« prev   random   next »

2
1

Can anyone refute this guy's argument against Democrat open border immigration?

By Goran_K following x   2018 Nov 29, 8:37am 2,834 views   124 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    





If so I'd like to hear the argument.

« First    « Previous    Comments 45 - 124 of 124    Last »

45   LastMan   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 29, 7:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The US can't solve poverty for the world; it can't solve it for the US.

Politically, both parties have an unofficial open border policy.
46   PaisleyPattern   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 29, 9:19pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Beck’s argument is pretty much an open and shut case. There’s no debate. If we didn’t have borders billions of people would come to America immediately. It is amazing to me how many people don’t realize this. I think many Americans are naïvely oblivious to the way most of the worlds population lives , and how amazingly fortunate they are to be a citizen of United States, at any socioeconomic level , or of any first world country. People are just oblivious to how brutal life can be and is for the majority of people on the planet.
Most of the worlds population are still involved in a daily life and death struggle, with very little modern medicine ,food shortages and where health problems that we easily take care of are fatal. The people in these countries have zero chance of getting out of their situation for the most part . It made sense to have a lot of immigration into the country when we needed to increase the population, but now, we have plenty of people.
Allowing impoverished and uneducated and helpless immigrants in does not help the country, and letting them in is not in the interests of the majority of the population of United States.
47   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 6:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Goran_K says
However IMO you ignoring the topic


Is the topic democrats open boarder policy? That's what I thought you said in the OP. I didn't know the topic was sanctuary cities or SF letting illegals vote for school board members or what ever other topic was brought up. So again I ask where is the link to democrats stating they want open boarders. Please I beg of you link to somewhere were I can see this open boarder policy that you say the Democrats have.

I do not dispute that their policies encourage people to cross the boarder but that is not equal to having an open boarder platform. You have yet to prove me wrong.


As explained above their policies are in effect open borders. They cannot legally call it that obviously, since they would be admitting to their crimes, but it is open borders through policy.
48   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 6:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
they would be admitting to their crimes


Uhhh? What crimes? I don't think libertarians are criminals because they have a platform that states they are for open boarders, do you?

You are still avoiding the question, why didn't the Republicans do anything about immigration when they had a chance? This is the only party that Roy Beck implicates in the video above who has failed to do anything about immigration.
49   komputodo   ignore (0)   2018 Nov 30, 6:39am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

But can I still promote OPEN BORDERS for virtue signaling points or do I need to move on to another topic?
50   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 6:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
As explained above their policies are in effect open borders.


And so are the Republicans, because they sate on their hands and did nothing about immigration when they had control of the House and Senate. You do know what Congress is and that Republicans had control of it for two years.
51   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 6:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Goran_K says
they would be admitting to their crimes


Uhhh? What crimes? I don't think libertarians are criminals because they have a platform that states they are for open boarders, do you?

You are still avoiding the question, why didn't the Republicans do anything about immigration when they had a chance? This is the only party that Roy Beck implicates in the video above who has failed to do anything about immigration.


Which libertarians hold office? We’re talking about Democrats that ACTUALLY hold office.

Trump is doing plenty to end open borders. He’s raiding factories, trying to end birth right citizenship, ending chain migration and most of all trying to get congress to fund the wall.

Guess who is fighting him every step of the way?

Democrats.
52   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 6:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
As explained above their policies are in effect open borders. They cannot legally call it that obviously, since they would be admitting to their crimes, but it is open borders through policy.


No their policies are not in effect open boarder, you are wrong. Not one policy stated above has anything to do open boarders.
53   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 6:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Which libertarians hold office? We’re talking about Democrats that hold office.


Republicans held Congress and they did nothing. Roy Beck clearly states Congress has the power to make changes and that power was held by Republicans not Democrats. Will you answer why the Republicans didn't do anything or are you going to continue to troll?
54   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 6:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
ending chain migration


You know his Trump's mother and father in law are here because of chain migration, right?
55   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 6:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Trump is doing plenty


Trump is not Congress. Roy Beck clearly states Congress is the body that needs to deal with immigration.
56   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 7:14am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Goran_K says
As explained above their policies are in effect open borders. They cannot legally call it that obviously, since they would be admitting to their crimes, but it is open borders through policy.


