don't come at all.

[Gatefan1976]

Wrong. Unlike Australia many countries such as my own have different categories of immigration, including skilled workers, but not limited to.

And I suggest you take a look into that "45 points" you were talking about earlier.

We're obviously talking about developped countries here, cmon don't use the ''go elsewhere if you don't like it'' argument.

No, what I am saying is your argument was based on education, and people being capable of being brain surgeons or the next tech guru not getting a chance.
We do actually give them that chance, and that, I like.
You keep thinking I like everything about our immigration laws, yet I have told you, I don't.

You know, some planets in our solar system don't have an atmosphere so you should be lucky to breath oxygen, go on Pluto freeze your arse off if you don't like it. Still think your argument is logically valid? You want to go down that idiotic road that MAGA tinfoil hatters use all the time?

As you cannot get to pluto, YES.
Don't go to extremes where you don't have to. Anyone can get ANYWHERE on this little pebble and have air. They may not have water (but they should), or food (which they should), or respect as fellow humans (which they should).

The number of refugees and humanitarian entrants Australia accepts has varied in recent years. As of 2015-2016, Australia accepted 17,555 refugees in total

Your point?
Canada accepted 25k with a supporting native population of 35 million in 2015. Our population was around the 22 mark, so you didn't accept more per capita than us, in fact, you probably accepted less per capita.
The danger of using numbers without context.

Nice programs. I'm sure the select 17k are happy with those programs, must be a huge tax payers money burden for the state eh? /s

Statistically less than the number Canada accepted, but Canada, like Australia see them as a future investment.

You didn't, I was just giving an example. I just want you to know that I'm not going full koombaya and keep even the criminals or leeches in at any costs.

But that is my point.
The hard right assumes the immigrant is guilty.
The hard left assumes the immigrant is innocent.
Neither are true.

Except your response isn't nuanced. It is categoric denial of entry unless they are elites. Nuanced is day, AUS policies are night.

No, it's not.
I identified several "catagories" of immigrant, their legal standing, status, and position on the world stage. That's nuance.
I have outlined what I feel our government does, and does not do "fairly", that's also nuance.
Don't blame me for policies I disagree with. Annoyed cops my anger, because he AGREE'S with the policies, not because he is American.
You mentioned Quebec being a native French speaking area, what if Canada decided to drop all 25,000 refugee's into Quebec?
Low educated people, with no way to learn a new language.
You might have to press a 1 on the phone if a few years.

Second quote is a post from what, one or two days ago?

That's what I'm talking about when I'm calling you hypocrite. You can't say ''accept everyone equally'' and then support policies that goes against that very principle. Also calling you on that ''don't become like them'' posts you've made very clear with Soul. Decide where you stand man.

How does it go against that principle?
Accepting everyone equally means recognizing their basic humanity, no matter what, it does not mean you let everyone onto your couch.
What I really want is a world without nations, borders, "races", etc. You go to Canada, because it has something where you are cannot offer, you go to the US for the same, Or here, or, anywhere, but we are NOT ready for that, which is evident by the fact we are even having these discussions, and the fact they are so divisive.
I'll happily go full kum-by-ya, but we are simply not ready for it yet, and I have to accept that.
So, we take baby steps. 25 years ago, people being gay was divisive, same sex marriage even more so, but we took baby steps, and opinion changed.
We did the same for Women, and for Blacks, and opinion on that has changed as well (not as well mind you).
I'll take slow progress over no progress.

[Gatefan1976]

The definition of refugee is someone fleeing political persecution at home. This does not include people fleeing an economy that is in the toilet.

By definition, the vast majority of the people invading the US are not refugees.

Go Home. Or better yet, don't come at all.

Which is one factor of refugee status I disagree with.
Economic anxiety pushes people into criminality, which leads to increased security costs, and increased gaol costs.
Can 30,000 Chi-town people settle in upstate NY because they are "American"?
Surely they will add to the state tax cost as they are not taxpayers?
Probably criminals or rapists?
Do you want them living in your backyard?
Again, this is not a single issue.
Why can crime syndicates recruit so easily from X city or town?
Are they actually illegal citizens?
What's happening if they are so easy to recruit?
Why do people selling an illegal product thrive?

You need to look at the big picture man.

[Gatefan1976]

What makes people think that we are responsible? I don't know....maybe the fact that the US, throughout the 1900s, overthrew democratically elected Central American governments and supported authoritarian and corrupt regimes that waged war against their own people in order to stay in power all in the name of protecting American interests (United Fruit Company, Panama Canal etc...) or fighting communism? American intervention for nearly a century prevented the region from ever stabilising. Costa Rica and Belize were the only countries free of this American meddling and guess what? They are fairly developed and stable countries and they are not a source of these mass migrations. El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras are a source and received heavy meddling from the US.

I just want to re-quote this for some context regarding my discussion with Chaka and Australia, and WHY I think the US has more to answer for.
Annoyed is demanding that Mexico will clean up the mess HIS Political party made.
What nation has Australia ever done this too?
The only example I can think of is PNG, which was just as wrong, and something if I were alive at the time would never have supported. PNG, and it's people were a bulwark against Japanese invasion in WW2, and they deserve far more respect than they receive.

[SoulReaver]

This does not include people fleeing an economy that is in the toilet.

= economic persecution

(and indirectly caused by the US as R2d pointed out)

[Gatefan1976]

= economic persecution

(and indirectly caused by the US as R2d pointed out)

Directly caused, something Annoyed will not accept.
America dropped it's pants and flashed it's junk around to all.
If only it kept it's pants on, but it didn't, so that's their fault.