Total posts: 1,080
-->
@Mharman
I mean.. do you have your own ideas on the prevalence of mass shootings in the US apart from erroneously interpreting stats and redefining established terms?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I mean, we already have several parts of the country where there is massive poverty, massive violence, massive drug-addiction, and massive homelessness, such as Chicago and Seattle, so it kinda makes sense to not "want these extra people in my country" when we are already having such a difficult time taking care of our own people, which would probably also explain why our asylum process is so stringent to begin with. I don't dislike all immigrants in general, I don't mind them coming in legally and going through the legal process and contributing to our economy, and i'm pretty sure the basis for immigration laws and having a border wall are safety and trust. We just wan't to be safe and make sure these people are not part of a gang or are carrying any disease. We wan't to be safe and make sure we aren't letting serial criminals into this country.
It doesn't make sense to me because there doesn't seem to be a realistic underlining reasoning or an underlining problem you are addressing. I would totally understand if asylum seekers were a major cause of poverty/violence/drug-addiction/homelessness or were parts of a gang/carrying disease and impacted the American population significantly. But there doesn't seem to be any sort of data to support these claims nor any data to suggest that there will be such problems
You're right. This probably wouldn't be the case, but at the same time, it could very well be.~~History has shown us what can happen when we allow foreign travelers, illegal aliens with potential diseases, and/or criminal backgrounds to run wild and/or spread whatever disease they might have. We don't need history, especially that kind of history, to repeat itself.
But again, I hope you can see that you don't have any tangible reasoning here right? "It could be, therefore lets construct a solution for what could be". However there's no evidence to suggest your hypothetical is realistic or likely. So why construct a solution for it. Why not build bunkers in case of alien invaders? Why not wear wear tin-foil hats to protect against government mind control technology?
As far as the "virgin soil" effect is concerned, it doesn't really apply. No country is all that isolated with America being the least of all, and the only modern day scenario that this could apply to are remote uncontacted tribes, for example the Sentinelese.
So it would be better and/or easier for them to simply go hide out somewhere and remain on the run while avoiding the ICE agents rather than immediately surrender. If they get caught, they can simply claim that they had no choice but to come in illegally. If they are asked why they didn't immediately turn themselves over, they can simply claim that they were fearful or whatever other dumb excuse they can come up with.... and our laws allow illegal aliens to do stuff like this and get away with it and still be able to obtain asylum. That is the loophole that Donald Trump needs to close.
Is this a real problem thought? How many refugees have sought asylum in this manner? How many are able to successfully pass asylum screening?
The problem with having a law that allows people to come in illegally and still claim asylum and be protected from immediate deportation is that said law ASSUMES that all immigrants will tell the truth about why they had to come into this country (legally or illegally) even though immigrants can simply make up a story, read off of some script, repeat what some lawyer said to them, or lie and claim that they had no choice but to avoid authorities, or that they had no choice but to come illegally. On top of all that, they can still be legally protected from deportation by their fellow neighbors, like those people who chained up to protect that illegal alien in Nashville.
I don't think the law assumes anything of the kind which is why there is such a large denial rate in the first place.
Created:
There's not really all that much to comment about really. I think it's mostly agreed that having an extreme amount of guns in the country, having weak gun control laws and to some extent ingrained gun culture are the usual culprits for excessive gun violence in the US. The only thing which is in dispute is an effective solution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Maybe they aren't really a problem, but I would rather stay safe and have people come in legally than take my chances so that it doesn't BECOME a problem in the future. If it's not "actually a problem" like you said, then why not try our best to keep it that way?
There are some problems which are not problems yet, but can be reasonably be predicted via scientific study to be problems later on. Obvious examples include climate change and antibiotic immunity. In which case it's reasonable to enact policy to prevent or mitigate these future problems and the resources spent on those policies are probably worth it depending on the severity of those future problems.
In this case there doesn't seem to be a reasonable predicted problem. The basis for these policies seems to be "I don't want these extra people in my country". I don't think it's reasonable to allocate resources to such policies when there is no overarching tangible benefit and there are downsides in terms of refugee endangerment. Plus, the current policies seem to be working fine.
