patrick.net

Patrick says

Press continues to destroy its own credibility with euphemisms for ILLEGAL immigrants

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to agree with you in the majority that didn't vote for Trump, or the far bigger majority that don't approve of the job he's doing.

Funny how that works. Why are you campaigning for him ? Is it just in case he gets his ministry of media that he doesn't shut Patrick.net down ?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/202811/trump-sets-new-low-point-inaugural-approval-rating.aspx?g_source=position1&g_medium=related&g_campaign=tiles

http://www.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx?g_source=WWWV7HP&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

curious2 says

Hundreds of thousands were killed, but all the major media (whose role is to manufacture consent) could say was we need to import more Sunnis into NATO countries. To this day, NATO voters believe they're being compassionate when they bomb and invade Muslim countries and import the consequently displaced Sunni Muslims into NATO.

Crazy conspiracy thought: the bombing in Syria was deliberately intended to create refugees to import into Europe and the US.

marcus says

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to agree with you in the majority that didn't vote for Trump, or the far bigger majority that don't approve of the job he's doing.

Are any of them the same pollsters who claimed that Hillary would wipe floor with trump?

rando says

Syria was deliberately intended to create refugees to import into Europe and the US.

Well Saudi didn't take any; wonder why?

It's well known that Saudi funds initiatives to spread Islam across the world ; what better way than to use cozy relationship with IS to encourage them to take refugees and stick them in god forsaken places.

After all, can't have them staying in limousine liberal enclaves.

marcus says

Patrick says

Press continues to destroy its own credibility with euphemisms for ILLEGAL immigrants

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone to agree with you

No, I'm pretty sure that most people can see that the press is approving of illegal immigration by refusing to call illegal immigrants by the correct term.

It's partisan, and it's literally anti-American. Literally literally.

I wonder, when are human trafficants going to start using submarines, or other floating methods.

rando says

No, I'm pretty sure that most people can see that the press is approving of illegal immigration by refusing to call illegal immigrants by the correct term.

So what you are saying is that the press is doing the same thing that the government, and more than half the people are doing ?

rando says

Crazy conspiracy thought: the bombing in Syria was deliberately intended to create refugees to import into Europe and the US.

That was literally part of the plan. The Clintons' Saudi clients wanted gas revenue and to spread Sunni Islam, including replacing Syria's Shia government with Sunnis. The Clintons' corporate clients in the MIC wanted the mass surveillance contracts that spreading Islam would require. Western European leaders wanted gas from someplace other than Russia, and more bodies to prop up rents and drive down wages. The refugees are pawns: their suffering doesn't even matter except to the extent that it can distract and manipulate the emotions of NATO voters to manufacture consent.

MMR says

Well Saudi didn't take any; wonder why?

Not exactly true - the number of Syrians totals 500,000 out of a population of 28m, and many of those have arrived since 2011 (though Saudi Arabia claims they've hosted 2.5m). That's quite a lot either way. The UAE says it has issued residency visas to more than 100,000 Syrians since 2011 with the total number of Syrians being 250,000 now. Call them refugees, call them guest workers, call them what you want, but that is a large number of people for them.
They don't share borders with Syria, so it's natural that most refugees have ended up in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan (not Europe by the way) - those three are dealing with more than 4m in total - and a lot of that is being funded by the Gulf States.
They could do more, but it's not true to say that they are doing nothing.

Rashomon says

Not exactly true - the number of Syrians totals 500,000 out of a population of 28m, and many of those have arrived since 2011 (though Saudi Arabia claims they've hosted 2.5m). That's quite a lot either way. The UAE says it has issued residency visas to more than 100,000 Syrians since 2011 with the total number of Syrians being 250,000 now. Call them refugees, call them guest workers, call them what you want, but that is a large number of people for them.

They don't share borders with Syria, so it's natural that most refugees have ended up in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan (not Europe by the way) - those three are dealing with more than 4m in total - and a lot of that is being funded by the Gulf States.

They could do more, but it's not true to say that they are doing nothing.

Your are a fact spewing killjoy destroying a perfectly good sound bite. If people aren't free to spew bullshit without worrying about someone actually bringing up facts then what does freedom mean? Why are you against freedom? Unamerican is what it is, unamerican I tell you.

rando says

And... NPR is droning on right now about how inhumane a border wall is, because it will force illegal immigrants to risk their lives in hot dangerous deserts to cross illegally into America.

Again, the left has this bizarre notion that the citizens of a different country are owed something by this country. They are owed nothing by America except speedy deportation.

One could argue that the wall is actually more humane as well, because if it is truly impossible to get in illegally, they won't even try to anymore.

We have now heard from Voice of Trump. This just gets sillier and sillier. America's refusal to enforce it's own laws is already inhumane without creating a wall. When I was living in south texas a trucker simply walked away from a locked trailer full of illegals broiling in the south texas heat. Something like 20 died and the rest were lucky to survive. People die all the time, many very badly. All so some Trump crony can put more money in the bank and Americans can have even cheaper food so they won't be so under weight from the high cost of food.

Every single day you gladly enjoy the benefits of the people willing to die to get here to work crappy jobs in miserable conditions for very poor wages. Yet you say we owe them nothing. That's just shameful. Embarrassingly shameful.

No country in history has every kept anything out as long as there was demand for it. Never. Not once. North Korea has come closest. Is that the role model we are shooting for?

When is your trump god going to start enforcing the laws already on the books and go after the employers? The only way to actually stop illegals from coming. Otherwise it's all just a continuation of the same three card monty game that the conservatives have been playing on their base for 50 years. Laughing all the way to the bank. @patrick and the usual crew of patnet trumpbots are playing the mark nicely. You guys find the queen of hearts yet?

rando says

No, I'm pretty sure that most people can see that the press is approving of illegal immigration by refusing to call illegal immigrants by the correct term.

It's partisan, and it's literally anti-American. Literally literally.

Yes of course. It's partisan brainwashing. That's totally different from constantly firing up the base about getting rid of illegals while blocking any and all attempts to actually do it. Who is brainwashed here?

You are right here.
But immigration laws have to be enforced also. And if a wall adds to the security of the nation in a cost effective way, that should also be part of the plan.
You can't have it both ways. Either enforce the laws on the books, or support anarchy.

bob2356 says

When is your trump god going to start enforcing the laws already on the books and go after the employers?

Macropodia says

You are right here.

But immigration laws have to be enforced also. And if a wall adds to the security of the nation in a cost effective way, that should also be part of the plan.

You can't have it both ways. Either enforce the laws on the books, or support anarchy.

Exactly what immigration laws aren't being enforced in your world. Without infinite budgets there will always have to be priorities on enforcement of any laws. It happens every day in every police force. Manpower may be shifted to a murder from a burglary. People jaywalk all the time because there isn't a cop standing on the corner. Does that mean they aren't enforcing the law to you?

Obama shifted enforcement to emphasize criminals and the border. He doubled the budget for both ICE and border patrol. This is supporting anarchy? What a joke. What color is the sky in your world?

Trump disagrees with you. I saw him on O'reilly.
"What people don't know is that Obama got tremendous numbers of people out of the country. Bush, the same thing. Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws. Well, I'm going to do the same thing,"

If? We should spend 50 billion on if? Where are the studies about how cost effective a wall will be?

All of them.
bob2356 says

Exactly what immigration laws aren't being enforced in your world.

No they don't. Only Leno does that.
bob2356 says

People jaywalk all the time

When you tell border patrol not to enforce the law, that is supporting anarchy regardless of budget increases for political gain.

a href="/post/1303171&c=1383198#comment-1383198">bob2356 says

He doubled the budget for both ICE and border patrol. This is supporting anarchy?

So what?
bob2356 says

Trump disagrees with you.

That's why i used "if".
If you want that answer whats stopping you from researching it?

bob2356 says

If? We should spend 50 billion on if? Where are the studies about how cost effective a wall will be?

MrEd says

When you tell border patrol not to enforce the law, that is supporting anarchy regardless of budget increases for political gain.

Which law was the border patrol told not to enforce? Where is the order? It's true because I believe it should be true?

So every law enforcement agency supports anarchy?

You need to keep track of which alt account you are on.

MrEd says

That's why i used "if".

If you want that answer whats stopping you from researching it?

bob2356 says

If? We should spend 50 billion on if? Where are the studies about how cost effective a wall will be?

So if is a valid reason for government spending? You are supporting any government project that if it works would be good?

bob2356 says

patrick and the usual crew of patnet trumpbots are playing the mark nicely.

Dude, I'm for putting the employers of illegal aliens in jail.

bob2356 says

Every single day you gladly enjoy the benefits of the people willing to die to get here to work crappy jobs in miserable conditions for very poor wages. Yet you say we owe them nothing.

Yup, we owe them nothing. In fact, they owe us for the trouble of deporting their asses right back where they came from.

They not here to help us in any way. They are here for themselves alone. The fact that they are willing to do crappy jobs changes nothing.

Do we have borders and laws, or do we not?

bob2356 says

Your are a fact spewing killjoy destroying a perfectly good sound bite.

So am I.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/04/the-arab-worlds-wealthiest-nations-are-doing-next-to-nothing-for-syrias-refugees/

rando says

Yup, we owe them nothing. In fact, they owe us for the trouble of deporting their asses right back where they came from.

They not here to help us in any way. They are here for themselves alone. The fact that they are willing to do crappy jobs changes nothing.

Do we have borders and laws, or do we not?

So you are willing to exploit them and say well they broke the law for me I owe them nothing. Unless you can certify that you buy nothing produced by the labour of illegals than you are just as big a part of the problem as the illegals are and a much bigger hypocrite. At least they are honest they are here to make money for themselves and their families. They are the supply, you are the demand. Equally guilty.

We have borders and laws. We have laws making it a crime to employ illegals. That legally makes you an accessory since you are aiding and abetting a criminal every time you buy something from anyone who employs an illegal. Selective values? Apparently so.

Bob is 100% correct. If you don't stop the demand, a wall isn't going to solve anything. Enforce the laws against hiring illegals, and the demand will dry up. With no demand, the immigrants will stop coming.

rando says

bob2356 says

Your are a fact spewing killjoy destroying a perfectly good sound bite.

So am I.

You need to stop getting news from a source that couldn't make it as toilet paper in the dc metro.
None of these countries are signatories of the United Nations' 1951 Refugee Convention, which defines what a refugee is and lays out their rights, as well as the obligations of states to safeguard them. For a Syrian to enter these countries, they would have to apply for a visa, which, in the current circumstances, is rarely granted

A UNHRC visa isn't rarely granted. It is never granted. Saudi Arabi, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE aren't signatories to the UNHRC and can't receive UNHRC refugees officially. The UNHRC doesn't count any refugees that aren't settled under the UNHRC protocals. Which means UNHRC certified refugees going to a signatory country. There are over 600,000 Syrians living in Saudi Arabia. In 2016 Saudi Arabia granted over 100,000 residence visa's to syrians. Saudi's claim to have taken in 2.5 million. To claim non of these people are refugees is absurd.

"Undocumented" isn't even accurate. In California, illegals can get a driver's license and are therefore "documented". Time for the press to come up with a new euphemism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvinh-doanvo/europes-crisis-refugees_b_8175924.html
With Saudi Arabia’s non-signatory status, the Syrians residing in Saudi Arabia are classified as “Arab brothers and sisters in distress” instead of refugees covered by UN treaties. According to Nabil Othman, the UNHCR regional representative to the Gulf region, there were 500,000 Syrian refugees in Saudi Arabia at the time of his statement. The government itself of Saudi Arabia has stated that it has, over the past five years since the start of the conflict hosted 2.5 million refugees..

OMG the UNHRC's own representative says there's 500,000 refugees in Saudi Arabia. But UNHRC says there are zero officially.

So now it is time for lots of breast beating about fake news by the washington times. Odds of seeing it are zero. It's only fake news if you don't agree with it.

Kinda funny how there is no official count of Syrian refugees in Saudi Arabia.

Why not?

joeyjojojunior says

Bob is 100% correct. If you don't stop the demand, a wall isn't going to solve anything. Enforce the laws against hiring illegals, and the demand will dry up. With no demand, the immigrants will stop coming.

I agree!

bob2356 says

So you are willing to exploit them

WTF? Where did you even get this?

Asking lawbreakers to leave is in no way exploiting them.

Illegal immigration is the migration of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Immigration, including illegal immigration, is overwhelmingly upward, from a poorer to a richer country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration

It seems only natural to extend the definition to "illegal immigrants."

Example: Illegal squatting. Illegal squatters.

"I agree!"

Great, so let's not waste how ever many hundreds of billions of dollars on a boondoggle and instead pay down the debt with it. What do you say?

I agree that we should jail the employers of illegal aliens.

But I also want a wall because we need multiple avenues of defense against illegal immigration.

rando says

bob2356 says

So you are willing to exploit them

WTF? Where did you even get this?

Asking lawbreakers to leave is in no way exploiting them.

You are buying products every day from companies that use illegals to produce them. That makes you just as much a part of the problem as the illegals coming in.

bob2356 says

You are buying products every day from companies that use illegals to produce them. That makes you just as much a part of the problem as the illegals coming in.

It doesn't. This is a bullshit argument. In no alternatives/no disclosure system, the chain of guilt stops at the employer.
Or else you are personally responsible for waterboarding in Guantanamo. As much as the torturers. Because your taxes sponsor it.

"if" , as used, is a conjunction in the sentence deployed to convey the idea that the author has not completely evaluated the cost effectiveness of a wall to impede / keep out illegal aliens.
How you arrive at your supposition below is hard to fathom, unless one also takes into consideration the thought processes of a rabid hardliner still ill with the aftershakes of a Trumpian Victory.

bob2356 says

So if is a valid reason for government spending?

Mr Ed says

And if a wall adds to the security of the nation in a cost effective way, that should also be part of the plan.