|
I thank you for your answers Caineach and lucky7. :-)
You both bring up the issue of those that are already here and securing our boarders now won't solve that. While you are absolutely correct, dealing with those that are already here really is a separate issue.
While there are a few on the right that would absolutely love to have all of those that are here (illegally) deported, the issue of stopping illegal immigration is not about those that are here already, but to stop any more from getting in via illegal means.
Firstly, you'really welcome. Glad I could help.
But the issue is that most who come illegally due so using legal means. And as for the border crossers and whatnot; under the Obama administration, more illegal immigrants trying to get across the border on land are being caught than ever before.
|
Obama's been better on immigration by Republican standards then his predecessors.
Obama has sent most illegal immigrants through the actual deportation process, while Bush tended to just "return" illegal immigrants to their countries of origin without putting them through the whole process of actual "deportation" So you can read the numbers of those "deported" under both presidents either way.
Fun to read these boards.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, I think most people on both sides of the politcal spectrum would like to actually hear ideas of what will be done, instead of the constant belittling of the other side which has become our political discourse.I suspect we'll hear a lot more policy at the Democratic convention. More reasons to vote for Clinton, even if there will still be plenty anti-Trump rhetoric. We'll see.
It's hard to deal with someone like Trump without demonization. How do you respond to him without either attacking him or legitimizing him and his "positions". He's a serious threat, but not a serious candidate. He's not running on policy. His positions aren't coherent.
How do you respond to an incompetent bigot without either calling him out on it or pretending he's not? One ruins the discourse. The other lets the window of what's acceptable slide further.
I would *love* if the DNC had some sort of gentleperson's agreement to not talk about Trump, at all. Maybe someone would start out a speech with, 'Donald Trump says... Just kidding. We're not here to talk about him. Let's talk about some serious ideas to make things better, instead.' Not like, pretend he doesn't exist, or that they are scared to talk about him, just kind of nod and wink and move on to substantive discourse instead.
It's not like he doesn't get all the free press, anyway. No reason for him to get free ad time at the DNC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fun to read these boards.
you're playing the drinking game aren't you?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of honest questions here...
What does wanting to stop illegal (and that is THE key term here), illegal immigration have to do with racism?
In addition to the many excellent points raised by others, there is the fact that US immigration law is, in and of itself, inherently racist.
For the first hundred years this country did not have any restrictions on immigration... anyone and everyone was allowed to come here and eventually become a citizen. When that changed it was explicitly for racist purposes (i.e. to keep out 'undesirable' races and 'maintain ethnic balance') and has remained so to this day.
For example, the law limits the number of immigrants who can come from Mexico... making it impossible for the vast majority of Mexican immigrants to do so 'legally'. They aren't ALLOWED to immigrate to this country under the law... because they would upset the 'European ethnic balance' which was in place when the law was passed. That has everything to do with racism.
My solution to 'illegal' immigration? Return to the system prior to the despicable "Chinese Exclusion Act" of 1875. Anyone can register to immigrate to this country and eventually become a US citizen. Do background checks to exclude violent criminals, but otherwise allow anyone who wants to immigrate to do so legally. No more masses of desperate people trying to sneak into the country. Thus making it vastly easier to locate and detain the few criminals, terrorists, and the like who would still try to do so illegally. 'Problem' solved.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it is -- by definition -- true that all illegal immigrants are criminals, that's not a very useful distinction. By such a binary standard, literally everyone you know is a criminal. I'm not terribly concerned about people whose only crime is circumventing our broken-by-design immigration system. I can promise you I would do the same in their place.
As for racism...this so-called criminality doesn't explain the anger directed against illegal immigrants. Misguided economic resentment from the less sophisticated is a part, sure, but even that doesn't explain why Hispanics are nearly always singled out (in Trump's case, as "rapists" and "murderers"!).
Hell, given our demographic prospects, the United States should just let any healthy person under the age of 30 who is not guilty of any meaningful crime into the country legally, and then tax their wages. Problem solved.
P.S. I also just fixed Social Security. You're welcome. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun to read these boards.you're playing the drinking game aren't you?
I wouldn't recommend that unless you've figured out how to equip a ring of regeneration in the liver equipment slot.
CBD,
I think mass transit has gotten to the point where that's no longer a realistic possibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a good thing I don't drink then. Lol, otherwise a trip to the ER would have in order if i made a game of this.
.... or could I?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to drink alcohol... XD Maybe something a bit healthier?
"In other news several people have fallen ill to hydro-toxicity today. Their only connection seems to be participating in the Paizo forums and watching the Republican National Convention. Was this part of a suicide cult and how can you protect yourself? More at 6."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to the many excellent points raised by others, there is the fact that US immigration law is, in and of itself, inherently racist....A couple of honest questions here...
What does wanting to stop illegal (and that is THE key term here), illegal immigration have to do with racism?
Props, Citizen Dunkerson, for bringing up the Chinese Exclusion Act, whose predecessors were pushed by the Workingman's Party of California, thus illustrating how important those anarchists in the IWW were a few decades later and their policy of multiracial class solidarity.
Anyway, I only recently, within the past year or so, came across the work of Aviva Chomsky (yes, Noam's daughter).
My good friend and comrade, the Nigerian Princess read, or taught I don't recall, her book, Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal and raved about it for months. I, alas, haven't read it, but I did have the opportunity to see Professor Chomsky on Democracy Now! and was mightily impressed.
"How Immigration Became Illegal": Aviva Chomsky on U.S. Exploitation of Migrant Workers
As I recall, and I may not, in the 1960s there were large amounts of racially defined second class- or non-citizens in this country. We all know how the Civil Rights Movement made the United States dress up its race relations in term of black and white, but Prof. Chomsky argues that around the same time, the government changed the status of the Mexican migrant workers from racially-barred from citizenship as "Mexicans" (which, of course, isn't a race) to "immigrants" and thus to "illegal immigrants."
I remember it being a fun watch.
Anecdotally, my girlfriend, known to the boards as La Principessa, is married to a previously-undocumented Irishman. They lived in a section of Brooklyn called Windsor Terrace and, apparently, many times, she would run into neighbors going on racist rants against "illegal" Chinese or Latino immigrants. "Well, you know, Joe," she would say getting angry, "Willie was in this country illegally until we got married." To which they would invariably give her a sheepish look and reply, "But that's different!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know it always boggles my mind that solutions like A giant expensive wall are the best approach to illegal immigration, rather than you know...actually enforcing labor laws so businesses can't hire illegal immigrants, who because they are not here illegaly can be exploited far more easily than US workers.
It's almost as if politicians realize rhetoric about walls and border patrol are safe discussion points, because it's unlikely to tick off Big Business, and the measures that are discussed actually do squat.
Holy balls that guy is terrifying.
|
I am glad Trump talked some policy. However, i'm a little concerned about the part about not dealing with groups anymore only individual countries. The real slammer was "if we don't get the deal, I walk away" The U.S. could loose some great allies from this. Maybe im wrong but I just dont see the world working like that anymore. At the end, everything just seems too retroactive and not very forward thinking.
IMHO the majority of the RNP are not anchored in reality. Trump is just playing into that fantasy land view. Sadly, there were more than a few things that Trump said that I at least partially agreed with. But he and the Republican party are too crazy for my tastes.
IMHO the majority of the RNP are not anchored in reality. Trump is just playing into that fantasy land view. Sadly, there were more than a few things that Trump said that I at least partially agreed with. But he and the Republican party are too crazy for my tastes.
What things did he say that you found any agreement in? Policy-wise, I mean. Obviously some of his rhetoric doesn't allow much room for disagreement.
IMHO the majority of the RNP are not anchored in reality. Trump is just playing into that fantasy land view. Sadly, there were more than a few things that Trump said that I at least partially agreed with. But he and the Republican party are too crazy for my tastes.What things did he say that you found any agreement in? Policy-wise, I mean. Obviously some of his rhetoric doesn't allow much room for disagreement.
~grins~ I would have to relisten to it to give my thoughts on what I sort of agreed with. Most of the time was spent with this going through my head "OMG! Most of this is utter BS!"
But honestly, I am neither Democrat or Republican. I just want someone competent in the office who realizes that BOTH parties are now the extreme end of the spectrum and over 90% of the people are in the middle.
I've finally started to admit to myself that he might win.
I've finally started to admit to myself that he might win.
~grimaces~ I felt that it might happen a few months ago. Fear mongering works well at times. It scares my wife a lot that he might just get elected.
IMHO the majority of the RNP are not anchored in reality. Trump is just playing into that fantasy land view. Sadly, there were more than a few things that Trump said that I at least partially agreed with. But he and the Republican party are too crazy for my tastes.What things did he say that you found any agreement in? Policy-wise, I mean. Obviously some of his rhetoric doesn't allow much room for disagreement.~grins~ I would have to relisten to it to give my thoughts on what I sort of agreed with. Most of the time was spent with this going through my head "OMG! Most of this is utter BS!"
But honestly, I am neither Democrat or Republican. I just want someone competent in the office who realizes that BOTH parties are now the extreme end of the spectrum and over 90% of the people are in the middle.
Please.
The DNC is about where the middle was twenty years ago and the right was fifty. I mentioned my father up thread. As referenced there, a few years ago he called himself an Eisenhower Republican. I jokingly pointed out that by today's standards, that makes him a liberal Democrat. By today's measures, Barry Fscking Goldwater is center right, for pitty's sake!
"Please" as in relisten to Trump's speech and give my opinion? I can do that, but it will probably be at the tail end of this weekend before I can devote a few hours to relistening to Trump's speech.
*Drinks*
Found something healthy.
*Drinks*
Found something healthy.
The olive does not make the martini 'healthy.'
Nor do fermented hops make beer 'probiotic.'
You missed the earlier conversation.
If you really want to start drinking, remember that the President has the nuclear launch codes. XD
More seriously, though, as an Independent, this convention mostly just solidified my intention to vote Democrat this year. Goodness knows I neither like nor trust Clinton (her tendency to turtle up and hide stuff doesn't help matters), but I could live with President Clinton.
President Trump, on the other hand... well, I have a good friend in Australia, and I might start asking about the weather there...
Just pick a city you like in Australia (or your friend lives in) and check the forecast once a week. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But honestly, I am neither Democrat or Republican. I just want someone competent in the office who realizes that BOTH parties are now the extreme end of the spectrum and over 90% of the people are in the middle.
Could you please explain how democrats are extreme about anything?
(With AJ next to him, I think)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you please explain how democrats are extreme about anything?
The raven alights on the wolf's nose and emphasizes its words with sharp beak-strikes on the wolf's skull...
"Dammit, BNW, how can we make 'Murica great again if you question the conservative narrative?"
"Don't."
:pok:
"Question."
:pok:
"the Narrative."
:pok:
"Now, repeat after me - all Democrats are demon-crats. All Democrats are demon-crats. Repeat it 'til you believe it."
If you really want to start drinking, remember that the President has the nuclear launch codes. XD
More seriously, though, as an Independent, this convention mostly just solidified my intention to vote Democrat this year. Goodness knows I neither like nor trust Clinton (her tendency to turtle up and hide stuff doesn't help matters), but I could live with President Clinton.
President Trump, on the other hand... well, I have a good friend in Australia, and I might start asking about the weather there...
The joke isn't directed on a candidate, it's on this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bro, might I suggest that instead of damaging your liver, you toke on this?
[Hands uglier twin flayleaf spliff]
Makes everything better, even politroll threads.
Bro, might I suggest that instead of damaging your liver, you toke on this?
[Hands uglier twin flayleaf spliff]
Makes everything better, even politroll threads.
I've already said I don't drink, what is with you people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't drink flayleaf, bro.
[Actually, now that I think of it, flayleaf's from the Scarred Lands, not Golarion; international proletarian goblin revolution has taken me throughout the multiverse]
The joke isn't directed on a candidate, it's on this thread.
{slaps ConsA with a book} Meh, I've heard funnier.
Unless I'm off the mark, Sharoth may be aiming at the greater concern of shared culpability by the two majority parties over time.
The 2016 election seems likely to result in another vapor-locked administration regardless of who wins. Congress doesn't get along all that well as-is, and they're none too fond of either candidate.
Trump isn't going to get away with launching nukes willy-nilly. Well, at least one would hope that the oath-bound four-star commanders about him will firmly act as such. Whether or not such people survive his first 100 days in office is another matter altogether...
With the 2020 census coming up prior to that year's election it seems that election is going to be more important than 2016, especially if Trump somehow manages to win.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Now, repeat after me - all Democrats are demon-crats. All Democrats are demon-crats. Repeat it 'til you believe it."
harder things than you beak have tried to get through THAT skull bird boy. Digging bars, branches, concrete walls, facts, evidence, reason.. Impenetrable!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Oy, you bent mah beak!"
:)
With that Adamantium skull you should be named BigNorseWolverine!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless I'm off the mark, Sharoth may be aiming at the greater concern of shared culpability by the two majority parties over time.
The 2016 election seems likely to result in another vapor-locked administration regardless of who wins. Congress doesn't get along all that well as-is, and they're none too fond of either candidate.
...
With the 2020 census coming up prior to that year's election it seems that election is going to be more important than 2016, especially if Trump somehow manages to win.
Not really.
The Republican party has controlled the Supreme Court since the 1960s. More than FIFTY YEARS now. That should have changed earlier this year, but the GOP controlled senate threw all semblance of just governance out the window to prevent it.
Based on current polls the most likely outcome of the upcoming election is that the Democrats will take the Presidency and the Senate (though not the House). That would allow Clinton to finally shift the balance of power on the Supreme Court. Combine that with executive actions which no longer get invalidated (regardless of precedent) 5 to 4 by the Supreme Court and the Democrats would be able to make slow and steady progress towards many goals that have been blocked for decades. On the other hand, if Trump wins then we may well have another 50 years of a right-leaning Supreme Court. That is a massive difference which will be decided by this year's election.
As to 2020... the important elections for that year are the STATE elections. Governors and state legislators. Those are the officials who redraw the district maps every 10 years. Nationally elected officials have nothing to do with it. Most of the relevant state officials who will be in office to implement the 2020 census will actually be up for election between 2016 and 2020. Ergo, the 2020 election will not be such a big deal for redistricting. That said, as Republican voters turn out more in off-cycle state election years, they are virtually guaranteed to remain in control of most state governments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In addition to the many excellent points raised by others, there is the fact that US immigration law is, in and of itself, inherently racist....A couple of honest questions here...
What does wanting to stop illegal (and that is THE key term here), illegal immigration have to do with racism?
Props, Citizen Dunkerson, for bringing up the Chinese Exclusion Act, whose predecessors were pushed by the Workingman's Party of California, thus illustrating how important those anarchists in the IWW were a few decades later and their policy of multiracial class solidarity.
Anyway, I only recently, within the past year or so, came across the work of Aviva Chomsky (yes, Noam's daughter).
My good friend and comrade, the Nigerian Princess read, or taught I don't recall, her book, Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal and raved about it for months. I, alas, haven't read it, but I did have the opportunity to see Professor Chomsky on Democracy Now! and was mightily impressed.
"How Immigration Became Illegal": Aviva Chomsky on U.S. Exploitation of Migrant Workers
As I recall, and I may not, in the 1960s there were large amounts of racially defined second class- or non-citizens in this country. We all know how the Civil Rights Movement made the United States dress up its race relations in term of black and white, but Prof. Chomsky argues that around the same time, the government changed the status of the Mexican migrant workers from racially-barred from citizenship as "Mexicans" (which, of course, isn't a race) to "immigrants" and thus to "illegal immigrants."
I remember it being a fun watch.
Anecdotally, my girlfriend, known to the boards as La Principessa, is married to a previously-undocumented Irishman. They lived in a section of Brooklyn called Windsor Terrace and, apparently, many times, she would run into neighbors going on racist...
BROOKLYN BROOKLYN BROOKLYN BROOKLYN
That reminds me, I totally have to steal her from you...