Here is an article from 2018 about the spread (or potential spread) of various disease and illness within the caravans of people trying to apply for asylum in the United States. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/tijuana-authorities-seek-help-sickness-spreads-migrant-camp/~~~~There are also several instances of people from a gang called MS-13 being found and deported while trying to enter this country. https://www.foxnews.com/world/25-ms-13-gang-members-deported-from-caravan-in-mexico-officials-sayThat article only reports 25, but for all we know, there could be dozens, if not hundreds more, that have gone unreported and/or are yet to be reported.
This doesn't have all that much to do with asylum seekers who enter illegally initially and then claim asylum afterwards though right which is the focal point of your topic right? The caravan migrants were prospective asylum seekers who sought to enter the US via legal channels in which case they can be screened first for disease and/or gang affiliation.
The other point to note is that the migrant caravan is a fairly unique situation and having so many people travelling in poor condition means that disease spread within the caravan isn't really unexpected. This probably wouldn't be the case for an average family seeking asylum and it's not very accurate to model situations based on extremities such as the migrant caravan.
Good. I like when it's "stringent" because then, it will be even harder for bad people and infected people to come into this country and cause problems for us. If it isn't stringent and strict, then people will obviously find loopholes such as simply lying when they say that coming in illegally was their only option, or lying about fleeing persecution just to gain easy access to the country.
My only point was that it's not sufficient to spin up a lie and a sob story to be accepted into asylum which is how you seemed to describe it. It's actually rather difficult judging by the denial rates.
I agree, and that's why criminals and other bad people AREN'T going to declare themselves "to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected" if they're smart.~~~~Until our laws change to make it easier for agents to do their job and get rid of illegal aliens, Trump is facing an uphill battle that is not in his favor.
Two points to note here:
1. You seem to have switched topic from loop holes in asylum laws to immigrant/illegal immigration in general
2. Just to be clear, before you were saying that there could be criminals among asylum seekers and therefore they should not be able to enter illegally before claiming asylum and now you are saying that asylum seekers are unlikely to be criminals?
Even if they didn't "present a significant enough of a problem," there's still nothing wrong with trying to stay safe. We also have very little way of knowing for sure if the asylum-seekers really had little choice but to cross over illegally, or if they are just lying about it.
No-one would have an issue if it didn't impact anyone except yourselves. For example, you could build a bunker inside your house and have guns pointing out in every direction. You could think that it keeps you safe, I would think that you're being silly and no one is impacted. However these policies that Trump is attempting to implement impacts other peoples lives for no tangible benefit.
Also why would someone lie about needing to cross over illegally? What does someone have to gain by crossing over the border illegally but then going to the authorities to claim asylum anyway?
If they legitimately need asylum they would go through legal ports of entry. If they didn't need asylum, they would cross over illegally. If you cross over illegally and you need asylum, the logical conclusion is that you couldn't go through legal ports of entry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I would agree with you if said asylum seekers could also prove that entering this country illegally was their only or best way to get to safely and free persecution by checking all of their options for coming in legally and making sure that none of those options were actually viable. Otherwise, anyone could come here illegally and then claim that it was "their only or best way" even though it could have also been just as easy to just go to a port of entry. Not only that, but that still isn't a good excuse to come here illegally. You still risk introducing foreign diseases to the country since you are coming from a different country with it's own set of germs and bacteria. You could be smuggling foreign/dangerous items. You could be part of a gang. It isn't worth it. When you come to the port of entry, you can be taken care of, receive treatment, and be confirmed to be safe to enter the country and that you are not in a gang or are smuggling any people or objects. That's why I dislike these laws. They are easy to exploit, they give too much power to illegal aliens, and people can just lie and make up something to get past it. Trump is trying to fix this and he is being held back from doing so.
So several points here.
1. You have brought up several downsides to asylum seekers entering illegally and then claiming asylum. Are those downsides actually a problem? For example, are there any stats to support your fears that asylum seekers who have entered illegally bring and infect others with foreign diseases or traffick other humans?
2. I'm unsure if you're aware of this but asylum denial rates are rather high, ranging from 42% to 65% in an 18 year span. To me, this indicates that the process for asylum is actually rather stringent and not the loopholey and exploitative mess that you seem to have implied that it is.
3. It seems counter intuitive to me that a person would cross over illegally, smuggle in contraband or be a gang-member, and then declare yourself to be seeking asylum and go through a rigourous process with a high likelihood of being rejected when you've already crossed over illegally and clearly have little moral inhibitions. This goes back to my first point. Are these situations actually likely and do they present a significant enough of a problem as to threaten the people who legitimately seek asylum and have little choice but to cross over illegally?
How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when they are exploiting these loopholes and coming in illegally?How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when we can't even confirm that they are genuine asylum seekers and not wanted criminals or gang members who are just trying to escape the police in their own country?How are we supposed to "protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible" when we can't even check them for any illnesses to make sure that they aren't a threat to themselves or to anyone else?
These aren't really arguments against the idea that the law was constructed and are adhered to in order to protect the maximal number of asylum seekers. The point of this law is that asylum seekers can cross over illegally if needed in order to protect themselves, and then subject themselves to the asylum process where they will then need to follow the laws. Which I believe is when checking if they are criminals/gang members/deathly ill/contagious kicks in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
From my perspective, it seems that these laws have less to do with containing loopholes but rather you disliking these laws as they are and choosing to assert that they have loopholes rather than having those particular features. For example, continuing from your first quote reads
Huge numbers of past asylum applicants found that entering the U.S. without permission was their only or best way to get to safety and flee the persecution they faced at home.
To me this clearly shows that the author has interpreted the law as being purposefully constructed in order to protect the wellbeing of the greatest number of asylum seekers as possible which is what you'd hope from a law designed to protect asylum seekers. In which case it is a feature and not a loophole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Don't be ridiculous. Trump does not wield unlimited powers and he and his legislation are bound by existing laws. If his legislation runs into those laws, the failure is his for not accounting for those laws, not the judges who are trying to keep the rule of law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Really these controversies always prove to be obstructionist rhetoric and people trusting an infotainment system that profits from gullibility. Americans elected Trump (not Clinton) knowing full well this would happen, and he would cut through the BS and be willing to take the heat to get the job done on other prioritized matters like the immigration reform they've been expecting for two decades, the economy, and maybe an endgame to the war on
I disagree. There are plenty of factual controversial Trump administration topics that shine a poor light on him and his administration. You seem willing to overlook these topics in favour of his approach to the presidency and perhaps regard his rhetoric as part of his no bullshit approach. However many people are not. And as I said, replacing him with Pence would alleviate many of these issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
From my perspective it's a matter of the lesser of two evils and what's best for America as a whole. On the one hand, sure, there's a good chance Pence will attempt to enact anti-LGBT legislation. However there are legal pathways against this. Other than that, even if you don't like the guy he is supposedly a competent politician with a clear and proven track record.wouldn't Pence become president? I mean they about lost their minds when he was announced as V.P. The gays would be hanged blah blah blah Many were more concerned about Pence being V.P. then Trump being president. Guess they want a Pence administration.
Trump's presidency however has been a dumpster fire. The sooner he's out of the presidency, the sooner everyone can stop devoting energy to tracking every example of his and his administrations' controversies and give greater focus to important matters such as climate change
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Let's say that Flanders and Walloon were formed separately. This does not apply to Brussels. The reason why many in Brussels want to join Walloon in the event of Belgium breaking up is because Brussels used to be Dutch and now it is Francophone. If they were Dutch, then they would stay with Flanders.
1. The conditions for the rise of French in Brussels were fairly specific and do not apply to your scenario.
2. Belgium breaking up hasn't actually occurred.
3. Neither Flanders or Wallonia are countries.
This is not a situation that is comparable to your hypothetical
If Mexico joined the NAU, then there would be millions of unchecked immigrants from Mexico settling in the South west and in major cities.
1. There is little evidence to suggest that there will be millions of immigrants from Mexico
2. Even if there were evidence to suggest millions of immigrants, the correct course of action to take would be to construct effective policy that prevents situations that you are describing, not blatantly shuttering out the US's 3rd largest trading partner. Free movement does not always entail free immigration
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Why do many in Flanders want to break away from Belgium? It is due to a different culture. If the same thing is allowed in the US, then Hispanics would create majorities in America, and separatist movements would exist, just like in Puerto Rico.
