Say Something Completely Random And Off Topic

Found on the BBC

Does Donald Trump believe in ominous metaphors? As he affirmed his support for US intelligence agencies, the lights went to black in the White House conference room.

Once order was restored, he said he had been in the dark as to why a storm had swirled around his presidency since his Helsinki summit with Vladimir Putin. It was, he said, because he had misspoken.

If Trump truly thinks non-trumpoids and the rest of the world buys his LOL reading of what someone else wrote as he struggled to READ it, he is even more delusional than I thought.

If he truly had misspoke, he would have without some script STOOD before the world and profusely apologized to the men and women of our intel community, asked for forgiveness from our allies across the world and readdressed without any ambiguity his feelings towards Russia and their involvement in our election and other elections from around the world. 

Funny how the  prepared statement someone wrote included bring justice to Russia for their involvement, but Trump crossed that part out, ad-libed Russia and OTHERS ( no evidence from justice department) and once again added his no collusion comment. His little brain is not capable of separating involved and influencing the election from collusion. 

De Niro got it right! 

So, now the Russians and ready to move forward with the agreed upon negotiations with Trump on military issues per their understanding from their notes. To no ones surprise, our pentagon has no clue what Trump agreed to or negotiated and of course, no notes from Trump. 

Now key republicans looking into calling translator before congress. 

billhike posted:
patespo1 posted:
purplehaze posted:

John Brennan, former CIA Director:

Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

That last question is the most telling.  Mostly nothing from the repubs.  Shameful.

PH

Can't believe I'm inviting this, but......Where is Napacat's reponse to this shit show today?

My guess is he fell and hurt himself trying to get up too quickly after watching the press conference with his pants around his ankles.

Been travelling...that's pretty funny.  Seeing how I was at work during that...it was not possible.

purplehaze posted:

I understand, bman.  And I absolutely support everyone being able to express their opinion openly, as long as it doesn't advocate violence.

My point was more to differentiate between the right or courage to express an opinion, and having an opinion worthy of support.

Keep in mind that napa, when questioned point blank, said that he supported the separation of an infant from his/her parent(s) for the simple reason that the parent committed the misdemeanor of coming to America to seek a better life.  This opinion is as heinous to me as anything ever posted here, and will forever color (colour for you!) my opinion of anything that napa ever writes here again.  Cheers!

PH

 

 

I need to reply to this…maybe I see it a bit different than you.  One has to be culpable to some degree in the actions they take.    If you want to enter the U.S. illegally, you should be prepared for consequences from the government. It really is that simple.  I think illegal immigrants are overall treated very well in the U.S.

 These same laws were in place in the previous administration and they simply chose to not enforce them.  The previous admin chose to not do a lot of things (like look into Russian meddling after being warned).  I also saw kids in “cages” in 2014 photos…Trump was not president then.  And yes I know it was not to the same degree…but not much outrage either.

 Look, it is sad, but at the end of the day…the invited the treatment.  They have already successfully made it out of the country they were fleeing when they reached Mexico.  Why not stay there.

Illegal - get locked up, kids removed, you get deported and the US can't find parents.  You got to be kidding that the US is fair.

Now if they make one minor error on a form [many can't read that well]  they get tossed.

Next time your in NYC look at the Statue of Liberty, and ponder the words, and then rethink your inane comments.

The orange hair guy is a lying racist that hates all immigrants.  Look at what he said re the EU [paraphrasing a bit] Immigration is destroying the society.

Love to read what you say about the love relationship between Vlad and Don

I'm about done with you napa.  You're supporting an UNSUPPORTABLE policy (child separation) that even the idiots in the trump administration realized that they had to stop.  Additionally, they did such a poor job of it, that they still cannot comply with a court order to reunite these families.  I know that you don't have children (and this gives me some small comfort) but even most people without kids who have a functioning heart know that this was wrong.  Consequences?  Sure.  Taking infants from their parents for a misdemeanor?  Not in MY country goddammit.  

As far as the rest of your post, your predilection for whataboutism is apparently on a par with your president.  Typical tu quoque fallacies, of which your new friends in Russia are among the world's best!  

PH

purplehaze posted:

I'm about done with you napa.  You're supporting an UNSUPPORTABLE policy (child separation) that even the idiots in the trump administration realized that they had to stop.  Additionally, they did such a poor job of it, that they still cannot comply with a court order to reunite these families.  I know that you don't have children (and this gives me some small comfort) but even most people without kids who have a functioning heart know that this was wrong.  Consequences?  Sure.  Taking infants from their parents for a misdemeanor?  Not in MY country goddammit.  

As far as the rest of your post, your predilection for whataboutism is apparently on a par with your president.  Typical tu quoque fallacies, of which your new friends in Russia are among the world's best!  

PH

To be fair,

while I don't agree with Napacat that "just because you came in you need to be subjected to inhumane treatment", the other part that he was (hopefully) alluding to, is how do you treat folks who come in illegally?  It's already a billion + a year.  Do you build them a separate city along the border?  

I will add, my personal perference is to have them all come in, give them appropriate jobs like helping the US build our infrastructure, because for some reason alot of folks without jobs dont seem to want to do the work.

As with trump, what a scumbag, I had 0 faith in him before and as an american i refuse to have a russian puppet "guiding" this country.

g-man posted:
purplehaze posted:

I'm about done with you napa.  You're supporting an UNSUPPORTABLE policy (child separation) that even the idiots in the trump administration realized that they had to stop.  Additionally, they did such a poor job of it, that they still cannot comply with a court order to reunite these families.  I know that you don't have children (and this gives me some small comfort) but even most people without kids who have a functioning heart know that this was wrong.  Consequences?  Sure.  Taking infants from their parents for a misdemeanor?  Not in MY country goddammit.  

As far as the rest of your post, your predilection for whataboutism is apparently on a par with your president.  Typical tu quoque fallacies, of which your new friends in Russia are among the world's best!  

PH

To be fair,

while I don't agree with Napacat that "just because you came in you need to be subjected to inhumane treatment", the other part that he was (hopefully) alluding to, is how do you treat folks who come in illegally?  It's already a billion + a year. 

Not really sure I understand, g-man.  If you're talking about a billion dollars a year, based on our 2017 budget of $4.15 trillion, this represents a tiny fraction of a percentage.  At what cost do we forgo being humane?

I'm all for compelling immediate and productive participation and labor to benefit our country, but the world wide problem of mass immigration isn't going to be solved by taking babies from moms.  People are going to cross borders for opportunity and freedom.  People are drowning in the Med every day to better their lives.  I don't have the answers, but that's what I'm supposedly paying my government for.  

PH

purplehaze posted:
g-man posted:
purplehaze posted:

I'm about done with you napa.  You're supporting an UNSUPPORTABLE policy (child separation) that even the idiots in the trump administration realized that they had to stop.  Additionally, they did such a poor job of it, that they still cannot comply with a court order to reunite these families.  I know that you don't have children (and this gives me some small comfort) but even most people without kids who have a functioning heart know that this was wrong.  Consequences?  Sure.  Taking infants from their parents for a misdemeanor?  Not in MY country goddammit.  

As far as the rest of your post, your predilection for whataboutism is apparently on a par with your president.  Typical tu quoque fallacies, of which your new friends in Russia are among the world's best!  

PH

To be fair,

while I don't agree with Napacat that "just because you came in you need to be subjected to inhumane treatment", the other part that he was (hopefully) alluding to, is how do you treat folks who come in illegally?  It's already a billion + a year. 

Not really sure I understand, g-man.  If you're talking about a billion dollars a year, based on our 2017 budget of $4.15 trillion, this represents a tiny fraction of a percentage.  At what cost do we forgo being humane?

 

4.15 trillion, one that alot of folks are already arguing that it's way too high.

To use the phrase, "you gotta cut the fat from somewhere" and the most obvious would be non citizens you know?

I dont necessarily disagree with your assessment, but i do feel that it's a valid point if you are about budgeting and finding things to cut somewhere.

No argument that 4.15T is too high.  So cut it down to 3T (not workable, but stay with me on this...)   Run the % numbers again.  Still infinitesimal.  We have many areas where we can cut.  Not to suggest cuts to foreign aid (at least well spent funds) but we already spend billions on non-citizens in what we perceive to be our interest.  We spend more on defense than the next 7 highest spenders combined.  I'm sure there's a billion somewhere in that 610 B budget to care for the "tired and poor."  It's just to easy to point at the poorest as a first move fur cutting funding.

PH

you're missing the fundamental point when it comes to justification of spending cuts.

"Why do we spend money on non citizens".

It's honestly a very difficult question to answer without going into quite alot of details, facts, case studies and philosphy (much like Niebuhr does in Irony of American History).

The "simplest" response has always been, it's a moral issue, but then you'll have a group of folks who think money is king, then how would one boil it down without doing the above?

A succession of past Presidents have kicked the immigration issue down the road. Too political for either party. Isn't the question on immigration how we make it legal, to stop those coming in illegally? Do some of you actually believe that our borders aren't worth securing?

g-man posted:

you're missing the fundamental point when it comes to justification of spending cuts.

"Why do we spend money on non citizens".

It's honestly a very difficult question to answer without going into quite alot of details, facts, case studies and philosphy (much like Niebuhr does in Irony of American History).

The "simplest" response has always been, it's a moral issue, but then you'll have a group of folks who think money is king, then how would one boil it down without doing the above?

If I understand your last point, it's easy -- governments spend their money on whatever it is in their interest to spend it on.  So, for example, billions in foreign aid is spent on development in developing countries, not necessarily because it's a moral issue, though it is, but also because development gives people who would have a reason to come to the US through irregular channels (note I didn't say illegal) a reason to stay in their own country.  If the US spent some of that enforcement money on development in the countries from which those they are trying to stop are coming, a lot fewer would come.  Having worked in embassies in developing countries for 14 years, I've seen that first hand.  It works.

bman posted:
g-man posted:

you're missing the fundamental point when it comes to justification of spending cuts.

"Why do we spend money on non citizens".

It's honestly a very difficult question to answer without going into quite alot of details, facts, case studies and philosphy (much like Niebuhr does in Irony of American History).

The "simplest" response has always been, it's a moral issue, but then you'll have a group of folks who think money is king, then how would one boil it down without doing the above?

If I understand your last point, it's easy -- governments spend their money on whatever it is in their interest to spend it on.

try explaining that to a libertarian.

ha!

napacat posted:
purplehaze posted:

I understand, bman.  And I absolutely support everyone being able to express their opinion openly, as long as it doesn't advocate violence.

My point was more to differentiate between the right or courage to express an opinion, and having an opinion worthy of support.

Keep in mind that napa, when questioned point blank, said that he supported the separation of an infant from his/her parent(s) for the simple reason that the parent committed the misdemeanor of coming to America to seek a better life.  This opinion is as heinous to me as anything ever posted here, and will forever color (colour for you!) my opinion of anything that napa ever writes here again.  Cheers!

PH

 

 

I need to reply to this…maybe I see it a bit different than you.  One has to be culpable to some degree in the actions they take.    If you want to enter the U.S. illegally, you should be prepared for consequences from the government. It really is that simple.  I think illegal immigrants are overall treated very well in the U.S.

 These same laws were in place in the previous administration and they simply chose to not enforce them.  The previous admin chose to not do a lot of things (like look into Russian meddling after being warned).  I also saw kids in “cages” in 2014 photos…Trump was not president then.  And yes I know it was not to the same degree…but not much outrage either.

 Look, it is sad, but at the end of the day…the invited the treatment.  They have already successfully made it out of the country they were fleeing when they reached Mexico.  Why not stay there.

Napacat, re the detention of children in the 2014 photos vs today, my understanding is that the kids in detention in 2014 were unaccompanied minors while Trump's policy this year was to separate children from whoever they were travelling with - parents, siblings, aunt, uncles, whoever - and detain them.  I don't think there was any such policy implemented before Trump.  And his minions - Sessions and the others - were very up front about that.  They thought separating children from their families would stop those families from coming.  It didn't, because their options in their own countries were much worse.  Again, I did three assignments in embassies in Central America, the most recent in Guatemala 2010-2012, doing immigration and refugee work so I'd like to think I know something about the issues that are driving people to flee Central America for a better life in the US. Some are indeed economic migrants and some are criminals but from my experience, the vast majority are literally running to save their lives.

g-man posted:

you're missing the fundamental point when it comes to justification of spending cuts

"Why do we spend money on non citizens"

It's honestly a very difficult question to answer without going into quite alot of details, facts, case studies and philosphy (much like Niebuhr does in Irony of American History).\

Well, perhaps you could "dumb it down, for me, at least the "fundamental point" that I missed.  You can skip the  Niebuhr stuff and just stick to the fundamental point.  Like a sentence or two?

The "simplest" response has always been, it's a moral issue, but then you'll have a group of folks who think money is king, then how would one boil it down without doing the above?

As far as the folks who think that "money is king," since we currently have a deficit of $21.48 trillion, it's not apparent that anyone who thinks that money is king is acting responsibly.  And the simplest answer often is the right one.  Think Occam, if you will.

PH

bman posted:
g-man posted:

you're missing the fundamental point when it comes to justification of spending cuts.

"Why do we spend money on non citizens".

It's honestly a very difficult question to answer without going into quite alot of details, facts, case studies and philosphy (much like Niebuhr does in Irony of American History).

The "simplest" response has always been, it's a moral issue, but then you'll have a group of folks who think money is king, then how would one boil it down without doing the above?

If the US spent some of that enforcement money on development in the countries from which those they are trying to stop are coming, a lot fewer would come.  Having worked in embassies in developing countries for 14 years, I've seen that first hand.  It works.

Cannot agree more.  Coming from a family that in 2 generations has devoted over 75 years to overseas service, the value of making friends and creating US friendly environments and attitudes overseas cannot be overstated.

PH

purplehaze posted:
g-man posted:

you're missing the fundamental point when it comes to justification of spending cuts

"Why do we spend money on non citizens"

It's honestly a very difficult question to answer without going into quite alot of details, facts, case studies and philosphy (much like Niebuhr does in Irony of American History).\

Well, perhaps you could "dumb it down, for me, at least the "fundamental point" that I missed.  You can skip the  Niebuhr stuff and just stick to the fundamental point.  Like a sentence or two?

 

PH

I can't, which is why i'm posing the question =)  I can go into great depths justifying that america should take a very active role world wide and spend appropriately and certainly allow immigrants in with little restrictions based on the studies and various readings i've done.

purplehaze posted:

Then it's not fundamental.  And I'm always leery of theologians anyway...  

PH

Honestly, most interactions dont allow for time spent properly having a discussion over dinner/bottle of wine.  Some folks don't sit down to a good meal, choosing to goto McDonalds or wolfing down a steak with ketchup and skipping wine all together, forcing you to have simpler explanations.

I feel like this particularly cheesy movie captures some of the thoughts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lXLGwe_DUU

I feel like the person trying to ramble on with facts because I don't have that particular experience to tell an  appropriate and relating story to get someone to understand my point of view.

arsenal4ever posted:

A succession of past Presidents have kicked the immigration issue down the road. Too political for either party. Isn't the question on immigration how we make it legal, to stop those coming in illegally? Do some of you actually believe that our borders aren't worth securing?

Land borders hundreds of miles long cannot be secured, nor can any border of any length.  Ditto ports of entry by air or sea.  It's just not possible to "stop those coming in illegally".  What IS possible is to realize that and have a sensible immigration policy of many layers and many variations based on multiple realities.  So, for example, of course there should be a border patrol that monitors the border and catches as many people entering the US irregularly (note I didn't say illegally as that word doesn't actually apply if the person entering is doing so to make a refugee claim) but key to the success of those efforts is to treat those making a refugee claim differently from those who are not making such a claim.  The latter are entering illegally, the former are not.  Like I said, it's complicated......

flwino posted:

Illegal - get locked up, kids removed, you get deported and the US can't find parents.  You got to be kidding that the US is fair.

Now if they make one minor error on a form [many can't read that well]  they get tossed.

Next time your in NYC look at the Statue of Liberty, and ponder the words, and then rethink your inane comments.

The orange hair guy is a lying racist that hates all immigrants.  Look at what he said re the EU [paraphrasing a bit] Immigration is destroying the society.

Love to read what you say about the love relationship between Vlad and Don

“Next time your in NYC look at the Statue of Liberty, and ponder the words, and then rethink your inane comments”.

Lovely statue and a beautiful phrase and meaning...however, that’s not our actual immigration law!

 

bman posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

A succession of past Presidents have kicked the immigration issue down the road. Too political for either party. Isn't the question on immigration how we make it legal, to stop those coming in illegally? Do some of you actually believe that our borders aren't worth securing?

Land borders hundreds of miles long cannot be secured, nor can any border of any length.  Ditto ports of entry by air or sea.  It's just not possible to "stop those coming in illegally".  What IS possible is to realize that and have a sensible immigration policy of many layers and many variations based on multiple realities.  So, for example, of course there should be a border patrol that monitors the border and catches as many people entering the US irregularly (note I didn't say illegally as that word doesn't actually apply if the person entering is doing so to make a refugee claim) but key to the success of those efforts is to treat those making a refugee claim differently from those who are not making such a claim.  The latter are entering illegally, the former are not.  Like I said, it's complicated......

If you go to a port of entry and make a refugee claim (for various reasons), that is not illegal.  Sneaking across the border is an illegal act!

G-man and arsenal are on point.  At what point is enough enough?  There is no more generous country  in the world than the US. These are laws that are on the books, they are not new laws written by the Trump administration. Every past administration has just neglected to act on this issue. This was one  of president Trump‘s areas of focus. 

napacat posted:
bman posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

A succession of past Presidents have kicked the immigration issue down the road. Too political for either party. Isn't the question on immigration how we make it legal, to stop those coming in illegally? Do some of you actually believe that our borders aren't worth securing?

Land borders hundreds of miles long cannot be secured, nor can any border of any length.  Ditto ports of entry by air or sea.  It's just not possible to "stop those coming in illegally".  What IS possible is to realize that and have a sensible immigration policy of many layers and many variations based on multiple realities.  So, for example, of course there should be a border patrol that monitors the border and catches as many people entering the US irregularly (note I didn't say illegally as that word doesn't actually apply if the person entering is doing so to make a refugee claim) but key to the success of those efforts is to treat those making a refugee claim differently from those who are not making such a claim.  The latter are entering illegally, the former are not.  Like I said, it's complicated......

If you go to a port of entry and make a refugee claim (for various reasons), that is not illegal.  Sneaking across the border is an illegal act!

Ok, like I said, it's complicated.  At the moment they cross the border they are entering illegally at the moment they physically cross the border, so what I wrote above is incorrect -- I was late for supper and banged it out without my usual careful consideration and proof-reading -- until...….they encounter an official and utter the word "refugee" in any language.  Which I understand most of those caught do.

Article 31 of the UN Convention on Refugees, to which the US is a signatory, says states cannot impose penalties on refugees who enter or are present in those states without authorization, provided they show good cause for their illegal entry or presence, which they do as soon as they speak the word "refugee".  Keep in mind that the vast majority of genuine refugees have no choice but to cross borders irregularly (a better word) and that the refugee convention was inspired by the realities around the world and the fact that refugees are the one exception that we make when it comes to crossing borders in an illegal manner.

napacat posted:

There is no more generous country  in the world than the US. 

Ok, this is a wrong as wrong can be, as almost EVERY Western country is more generous than the US, by any calculation of the data, never mind Bangladesh taking in a million Rohinga from Myanmar and many many other examples.   Really Napa, make an effort to check your facts please!

bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

A succession of past Presidents have kicked the immigration issue down the road. Too political for either party. Isn't the question on immigration how we make it legal, to stop those coming in illegally? Do some of you actually believe that our borders aren't worth securing?

Land borders hundreds of miles long cannot be secured, nor can any border of any length.  Ditto ports of entry by air or sea.  It's just not possible to "stop those coming in illegally".  What IS possible is to realize that and have a sensible immigration policy of many layers and many variations based on multiple realities.  So, for example, of course there should be a border patrol that monitors the border and catches as many people entering the US irregularly (note I didn't say illegally as that word doesn't actually apply if the person entering is doing so to make a refugee claim) but key to the success of those efforts is to treat those making a refugee claim differently from those who are not making such a claim.  The latter are entering illegally, the former are not.  Like I said, it's complicated......

If you go to a port of entry and make a refugee claim (for various reasons), that is not illegal.  Sneaking across the border is an illegal act!

Ok, like I said, it's complicated.  At the moment they cross the border they are entering illegally at the moment they physically cross the border, so what I wrote above is incorrect -- I was late for supper and banged it out without my usual careful consideration and proof-reading -- until...….they encounter an official and utter the word "refugee" in any language.  Which I understand most of those caught do.

Article 31 of the UN Convention on Refugees, to which the US is a signatory, says states cannot impose penalties on refugees who enter or are present in those states without authorization, provided they show good cause for their illegal entry or presence, which they do as soon as they speak the word "refugee".  Keep in mind that the vast majority of genuine refugees have no choice but to cross borders irregularly (a better word) and that the refugee convention was inspired by the realities around the world and the fact that refugees are the one exception that we make when it comes to crossing borders in an illegal manner.

See this is the problem with most convos I have with certain people.  They nail you on every little thing and even if you could back it up with a shit ton of real facts, they reply  with misinformation, conjectures or random statements like "the US is the most generous country in the world"  Because by measure of GDP, countries like Sweden give away over 1% of the countries GDP in terms of aid. 

If the Us even remotely gave away 1% of GDP in foreign aid, that'd be almost 200 BILLION dollars.

bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

A succession of past Presidents have kicked the immigration issue down the road. Too political for either party. Isn't the question on immigration how we make it legal, to stop those coming in illegally? Do some of you actually believe that our borders aren't worth securing?

Land borders hundreds of miles long cannot be secured, nor can any border of any length.  Ditto ports of entry by air or sea.  It's just not possible to "stop those coming in illegally".  What IS possible is to realize that and have a sensible immigration policy of many layers and many variations based on multiple realities.  So, for example, of course there should be a border patrol that monitors the border and catches as many people entering the US irregularly (note I didn't say illegally as that word doesn't actually apply if the person entering is doing so to make a refugee claim) but key to the success of those efforts is to treat those making a refugee claim differently from those who are not making such a claim.  The latter are entering illegally, the former are not.  Like I said, it's complicated......

If you go to a port of entry and make a refugee claim (for various reasons), that is not illegal.  Sneaking across the border is an illegal act!

Ok, like I said, it's complicated.  At the moment they cross the border they are entering illegally at the moment they physically cross the border, so what I wrote above is incorrect -- I was late for supper and banged it out without my usual careful consideration and proof-reading -- until...….they encounter an official and utter the word "refugee" in any language.  Which I understand most of those caught do.

Article 31 of the UN Convention on Refugees, to which the US is a signatory, says states cannot impose penalties on refugees who enter or are present in those states without authorization, provided they show good cause for their illegal entry or presence, which they do as soon as they speak the word "refugee".  Keep in mind that the vast majority of genuine refugees have no choice but to cross borders irregularly (a better word) and that the refugee convention was inspired by the realities around the world and the fact that refugees are the one exception that we make when it comes to crossing borders in an illegal manner.

And many are coached to say that.  Why does Mexico allow them to pass freely through just to get to the U.S.?  

G-man, I was not nailing bman just clarifying... not into tit for tat.  If we cannot agreee that the U.S. being extremely generous, then what’s the point. 

I

napacat posted:
bman posted:
napacat posted:
bman posted:
arsenal4ever posted:

A succession of past Presidents have kicked the immigration issue down the road. Too political for either party. Isn't the question on immigration how we make it legal, to stop those coming in illegally? Do some of you actually believe that our borders aren't worth securing?

Land borders hundreds of miles long cannot be secured, nor can any border of any length.  Ditto ports of entry by air or sea.  It's just not possible to "stop those coming in illegally".  What IS possible is to realize that and have a sensible immigration policy of many layers and many variations based on multiple realities.  So, for example, of course there should be a border patrol that monitors the border and catches as many people entering the US irregularly (note I didn't say illegally as that word doesn't actually apply if the person entering is doing so to make a refugee claim) but key to the success of those efforts is to treat those making a refugee claim differently from those who are not making such a claim.  The latter are entering illegally, the former are not.  Like I said, it's complicated......

If you go to a port of entry and make a refugee claim (for various reasons), that is not illegal.  Sneaking across the border is an illegal act!

Ok, like I said, it's complicated.  At the moment they cross the border they are entering illegally at the moment they physically cross the border, so what I wrote above is incorrect -- I was late for supper and banged it out without my usual careful consideration and proof-reading -- until...….they encounter an official and utter the word "refugee" in any language.  Which I understand most of those caught do.

Article 31 of the UN Convention on Refugees, to which the US is a signatory, says states cannot impose penalties on refugees who enter or are present in those states without authorization, provided they show good cause for their illegal entry or presence, which they do as soon as they speak the word "refugee".  Keep in mind that the vast majority of genuine refugees have no choice but to cross borders irregularly (a better word) and that the refugee convention was inspired by the realities around the world and the fact that refugees are the one exception that we make when it comes to crossing borders in an illegal manner.

And many are coached to say that.  Why does Mexico allow them to pass freely through just to get to the U.S.?  

G-man, I was not nailing bman just clarifying... not into tit for tat.  If we cannot agreee that the U.S. being extremely generous, then what’s the point. 

I

Mexico doesn't "allow them to pass freely", they are smuggled through Mexico just as they as smuggled through other countries! Does the US "allow" people to swim across the Rio Grande or is it impossible for them to stop them all?  Same thing in Mexico.  You are drinking the right-wing yahoo kool-aid that suggest this is all some kind of grand plan by countries and people out to get the US.  It's not,  Thousands of people cross borders and countries irregularly every day, not because they are "allowed" to do so by those countries but because it is not possible to stop or catch them all, or even a fraction of them. 

And since you continue to assert that the US is being "extremely generous" please explain your reasoning?  Because literally no one who understands refugees would agree with you, I assure you!

napacat posted:

G-man, I was not nailing bman just clarifying... not into tit for tat.  If we cannot agreee that the U.S. being extremely generous, then what’s the point. 

I

unfortunately you weren't stating facts when you said that.  We dont even crack the top 20 when you count foreign aid per GDP.  We can afford  to, but we don't.

I'll quote a pretty great speech.

"So those who traffic in absolutes when it comes to policy, whether it’s on the left or the right, they make democracy unworkable. You can’t expect to get 100 percent of what you want all the time; sometimes, you have to compromise. That doesn’t mean abandoning your principles, but instead it means holding on to those principles and then having the confidence that they’re going to stand up to a serious democratic debate. That’s how America’s Founders intended our system to work – that through the testing of ideas and the application of reason and proof it would be possible to arrive at a basis for common ground.

And I should add for this to work, we have to actually believe in an objective reality. This is another one of these things that I didn’t have to lecture about. You have to believe in facts. Without facts, there is no basis for cooperation."

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.  But it cannot survive treason from within.  For the traitor appears not a traitor - He speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation - he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city - he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.  A murderer is less to be feared."

-Cicero

If we took over the entirety of Mexico, and Central and South America and annexed them, then we wouldn't have a border for illegals to cross and get into our country.

I've seen this done in games of "Risk" so I am certain that we could do it in real life.

The potential for serious kompromat on trump by the KGB spymaster is looking even more likely than before his Helsinki capitulation.  Americans should demand:

  • Immediate release of his tax returns and financials.
  • Intelligence interviews with his "translator" in the one-on-one with Putin
  • Cessation of any further movement on approving his SC nomination, who would be in an untenable position to mitigate any actions against him.

We are in uncharted waters as a nation.  Never before have we been so at risk of serious damage to our republic.  Congresspersons on both sides of the aisle should take a deep breath and make the necessary moves to protect our country immediately.  History will judge all involved in protecting this abomination.

PH

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×