Anti-abortion Legislation - Split Personality

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,309
-
✟678,702.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
118876402_10224749803519421_2534449605384269742_n.jpg


Is it a sign of split personality to support anti-abortion legislation, for example in Texas, and oppose immigration, for example at the Texas border?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: The Liturgist

spiritfilledjm

Well-known Member
Supporter
Apr 15, 2007
1,844
1,642
37
Indianapolis, Indiana
✟225,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
118876402_10224749803519421_2534449605384269742_n.jpg


Is it a sign of split personality to support anti-abortion legislation, for example in Texas, and oppose immigration, for example at the Texas border?

I support legal immigration, meaning they've done the paperwork and have been approved to enter the country, and those entering at a border crossing seeking refuge, which is how they may not have done the paperwork and comes to an actual border crossing asking for refuge. I do not support illegal immigration, which is when someone crosses into a country illegally outside of a border crossing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
118876402_10224749803519421_2534449605384269742_n.jpg


Is it a sign of split personality to support anti-abortion legislation, for example in Texas, and oppose immigration, for example at the Texas border?

Well, it depends on what one means by immigration. We should support lawful immigration, because this helps grow the country and is in keeping with the American tradition embodied in Ellis Island. On this point, I feel that the US government bureaucracy does a poor job managing lawful immigration, and that the process of legally immigrating to the US or any other country should chiefly depend upon a background check so as to prevent the migration of unreformed violent criminals and terrorists, as well as persons involved to a substantial degree in organized crime and the trafficking of humans, narcotics, and child abuse images. So in this respect, I think the US should be more welcoming, like Canada.

However, just as Canada strictly enforces its massive land border with the US, with a few exceptions (for example, there is a town in Alaska that is accessible only via the portion of the Alaskan Highway in Canada, that depends on Canada for fire, medical and, one would expect, emergency police services, pending the arrival of Alaska State Troopers), the US needs to enforce security on the southern border, and there is a humanitarian reason for coupling increased ease of legal immigration with increased enforcement of the border, and this is the extremely perilous nature of illegal border crossings. The “Coyotes” who smuggle people across the border have little to no regard for the safety of their clientele, and the risk of dehydration, hyperthermia, and exposure, during the harsh summers and winters of the desert lands along the border, prompt many would-be illegal immigrants to seek out and surrender to the Border Patrol. And sadly, many die, including children.

So, we are morally obliged to divert people away from illegal immigration and to legal migration. Also, as conditions in Mexico improve, Mexico may offer a superior destination for asylum seekers from totalitarian Latin American regimes like Venezuela than the US.

I myself would like to see a Common Travel Area and a Common Immigration Policy agreed between the US, Canada, Bermuda, St. Pierre and Michelon, and shortly thereafter, Mexico, with defined milestones national security, police effectiveness and the suppression of corruption that Mexico would have to meet, and all countries in the Common Travel Area would have to maintain. These Milestones could lay the groundwork for the possible admission of countries like the Dominican Republic, the Bahammas and British Virgin Islands, and create a template for additional common travel areas, for example, a future Central American CTA encompassing Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua, which could then in due course merge with the North American CTA. Belize, Panama and Costa Rica could potentially be admitted to one or the other. As economic equilibrium and government stability improved, the logical natural border would be the impassable swamplands which divide Panama from Colombia.

In the initial stages of North America, the initial abolition of checkpoints on the US-Canada border would mark a return to the status quo ante of the late 19th century, when this border was effectively unenforced. Later on, including Mexico, the land border would be pushed back to the much smaller borders with Mexico and Belize, which would be infinitely more manageable, and which ideally would be patrolled by a joint US-Canadian-Mexican service, with Canadians primarily responsible for Belize, Spanish-speaking agents from the US Border Patrol primarily responsible for Guatemala, and Mexico having equal responsibility for both, with all three countries providing 33% of the total force. The US Coast Guard and Canadian and Mexican equivalents would secure the maritime border.

Ideally, immigration policy could be shifted to an apolitical international administration, which would set immigration levels based on an agreed upon formula taking into account security of the member states from terrorism and organized crime, available unfilled jobs in each country, the unemployment rate, the food supply, the functional status of aviation, railroad and highway infrastructure, and the closely related issue of oil prices and production within the CTA, as well as the development of replacement systems, and housing costs, in order to create a capacity model for the CTA as a whole and its ability to accept immigrants, as well as the ability of each individual country or region to accept immigrants, so immigration could occur but with residency options restricted to areas with more need and capacity for population increase.

This might sound utopian, but I believe this system would improve the lives of everyone in North America, and end some of the many frustrations, for example, by enabling more trans-national competition, it could end the problem of high prices for consumer goods in Canada and high prices for healthcare and prescription drugs in the US.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Andrewn
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,459
8,967
Florida
✟321,866.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
118876402_10224749803519421_2534449605384269742_n.jpg


Is it a sign of split personality to support anti-abortion legislation, for example in Texas, and oppose immigration, for example at the Texas border?

No one is opposing immigration. Most immigrants enter the US through airports. But no one is protesting anything at any airports. No Governors are sending the national guard to any airports. No one is protesting or demonstration at immigration offices. People are opposing the wholesale disregard of our immigration laws.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Abaxvahl

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
874
748
Earth
✟33,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Is it a sign of split personality to support anti-abortion legislation, for example in Texas, and oppose immigration, for example at the Texas border?

No. It's two different things.
 
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,801
4,309
-
✟678,702.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I myself would like to see a Common Travel Area and a Common Immigration Policy agreed between the US, Canada, Bermuda, St. Pierre and Michelon, and shortly thereafter, Mexico, with defined milestones national security, police effectiveness and the suppression of corruption that Mexico would have to meet, and all countries in the Common Travel Area would have to maintain. These Milestones could lay the groundwork for the possible admission of countries like the Dominican Republic, the Bahammas and British Virgin Islands, and create a template for additional common travel areas, for example, a future Central American CTA encompassing Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua, which could then in due course merge with the North American CTA. Belize, Panama and Costa Rica could potentially be admitted to one or the other. As economic equilibrium and government stability improved, the logical natural border would be the impassable swamplands which divide Panama from Colombia.
This is a very well thought response. When NAFTA came into effect 27 years ago, my hope was that some of the Latin America's countries would gradually join with the hope of providing more economic and political stability in that are and reduce irregular migration. But this did not happen and we are seeing now the results of lack of development in that area.

In Europe, they're also having to deal with irregular migration from Africa and Asia.

We didn't do long-term planning in the past 27 years, and now we need to do crisis management.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0