The issue I take with your view is that the Flemish-Walloon divide has nothing to do with migration of differing cultures as in your hypothetical situation. You've taken a situation that vaguely fits your scenario on one point and completely ignored everything else. Belgium was formed from two pockets of distinctive culture. For those people, Flanders and Wallonia are their respective historical lands. This would not be the case in a Mexico-US migration and these two points make the two situations fundamentally incomparable.
To reiterate: There has been no example of what you've described in history and hence what you've described is purely conjecture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Unless there is a mathematician or an economist that can prove why a sales tax instead of an income tax is a bad idea, I would say that my tax plan is pretty good.
As Omar said before, removing the income tax and then replacing the deficit with an increase to sales taxes would increase wealth inequality. As for why wealth inequality is bad
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
From what I've read, Greenland's GDP per capita is about double the Mexican one.
But in terms of overall economy, Mexico outpaces Greenland by far and is much more closer to Canada and the US. Mexico is a better candidate for any sort of North American union by far, in terms of historical ties, culture, distance, trade and existing relationships
I think if Mexico joins NAU, then a bunch of unassimilated Mexicans would settle in the south west and in major cities and it would lead to separatist movements, confirmed by history.
Not confirmed by history. There is no case in history where excessive immigration of unassimilated nationals has ever lead to any sort of successful separatist movement
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
But Greenland is even more poorer...Mexico is too poor. They would destroy the GDP per capita of the NAU. I don't want taxpayer dollars going to Mexico.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You have espoused several viewpoints that I would personally describe as unusual. Some of which may include but are not limited to seeding Americans into Canada to annex Canada via vote and conquering Africa
Do you discuss these ideas IRL and what reactions do people have to these ideas?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
But I said it before, and I'll say it again. The best argument for Donald Trump being racist is thst the party that created the KKK insists that he is.
If your best argument is a historical link that bears no modern relevancy whatsoever, it must be rather poor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Encouraging females to get guns would reduce rape.
There's no evidence of this. Those articles I linked above actually contraindicate this
Chicago banned handguns in 1982, and their rape rate increased from the downward trend(http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm).
Correlation does not equal causation. Is there any evidence that there were a substantial number of woman who previously did have handguns who subsequently did not which acted to increase the number of rapes?
If rapists only have a gun for 6% of rapes, then a female with a gun will in 94% of rape instances can keep the rapist at bay.
There's no evidence of this.
If guns are banned, then rapists who wish to use a gun will get one illegally and commit rape with them. If everyone followed the law, why don't we cut to the chase and ban all murders and rapes? Oh wait? Some people don't care about the law.
Revoking the 2nd amendment is not equivalent to banning guns. At any-rate, what I'm simply saying is that the 2nd amendment does not defend females against rape. There is absolutely no data to support this claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Despite guns being legal, almost every woman who gets raped didn't have a gun to protect themselves. There is little to no evidence that guns have ever been effectively used to prevent instances of rape.Right now, most women don't want guns and they are legal. If guns are illegal, almost every woman who gets raped would have no gun to protect themselves.
In about 6% of rapes, a firearm was used to facilitate the rape.
The 2nd amendment does not protect women from rapists, and only helps rapists. All the data points to this conclusion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Irrelevant. Attacking the man and not the ball doesn't win you an argument.
Which is why I attacked his use of statistics. If your entire argument rests on the presentation of a man who is attempting to use statistics in that way, your argument is bad.
Of course they are if the want Shariah. Because you may not have noticed but along with Islamic "family & property disputes" shariah law aslo has the death penalty for homesexuals, adulterers and and apostates. If you believe that in Islam you can pick and choose which laws you agree with and those you do not, and which ones you will accept and which ones you will not accept,then you have no understanding of Sharia .
Different parts of rules are not all evenly applied and interpreted in the same way
If I were to ask a christian should the followings and tenets laid out in the bible be obeyed, the answer would probably yes.