No their policies are not in effect open boarder, you are wrong. Not one policy stated above has anything to do open boarders.

Sure they do. You’re the only person in this thread arguing they don’t do exactly that, open the border.
57   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 7:16am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Goran_K says
Trump is doing plenty


Trump is not Congress. Roy Beck clearly states Congress is the body that needs to deal with immigration.


ah, so moving the goal posts. By that measure why didn’t the 2008-2010 congress do anything about illegal immigration?

See how that works?

Trump has been at the forefront of immigration reform, Democrats have been at the forefront of the status quo (because they want more slaves).

#buildthewall
58   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 7:19am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Goran_K says
ending chain migration


You know his Trump's mother and father in law are here because of chain migration, right?


No one in Trumps family is an illegal and all went through the legal processes at the time. Total straw man and not what Trump is talking about when he says reform.

Like I said, dishonesty and trolling. The leash is about to be tightened.
59   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 7:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
No their policies are not in effect open boarder, you are wrong. Not one policy stated above has anything to do open boarders.

Sure they do. You’re the only person in this thread arguing they don’t do exactly that, open the border.


No they don't.

Goran_K says
They cannot legally call it that obviously, since they would be admitting to their crimes


If the democrats wanted an open boarder policy platform they certainly could have one. It's not against the law. Which crimes are you referring to? Or is this more troll tactics?
60   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 7:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
ah, so moving the goal posts. By that measure why didn’t the 2008-2010 congress do anything about illegal immigration?

See how that works?


Because niether party wants to upset the status quo. See how easy it is to answer a question, see how that works?. Now can you do it? Why didn't the Republicans?
61   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 7:27am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Like I said, dishonesty and trolling. The leash is about to be tightened.


Threats of censorship? Why because I'm right that the democrats don't have an open boarder policy?

@patrick this is wrong and should not be allowed at Patrick.net
62   Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Nov 30, 7:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Those are Slaves... I mean, guest workers who have their passports taken and regularly beaten and abused. Kuwaitis flipped out when the government mandated a single day off for "Domestic (Slave) Laborers".



They were not abducted from their native countries, but volunteered to go to countries like Kuwait. H1B visa recipients are not exactly free labor either, but they still come.



Also, Germany, Russia, France, UK, Brazil, etc. are Real Regular to Large sized countries, not little Sultanates like Kuwait or Qatar with a long history of living off slave labor and producing nothing but repacking exports between east and west with a markup



The real difference is money / monetary system. Huge numbers of Brazilians and Canadians immigrated to the US in the past few decades, for the same reason that huge numbers in the middle of the US migrated to NYC and SF, both of which are closer to the source of the global monetary system. $2 a day was a huge amount of money at the time of Wyatt Earp, who bought his house for $20 a century and half ago. The same house would be worth at least $200k today, due to monetary inflation. Monetary inflation benefits those who get the new money first (spending the money before inflation propagates through the economy), at the expense of the people who get it later (having to spend against the inflated prices). That's why people flock to regions privileged with new money creation. US happens to be the primary source of new money creation for the entire world, as our primary export is the dollar itself.


Which is why, despite tepid GDP growth since 2000, we have unjustifiably high, 1910s levels of Foreign Born. It's also why housing costs have exploded.


Tepid GDP growth is part of the cause not the result of high number of immigrants. Whenever the US hits recession, one of the solutions is (temporarily) increasing immigration: recession is the result of pricing error/adjustment, jobs not taking place because the buyers want lower price, ergo immigrants providing that source of lower priced labor, so that necessary work can be done while people adjust to new prices. Housing cost is not high in the interior of the US. The coastal rent is high due to government subsidies and zoning control, combined with the monetary system shifting population from the interior to the coastal cities. There is a lot of vacancy and abandoned housing in the middle of the country. Real estate price high is not necessarily a result of housing demand at all, but speculation demand: lower interest results in higher asset price. Foreigners buying up US real estate and other assets at the peak of the market then sell them a few years later in a crash actually benefit Americans, and is the most harmless way of dollar recycling: just like Japanese did in the early 1990's, and Mercedes did buying Chrysler. Those repricing cycles enabled Americans to receive tons of Japanese cars, electronics and German cars for free!
63   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 7:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
No one in Trumps family is an illegal


Goran_K says
dishonesty


@Goran_k

Please show me where I said that anyone is an illegal in Trump's family, lest you be the dishonest one.
64   BlueSardine   ignore (4)   2018 Nov 30, 7:43am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

you earn a +1 for spelling 'borders' correctly.

jazz_music says
Democrats open borders using The same tear gas used on migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border on Sunday was also used under the Obama administration?

Figures from Homeland Security show the tear gas was deployed almost 80 times during Obama's later years

Does tear gas open the borders?
65   Elgatouno   ignore (2)   2018 Nov 30, 7:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
As explained above their policies are in effect open borders. They cannot legally call it that obviously, since they would be admitting to their crimes, but it is open borders through policy.


I don't think this is true. Why can't the democrats advocate for open borders? What law would they be breaking?
66   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 8:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BlueSardine says
you earn a +1 for spelling 'borders' correctly.


Its interesting pour spelling, isn't pointed out when one is presived to be on you're teem.
67   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 8:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Because niether party wants to upset the status quo. See how easy it is to answer a question, see how that works?. Now can you do it? Why didn't the Republicans?

Where did I say that NO ONE in the GOP supports illegals openly or tacitly?

I'll wait.
68   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 8:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Rocketmanjoe says
I don't think this is true. Why can't the democrats advocate for open borders? What law would they be breaking?


Oh they do advocate for it. That much is true.

But they cannot attempt to put it into "letter of law", unless they somehow were able to dominate every branch of government and go through the arduous process of the laws governing who is responsible for defending the nations borders.

So they continue with "abolish ice" because "racism" or "Sanctuary Cities" which are ways to undercut national border sovereignty without "putting it into law".
69   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 8:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Threats of censorship? Why because I'm right that the democrats don't have an open boarder policy?

@patrick this is wrong and should not be allowed at Patrick.net


I'm not threatening. I'm telling you, if you're here to just troll (and I never said you were or not), the leash could be tightened. So don't troll and there won't be any problems.
70   BlueSardine   ignore (4)   2018 Nov 30, 9:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Jazz hates everything I've ever posted. Yet I commended him for proper spelling.
Kinda blows your post right out of the water...
Herdingcats says
BlueSardine says
you earn a +1 for spelling 'borders' correctly.


Its interesting pour spelling, isn't pointed out when one is presived to be on you're teem.
71   BlueSardine   ignore (4)   2018 Nov 30, 9:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Maybe you outta heard eyeballs...
72   BlueSardine   ignore (4)   2018 Nov 30, 9:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Maybe you outta herd eyeballs
74   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 9:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Oh they do advocate for it. That much is true.


For open borders? No evidence has been presented as such. They advocate for passion for those that have made it here. That's not the same. Republicans have no heart nor do they care to pay for what others want as Democrats are willing to do.
75   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 9:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
For open borders? No evidence has been presented as such. They advocate for passion for those that have made it here.


lol

"Passion for those that have made it here"
76   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 9:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Where did I say that NO ONE in the GOP supports illegals openly or tacitly?


You didn't nor did I say you did. Hey do you ignore the ignore the question.
77   mell   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 9:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
My answer is that a wall won't stop it. So a wall doesn't solve the problem.


Of course a wall works, there is no debate. arguing that a wall and tight border security doesn't stop illegal immigration is like denying that 1+1=2. The fact that some immigrants have other routes available they can try doesn't mean the wall doesn't do its job. Israels wall works close to perfectly, so do their airport controls. The fact that pretty much every country has some sort of walls, border fences/gates at their neighboring countries is clear prove how well they actually can and do work. In fact walls prevented people not only from entering but also exiting the iron curtain to the former soviet union for decades. Please.
78   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 9:27am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BlueSardine says
Kinda blows your post right out of the water...


Not really, I said pour spelling isn't pointed out by the same team members. You pointed out proper spelling. Which pointed out my improper spelling. Really it's not the same thing yet it is nice of you to point out his proper spelling. I know I'm not the best speller but I make up for it in logic.
79   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 9:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says
doesn't stop illegal immigration


Nobody is saying it won't stop some of the illegal immigration. Only that it won't stop all illegal immigration. How much will it stop and is it worth the cost? That is the issue.
80   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 9:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Nobody is saying it won't stop some of the illegal immigration. Only that it won't stop all illegal immigration. How much will it stop and is it worth the cost? That is the issue.


There have been many projections that show the wall would be cost positive vs the costs of allowing more illegals to leech on public services.
81   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 9:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
But they cannot attempt to put it into "letter of law", unless they somehow were able to dominate every branch of government and go through the arduous process of the laws governing who is responsible for defending the nations borders.


If that is true then why didn't the Democrats do it in 2008-2010 when they had control of Congress which is the branch of government responsible for writing laws?

It's ok to admit you are wrong.
82   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 9:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
If that is true then why didn't they do it in 2008-2010 when they had their chance to?



Because they didn't have enough power to override the constitution which democrats would happily do if they could.
84   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 9:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
What? Are you just pulling shit out of your ass now?


I actually know how laws work. :(

Also that was borderline a personal attack. Nuked for breaking the rules. :(
85   mell   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 10:07am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
mell says
doesn't stop illegal immigration


Nobody is saying it won't stop some of the illegal immigration. Only that it won't stop all illegal immigration. How much will it stop and is it worth the cost? That is the issue.


Fine, so people with "feelz" (Dems, SJWs) say it's not worth the cost while the overwhelming majority of countries are happy with the ROI and keep their walls - some even strongly enforcing them lately such as Hungary, Poland etc. - clearly indicates the "feelz" are wrong on this. It's highly unlikely - close to impossible - that all countries suddenly are gripped by mass hysteria. No, they did the math and came to the conclusion that the ROI of living without hostile rapefugees is worth every penny.
86   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 10:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Because they didn't have enough power to override the constitution which democrats would happily do if they could.


Are you talking about amendments now. I was referring to Congress having the ability to write laws not amendments.

Goran_K says
I actually know how laws work. :(


Wait, no, looks like we are talking about laws, care to explain how Congress writes a law that overrides the Constitution?

Me personally, I'd call that an amendment not a law.
87   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 10:30am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The man's presentation is full of impeccable information, logic, precision and reasoning. You ought to know by now that that doesn't work worth shit as an argument.
88   NuttBoxer   ignore (2)   2018 Nov 30, 10:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

DASKAA says
passport system, that didn't exist until WWII
.

Not true.


I was wrong, WWI.
89   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 11:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Are you talking about amendments now. I was referring to Congress having the ability to write laws not amendments.



Congress cannot write a law saying "open borders", you should read how the laws work.

Herdingcats says
Me personally, I'd call that an amendment not a law.



What would the open borders amendment look like, how would it pass?
90   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 11:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says
The man's presentation is full of impeccable information, logic, precision and reasoning. You ought to know by now that that doesn't work worth shit as an argument.


Apparently not.
91   BlueSardine   ignore (4)   2018 Nov 30, 11:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Well. Uh.
Yeah!
Herdingcats says
Not really, I said pour spelling isn't pointed out by the same team members
92   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 11:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
What would the open borders amendment look like, how would it pass?


Good question. How would they do that? You are the one stating that the intention of the democrats is to have an open border policy and that you know how laws work. So what power would Democrats have needed in 2008- 2010 to institute this open borders policy you state the Democrats so desperately desire?

You said
Goran_K says
Because they didn't have enough power to override the constitution which democrats would happily do if they could.


Can you explain that to me, how does Congress override the Constitution?

I know that the president can veto a bill but in 2008- 2010 there was Obama. Also Congress can have their laws be ruled unconstitutional by courts. But I've yet to ever hear of the way Congress "with enough power" can override the Constitution. I'll stop guessing at what exactly you meant by this and let you explain how it works instead.
93   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 12:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I am refuting your statement @goran_k , Roy Beck clearly states at the 5 minute mark that Congress if not stopped will let another 1 million immigrants in. Who controlled Congress over the last 2 years?

Furthermore Roy Beck doesn't blame Democrats or Republicans. I'm guessing he knows it's both parties fault.

Not one policy that has anything doing with Democrats wanting an open border has been presented only policies that encourage people to cross borders have been presented this is not the same thing.

I linked to the libertarians policy on open borders if the Democrats have one, like you say they do, you should easily be able to present it here, yet you still haven't.
94   MisterLearnToCode   ignore (4)   2018 Nov 30, 12:43pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
My answer is that a wall won't stop it. So a wall doesn't solve the problem.


But it will greatly reduce illegal border crossings, who are the other half. It will also keep drug and human smuggling down.

Of course walls work, that's why you have a walls and a door in your home. There are scores of walls in the world.

"The wall will only stop half of all illegal crossings" = This treatment "only' reduces the severity of symptoms by 50%, so don't bother..

If you were suffering from issues that prevented you from doing anything, wouldn't a 50% reduction in pain be extremely helpful? Maybe you could get out of bed and do some light chores and enjoy life a little.
95   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 12:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Good question. How would they do that?


Exactly my point. So instead they use "sanctuary cities", "abolish ice", or "catch release".

Same effect, but avoids the nastiness of legality.
96   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 12:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
But I've yet to ever hear of the way Congress "with enough power" can override the Constitution


Bingo. Which is why your original point about 'congress' and open borders made zero sense tatupu.
97   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 12:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Not one policy that has anything doing with Democrats wanting an open border has been presented only policies that encourage people to cross borders have been presented this is not the same thing.


It's the same effect, for sure. You're the ONLY one arguing that it's not.
98   MisterLearnToCode   ignore (4)   2018 Nov 30, 12:46pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says
They were not abducted from their native countries, but volunteered to go to countries like Kuwait. H1B visa recipients are not exactly free labor either, but they still come.


They're enticed under false pretenses. When they arrive penniless and desperate, that's when the abuse starts.

They used to do similar shit in the West, entices people back East to come West to work in the mines, forests, and farms. Some desperate dude spent his last few on a train ticket, got there, and they'd say, "Well, Wallace, we're out of the $2/day jobs. But I'm really nice and I'll pay you $1/day and deduct room & board at my company store where everything is marked up 300%. Maybe by the end of the harvest season six 60-hour weeks from now you'll have just enough to buy a ticket back to Cleveland from Bozeman"

When Qatar has the World Cup, the same Neoliberal Media that gave the public 24-7 in-depth reporting on old Russian Toilets will studiously ignore the huge numbers of slaves/indentured servants involved in making the World Cup possible.

Alas, when you land in Doha, the goalposts have shifted slightly. This much becomes apparent when you’re handed a helmet and a high-viz jacket and told to present yourself at a building site at 6am the following morning. You’re not working as a clerk in an office, you’re building a football stadium. They’re not quite sure who told you the $400 a month figure, but it’s actually going to be $200, less miscellaneous costs. The recruitment fee isn’t $200 as you’d agreed, but $2000, plus the cost of your flight to Qatar. Your crisp new passport is confiscated. You cannot quit your job. You cannot leave the country. And before you have even clocked in for your first shift, you owe your employer the equivalent of two years’ wages.


https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/world-cup-2022-qatars-workers-slaves-building-mausoleums-stadiums-modern-slavery-kafala-a7980816.html

It's an ancient scam, used by the VOC, by Mining Companies, and now Qatar.
99   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 1:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Herdingcats says
Good question. How would they do that?


Exactly my point. So instead they use "sanctuary cities", "abolish ice", or "catch release".

Same effect, but avoids the nastiness of legality.


So let me get this straight, You are saying that if there were open borders the same amount of people would come to the US as those policies encourage now to come in illegally? Me, I'm guessing a whole shit ton more people would come to the US if there were open borders. So no, it's not the same effect.
100   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 1:11pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
So let me get this straight, You are saying that if there were open borders the same amount of people would come to the US as those policies encourage now to come in illegally?


Ha, no.

I'm saying a crap ton of people are coming over already due to those policies, and if the Democrats get their way, even more would come over sure, but it's the same effect in that people are flowing over the border en masse. You're just playing semantics between a 20 foot tidal wave versus a 100 foot tidal wave.

Both are shitty.
101   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 1:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Herdingcats says
Not one policy that has anything doing with Democrats wanting an open border has been presented only policies that encourage people to cross borders have been presented this is not the same thing.


It's the same effect, for sure. You're the ONLY one arguing that it's not.


How can it be the same effect if a higher volumes of people cross the border under an open border policy?
102   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 1:13pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
How can it be the same effect if a higher volumes of people cross the border under an open border policy?



When you get punched in the head 1 time, you get hurt.

When you get punched in the head 3 times, you get hurt.

You're playing semantics (typical troll tactic as you well know tatupu).

You have a small hole in a dam, you have a leak.

You have a big hole in a dam, you have a bigger leak.

Same effect, just a gradation.

103   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 2:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
but it's the same effect in that people are flowing over the border en masse.


Yet if the democrats didn't have those polices we'd have the same effect? To me this doesn't make sense. I mean without those policies people would still cross the border illegally. In fact people have crossed the border illegally longer than any of those policies were even policies.

In fact before Obama there was a steady rise in the population of illegals and The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States was lower in 2016 than at any time since 2004. If the Democrats really truly wanted an open border policy why did the amount of illegals drop so drastically under Obama?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
104   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 3:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
I'm saying a crap ton of people are coming over already due to those policies


You might be saying it but that doesn't make it true. Why was there less illegals in the US in 2016 than in 2008 if Democrats support an open border policy?
106   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 7:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Rocketmanjoe says
I don't think this is true. Why can't the democrats advocate for open borders? What law would they be breaking?


Oh they do advocate for it. That much is true.

But they cannot attempt to put it into "letter of law", unless they somehow were able to dominate every branch of government and go through the arduous process of the laws governing who is responsible for defending the nations borders.


This here I'd consider trolling. You are trying to tell this rocketmanjoe cat that every branch of government must be dominated for Congress to write a bill. This just is not true. You are spreading misinformation, why?
107   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 8:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Herdingcats says
But I've yet to ever hear of the way Congress "with enough power" can override the Constitution


Bingo. Which is why your original point about 'congress' and open borders made zero sense tatupu.


What? Which point are you referring to? You are the one who said,

Goran_K says
Because they didn't have enough power to override the constitution which democrats would happily do if they could.


Which makes no sense. And all you have to say for such a trolling comment is 'bingo'? If you are not trolling please point out above your comment #83 where I said anything about Congress and open borders? I'll be waiting ... Forever because I didn't I checked.

Furthermore I'm not tatupu sorry to burst that bubble too.
108   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Nov 30, 8:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Herdingcats says
But I've yet to ever hear of the way Congress "with enough power" can override the Constitution


Bingo. Which is why your original point about 'congress' and open borders made zero sense tatupu.


What? Which point are you referring to? You are the one who said,

Goran_K says
Because they didn't have enough power to override the constitution which democrats would happily do if they could.


You said this in comment 83, it makes no sense, And all you have to say for such a trolling comment is 'bingo'? If you are not trolling please point out above your comment #83 where I said anything about Congress and open borders? I'll be waiting ... Forever because I didn't I checked.

Furthermore I'm not tatupu sorry to burst that bubble too.
109   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Dec 1, 5:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@goran_k

If you don't like trolling and trolling is considered to be not responding to valid points made then can we please have a response to the point that I have made?

I refute that Roy Beck's argument is that Democrats have an open border policy please state at what point he makes this argument.

There were less illegal immigrants at the end of Obama's presidency than at the beginning. If Democrats truly had an open border policy one would expect more. Why doesn't the data comport with your opinion?

And finally I said and you responded,Goran_K says
Herdingcats says
If that is true then why didn't they do it in 2008-2010 when they had their chance to?



Because they didn't have enough power to override the constitution which democrats would happily do if they could.


Can you explain how a political party can override the Constitution? I've asked this one several times yet you won't explain what you meant. personally I think it is just a trollish response that you gave but I'm giving you the opportunity to explain to me that it was a valid comment.

If trolling is not responding to valid points then since you are against trolling you should respond to these valid points or state why they are not valid points. The ball is in your court.
110   komputodo   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 1, 9:18am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
They advocate for passion for those that have made it here.


Passion or compassion?
111   Sunnyvale94087   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 1, 1:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Why was there less illegals in the US in 2016 than in 2008 if Democrats support an open border policy?

Easy answer: Change the way illegals are counted.

When you say "less" are you referring to the quality of the illegals? If so it should be "lesser." If you are referring to a countable quantity of illegals then the correct word is "fewer."
112   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Dec 2, 7:45am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

komputodo says
Herdingcats says
They advocate for passion for those that have made it here.


Passion or compassion?


Compassion, thank you.
113   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Dec 2, 7:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Sunnyvale94087 says
When you say "less" are you referring to the quality of the illegals? If so it should be "lesser." If you are referring to a countable quantity of illegals then the correct word is "fewer."


Again thank you, yes fewer.

Also above I saw that I added an e to sat. I meant "sat on their hands .
114   Herdingcats   ignore (1)   2018 Dec 2, 8:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@goran_k

Goran_K says
I'm saying a crap ton of people are coming over already due to those policies


So no response to the fact that there was fewer illegal aliens at the end of Obama's term than at the start?

How about the fact that the amount of ICE agents increased during Obama's term. Wouldn't one expect the amount of agents to decrease if as was opined above the democrats wanted to abolish ICE?

Yes Goran I do refute you, Do you care to respond? I do believe I'm making some valid points, why won't you debate them?
115   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Dec 2, 8:19am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
None has been linked.

This is a great example of iwogian logic.
116   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Dec 2, 8:21am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Does ICE = boarder patrol? What do sectuary cities have to do with open boarders? Or what does SF registering illegals to vote for education issues at we're their legal kids go to school have to do with open boarders?

But iwog was a better speller.
117   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Dec 2, 9:49am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
why didn't the Democrats do it in 2008-2010 when they had control of Congress

Too busy bailing out the banks and subsidizing the insurance companies.
118   BlueSardine   ignore (4)   2018 Dec 2, 10:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ICE does not patrol bed and breakfast establishments...
Onvacation says
Does ICE = boarder patrol?
119   MrMagic   ignore (10)   2018 Dec 2, 10:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States was lower in 2016 than at any time since 2004. If the Democrats really truly wanted an open border policy why did the amount of illegals drop so drastically under Obama?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/


How do you know that for sure? That article is basing it on "Estimates". If they entered illegally and weren't caught, how does anyone know they're here? Is Pew good at counting ghosts?

Does Pew call all these illegals on their cell phones to ask them if they are in the country illegally?
121   Sunnyvale94087   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 2, 12:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
Also above I saw that I added an e to sat. I meant "sat on their hands .

And it's "were" not "was" in your original. :-)
122   Sunnyvale94087   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 2, 12:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Herdingcats says
So no response to the fact that there was fewer illegal aliens at the end of Obama's term than at the start?

How about the fact that the amount of ICE agents increased during Obama's term. Wouldn't one expect the amount of agents to decrease if as was opined above the democrats wanted to abolish ICE?

(1) Change how you count illegals. Or don't count them at all, for that matter.
(2) More agents, but not allowed to do their job effectively. Obama agents are merely handing out bottles of water and seeing to it that illegals get on the right bus headed towards their illegal relatives. Much more effective would be 1/4 the number of agents that are allowed to shoot on sight.

I realize the above response is "embellished," but you get the point.
123   komputodo   ignore (0)   2018 Dec 2, 2:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

No but they really need to reform the illegal immigrant policy in regards to the illegals that have several years working in the USA first. How about making the illegals legal by having them fingerprinted, retinal scans or whatever and having them agree to sign documents stating that they will not apply for any govt economic programs and also charge them a fee which can be paid in payments...When they have payed in full, they receive a work permit and be on the road to becoming a legal citizen if they follow the rules. This way there is no worry that they are going to just live off of welfare
124   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Dec 2, 2:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

komputodo says
No but they really need to reform the illegal immigrant policy in regards to the illegals that have several years working in the USA first. How about making the illegals legal by having them fingerprinted, retinal scans or whatever and having them agree to sign documents stating that they will not apply for any govt economic programs and also charge them a fee which can be paid in payments...When they have payed in full, they receive a work permit and be on the road to becoming a legal citizen if they follow the rules. This way there is no worry that they are going to just live off of welfare


Why not just follow the procedures for legal immigration? Why cater to people who cut in line?

« First    « Previous    Comments 45 - 124 of 124    Last »



about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions