White Extinction Anxiety

[Ana the Ist]

Perhaps you meant another post?

Nope...first six lines of text.

Right... and as long as we don't have an environmental crisis which causes a steady decline in resources, that's all it will be.

Even if we do...that doesn't make any difference regarding the situation now.

I am letting it go... the climate change is real, but it is also irrelevant. People have been migrating to the US -- some illegally, which needs to be curtailed; most legally, which improves the US up to a point -- for hundreds of reasons. What's one more?

You've got that backwards...moat are coming here illegally, some legally.

As for climate change...why do you suddenly think it's irrelevant? It's the driving force in what's certain to be a massive increase of illegals.

It was supposed to make our treaties with them worth the paper they were printed on... and for a while, they were.

And?

And... that's how far the Constitution goes in the real world.

But what's your point?

Why is the foreign poor the only concern? Why are you so confident that "dead weight" and American are mutually exclusive?

Of course they aren't the only concern....they're merely the biggest immediate threat to the economic success and well being of the United States.

As for Americans, there's this weird concept called a "nation"....and in it people form "governments" to serve their collective interests, protect them, and enforce their rights and laws. It doesn't always work perfectly, but nothing ever does

I would deny it, but the argument gets results.

Lol do you feel like you're getting results? I'm guessing that since you're not flat out saying "but what if the government comes and locks up poor Americans in internment camps!"....you probably realize it's a bad argument. I'm guessing you think "what if the government comes and takes our guns!" is a bad argument against gun control now....so why make the same kind of argument you don't consider valid when your political opposition makes it? Doesn't that make you feel hypocritical?

Surely you think that science based facts and information should inform our policies and laws....not appeals to emotions like fear and racism?

I mean, right now, your argument has more in common with Pat Buchanan's than mine does.

Would we not have an immigration problem if the environment wasn't in crisis? Are you suggesting that the environment is the only impending problem?

I don't know...and of course not.

No, of course not -- you're smarter than that. Every economic argument you've provided is equally valid regardless of climate change. So what's the difference?

Immediacy.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nope...first six lines of text.

American way of life... check

Even if we do...that doesn't make any difference regarding the situation now.

So we do agree it's irrelevant. Fair enough.

You've got that backwards...moat are coming here illegally, some legally.

44 million legal immigrants living in the United States; an estimated 11.7 million illegals. Sounds like I've got that forwards.

As for climate change...why do you suddenly think it's irrelevant? It's the driving force in what's certain to be a massive increase of illegals.

Massive? We've got political migrants, religious migrants, economic migrants... the climate ones are going to leave them in the dust...

And?



But what's your point?

Wait for it...

Of course they aren't the only concern....they're merely the biggest immediate threat to the economic success and well being of the United States.

As for Americans, there's this weird concept called a "nation"....and in it people form "governments" to serve their collective interests, protect them, and enforce their rights and laws. It doesn't always work perfectly, but nothing ever does

And those governments are supposed to follow a thing called the "Constitution." They don't always do it, but nobody ever does.

Lol do you feel like you're getting results? I'm guessing that since you're not flat out saying "but what if the government comes and locks up poor Americans in internment camps!"....you probably realize it's a bad argument.

That would be a bad argument... camps are still a drain on resources; deportation is cheap.

The US is already working on a denaturalizaion task force, the first of it's kind since the McCarthy era. Normally, this wouldn't mean anything; our government should be looking for cheats and liars...

But I'm remembering Maslenjak v United States, where the administration tried to argue that absolutely any error, omission, or misrepresentation on ones naturalization papers, no matter how trivial, was grounds for denaturalization and deportation.

Now, the good news is that SCOTUS laughed the administration's argument right out of court... the bad news is, I don't trust this administration to abandon its agenda so easily.

I'm guessing you think "what if the government comes and takes our guns!" is a bad argument against gun control now....so why make the same kind of argument you don't consider valid when your political opposition makes it? Doesn't that make you feel hypocritical?

Hypocrisy in political arguments? Inconceivable!

Besides, I've just showed you what the powers that be have already tried... it's simply prudent to keep an eye open for when, not if, they try again

Surely you think that science based facts and information should inform our policies and laws....not appeals to emotions like fear and racism?