But what does this mean? There are many passages in the bible considered to be archaic. Does the christian mean that shellfish should not be eaten, mixed fabrics should not be worn and women should be submissive? Probably not. The christian probably refers to what he/she believes are the sensible passages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
They are radical beliefs that are well supported and if you listened to it all you will have heard that these radicals support the extremist 99% in what they are trying to achieve ; a worldwide caliphate.
If you took the entire sharia law system and followed them in their entirety, sure, sharia is pretty radical. My issue is that Shapiro's depiction of the data is basically propaganda.
For example, one of the first statistics Shapiro states in his video is that according to a 2009 poll, almost 50% of the muslims in Indonesia support strict sharia law not just in Indonesia but in other countries. He then states that 70% of the muslims blame the US, israel or some other country for 9/11.
The same 2009 poll states:
Generally, supporters of sharia are most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes. In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith."
Are muslims who mainly favor the application of Sharia law towards family or property disputes radicalised? Where is the mention of this in Shapiro's video?
In terms of the 70% of muslims who blame the US/Israel other country for 9/11, was the US completely blameless in what the Al-Qaeda thought were justified motives? Moreover are the people who think that the US aren't blameless actually radical muslims just for holding that opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If guns were illegal, most women, including college aged women would want illegal guns because they are physically weaker than men and would want to protect themselves from rape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If guns were illegal, most women, including college aged women would want illegal guns because they are physically weaker than men and would want to protect themselves from rape.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
It doesn't allow a rapist to threaten a woman. It only allows him to have a gun.
Which allow them to be used to threaten women..
If guns are banned, rapists get the guns illegally and they use them to force women to get raped. The rapist will often have some sort of weapon to force the woman to have sex with him. Do we allow the woman to arm themselves for protection?
If rapists can get guns illegally, why not women?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Unless you can provide examples my argument also stands
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I have been left speechless by the vast array of data provided that shows otherwise
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well you aren't tipping the balance if one team already has an advantage and you're giving both teams the same tools
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
But doesn't the 2nd amendment also allow for rapists to threaten women at gun point? So in actuality, you are also infringing on women's rights by supporting the 2nd amendmentIf you cared about women's rights, then you would support the 2nd amendment, which protects women from rapists.
Created:
Posted in:
Just because you've dressed up the spam, doesn't mean it's not spam
Created:
Posted in:
Supporting sharia law does not automatically make you a radical. Shapiro's use of statistics is misleading and he is not to be trusted
Created:
Posted in:
If I hit Bobby over the head with a spatula and Bobby hits Sam over the head with a spatula, it means both bobby and I are assholes.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So quick lesson on mathematical terms : a number that has many digits trailing the decimal point is precise. When you round numbers up or down to significant figures, that number loses precision.
Pi with 100 trailing digits is more precise than Pi with 3 trailing digits.
Apart from this, accuracy is a concept that describes how correct a number is.
Hence 3.146 is both unprecise and unaccurate
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You are treating a class of people differently based on their sexual orientation.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Not allowing official marriage for homosexual couples is also discrimination...
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That's not how rounding works
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Did you know if you display the number 5318008 in a calculator and hold the calculator upside down it shows the word boobies? Yet another strange and inexplicable phenomena that can only be explained through God's greatness!
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How is making homosexuality illegal not discrimination? You are treating a class of people differently based on their sexual orientation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This just sounds like you can't justify or reconcile some of the archaic and barbaric passages in the bible so you just say "Oh, well that's not what it really means. You just don't understand what it's really trying to say"You connect the bible to literal terms because liberals can't dive into a bible and interpret its deep meaning
Do you apply the same logic to other texts such as the Quran?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
I don't think this can be correct. If God fine tuned the solar system, why wouldn't he of fine tuned other aspects of life such as humans. And yet my penis remains disproportionately small and disappointing in comparison to the rest of my body
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your absolutely right. Perhaps we should revoke legal personhood from the descendants of the original slaves because clearly that was the incorrect decision and there is no difference between unborn fetuses and slaves.
Created:
Posted in:
Would you rather your genitalia be moved onto your forehead and otherwise function as normal, or have no genitalia at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I would definitely say that fetuses are owned
Created:
This one's a toughie. Clearly he was justified in defending himself but at the same time, laws should apply to all men alike.
Created: