The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

Or maybe you ignore what I say?

I've said these this a few times.

Asylum is defined as providing a haven for someone fleeing political persecution at the hands of the leadership of their home country. It is NOT defined as your home country's economy is in the toilet and you want out.

In addition, legitimate asylum seekers are to seek refuge in the first nation they land in where they are safe from the aforementioned persecution for political reasons.

The current wave of "asylum seekers" fails both of these tests.

That's not how it works at all. If you want to claim asylum you go to where you want to claim. You enter the country in question. And then you claim asylum. The word "Claim" as a noun means that you claim or assert something that is disputable. By definition you can't falsely claim something that is disputable to begin with. That's why after a claim is made, and investigation is made to decide if the claim s valid or not. It is not illegal to make an invalid claim at all. That's the point you keep missing. Asylum seekers cannot be illegal immigrants unless they stay after having their claim denied. That's the law.

when did I say that

So no one said it.

You folks aren't all that bright, are you? Ever hear the phrase "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" ?

Perfect example: 40 years ago, it would have been inconceviable that a government entity would be able to ban smoking in your own home (among a great many other places)

https://reason.com/2013/11/25/it-is-...in-your-own-h/



Just because these people can't afford to buy their own freestanding home, they lose rights?

If you want an example of similar behavior as it directly applies to guns, take a look at NY state's gun laws.

The problem with the slippery slope argument is that people tend to use it selectively. They accept it as viable if its conclusion agrees with their POV and deny its validity in any other circumstance. What makes a slippery slope argument valid is demonstrating that it has indeed happened, via a proof of concept. Using random examples of it, like you did here, doesn't work because smoking is not constitutionally protected. Well, more reasons but that one is the most obvious reason.

Let me explain. No one serious is arguing that making it illegal to yell "fire" in a movie theater will end up leading to the end of free speech. You can't just claim a slippery slope here anymore than you can claim gun control is a slippery slope. So there, I gave you a counter example. You could find a better way to argue or we can throw endless counter examples.

BTW, 100 years ago government made it illegal to drink alcoholic beverages so no, it wasn't inconceivable that smoking would meet a similar fate 40 years ago.

Another issue, you weren't making a slippery slope argument, you're doing that now cause I pointed out your strawman argument. In any case, handguns are not rifles. Making rifle ownership regulated does not connect to owning handguns. Smoking public bans and joint housing bans are directly connected. You're using a logical fallacy here, false equivalency.

[Annoyed]

That's not how it works at all. If you want to claim asylum you go to where you want to claim. You enter the country in question. And then you claim asylum. The word "Claim" as a noun means that you claim or assert something that is disputable. By definition you can't falsely claim something that is disputable to begin with. That's why after a claim is made, and investigation is made to decide if the claim s valid or not. It is not illegal to make an invalid claim at all. That's the point you keep missing. Asylum seekers cannot be illegal immigrants unless they stay after having their claim denied. That's the law.

Here you go, citing nice, liberal, anti-Trump news sources.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/europ...ing/index.html (Is so far left and anti-Trump they have no claim to be a "news" site.)

(CNN)The European Union's top court has ruled that refugees must continue to seek asylum in the first European country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances like the migrant crisis of 2015.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled Wednesday that Austria and Slovenia were entitled to deport two Afghan families and a Syrian who applied for asylum to Croatia, the first EU nation they entered.
The court's decision opens up the possibility of a deportation of hundreds of asylum seekers who arrived in Europe in 2015 and early 2016.

http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/06...third-country/ (From phraseology on site, appears to be a leftie/anti-Trump site)

Individuals generally must make their claim for asylum in the first country they enter after fleeing persecution if that country is considered a “safe third country.” If a country has not been designated a safe third country, an asylum seeker may pass through it and apply for asylum in the next country.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/re...ican-crisis-2/ (Bias of site if any, unknown)

n May 2019, Mexico and the United States negotiated an agreement expanding enforcement along Mexico’s southern border in response to President Trump’s threats of tariffs on Mexican goods. The deal left open the possibility of developing a bilateral asylum plan that would mirror other “country of first-entry” asylum resettlement agreements like the U.S.-Canada Safe Third Agreement and the European Union’s (EU) Dublin III Regulation, which requires asylum seekers1 to apply for protection in the first country they enter that has signed the agreement. However, recent history suggests that a “first-entry” resettlement plan with Mexico or Central America may compound the current migration crisis by offloading the work of processing asylum seekers from the United States to Central American countries without the resources to accommodate these populations.

Let's cut to the chase here. The last sentence in the last quote is the crux of the matter. Mexico doesn't have the generous welfare systems that the U.S. does.

To freakin' bad. If Mexico can't afford them, Mexico is perfectly capable of blocking its own southern border.

Oh, and you've completely ignored the other point. Asylum is seeking protection from political persecution. The state of the economy in the country of origin has nothing to do with it, and is not a valid reason to claim asylum.

The problem with the slippery slope argument is that people tend to use it selectively. They accept it as viable if its conclusion agrees with their POV and deny its validity in any other circumstance. What makes a slippery slope argument valid is demonstrating that it has indeed happened, via a proof of concept. Using random examples of it, like you did here, doesn't work because smoking is not constitutionally protected. Well, more reasons but that one is the most obvious reason.

The common thread here is that once the precedent is established, regardless of the situation, government has a long history of expanding its regulations on many different topics.

Ok, you don't like the smoking example. How's this one?

Travel within a particular state, including speed limits, is clearly defined as a state level issue by the U.S. constitution.

In the 70's, the feds wanted to force a national speed limit of 55 MPH. but they lacked the authority. But the precedent of attaching strings to federal highway funds, as well as others had been established.

So they simply used blackmail via federal highway funds to force states to adopt the 55 MPH speed limit in direct violation of the separation of state vs federal authority.

It's a well demonstrated trend.

[aretood2]

Here you go, citing nice, liberal, anti-Trump news sources.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/26/europ...ing/index.html (Is so far left and anti-Trump they have no claim to be a "news" site.)

The US is not part of the EU, it doesn't apply. EU countries signed a pack concerning asylum seekers with each other. The US has no such pack with Mexico. The article says nothing to the effect of what you claim. And haven't we discussed how you should really stop calling me a liberal?

http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/06...third-country/ (From phraseology on site, appears to be a leftie/anti-Trump site)

They don't consider Mexico a safe country.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/re...ican-crisis-2/ (Bias of site if any, unknown)

Let's cut to the chase here. The last sentence in the last quote is the crux of the matter. Mexico doesn't have the generous welfare systems that the U.S. does.

Except that sentence wasn't talking about Mexico but okay...

To freakin' bad. If Mexico can't afford them, Mexico is perfectly capable of blocking its own southern border.

Why do you think they've deployed the national guard? And how does this impact US law anyway? Mexico not being able to stop them from coming has no bearing on what is legal or illegal.

Oh, and you've completely ignored the other point. Asylum is seeking protection from political persecution. The state of the economy in the country of origin has nothing to do with it, and is not a valid reason to claim asylum.

That's wrong. Once again, you do not know what you are talking about.

The common thread here is that once the precedent is established, regardless of the situation, government has a long history of expanding its regulations on many different topics.

What precedent? That's not how Precedents work.

Ok, you don't like the smoking example. How's this one?

Travel within a particular state, including speed limits, is clearly defined as a state level issue by the U.S. constitution.

In the 70's, the feds wanted to force a national speed limit of 55 MPH. but they lacked the authority. But the precedent of attaching strings to federal highway funds, as well as others had been established.

So they simply used blackmail via federal highway funds to force states to adopt the 55 MPH speed limit in direct violation of the separation of state vs federal authority.

It's a well demonstrated trend.

But...that's not a slippery slope....there's no gradual violation of rights here. Just one direct and sudden move that was abandoned. If anything this means that even if the government tries to take everyone's guns it'll abandon that task...this example is pretty bad. At least the smoking one had a gradual growth to it and hasn't been reversed.

[Womble]

It'd be different if Israel got something in return, I don't know, a sweet arms deal or something. It's not like Trump would get impeached over it or that the GOP would have any scruples doing something like that, they'd run interference to keep the House from doing anything about it. At least that way it would have been Netanyahu playing Trump instead of being his lapdog.

Honestly, it was such a total non-issue here that the only real concern was the "optics", how things looked to outsiders.

My guess is that Netanyahu simply thought that Trump's tweet put Netanyahu in the dilemma of choosing between angering Trump and angering the Democrats. He chose to play it safe and pander to the sitting President who can do real harm in the short term, instead of pandering to the increasingly Israel-hostile Democrats whose ability to harm Israel is currently hypothetical and time-delayed. By the time there is a Democratic President, Netanyahu will likely be out of office - and after him, the deluge.

Much bigger deal here were the two scandals caused by Netanyahu's wife. First, she attempted to break into the cockpit of the plane after the pilot's greeting message neglected to mention her by name, and had to be restrained by her own security. Then, during the welcoming ceremony, she threw away the bread-and-salt which was brought to them as part of the Ukrainian welcome tradition. Disrespecting bread is a bigger taboo in the Ukrainian culture than disrespecting the state flag.

The elections are less than a month from now, and things are looking much more complicated this time round. There is finally a real chance to vote Netanyahu out, unless he will be forced out by his own party first. I'm voting for Avigdor Lieberman this time, the guy who stopped Netanyahu from forming government in April. My political priorities have shifted a great deal since I got married.

[Gatefan1976]

How have they shifted?

[aretood2]

Honestly, it was such a total non-issue here that the only real concern was the "optics", how things looked to outsiders.

My guess is that Netanyahu simply thought that Trump's tweet put Netanyahu in the dilemma of choosing between angering Trump and angering the Democrats. He chose to play it safe and pander to the sitting President who can do real harm in the short term, instead of pandering to the increasingly Israel-hostile Democrats whose ability to harm Israel is currently hypothetical and time-delayed. By the time there is a Democratic President, Netanyahu will likely be out of office - and after him, the deluge.

Much bigger deal here were the two scandals caused by Netanyahu's wife. First, she attempted to break into the cockpit of the plane after the pilot's greeting message neglected to mention her by name, and had to be restrained by her own security. Then, during the welcoming ceremony, she threw away the bread-and-salt which was brought to them as part of the Ukrainian welcome tradition. Disrespecting bread is a bigger taboo in the Ukrainian culture than disrespecting the state flag.

The elections are less than a month from now, and things are looking much more complicated this time round. There is finally a real chance to vote Netanyahu out, unless he will be forced out by his own party first. I'm voting for Avigdor Lieberman this time, the guy who stopped Netanyahu from forming government in April. My political priorities have shifted a great deal since I got married.

I'm not too concerned about it (The Tlaib and Omar thing), but optics is important in a foreign policy way. I doubt this would do much at all in the way of damage, it just confirms what people already feel. I've read about Netanyahu's wife, claims she didn't know about the bread but don't they brief people about that stuff on state visits? The cockpit thing was hilarious though and I can't say I'm surprised. But if it's not the US no one really cares here, so it isn't surprising that no one here is paying attention to it all that much. It's just the sad truth about the US I guess?

[Gatefan1976]

I'm not too concerned about it (The Tlaib and Omar thing), but optics is important in a foreign policy way. I doubt this would do much at all in the way of damage, it just confirms what people already feel. I've read about Netanyahu's wife, claims she didn't know about the bread but don't they brief people about that stuff on state visits? The cockpit thing was hilarious though and I can't say I'm surprised. But if it's not the US no one really cares here, so it isn't surprising that no one here is paying attention to it all that much. It's just the sad truth about the US I guess?

The simple fact is the same reason I don't bother with AU politics here, we don't have the global footprint of the USA.
Us sending troops and equipment (limited as it is) to the gulf shipping lanes?
Our spat with NZ and even smaller island nations over carbon emmitions?
The pro choice / pro life schism in the National party and the ruling party losing its majority over it?

Who here would pay attention to these things?

[aretood2]

The simple fact is the same reason I don't bother with AU politics here, we don't have the global footprint of the USA.
Us sending troops and equipment (limited as it is) to the gulf shipping lanes?
Our spat with NZ and even smaller island nations over carbon emmitions?
The pro choice / pro life schism in the National party and the ruling party losing its majority over it?

Who here would pay attention to these things?

Honestly, most Americans probably didn't even notice Quebec trying to leave Canada. I wonder if Annoyed even knew about it. He's a lot closer to the land of maple syrup and beavers than I am.

[Gatefan1976]

Honestly, most Americans probably didn't even notice Quebec trying to leave Canada. I wonder if Annoyed even knew about it. He's a lot closer to the land of maple syrup and beavers than I am.

And Chaka even speaks of it.

[Womble]

How have they shifted?

Well, generally speaking, I'm less concerned with the "big picture" since I believe that any of the parties or candidates on offer would be able to meaningfully shift anything related to the Palestinians, Iran etc. But things related to immigration policy and religion vs. state have become closer to home for me, so I'm voting for whoever can provide the most powerful counterbalance to the religious parties, and hopefully wrestle the Interior ministry out of their hands. Oh, and public transport on Saturdays.

[Womble]

Friends of convenience don't have binding contracts. They also do not enjoy the same permissions for travelers and border control among many other things. They do not share intelligence, etc.

I think you have just disproved your own claim that Israel is a "friend of convenience" for the West. Binding contracts? check. Visa-free access to all of the West except the over-the-top-paranoid USA? Right there in my passport. Sharing intelligence? Hell yes.

Cyber security? You mean the biggest threat to all nations in 2019? That's not just any field and again do you actually believe any of those high-profile ''most respected'' guys are free lancers lol?

He wasn't a freelancer. He was a university professor of computer sciences.

Incite to hate and violence is valid ground for barring someone. Look up any artist wishing specific people dead or asking outright to revolt against a specific nation and take arms and you'll see they all have trouble getting in anywhere.

Kind of like no Palestinian political activist ever enters the USA?

Tlaib and Omar were part of a banned extremist group? One brief look of that guy's profile on Wiki indicates he was part of the Kach party, here's a brief description:



There you have it, he's an ex-terrorist, he can stay well away from here.

Omar and Tlaib's trip was being sponsored by several Palestinian organizations, the main one of which is called Miftah, Miftah is a mouthpiece for Palestinian terrorists, and their publications have been known to lionize suicide bombers and to accuse Jews of using Christian babies' blood in Passover rituals. The other sponsor was "Defense of Children International", which is a known front of the PFLP terrorist group. Their itinerary included no time spent in Israel itself, no meeting with Israeli lawmakers etc. There was no reason to assume that the purpose of the visit was anything good.

[Gatefan1976]

Well, generally speaking, I'm less concerned with the "big picture" since I believe that any of the parties or candidates on offer would be able to meaningfully shift anything related to the Palestinians, Iran etc.

Could or Couldn't?
I'm reading that like it's missing a word, and that's not like you Womble.

But things related to immigration policy and religion vs. state have become closer to home for me, so I'm voting for whoever can provide the most powerful counterbalance to the religious parties, and hopefully wrestle the Interior ministry out of their hands.

Do you think that is possible?
Israel, for good or bad has so many religious connections, by themselves, or those seeking to use them.
Could Iran give up theirs, or would you believe it if they did?
Syria?
I just don't know if that's a possible outcome Womble.

Oh, and public transport on Saturdays.

[Annoyed]

Honestly, most Americans probably didn't even notice Quebec trying to leave Canada. I wonder if Annoyed even knew about it. He's a lot closer to the land of maple syrup and beavers than I am.

I'm aware of it, but haven't paid a great deal of attention to it. Isn't the primary issue language, French vs. English?

Oh, and they can keep their maple syrup and beavers, as long as they keep sending their beer.

[Annoyed]

The US is not part of the EU, it doesn't apply. EU countries signed a pack concerning asylum seekers with each other. The US has no such pack with Mexico. The article says nothing to the effect of what you claim. And haven't we discussed how you should really stop calling me a liberal?

I was pointing out that in general, under international law, asylum seekers must seek asylum in the first place they arrive at where they are safe from persecution.

And I'll stop calling you a liberal when you stop taking liberal positions, such as favoring open borders & free food, housing, health care, cell phones and whatever else for all comers.

And before you go denying that, tell me your idea for controlling immigration, aside from not controlling it and allowing all comers.

They don't consider Mexico a safe country.

Of course they don't. They favor open borders, and think the US should pay for everyone.

Why do you think they've deployed the national guard? And how does this impact US law anyway? Mexico not being able to stop them from coming has no bearing on what is legal or illegal.

A very wise green fellow once said "do or do not, there is no try".
And Mexico's efforts absolutely have influence upon the US. If they solve the problem before it ever gets here...

That's wrong. Once again, you do not know what you are talking about.

I don't?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/asylum

Doesn't say much about a trashed economy at home being grounds for asylum.

But...that's not a slippery slope....there's no gradual violation of rights here. Just one direct and sudden move that was abandoned. If anything this means that even if the government tries to take everyone's guns it'll abandon that task...this example is pretty bad. At least the smoking one had a gradual growth to it and hasn't been reversed.

And how many other similar expansions of govt. authority can you think of? Run your schools this way, or no federal funds. Be sure your state's highway signs meet our standards, or no federal funds.

The point here is that federal funds blackmail has been used as a cudgel to force states to do what the feds want on numerous issues, not just whatever it was originally held to be legitimate for.

[SoulReaver]

and in these dark times some good news (and proof of karma?)

https://www.foxnews.com/us/david-koc...nor-dead-at-79

btw I like how Govt news calls him a "philanthropist"