Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Who says that it is no crisis? It is a crisis. What it is not is a threat to our sovereignty or the purity of our precious bodily fluids.Remind me in the summer months during peak migration times that there's no crisis. Because this is just the beginning.
Yes. Their country is their responsibly and should they tire of the disaster that is prohibition they can change their laws just as we can.I suppose it is entirely their responsibility as well to deal with the social disruption caused by the drug trade.
And what would be our response if those countries legalized the supplying of drugs to the US?Yes. Their country is their responsibly and should they tire of the disaster that is prohibition they can change their laws just as we can.
There's no crisis unless impoverished migrants scare you.
Ringo
I don't know. To my knowledge they have not attempted it yet and it would be a bit difficult as none of the countries spewing the waves of asylum seekers share a boarder with us.And what would be our response if those countries legalized the supplying of drugs to the US?
But the drug lords who dominate and disrupt those counties are in the business of supplying drugs to the US none the less.I don't know. To my knowledge they have not attempted it yet and it would be a bit difficult as none of the countries spewing the waves of asylum seekers share a boarder with us.
Therefore they are not responsible for their own governance? Are we moving back to the white mans burden?But the drug lords who dominate and disrupt those counties are in the business of supplying drugs to the US none the less.
Yes. Their country is their responsibly and should they tire of the disaster that is prohibition they can change their laws just as we can.
Supporting the drug laws as they stand is supporting the drug cartels just as much as any currently using their product.I've always disagreed with you on this, but if it means putting the cartels and gangs out of business somehow... It might actually be worth it, in a big-picture kind of way.
We chose to create that particular mess with our prohibitionist nonsense.
It's not irrelevant. However, I don't see the point in discussing which option is more expensive.If the expense is in the end irrelevant, why did your bring up an option being cheaper in your easier post?
It is partially on the US (attracting labor, drugs and a history of military intervention....).The stability of central American countries is the responsibility of those countries, not us. They are running on the same hardware as the rest of us.
In this false dilemma, sure. In reality not so much. If we made illegal economic migration untenable, strictly enforcing the law so employers would no longer make use of illegal labor, and they have no motivation to come.
Rising homelessness and unemoloyment numbers bother me. Especially when we can't take care of our own poor.
...Do you realize how many people live below the poverty level in California alone? You should investigate what you're advocating more of.
OK, so let's provide some programs that provide housing for "our" homeless as well as helping migrants. Seems like we can do more than one thing at a time, if your concern for "taking care of our own poor" is genuine and not an excuse for keeping those people out of the country.
Ringo
Talk is cheap, which is why I encourage you to support programs to help the homeless instead of using them as an excuse for why we can't welcome migrants into this country. I don't necessarily think you're being disingenuous, but there are plenty of people who say "Buh buh buh what about our people?" and then suddenly demur when their bluff is called and someone says "OK, let's help military veterans, the homeless, the poor, the ill, etc".Talk is cheap though, and when we have 130,000 unemployed people living on the streets, in my state alone, it's easy to promise we'll come up with solutons, but in reality, that's going to be very hard to do, while it's very easy to just simply allow more people in.
I'd be more inclined to invite more in if I saw our poverty levels on the mend, with an actual sustainable plan... But we don't have that, and until we do, I don't see bringing in 130,000 foreigners every month from now until the unforeseeable future.
But those granted asylum are not here permanently.Talk is cheap though, and when we have 130,000 unemployed people living on the streets, in my state alone, it's easy to promise we'll come up with solutons, but in reality, that's going to be very hard to do, while it's very easy to just simply allow more people in.
How did you arrive at that figure?I'd be more inclined to invite more in if I saw our poverty levels on the mend, with an actual sustainable plan... But we don't have that, and until we do, I don't see bringing in 130,000 foreigners every month from now until the unforeseeable future.
How did you arrive at that figure?
On paper, in reality they are here indefinitely. The countries they left have been unstable for decades with no sign of a change of course on the horizon. Let's dispense with the charade that they will be short term residents.But those granted asylum are not here permanently.
Who are the unaccompanied minors coming across the border?
Teenage boys make up the largest group. HHS statistics show that 70 percent of unaccompanied minors are male, and that about 75 percent are ages 15 to 17. Teenagers making the journey are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and forced recruitment by gangs, smugglers and predators.
And for some historical perspective (.....numbers are not at 2018 /19 levels yet but soon will be if the current trend continues).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/11/unaccompanied-minors-immigrants-border/?arc404=true
View attachment 296237
It's not a charade. It is a technicality--people who are granted refugee status through having their asylum claim granted have to be here a year before they can even apply for a green card. The point being that even granting asylum--much less just allowing individuals to remain in the country while their asylum claims are being heard--does not automatically confer permanent resident status, not even de facto permanent resident status as conservatives claim.On paper, in reality they are here indefinitely. The countries they left have been unstable for decades with no sign of a change of course on the horizon. Let's dispense with the charade that they will be short term residents.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?