This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:13 pm
There's something wrong with that headline. Oh, wait, I see it:
"President Neelix threatens to shut down southern border if Mexico doesn't stop Illegal immigration"
I wonder why so many on the left like to say things like "anti-immigrant" instead of "anti-illegal-immigrant." If I were a suspicious man, I might tend to think someone was being dishonest. It is then fortunate that I am by nature an optimistic man full of, if not bubbling with, unbridled happiness and faith in my fellow man.
Because every time in the last decade when there has been a proposal that would increase security, while also expanding legal immigration it's been shot down by the right, most notably the gang of eight deal which passed with a veto proof majority in the senate, but was not even allowed on the floor in the House.
Evidence subject to where there's smoke there's fire line of reasoning. Not entirely reliable, but understandable nonetheless. The understanding of immigration with Republicans at the center is that they verge between the bounds of not wanting it (more on the populace conservative side) to having the bare minimum with the most strong vetting for prospective economy benefiting candidates (more on the establishment side).
Even giving the establishment side of the position the benefit of the doubt and saying "well they just want a fair process for everybody," which is also void of any humane concerns on the left about immigration, it is two sides separated by a common issue and thus partisan despite talking about the same thing.
Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:13 pm
There's something wrong with that headline. Oh, wait, I see it:
"President Neelix threatens to shut down southern border if Mexico doesn't stop Illegal immigration"
I wonder why so many on the left like to say things like "anti-immigrant" instead of "anti-illegal-immigrant." If I were a suspicious man, I might tend to think someone was being dishonest. It is then fortunate that I am by nature an optimistic man full of, if not bubbling with, unbridled happiness and faith in my fellow man.
Because every time in the last decade when there has been a proposal that would increase security, while also expanding legal immigration it's been shot down by the right, most notably the gang of eight deal which passed with a veto proof majority in the senate, but was not even allowed on the floor in the House.
That is what is known as a non-sequitur. Voting against an increase in legal immigration does not make it logical to conflate measures against illegal immigration with measures against legal immigration. If I say I don't want apples, then not wanting an increase in my orange consumption does not make my anti-apple measures in any way anti-orange.
Yes, but it does mean you're anti-fruit rather than just anti-apple, and fundamentally implies that the anti-apple legislation is in fact anti-fruit legislation or at least a prelude to it.
No,it doesn't mean that I'm anti-fruit. I could just be fine with the number of oranges I already eat, while not wanting to eat apples.
I've read illegal border crossings only appear to be skyrocketing because they're releasing people detained in ICE at strategic times in order to make it appear as if we're being flooded. Do you expect anything less from Trump? The man's a liar and ran his own businesses like a crook. That's who he is.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Yukaphile wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:02 am
I've read illegal border crossings only appear to be skyrocketing because they're releasing people detained in ICE at strategic times in order to make it appear as if we're being flooded. Do you expect anything less from Trump? The man's a liar and ran his own businesses like a crook. That's who he is.
I don't expect anything less from Trump, whatever that literally means, but I don't think this is something that's gonna hide from, much less behind, numbers.
I do know the attempts to paint this as if we're "being invaded" is right-wing fearmongering and scare tactics. Jesus Christ, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE TERRIFIED OF REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS. They're not "drug dealers and rapists" like Trump famously said.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
I haven't heard from Republicans ever about being afraid of drug dealers and rapists. Trump sure, but who's actually conveying this argument. I mean if Trump is echoing xenophobic fear mongering, then can anyone point to that specifically?
He's just more openly parroting what they're subconsciously generating across the extreme right spectrum, which gets more exaggerated the farther you right you get on the whole immigration issue.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Yukaphile wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:23 am
He's just more openly parroting what they're subconsciously generating across the extreme right spectrum, which gets more exaggerated the farther you right you get on the whole immigration issue.
G-Man wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:47 pm
My point is: it's awful easy to make fun of Trump and to insult his attempts to get control of this problem. But no one else is even trying to do anything, and the Democrats either deny there is a problem or try to push policies (like the DREAM and PROMISE Act) that will encourage even more people to make illegal crossings (in hopes of getting in under the next amnesty).
If the Democrats were interested in doing anything, I would be more sympathetic. But the Democrats want de facto open borders (however much they deny this). We need more detention space and an end to the Flores settlement if we want to end catch-and-release (instead, the Democrats fight like mad to reduce detention space, which means more catch-and-release).
I have not heard a single Democratic proposal to get control of the southern border (more agents by itself is not enough).
When will Speaker Janeway do anything to help?
The GOP spent pretty much the entire Obama administration painting Compromise as something that required sacrifices on the part of Democrats and none on the part of them.
Your argument seems to be "at least he's proposing something, and that means he's doing better than anyone else, regardless of the negative side effects, barriers to impracticality, etc." You could use the same arguments to defend lining the entire southern border with rice paper so people will make crackling noises when they step across it or installing robotic gun turrets every 100ft.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
You know, G-Man, I find it insulting you call her Speaker Janeway. She's a well-accomplished member of Congress, especially given how many leftists turned on her simply because... well, she's not "pure" enough for them.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