I would love to live in a world where what I thought mattered.

I mean, right now, your argument has more in common with Pat Buchanan's than mine does.

Pat Buchanan's arguments, with a fresh coat of paint and a "Trump" logo slapped on them, are very popular these days.

I don't know...and of course not.



Immediacy.

Are we in immediate danger from the environment?

 

[Ana the Ist]

American way of life... check

If that's how you want to put it.

So we do agree it's irrelevant. Fair enough.

No....we don't agree, nor do I see how you got that from my statement.

I said that even if the environmental crisis does worsen, it doesn't change the fact that we should prepare for it's consequences now.

44 million legal immigrants living in the United States; an estimated 11.7 million illegals. Sounds like I've got that forwards.

Your "legal immigrant" count includes all sorts of tourists, people here temporarily for work, and students here temporarily. We're talking about those who come to stay.

Massive? We've got political migrants, religious migrants, economic migrants... the climate ones are going to leave them in the dust...

....And how does that make climate change irrelevant? If anything, it makes it more relevant.

Wait for it...

Lol been waiting at least 10 pages now... anytime you're ready.

And those governments are supposed to follow a thing called the "Constitution." They don't always do it, but nobody ever does.

Yeah...I already mentioned it doesn't work perfectly.... that's life.

That would be a bad argument... camps are still a drain on resources; deportation is cheap.

The US is already working on a denaturalizaion task force, the first of it's kind since the McCarthy era. Normally, this wouldn't mean anything; our government should be looking for cheats and liars...

But I'm remembering Maslenjak v United States, where the administration tried to argue that absolutely any error, omission, or misrepresentation on ones naturalization papers, no matter how trivial, was grounds for denaturalization and deportation.

Now, the good news is that SCOTUS laughed the administration's argument right out of court... the bad news is, I don't trust this administration to abandon its agenda so easily.

Ok....and this won't affect me regardless since I was born here.

Hypocrisy in political arguments? Inconceivable!

Besides, I've just showed you what the powers that be have already tried... it's simply prudent to keep an eye open for when, not if, they try again

Thanks for the warning...but when it comes to watching out for people trying to deny or eliminate my righta, I actually look for people trying to deny or eliminate my rights.

Go to any college campus and you can find them. They're not fond of free speech and attack those who use it to express opinions they dislike. They're against gun rights...and use children as political mascots. They're in favor of segregation and call it "safe spaces" as if my mere presence makes them unsafe.

This administration is definitely not big on protecting freedoms and rights....but the current generation of young voters are Stalin by comparison.

I would love to live in a world where what I thought mattered.

It does if you vote....one of the great things about western civilization.

Pat Buchanan's arguments, with a fresh coat of paint and a "Trump" logo slapped on them, are very popular these days.

With whom?

Are we in immediate danger from the environment?

We're in immediate danger of the effects it has on populations.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Your "legal immigrant" count includes all sorts of tourists, people here temporarily for work, and students here temporarily. We're talking about those who come to stay.

Fine, you give me a number...

....And how does that make climate change irrelevant? If anything, it makes it more relevant.

I do forget that sarcasm doesn't carry well in writing... my bad.

Yeah...I already mentioned it doesn't work perfectly.... that's life.

Agreed.

Ok....and this won't affect me regardless since I was born here.

Never said it would affect you personally... although technically, it will. Sure, you won't be one of the ones getting rousted out, but you still might have your part to play.

Just pointing out that our government has already taken the first step in a process you previously dismissed as baseless fearmongering.

Thanks for the warning...but when it comes to watching out for people trying to deny or eliminate my righta, I actually look for people trying to deny or eliminate my rights.

Yours personally, that is. Reasonable enough.

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I knew they would stop there... they always do.

Go to any college campus and you can find them. They're not fond of free speech and attack those who use it to express opinions they dislike. They're against gun rights...and use children as political mascots. They're in favor of segregation and call it "safe spaces" as if my mere presence makes them unsafe.

They decry speech they don't like as "unpatriotic," they label children on the opposing sides as "crisis actors," and they tell you exactly where you are and aren't allowed to exercise your free speech... oh, no... this isn't the place you should protest.

This administration is definitely not big on protecting freedoms and rights....but the current generation of young voters are Stalin by comparison.

But of course they are... they are the enemy, after all.

And in a generation, they'll be in charge.

It does if you vote....one of the great things about western civilization.

You're joking, right?

Ever hear of Boss Tweed? He had a couple of famous quotes... one of them allegedly being, "let 'em vote for whoever they like, as long as I make the nominations."

With whom?

With the administration and its supporters, of course... don't you recognize Buchanan's old 1992 campaign when you see it?

We're in immediate danger of the effects it has on populations.

Not really... the undesirables at the gates are still here for the more mundane reasons... economic, political, religious...mostly in that order. We've got decades before the climate really hits the fan insofar as immigration is concerned.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Fine, you give me a number...

I think the yearly average out of those 42 million are about 500k granted temporary legal status and 500k granted permanent legal status.

Never said it would affect you personally... although technically, it will. Sure, you won't be one of the ones getting rousted out, but you still might have your part to play.

Just pointing out that our government has already taken the first step in a process you previously dismissed as baseless fearmongering.

What "first step" is that exactly?

Yours personally, that is. Reasonable enough.

First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I knew they would stop there... they always do.

Who are they coming for atm?

"First they came for our pistols....but at least I still had my AR-15....which is a lot harder to take."

They decry speech they don't like as "unpatriotic,"

When they use violence to silence or intimidate political speech...I'll be as concerned about them as I am the left.

they label children on the opposing sides as "crisis actors,"

I don't think the children were "actors"....I think theybwere entirely sincere. The only thing is, they're children. I have trouble taking their reaction to a tragedy seriously as a reason to eliminate the second amendment.

and they tell you exactly where you are and aren't allowed to exercise your free speech... oh, no... this isn't the place you should protest.

You mean like....in the street?

But of course they are... they are the enemy, after all.

And in a generation, they'll be in charge.

I wouldn't call them enemies....ignorant, naive, and misguided for certain....but not enemies.

I think Lenin's term for them was "useful idiots" , but they're also young. Beliefs can change a lot in 5-10 years.

You're joking, right?

Ever hear of Boss Tweed? He had a couple of famous quotes... one of them allegedly being, "let 'em vote for whoever they like, as long as I make the nominations."

Well...a few more votes and we would have a completely different president. If we had a different president...there would be some different Supreme Court justices.

I suppose it doesn't really matter though, does it? (Hint-that was sarcasm)

With the administration and its supporters, of course... don't you recognize Buchanan's old 1992 campaign when you see it?

Buchanan ran a "be afraid of the government/wealthy" campaign back in 1992?

Not really... the undesirables at the gates are still here for the more mundane reasons... economic, political, religious...mostly in that order. We've got decades before the climate really hits the fan insofar as immigration is concerned.

Decades which we'll need to get border security in order.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think the yearly average out of those 42 million are about 500k granted temporary legal status and 500k granted permanent legal status.

You think or you have stats?

When they use violence to silence or intimidate political speech...I'll be as concerned about them as I am the left.

""Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise." -- POTUS

I don't think the children were "actors"....I think theybwere entirely sincere.

If only everyone thought as you do. (They don't, btw)

The only thing is, they're children. I have trouble taking their reaction to a tragedy seriously as a reason to eliminate the second amendment.

A few of them might want to eliminate the 2ndA, and as unrealistic as that may be, it's understandable coming from kids who saw their friends and classmates blown away.

Surely some sort of compromise can be reached... hopefully less asinine than redesigning school buildings so that they have only one door?

You mean like....in the street?

Or in front of a camera... say, on the sidelines of a football game...

I wouldn't call them enemies....ignorant, naive, and misguided for certain....but not enemies.

I think Lenin's term for them was "useful idiots" , but they're also young. Beliefs can change a lot in 5-10 years.

Perhaps... we'll have to see how many more shootings they survive.

Well...a few more votes and we would have a completely different president. If we had a different president...there would be some different Supreme Court justices.

I suppose it doesn't really matter though, does it? (Hint-that was sarcasm)

Too bad, because you're right... it really doesnt matter.

Buchanan ran a "be afraid of the government/wealthy" campaign back in 1992?

You've never heard of Pat Buchanan, have you? That makes you useful...

Decades which we'll need to get border security in order.

True, that wall ain't going to build itself... unless the administration can con someone into paying for it, it ain't getting built at all.

Now, seeing as how you're serious about conserving our limited resources, consider the following... at most, 1/3 of the illegals in the us are getting in by sneaking across the border... and that number, along with the number of illegals entering period, has been dropping since 2008.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna730216

That means that if the wall is built (not looking like a sure bet), and if it were 100% effective (utterly laughable), it would, at the absolute best, stop 1/3 of illegals... at least until someone finds a way to get over, under, or through it.

(Castle walls were very effective... until the invention of gunpowder. Food for thought)

Now, a 1/3 drop in illegals would be great...I'd certainly be inpressed... but bear in mind that you would need Berlin Wall levels of security -- motion sensors, cameras, dogs, barbed wire, and 24/7 patrols of military personnel with "shoot-on-sight" orders -- to attain anywhere near that German level of efficiency... and they were covering a much smaller area.

How much are you willing to pay?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You think or you have stats?

I have stats, but I'm not posting them. You don't get to fail to back up your claim, ask me for the correct number, then question it once I provide it.

""Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise." -- POTUS

Talk. When you see Trump supporters or conservatives of any kind using intimidation and violence to shut down liberal speakers and assemblies....get back to me.

If only everyone thought as you do. (They don't, btw)

Tell me about it.

A few of them might want to eliminate the 2ndA, and as unrealistic as that may be, it's understandable coming from kids who saw their friends and classmates blown away.

Surely some sort of compromise can be reached... hopefully less asinine than redesigning school buildings so that they have only one door?

I'm sure there's a thread you can find to talk about that in.

Or in front of a camera... say, on the sidelines of a football game...

They made laws about protesting in front of cameras or on the sidelines of football games?

Perhaps... we'll have to see how many more shootings they survive.



Too bad, because you're right... it really doesnt matter.

I'm sure you think so.

You've never heard of Pat Buchanan, have you? That makes you useful...

Of course I've heard of him...just not intimately familiar with his 92' campaign.

True, that wall ain't going to build itself... unless the administration can con someone into paying for it, it ain't getting built at all.

Now, seeing as how you're serious about conserving our limited resources, consider the following... at most, 1/3 of the illegals in the us are getting in by sneaking across the border... and that number, along with the number of illegals entering period, has been dropping since 2008.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna730216

You think that's because of the miles of fence and vehicle barriers that have all but stopped them from driving over the border illegally?

That means that if the wall is built (not looking like a sure bet), and if it were 100% effective (utterly laughable), it would, at the absolute best, stop 1/3 of illegals... at least until someone finds a way to get over, under, or through it.

1/3rd? Where's that number from?

(Castle walls were very effective... until the invention of gunpowder. Food for thought)

Now, a 1/3 drop in illegals would be great...I'd certainly be inpressed... but bear in mind that you would need Berlin Wall levels of security -- motion sensors, cameras, dogs, barbed wire, and 24/7 patrols of military personnel with "shoot-on-sight" orders -- to attain anywhere near that German level of efficiency... and they were covering a much smaller area.

How much are you willing to pay?

It's still less than the cost of not building it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I have stats, but I'm not posting them. You don't get to fail to back up your claim, ask me for the correct number, then question it once I provide it.

You have no stats.

Talk. When you see Trump supporters or conservatives of any kind using intimidation and violence to shut down liberal speakers and assemblies....get back to me.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/15/politics/donald-trump-rally-lawsuit/index.html

Now, of course, you're going to shift the goalposts and say, "well, that was just one time... when you see a lot of suporters or conservatives..."

I'm sure there's a thread you can find to talk about that in.

I already found one. You wanted to bring up the Second Amendment, so here we are.

They made laws about protesting in front of cameras or on the sidelines of football games?

The NFL outlawed it at the request of the United States government.

Now, of course, you're going to get pedantic and claim, "well, that's not actually a law..."

I'm sure you think so.

It's never mattered before... why start now?

Of course I've heard of him...just not intimately familiar with his 92' campaign.

A shame -- our current administration is following his playbook, and of course, you're supporting his platform on border security.

As I recall, your only criticism of him was not thinking big enough -- Buchanan was only concerned about the White culture of the US... you're concerned about all of it.

You think that's because of the miles of fence and vehicle barriers that have all but stopped them from driving over the border illegally?

Nope... not one fence out there that they can't get over, under, or through in a matter of minutes...I think it's because in the past ten years, in spite of the Right's narrative about the dems wanting open borders, the Border patrol under Obama has cracked down... but you wouldn't know that if all you hear is the Narrative.

1/3rd? Where's that number from?

The Center for Migration Studies: http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-visa-overstays-border-wall/

This report speaks to another reason to question the necessity and value of a 2,000-mile wall: It does not reflect the reality of how the large majority of persons now become undocumented. It finds that two-thirds of those who arrived in 2014 did not illegally cross a border, but were admitted (after screening) on non-immigrant (temporary) visas, and then overstayed their period of admission or otherwise violated the terms of their visas. Moreover, this trend in increasing percentages of visa overstays will likely continue into the foreseeable future.

Best case scenario -- a very temporary drop of 33%... until the wall gets (easily) breached.

It's still less than the cost of not building it.

Thus sayeth the Narrative.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have no stats.

Yeah? What are you willing to bet on that?

If it's about a million....roughly half new temporary residents, the other half existing residents upgraded to permanent status....

Would you be willing to admit you've been wrong about everything?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/15/politics/donald-trump-rally-lawsuit/index.html

Now, of course, you're going to shift the goalposts and say, "well, that was just one time... when you see a lot of suporters or conservatives..."

Liberal speakers and assemblies. That's a Trump rally lol. No goalpost shifting needed....try reading the whole post next time.

I already found one. You wanted to bring up the Second Amendment, so here we are.

Did I? Feel free to go back and quote me there.

The NFL outlawed it at the request of the United States government.


Now, of course, you're going to get pedantic and claim, "well, that's not actually a law..."

Not only is it not a law....it was done to alleviate the loss of audience anthem protests had cost....not because of the US government.

It's never mattered before... why start now?

So you think any president would've been the same as Trump?

A shame -- our current administration is following his playbook, and of course, you're supporting his platform on border security.

Ok.

As I recall, your only criticism of him was not thinking big enough -- Buchanan was only concerned about the White culture of the US... you're concerned about all of it.

A blatant distortion and lie....feel free to quote where I said I was concerned about "white culture".

Nope... not one fence out there that they can't get over, under, or through in a matter of minutes...I think it's because in the past ten years, in spite of the Right's narrative about the dems wanting open borders, the Border patrol under Obama has cracked down... but you wouldn't know that if all you hear is the Narrative.

Really? Cuz its seems like even a modest fence has deterred hundreds of thousands in one area alone.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...wall-but-theres-a-hole-in-this-success-story/
So in spite of your narrative.....the people actually on the ground seem to understand its value.

The Center for Migration Studies: http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-visa-overstays-border-wall/

Best case scenario -- a very temporary drop of 33%... until the wall gets (easily) breached.

Anything more recent than 2014?

Thus sayeth the Narrative.

You realize you're referencing the same CIS who says the wall will pay for itself?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah? What are you willing to bet on that?

If it's about a million....roughly half new temporary residents, the other half existing residents upgraded to permanent status....

Would you be willing to admit you've been wrong about everything?

Only a million immigrants in the entire country, you say?

So... in a country of approximately 320 million people... we've got 1 million legal immigrants, about 12 million illegal immigrants, and everyone else is a natural born citizen? That sound right to you?

Did I? Feel free to go back and quote me there.

"The only thing is, they're children. I have trouble taking their reaction to a tragedy seriously as a reason to eliminate the second amendment."

Was that me or you who said that?

Not only is it not a law....it was done to alleviate the loss of audience anthem protests had cost....not because of the US government.

You're saying that the government had no involvement whatsoever? Not so much as a veiled threat?

I've discussed this in other threads, so there's little point in rehashing it here, but I'll ask: would the public reaction have been different if the government hadn't stepped in, rallied the people against the players, and threatened the NFL?

The answer, of course, is that we'll never know, because the government did all that.

So you think any president would've been the same as Trump?

What does the president have to do with it?

Schools get shot up, there's a great deal of thoughts, prayers, and hand wringing, and it gets quickly forgotten as soon as the next school gets shot up. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The only noticible difference is that Donald can't fake sympathy as well as a career politician.

A blatant distortion and lie....feel free to quote where I said I was concerned about "white culture".

Cool your jets, sirrah... I said Buchanan was concerned about white culture... you're concerned about US culture in general.

IIRC, Coulter is concerned as well -- she recently said that "in 20 years, Russia will be the only country that is recognizably European..."

Ask yourself how one recognizes a European.

Really? Cuz its seems like even a modest fence has deterred hundreds of thousands in one area alone.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...wall-but-theres-a-hole-in-this-success-story/
So in spite of your narrative.....the people actually on the ground seem to understand its value.

Fair enough... but while the wall keeps out the unskilled workers, the billions of dollars in narcotics gets through just fine... that's a far bigger problem in both the short and long term.

What we need is a solution to both problems, imo.

Anything more recent than 2014?

Research takes time.

You realize you're referencing the same CIS who says the wall will pay for itself?

Actually, no... the CIS and the CMS are two different groups.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Only a million immigrants in the entire country, you say?

So... in a country of approximately 320 million people... we've got 1 million legal immigrants, about 12 million illegal immigrants, and everyone else is a natural born citizen? That sound right to you?

We were discussing who comes in every year....now you're shifting goalposts.

"The only thing is, they're children. I have trouble taking their reaction to a tragedy seriously as a reason to eliminate the second amendment."

Was that me or you who said that?

"But...but....but what if the government comes to take away your rights! Internment camps and blah blah blah!"

Of course I'm paraphrasing....but we both know this started with you.

You're saying that the government had no involvement whatsoever? Not so much as a veiled threat?

Are we talking about something official? Or just a government figure voicing their opinion?

I'm sure you know the difference.

I've discussed this in other threads, so there's little point in rehashing it here, but I'll ask: would the public reaction have been different if the government hadn't stepped in, rallied the people against the players, and threatened the NFL?

The answer, of course, is that we'll never know, because the government did all that.

I remember reactions being pretty split from the start.

What does the president have to do with it?

Schools get shot up, there's a great deal of thoughts, prayers, and hand wringing, and it gets quickly forgotten as soon as the next school gets shot up. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The only noticible difference is that Donald can't fake sympathy as well as a career politician.

We're talking about if voting makes a difference...

Cool your jets, sirrah... I said Buchanan was concerned about white culture... you're concerned about US culture in general.

IIRC, Coulter is concerned as well -- she recently said that "in 20 years, Russia will be the only country that is recognizably European..."

Ask yourself how one recognizes a European.

Why?

Fair enough... but while the wall keeps out the unskilled workers, the billions of dollars in narcotics gets through just fine... that's a far bigger problem in both the short and long term.

What we need is a solution to both problems, imo.

Ok.

Research takes time.

Actually, no... the CIS and the CMS are two different groups.

My mistake....I didn't see a lot of research from CMS though. Try as I might....couldn't find anything on the cost of illegals.

The most ironic part of this conversation though? Mexico now considering a wall on their Southern border....to deal with the horde of central Americans migrating through their nation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We were discussing who comes in every year....now you're shifting goalposts.

No, I was talking totals the whole time... a simple misunderstanding.

Unless you think 12 million illegals come in every year..

"But...but....but what if the government comes to take away your rights! Internment camps and blah blah blah!"

Of course I'm paraphrasing....but we both know this started with you.

If you're not ready to admit that you brought up the Second Amendment, I can't help you.

Are we talking about something official? Or just a government figure voicing their opinion?

I'm sure you know the difference.

Do you the difference between an opinion and a threat? It's pretty nebulous...

Nice place you got here... be a shame if something happened to it...

I remember reactions being pretty split from the start.

I remember the government escalating it.

We're talking about if voting makes a difference...

Regarding school shootings? Or in general?

Why?

Point taken -- I doubt you'd disagree.

Ok.

Now, personally, I think the drugs are the far worse problem... even by your standards. Even an illegal is probably going to find some kind of work, and thus, in spite of their status, contribute something of value to the country.

I've yet to hear an argument that smuggled narcotics do anyone any good.

My mistake....I didn't see a lot of research from CMS though. Try as I might....couldn't find anything on the cost of illegals.

The most ironic part of this conversation though? Mexico now considering a wall on their Southern border....to deal with the horde of central Americans migrating through their nation.

That's a very interesting rumor you've heard... alas, I haven't seen anything to support it.

They seem to be doing well without a wall...

https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...eportation-force-near-its-own-southern-border

Rather than amassing troops on its border with Guatemala, Mexico stations migration agents, local and federal police, soldiers and marines to create a kind of containment zone in Chiapas state. With roving checkpoints and raids, Mexican migration agents have formed a formidable deportation force. Since the Southern Border Plan launched, Mexico has deported more than half a million Central Americans, including almost 82,000 last year, according to data from Mexico's Interior Department. Since 2015, Mexico has deported more Central Americans annually than U.S. authorities have, in some years more than twice as many.

Seems like Mexico already has a good thing going on its Southern border... if it ain't broke...

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I was talking totals the whole time... a simple misunderstanding.

Unless you think 12 million illegals come in every year..

Here's your exact words......

"People have been migrating to the US -- some illegally, which needs to be curtailed; most legally....."

Are we talking about people migrating? Or are you shifting goalposts?

People already here aren't migrating.

If you're not ready to admit that you brought up the Second Amendment, I can't help you.

Don't need your help...thanks.

Do you the difference between an opinion and a threat? It's pretty nebulous...

Not really.

I remember the government escalating it.

Don't really care.

Regarding school shootings? Or in general?

General.

Point taken -- I doubt you'd disagree.

Now, personally, I think the drugs are the far worse problem... even by your standards. Even an illegal is probably going to find some kind of work, and thus, in spite of their status, contribute something of value to the country.

I've yet to hear an argument that smuggled narcotics do anyone any good.

I don't see much in the way of solutions to that problem.

That's a very interesting rumor you've heard... alas, I haven't seen anything to support it.

They seem to be doing well without a wall...

https://www.npr.org/sections/parall...eportation-force-near-its-own-southern-border

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-wall-Central-America-illegal-immigrants.html

Granted....that's back in the heady days of 2016....but I suppose they couldn't keep up that talk and protest our wall at the same time.

Seems like Mexico already has a good thing going on its Southern border... if it ain't broke...

Of course, there's always Europe too...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/532572002

Methinks Mexico's decision is more about cost than effectiveness.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Here's your exact words......

"People have been migrating to the US -- some illegally, which needs to be curtailed; most legally....."

Are we talking about people migrating? Or are you shifting goalposts?

People already here aren't migrating.

People here got here somehow. Those who were not born here migrated... either legally or illegally.

Don't need your help...thanks.

Does thst mean that when faced with your own words, you agree that you brought up the Second Amendment?

General.

I suppose that depends on how corrupt you think our system has become.

Personally, I think it's pretty far down the rabbit hole...

I don't see much in the way of solutions to that problem.

I don't see much good in ignoring the problem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-wall-Central-America-illegal-immigrants.html

Granted....that's back in the heady days of 2016....but I suppose they couldn't keep up that talk and protest our wall at the same time.

Or... an op-ed piece by a single Mexican newspaper doesn't reflect the opinions of Mexico as a whole.

Of course, there's always Europe too...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/532572002

Methinks Mexico's decision is more about cost than effectiveness.

Methinks we should read the local leaders' opinion on their own border wall:

"We have a serious immigration issue. Europe is not prepared. It is important to protect our sovereignty. I accept that," said Molnar, 47, sitting in his office in Kubekhaza, a short distance from the point where the boundaries of Hungary, Romania and Serbia meet.

"It serves no purpose other than political theater. It should come down. I would urge Americans to examine whether Trump’s wall will really make them safer or better off," Molnar said.

Good advice.... don't you think?

 

[Ana the Ist]

People here got here somehow. Those who were not born here migrated... either legally or illegally.

Moving the goalposts then?

Does thst mean that when faced with your own words, you agree that you brought up the Second Amendment?

In response to the point you were making sure, not as a point of debate itself though.

I know it's hard, but do try to stay on topic.

I suppose that depends on how corrupt you think our system has become.

I don't think that's something that we can know for certain.

I don't see much good in ignoring the problem.

Ok.

Or... an op-ed piece by a single Mexican newspaper doesn't reflect the opinions of Mexico as a whole.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Methinks we should read the local leaders' opinion on their own border wall:

"We have a serious immigration issue. Europe is not prepared. It is important to protect our sovereignty. I accept that," said Molnar, 47, sitting in his office in Kubekhaza, a short distance from the point where the boundaries of Hungary, Romania and Serbia meet.

"It serves no purpose other than political theater. It should come down. I would urge Americans to examine whether Trump’s wall will really make them safer or better off," Molnar said.

Good advice.... don't you think?

Absolutely! One should also consider whether or not he would have the same opinion if he had access to the facts we do...

"Authorities claim Europe's anti-immigration barriers accomplish what they set out to do: Keep people away.

Hungary said the fences helped cut migrants on its borders by nearly 100% since 2015, along with a deal made by Turkey and the European Union to stem the flow of migrants reaching the continent."

Also...

"In the first three months of 2018, just 635 migrants were detected in the western Balkans — Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia — trying to reach European countries farther north, according to the International Organization for Migration, a United Nations-affiliated group.

Last year, 200,000 migrants landed in Europe, way down from the nearly 2 million in 2015, according to Frontex, the EU border agency."

I wonder how much of his opinion his "political theatre" put on display because of the changing demographics of his new neighbors.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Moving the goalposts then?

The goalposts were where they always were... let's call it a misunderstanding and move on.

[/quote]In response to the point you were making sure, not as a point of debate itself though.

I know it's hard, but do try to stay on topic.[/quote]

Only you are allowed to go off on tangents? How convenient.

I don't think that's something that we can know for certain.

All we can do is form opinions. I assume that's still allowed?

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Perspective helps a great deal.

Absolutely! One should also consider whether or not he would have the same opinion if he had access to the facts we do...

Any reason to assume he doesn't?

"Authorities claim Europe's anti-immigration barriers accomplish what they set out to do: Keep people away.

Hungary said the fences helped cut migrants on its borders by nearly 100% since 2015, along with a deal made by Turkey and the European Union to stem the flow of migrants reaching the continent."

Also...

"In the first three months of 2018, just 635 migrants were detected in the western Balkans — Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia — trying to reach European countries farther north, according to the International Organization for Migration, a United Nations-affiliated group.

Last year, 200,000 migrants landed in Europe, way down from the nearly 2 million in 2015, according to Frontex, the EU border agency."

And yet, the locals remain unimpressed

I wonder how much of his opinion his "political theatre" put on display because of the changing demographics of his new neighbors.

Leaders should be mindful of changing demographics... don't you think?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The goalposts were where they always were... let's call it a misunderstanding and move on

Ok.

All we can do is form opinions. I assume that's still allowed?

Sure.

Perspective helps a great deal.

Sometimes objectivity helps too.

Any reason to assume he doesn't?

His opinion.

And yet, the locals remain unimpressed

Based on what? One guy's quotes?

And here you were trying to minimize a newspaper article from Mexico.

Leaders should be mindful of changing demographics... don't you think?

It depends on whether or not those people are there legally....he has an obligation to his people...not outsiders.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Based on what? One guy's quotes?

More than one guy -- didn't you read the entirety of the article you posted?

Granted, it's only a few locals, but still, more than one.

It depends on whether or not those people are there legally....he has an obligation to his people...not outsiders.

And what, besides your opinion, makes you think he's not fulfilling his obligation?