Biden & Harris cause Crisis at the US-Mexico Border

[Dukasaur]

Does anyone who doesn't think he's Isaiah have anything to say?

[jusplay4fun]

NOTE the quote about the Migrant Protection Protocols.

Everybody knows the right-wingers love their whimsically-named "Migrant Protection Protocols." You don't need to remind us.

The trouble is, the "Migrant Protection Protocols" are anything but that. It's a bit of doublespeak worthy of the KGB. Migrants sent to Mexico or other countries are stored in some of the most dangerous regions in the world, areas of Mexico so lawless that the State Department classes them as Level DO NOT TRAVEL areas. U.S. internment camps might not be the most pleasant places in the world, but they're a hell of a lot safer than being dumped on the street in Matamoros.

The "Migrant Protection Protocols" are a blatant violation of both the letter and spirit of international law. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which the U.S. is a signatory to and was one of the primary drivers of, clearly prohibits sending migrants to places where they need to fear for their lives. Violating this Convention is seen as yet another example of the U.S. violating international law just because it can.

From time immemorial, refugees fleeing from wars, pestilence, and tyranny have fled to other places, and civilized nations have granted them asylum.

What you call "bad management" by the Biden team, I would call "shouldering your responsibilities as a human being, even if they are inconvenient."

The principles of asylum are deeply embedded in Judaeo-Christian teachings, which you claim to profess. It rings out in Exodus 23:9 and Deuteronomy 10:19 and 27:19, and above all in Matthew 25.

And right wingers are the only ones who engage in "double speak"? I would say an even more egregious example is the "Social Infrastructure" Bill of some $3.5 Billion dollars being foisted by Congressional Democrats. It is basically more social welfare and the main reason the term infrastructure is attached is to try to make it more palatable to most American tax payers.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/bidens-new-bill-a-grab-bag-of-social-infrastructure

As far responsible care of refugees by the USA, the more care we provide, the more they keep coming. Do we open our borders to every person in the world fleeing poverty, violence, oppression, persecution, and other bad things in so many other nations? I say the answer is CLEARLY NO. The very fact that the "Kindler gentler" Biden Team is flying Haitian refugees back to Haiti points to the MAGNITUDE of this problem. We cannot allow IN and CARE FOR ALL these refugees. Maybe Canada should take them ALL. We can fly them there, to your province Duk. THEN you can provide the humane care that they so desperately need. NOTE that many Haitians fled to South America and then made a "mad rush" to the US Southern border to try to take advantage of the mismanagement by the Biden Administration of this crises, a crises that they (1) made worse by executive orders signed, some DAY ONE of the new Admin; (2) ignored; (3) that they put in the hands of that ineffective person known as VP Kamala Harris; and (4) are now forced to take action on due the SURGE of illegal immigrants who try to cross the border ILLEGALLY and are caught and stopped.

We have a process to help immigrants into this country legally. We also have a process to allow others to enter TEMPORARILY while their cases are being heard by US Courts. The second way has been abused so much that EVEN Biden has been forced to do something about this surge of ILLEGALS. I would argue the efforts by Biden and Harris have been, to date, largely too little and much too ineffective. I will not re-iterate my views here in this one post. Anyone who wants to learn more can read the earlier posts here and see how Duk and I disagree on some of these specific issues.

Biden's actions since day ONE of his Administration has been interpreted to encourage migration into the USA, mostly illegal. Whether that was the intent OR NOT, that has been the NET EFFECT. This is a CRISES caused by Biden and his denials do not negate the facts of the SURGE of ILLEGALS at the border NOW and since he took office in January. READ the reports and read the numbers for yourself. Most would be immigrants see Biden's actions as less hostile than those of Trump. Hence the surge to the border.

President Biden on his first day in office Wednesday proposed an immigration bill that features a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and makes Dreamers -- young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children -- immediately eligible for green cards.

He also signed a memorandum directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to take actions aimed at "preserving and fortifying" the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

A White House spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said at White House press conference that Biden sent his proposed immigration bill, the U.S. Citizenship Act, to Congress Wednesday. According to a fact sheet released Wednesday morning, it includes provisions related to undocumented immigrants and legalization, family-based and employment-based immigration, border security, immigration courts, and asylum seekers.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/01/21/biden-takes-action-immigration-day-one

If I were living in most of the Central American countries (as well as Caribbean nations, such as Haiti), I would want to immigrate to the USA. NO Doubt. I know someone from my Church who went there for ONE WEEK and her personal accounts to me reinforce what I already know from reading reports of the poverty, violence, lack of jobs, corruption, etc. that I have spoken about here in this thread. My local church sends money to Haiti. I have donated to feed the poor of these nations. My daughter saw the poverty FIRST hand while on vacation in that part of the world. IT IS SAD; it is terrible. NO DOUBT.

And the poor in the USA complain about the food we give them at our local Food Pantry. And they complain that their checks are too late or that the electronic system for EBT (i.e., Food Stamps, as understood by older folks in the USA) is not working today because too many are getting FREE FOOD today. TELL ME how SAD that is. AND NOW Child Care is to be an ENTITLEMENT? Really? That is the attempt of the so called "Social Infrastructure" bill. We have to pay to take care of the children others, in addition to free Lunches and now FREE breakfasts at FREE PUBLIC school. And do not forget their free back packs filled with free school supplies. I am not saying that they do not need that, but FREE FREE FREE is the new mantra of the poor. And do they appreciate their free gifts and charity donations and the generosity of fellow Americans? NO.

When students complained in my class one day about how bad their FREE LUNCHES were, I said that the LUNCH was not FREE. They argued it was, for them. I said my taxes paid for their "FREE" Lunches. That comment was followed by COGENT and DEFEANING SILENCE.

In 1969 a columnist in the “Boston Herald Traveler” of Massachusetts attributed the saying to the economist Milton Friedman: 25

Prof. Friedman once wrote that the one big truth in economics is that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

We read somewhere recently that three per cent or less of the American people have ever taken as much as one course in economics.

In 1975 Milton Friedman published the collection “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch: Essays on Public Policy” which printed the maxim on its back cover: 26

Professor Friedman’s famous aphorism, There’s no such thing as a free lunch, is a summary of his economic views, and is quoted endlessly by a growing band of Friedmanites.

This quote is one I posted about in another CC thread a while back. Some people need to be educated about basic economics.

Bastante para ahora.

[jusplay4fun]

Does anyone who doesn't think he's Isaiah have anything to say?

WoW..! That, Duk, is a very confusing question.

Let attempt an answer, of sorts, by the following:

Do I believe that HitRed is actually hearing God? No

Do I believe that HitRed is THINKS that he is hearing God? probably, in all likelihood

Do I believe that HitRed is actually reciting and recording God words as if it is a NEW BIBLE, new Scripture? DEFINITELY NO

Are there people who actually hear God's Word? Paul speaks of this in one of his Letters (as Spiritual Gifts). Is HitRed one of those so chosen? I will paraphrase with this: Extraordinary claims demand Extraordinary proof and Extraordinary evidence.

Can the words by HitRed be a new interpretation of the Holy Scripture? Perhaps SOME of those words, but it would take too much time for me to discern that. I will instead rely on reading and struggling with the ORIGINAL version of God's Holy Word. That is sufficiently challenging to me and for me.

Is it POSSIBLE that HitRed is actually hearing God's Voice? THAT is NOT clear to me.

14 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; [a]for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Tongues Must Be Interpreted
6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? 7 Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? 8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? 9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without [b]significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a [c]foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me. 12 Even so you, since you are [d]zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the [e]edification of the church that you seek to excel.

1 Corinthians 14:1-12
New King James Version

and

Christians believe that the charismata were foretold in the Book of Joel (2:28) and promised by Christ (Gospel of Mark 16:17–18). This promise was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost and elsewhere as the church spread. In order to correct abuses concerning the spiritual gifts at Corinth, Paul devoted much attention to spiritual gifts in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (chapters 12–14).[1]

In 1 Corinthians 12, two Greek terms are translated as "spiritual gifts". In verse 1, the word pneumatika ("spirituals" or "things of the Spirit") is used. In verse 4, charisma is used. This word is derived from the word charis, which means "grace". In verses 5 and 6, the words diakonia (translated "administrations", "ministries", or "service") and energemata ("operations" or "inworkings") are used in describing the nature of the spiritual gifts. In verse 7, the term "manifestation (phanerosis) of the Spirit" is used.[11]

From these scriptural passages, Christians understand the spiritual gifts to be enablements or capacities that are divinely bestowed upon individuals. Because they are freely given by God, these cannot be earned or merited.[12] Though worked through individuals, these are operations or manifestations of the Holy Spirit—not of the gifted person. They are to be used for the benefit of others, and in a sense they are granted to the church as a whole more than they are given to individuals. There is diversity in their distribution—an individual will not possess all of the gifts.[11] The purpose of the spiritual gifts is to edify (build up), exhort (encourage), and comfort the church.[13]

It is generally acknowledged[by whom?] that Paul did not list all of the gifts of the Spirit,[1] and many[quantify] believe that there are as many gifts as there are needs in the body of Christ.[14] The gifts have at times been organized into distinct categories based on their similarities and differences to other gifts. Some divide them into three categories using Old Testament offices. "Prophetic" gifts include any gift involving teaching, encouraging, or rebuking others. "Priestly" gifts include showing mercy and care for the needy or involve intercession before God. "Kingly" gifts are those involving church administration or government.[15] Others categorize them into "gifts of knowledge" (word of wisdom, word of knowledge, distinguishing between spirits), "gifts of speech" (tongues, interpretation, prophecy), and "gifts of power" (faith, healing, miracles).[16] The gifts have also been categorized as those that promote the inner growth of the church (apostle, prophecy, distinguishing between spirits, teaching, word of wisdom/knowledge, helps, and administration) and those that promote the church's outer development (faith, miracles, healing, tongues, interpretation of tongues).[1]

Proponents of cessationism distinguish between the "extraordinary", "miraculous", or "sign" gifts (such as prophecy, tongues, and healing) and the other gifts.[17] Cessationism is held by some Protestants, especially from the Calvinist tradition, who believe that miraculous gifts and their operations were limited to early Christianity and "ceased" afterward.[18]

Other Protestants, including Lutheran,[19] Methodist,[20] Pentecostals and charismatics, adhere to the continuationist position, believing that all the spiritual gifts are distributed among Christians by the Holy Spirit and that they are normative in contemporary Christendom. In addition, Roman Catholicism[21] and the Eastern Orthodox Church also continue to believe in and make use of all of the spiritual gifts.

A spiritual gift or charism (plural: charisms or charismata; in Greek singular: χάρισμα charisma, plural: χαρίσματα charismata) is a concept in extraordinary power given by the Holy Spirit.[2][3] These are believed by followers to be supernatural graces which individual Christians need (and which were needed in the days of the Apostles) to fulfill the mission of the Church.[4][5] In the narrowest sense, it is a theological term for the extraordinary graces given to individual Christians for the good of others and is distinguished from the graces given for personal sanctification, such as the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit and the fruit of the Holy Spirit.[1]

These abilities, often termed "charismatic gifts", are the word of knowledge, increased faith, the gifts of healing, the gift of miracles, prophecy, the discernment of spirits, diverse kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues. To these are added the gifts of apostles, prophets, teachers, helps (connected to service of the poor and sick), and governments (or leadership ability) which are connected with certain offices in the Church. These gifts are given by the Holy Spirit to individuals, but their purpose is to build up the entire Church.[1] They are described in the New Testament, primarily in 1 Corinthians 12,[6] Romans 12,[7] and Ephesians 4.[8] 1 Peter 4[9] also touches on the spiritual gifts.[2]

The gifts are related to both seemingly "natural" abilities and seemingly more "miraculous" abilities, empowered by the Holy Spirit.[5] The two major opposing theological positions on their nature is that they ceased long ago or that they continue (Cessationism versus Continuationism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_gift

[jusplay4fun]

Duk, I guess you return the favor. Your comments and question(s) cause me to spend TOO Much time thinking, writing, and looking for evidence to support my ideas and beliefs.

THANKS, Duk....!!

[jusplay4fun]

New Living Translation

If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

1 Corinthians 13:1

[riskllama]

wow, a quad post - nice!

[jusplay4fun]

wow, a quad post - nice!

wow, five words, one exclamation point, one dash, and one emoji from the Llama. Is that high praise?

I doubt that it is more than a joyless shrug from the king of "joyless, like a russian turnip"

[riskllama]

one has to wonder if all these people seeking refuge in the US would still be doing so if the US hadn't engaged in plundering the natural resources, enacting/enabling regime changes of democratically elected governments & all the other dodgy shit the CIA has done or attempted to do in Latin/S. America over the last century or so, give or take(but mostly take, by my reckoning). to me, it seems almost as if the US has created this problem entirely by themselves, for themselves. food for thought, i suppose...

[jusplay4fun]

The USA is not to BLAME for ALL the poverty and misery in those countries. THERE is way too much of ALL those things to blame the US for ALL of that. Llama the joyless offers simple theories for complex problems of poverty in an entire region. Quite frankly, the USA has other concerns, then and the past 200 years to cause THAT much exploitation.

Yes, I will acknowledge that the CIA and SOME US policies promoted poverty and/or economic exploitation. And yes, our fight against Communists under every rock prompted some bad actions. BUT how does one explain the vitality of Costa Rica?

In most of those poor countries, why do the ruling class and the upper class do what they do to keep the lower classes from getting any of the economic benefits of a vibrant economy?

Are you aware of the Football War? Is the USA to blame for that too, since our men's teams are BAD in that sport?

The Football War (Spanish: La guerra del fútbol; colloquial: Soccer War or the Hundred Hours' War also known as 100 Hour War) was a brief war fought between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969. Existing tensions between the two countries coincided with rioting during a 1970 FIFA World Cup qualifier.[1] The war began on 14 July 1969, when the Salvadoran military launched an attack against Honduras. The Organization of American States (OAS) negotiated a cease-fire on the night of 18 July (hence "100 Hour War"), which took full effect on 20 July. Salvadoran troops were withdrawn in early August.

And what about Haiti? Is it racism that keeps them poor and lead to killing of their President?

And Noriega had nothing to do with poverty and the drug trade in Panama?

And do you understand the origins of the MS-13 gangs?

And Mexican oil was only EXPLOITED by ONLY US Oil companies and corporations? There was NO GREED by Mexican officials and administrators of the Mexican company?

COMMODITIES NEWS
JULY 21, 20202:12 AMUPDATED A YEAR AGO
Trial of ex-Pemex boss threatens to lift lid on Mexico's 'cash box'

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The trial of a former boss of Petroleos Mexicanos threatens to expose years of alleged malpractice at the state oil company and provide a canvas for Mexico’s leftist president to depict rot at the heart of government that he has vowed to clean up.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-corruption-analysis/trial-of-ex-pemex-boss-threatens-to-lift-lid-on-mexicos-cash-box-idUSKCN24M0LQ

and the CIA has not been around for 100 years:

The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was created on September 18, 1947, when Harry S. Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 into law. A major impetus that has been cited over the years for the creation of the CIA was the unforeseen attack on Pearl Harbor,

Llama, again, you come up SHORT and joyless. Read more and you may better enjoy the benefits of living in Canada.

[riskllama]

i never said the CIA has been around for 100 years... - merely that the US has been doing more harm than good down south for 100 years.

[jusplay4fun]

one has to wonder if all these people seeking refuge in the US would still be doing so if the US hadn't engaged in plundering the natural resources, enacting/enabling regime changes of democratically elected governments & all the other dodgy shit the CIA has done or attempted to do in Latin/S. America over the last century or so, give or take(but mostly take, by my reckoning). to me, it seems almost as if the US has created this problem entirely by themselves, for themselves. food for thought, i suppose...

You said:
all the other dodgy shit the CIA has done or attempted to do in Latin/S. America over the last century or so,

Re: Biden causes Crisis at the US-Mexico Border
Postby riskllama on Sun Sep 19, 2021 6:37 pm

i never said the CIA has been around for 100 years... - merely that the US has been doing more harm than good down south for 100 years.

Now Llama PICKS up on ONE MINOR point of my refutation and wants to split hairs. Let me see, one century, last I checked, equals 100 years, right? So what did I miss, mr. joyless? What did I get WRONG? 1947 to 2021 is 74 years, about 3/4 of 100 years, so you rounded up by 26 years to get to 100?

I offered 8 specific refutations and that is YOUR ONLY RESPONSE? You quibble on ONE point, my last one #8, my postscript, actually. THAT is weak, Llama. As I already said, you come up short. Did you IGNORE the other 7 points of my refutation? That means, if I concede point #8 (which I do NOT), then you are 1 of 8 or 12.5% right, AT BEST. You come up short.

I reject the slop you offer up as "food for thought" that is based on wrong assumptions and misstatements.

[Dukasaur]

Do we open our borders to every person in the world fleeing poverty, violence, oppression, persecution, and other bad things in so many other nations?

That is exactly how the U.S. became a great nation, by taking in people from all over the world fleeing poverty, violence, oppression, persecution, and other bad things. Immigrants are the most highly motivated workers, extremely willing to work hard. Taking in desperate immigrants was the hidden source of America's growth from an insignificant collection of colonies to the world's biggest economic powerhouse.



Now, on to some other points.

We cannot allow IN and CARE FOR ALL these refugees. Maybe Canada should take them ALL. We can fly them there, to your province Duk.

I have very little influence over the government, but I do at every opportunity advocate for immigrants in general and refugees specifically. So yes, I would be very much in favour of Canada taking in more refugees than it currently does.

"ALL" is a very big number, and probably too much for any one country. The U.N. estimates that there are currently 40 million refugees awaiting resettlement in the world's various trouble spots. With Canada's current population of 37 million, taking in 40 million refugees would be more than 100% of current population and probably result in chaos. The U.S., with its current population of 331 million, probably could absorb 40 million new people without too much difficulty. I'm not suggesting it should, however.

I think the civilized countries of the world -- Europe, North America, Australia, East Asia other than China, and the smattering of Latin American countries with a good standard of living -- should work out a new protocol where all work together and all accept refugees through a common funnel and share them out according to population. My definition encompasses countries with an aggregate total of about 1.2 billion people. 40 million refugees, shared equally among 1.2 billion people, means an influx of about 3.3% of population which communities can easily absorb. (My proposal means that not only would they be shared proportionally among countries, but they would be shared proportionally among the states/provinces and districts/cities of those countries. Instead of ghettoizing people in a few areas, they would be broadly distributed and much more easily integrated into their local communities.)

But while we might be waiting a long, long time for an enlightened proposal like mine to be adopted, your situation right now is actually much better than that. The U.S. comprises more than a quarter of the 1.2 billion people with a decent standard of living, whereas it is facing less than a quarter of the 40 million refugees. So, if the U.S. immediately took all of them, it would still be less than the 3% of the population that my proposal gives you. I think the most pessimistic assessment is that there might be 3.5 million people per year attempting to enter the U.S., so that's slightly over 1% of the population, and could easily be absorbed even if you took them all. It's the sheerest paranoid hysteria to act as if increasing the population by 1.2% new arrivals would be some kind of disaster.

(And before you ask, yes, if my town of 82,000 people was enhanced by 1.2% or 964 new hardworking arrivals, I would be delighted.)

We have a process to help immigrants into this country legally. We also have a process to allow others to enter TEMPORARILY while their cases are being heard by US Courts.

Yes, and if you actually followed that process, we wouldn't have a disagreement.

It is the fact that the rules of decency are ignored, and refugees are sent back to die without having their claims fairly heard, that is problematic.

[riskllama]

mmm, perhaps i could have worded that a bit better, but you still fail to grasp the point i was making. ah well - is your problem, not mine.

[jusplay4fun]

More things NOT to blame on the USA in Latin/S. America

#9

The Costa Rican Civil War was the bloodiest event in 20th-century Costa Rican history. It lasted for 44 days (from 12 March to 24 April 1948), during which approximately 2,000 people are believed to have died. On 1 March 1948, the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica, dominated by pro-government representatives, voted to annul the results of the presidential elections of 8 February, alleging that the triumph of opposition candidate Otilio Ulate over the ruling party's Rafael Ángel Calderón Guardia had been achieved by fraud. This triggered an armed uprising led by José Figueres Ferrer, a businessman who had not participated in the elections, against the government of President Teodoro Picado.

After the war, Figueres ruled the country for eighteen months as head of a provisional government junta, which abolished the military and oversaw the election of a Constitutional Assembly in December. That Assembly adopted the new 1949 constitution, after which the junta was dissolved and power was handed over to Otilio Ulate as the new constitutional president. Costa Rica has not experienced any significant political violence since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rican_Civil_War#Background

Based on the peace and democracy enjoyed by the results of this war, I say that this is a win for the good guys. Americans applaud the good and stable government and economy of Costa Rica

#10
Politics in Central America, is in one word, MESSY.

Is the USA to blame exclusively for GREED by politicians of these Central American countries? NO. Consider these two examples:

(A) In October 2017, an El Salvador court ruled that former leftist President Mauricio Funes, in office since 2009 until 2014, and one of his sons, had illegally enriched themselves. Funes had sought asylum in Nicaragua in 2016.[66]

(B) in September 2018, former conservative President Antonio “Tony” Saca, in office since 2004 until 2009, was sentenced to 10 years in prison after he pleaded guilty to diverting more than US$300 million in state funds to his own businesses and third parties.[67]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador#Post-war_(1992%E2%80%93present)

#11 And consider this:

The Paraguayan War, also known as the War of the Triple Alliance,[a] was a South American war that lasted from 1864 to 1870. This war was fought between Paraguay and the Triple Alliance of Argentina, the Empire of Brazil, and Uruguay. It was the deadliest and bloodiest inter-state war in Latin American history.[4] Paraguay sustained large casualties; even the approximate numbers are disputed. Paraguay was forced to cede disputed territory to Argentina and Brazil. The war began in late 1864, as a result of a conflict between Paraguay and Brazil caused by the Uruguayan War. Argentina and Uruguay entered the war against Paraguay in 1865, and it then became known as the "War of the Triple Alliance".

After Paraguay was defeated in conventional warfare, it conducted a drawn-out guerrilla resistance – a strategy that resulted in the further destruction of the Paraguayan military and the civilian population. Much of the civilian population lost their lives due to battle, hunger, and disease. The guerrilla war lasted for 14 months until President Francisco Solano López was killed in action by Brazilian forces in the Battle of Cerro Corá on 1 March 1870. Argentine and Brazilian troops occupied Paraguay until 1876

.

Btw: there is a MAP in CC based on this war. War of the Triple Alliance

#12. I could provide more examples, but let’s see what response this post elicits.

In case you missed #1-8

#1 The USA is not to BLAME for ALL the poverty and misery in those countries. THERE is way too much of ALL those things to blame the US for ALL of that. Llama the joyless offers simple theories for complex problems of poverty in an entire region. Quite frankly, the USA has other concerns, then and the past 200 years to cause THAT much exploitation.

Yes, I will acknowledge that the CIA and SOME US policies promoted poverty and/or economic exploitation. And yes, our fight against Communists under every rock prompted some bad actions. BUT how does one explain the vitality of Costa Rica?

#2 In most of those poor countries, why do the ruling class and the upper class do what they do to keep the lower classes from getting any of the economic benefits of a vibrant economy?

I WILL ADD (in this most recent post) that this GREED is NOT limited to the Western Hemisphere.

#3 Are you aware of the Football War? Is the USA to blame for that too, since our men's teams are BAD in that sport?

The Football War (Spanish: La guerra del fútbol; colloquial: Soccer War or the Hundred Hours' War also known as 100 Hour War) was a brief war fought between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969. Existing tensions between the two countries coincided with rioting during a 1970 FIFA World Cup qualifier.[1] The war began on 14 July 1969, when the Salvadoran military launched an attack against Honduras. The Organization of American States (OAS) negotiated a cease-fire on the night of 18 July (hence "100 Hour War"), which took full effect on 20 July. Salvadoran troops were withdrawn in early August.

#4 And what about Haiti? Is it racism that keeps them poor and lead to killing of their President?

#5 And Noriega had nothing to do with poverty and the drug trade in Panama?

#6 And do you understand the origins of the MS-13 gangs?

#7 And Mexican oil was only EXPLOITED by ONLY US Oil companies and corporations? There was NO GREED by Mexican officials and administrators of the Mexican company?

COMMODITIES NEWS
JULY 21, 20202:12 AMUPDATED A YEAR AGO
Trial of ex-Pemex boss threatens to lift lid on Mexico's 'cash box'

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The trial of a former boss of Petroleos Mexicanos threatens to expose years of alleged malpractice at the state oil company and provide a canvas for Mexico’s leftist president to depict rot at the heart of government that he has vowed to clean up.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-corruption-analysis/trial-of-ex-pemex-boss-threatens-to-lift-lid-on-mexicos-cash-box-idUSKCN24M0LQ

#8 and the CIA has not been around for 100 years:

The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was created on September 18, 1947, when Harry S. Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 into law. A major impetus that has been cited over the years for the creation of the CIA was the unforeseen attack on Pearl Harbor,

[jusplay4fun]

I guess Llama believes the rants of Iran and Muslim extremists that the USA is the "great Satan" when in fact the USA stands for freedom and self-determination and democracy and voting that matters. Is the USA perfect? NO.

Is democracy perfect? NO, but it is MUCH better than dictatorships, rule by gangs, rule by tribes or strongmen, rule by families (e.g., Syria and North Korea), unelected men who grab power, military juntas, KINGS, and other TERRIBLE forms of government ALL over the world. Will democracy work in ALL nations? I think that what is going on in both Russia and Afghanistan show that democracy is not good for all nations at this time. The sad collapse of Lebanon in the past 40 years is an example of where democracy ends up failing as the political reality changes over time.

[riskllama]

yep, you're learning - Iran is another stellar example of a country that was doing just fine all by itself until a US backed coup fucked everything up. keep up the good work, jp...

[jusplay4fun]

mmm, perhaps i could have worded that a bit better, but you still fail to grasp the point i was making. ah well - is your problem, not mine.

It is not my problem that you cannot clearly articulate your point. If others do not understand your point, then you did not make your point well. Why do I need to
first decipher your misstatements? Then second, why do I need to try to craft a response?

And thirdly, you failed to respond to points # 1-7.

Fourthly; You are now 0-11 in this round.

Fifth, since you criticize the grammar of ConfSS:

Re: The USA Left led Military ,worst Defeat/blunder in 200 y
Postby riskllama on Fri Aug 27, 2021 11:41 pm

why not have him start with basic grammar like spelling, punctuation & sentence structure? aren't you supposed to be a teacher or something???

I see at least 3 grammar and/or punctuation mistakes that you made in that SHORT post alone (in both, actually). I can decipher ConfSS, but you try to be so coy that your point is lost among your shrugs and eye rolls.

And my sixth (and final point, for now): You still come up short, Llama. So you are the SHORT (my point #6), pointless (#7), and joyless (#8) one.

Let me be clear: Llama is the short, pointless, and joyless king of CC.

[jusplay4fun]

yep, you're learning - Iran is another stellar example of a country that was doing just fine all by itself until a US backed coup fucked everything up. keep up the good work, jp...

And again, you missed my point, Llama. 0-13. DISMISSED.

[riskllama]

and why would you assume i read any of your posts? most of then fall into the tl;dr category for my tastes. astute CC'ers would also notice when their pm's go unread - if you were to check your sent messages, you would see that i stopped reading yours long (perhaps years, not entirely sure) ago, and yet, you continue to send them. sometimes less is more, jp...

[jusplay4fun]

Llama is FULL of CRAP. And your grammar is bad, and so is your breath. You have taught me nothing. You are still joyless, pointless, and short. 0-15

if this is ALL that Llama has and he refutes NOTHING (of my 11 enumerated points), then he is indeed ineffective. 0-16

Enuff said

[riskllama]

yeah, i just checked : oldest one dates back to Sept. 26, 2019...

[jusplay4fun]

Do we open our borders to every person in the world fleeing poverty, violence, oppression, persecution, and other bad things in so many other nations?

That is exactly how the U.S. became a great nation, by taking in people from all over the world fleeing poverty, violence, oppression, persecution, and other bad things. Immigrants are the most highly motivated workers, extremely willing to work hard. Taking in desperate immigrants was the hidden source of America's growth from an insignificant collection of colonies to the world's biggest economic powerhouse.



Now, on to some other points.

We cannot allow IN and CARE FOR ALL these refugees. Maybe Canada should take them ALL. We can fly them there, to your province Duk.

I have very little influence over the government, but I do at every opportunity advocate for immigrants in general and refugees specifically. So yes, I would be very much in favour of Canada taking in more refugees than it currently does.

"ALL" is a very big number, and probably too much for any one country. The U.N. estimates that there are currently 40 million refugees awaiting resettlement in the world's various trouble spots. With Canada's current population of 37 million, taking in 40 million refugees would be more than 100% of current population and probably result in chaos. The U.S., with its current population of 331 million, probably could absorb 40 million new people without too much difficulty. I'm not suggesting it should, however.

I think the civilized countries of the world -- Europe, North America, Australia, East Asia other than China, and the smattering of Latin American countries with a good standard of living -- should work out a new protocol where all work together and all accept refugees through a common funnel and share them out according to population. My definition encompasses countries with an aggregate total of about 1.2 billion people. 40 million refugees, shared equally among 1.2 billion people, means an influx of about 3.3% of population which communities can easily absorb. (My proposal means that not only would they be shared proportionally among countries, but they would be shared proportionally among the states/provinces and districts/cities of those countries. Instead of ghettoizing people in a few areas, they would be broadly distributed and much more easily integrated into their local communities.)

But while we might be waiting a long, long time for an enlightened proposal like mine to be adopted, your situation right now is actually much better than that. The U.S. comprises more than a quarter of the 1.2 billion people with a decent standard of living, whereas it is facing less than a quarter of the 40 million refugees. So, if the U.S. immediately took all of them, it would still be less than the 3% of the population that my proposal gives you. I think the most pessimistic assessment is that there might be 3.5 million people per year attempting to enter the U.S., so that's slightly over 1% of the population, and could easily be absorbed even if you took them all. It's the sheerest paranoid hysteria to act as if increasing the population by 1.2% new arrivals would be some kind of disaster.

(And before you ask, yes, if my town of 82,000 people was enhanced by 1.2% or 964 new hardworking arrivals, I would be delighted.)

We have a process to help immigrants into this country legally. We also have a process to allow others to enter TEMPORARILY while their cases are being heard by US Courts.

Yes, and if you actually followed that process, we wouldn't have a disagreement.

It is the fact that the rules of decency are ignored, and refugees are sent back to die without having their claims fairly heard, that is problematic.

I think Duk does not consider the changes in society since the time of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty.

I think that Duk also forgets that NOT all who arrived at Ellis Island NY were admitted LEGALLY into the USA.

Despite the island’s reputation as an “Island of Tears” the vast majority of immigrants were treated courteously and respectfully, free to begin their new lives in America after only a few short hours on Ellis Island. Only two percent of the arriving immigrants were excluded from entry. The two main reasons for exclusion were a doctor diagnosing an immigrant with a contagious disease that could endanger the public health, or a legal inspector was concerned an immigrant would likely become a public charge or an illegal contract laborer.

https://www.statueofliberty.org/ellis-island/overview-history/

Also, regarding changes to society, I will post this from earlier:

Re: Crisis at the US-Mexico Border
Postby jusplay4fun on Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:19 am

first:
What many forget is the COST of these immigrants in terms of those factors: health care, schools, housing, food (Food Stamps or NOW called EBT). One hundred years ago and more, immigrants came (mostly) to Ellis Island and had to be LEGALLY allowed in. They had to pass the test for MOSTLY Health (as I understand it).

Once here, there was NO SOCIAL NET of welfare, housing, EBT, etc. Either the immigrant worked and survived or did not WITHOUT government help. The family, community, and churches helped. Also, America needed those with no special skills BECAUSE there were JOBS AVAILABLE for most of the immigrants. MOST of THOSE types of JOBS are NOT there NOW. PERIOD.

We cannot house and feed everyone from Mexico or Honduras or El Salvador. AND we have too many social needs of our OWN LEGAL citizens NOW. These FACTS are ignored by those who basically want OPEN borders and to "Abolish ICE"....totally ridiculous.

second:
Duk speaks of "
highly motivated cheap labour


Duk ignores the social costs in the USA (and I assume in Canada and other "developed" nations) of schools, health care, food, and housing, as well as unemployment PROVIDED by GOVERNMENT via higher taxes, if the liberal BOTHER TO FUND such services.

Yes, the workers (with low skills) may be motivated to work hard, but there are family members that will qualify for the services I have already mentioned. These are costs.

[mookiemcgee]

Open borders is a red herring argument. No one save maybe 5% of americans wants or supports open borders. No nationally elected officials (save maybe 5%) want or even mention open borders.

You talk of social costs, but again discount the fact that most illegal immigrants pay more into the system that they take out. It's AMERICANS who drain their own social welfare programs. Central Americans are risking starvation and heat stroke to sneak into america to get big fat juicy checks from the Gov't for 'staying home'? poppycock!!! they are among the most hard working groups living in america and contribute greatly to both the income tax system as well as the overall economy. Illegal immigrants don't qualify for programs you cite. You've made this attempt at the 'social cost' argument before but let's run down a list of 'social welfare programs' illegal immigrants are EXCLUDED from:

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) - States use TANF to fund monthly cash assistance payments to low-income families with children, as well as a wide range of services. Illegal residents are EXCLUDED
SNAP - AKA foodstamps - they are EXCLUDED
regular Medicaid -
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) - Their pay is generally docked for this tax, but they receive no benefits after retirement.
health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - That's pay FULL PRICE for healthcare, more than you or I likely do.
Section 8 - 'subsidized housing'
Unemployment insurance


Programs they CAN qualify for:
WIC - Special Supplemental Nutrition Program only for mothers with young children
'emergency medicaid'
Their children are entitled to attend public school for free
Some state run programs (case by case, state by state)

In spite of how often FOX news tries to scare you with this argument NO REASONABLE PEOPLE WANT OPEN BORDERS! Sure there are some crazy on the fringe that do, just like there are crazies who think the election was stolen and Mike Pence is a traitor... but they are the fringe! Hopefully you will reconsider your basic premise that poor immigrants who come here illegally to work, also rape america's social welfare programs. It is misguided.

[Dukasaur]

I think Duk does not consider the changes in society since the time of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty.

You think wrong.

I think that Duk also forgets that NOT all who arrived at Ellis Island NY were admitted LEGALLY into the USA.

You think wrong.

Despite the island’s reputation as an “Island of Tears” the vast majority of immigrants were treated courteously and respectfully, free to begin their new lives in America after only a few short hours on Ellis Island. Only two percent of the arriving immigrants were excluded from entry. The two main reasons for exclusion were a doctor diagnosing an immigrant with a contagious disease that could endanger the public health, or a legal inspector was concerned an immigrant would likely become a public charge or an illegal contract laborer.

Correct. They were required to be free of infectious disease, obvious signs of insanity, or signs of criminality. Those were very sensible rules. The modern rules are not sensible.

What many forget is the COST of these immigrants in terms of those factors: health care, schools, housing, food(Food Stamps or NOW called EBT).

Wrong. Everybody knows these costs. But everybody who has ever seriously crunched the numbers has found that immigrants contribute more to the community than what they get out of it.

Once here, there was NO SOCIAL NET of welfare, housing, EBT, etc. Either the immigrant worked and survived or did not WITHOUT government help. The family, community, and churches helped.

Partially right and partially wrong. The social net was roughly the same, but it was administered by churches and fraternal organizations instead of government. In the 19th century, most people paid a tithe to their church, and most of that tithe was spent on charitable activities. Many people, especially in large cities, also belonged to various fraternal organizations (the bulk of which, unfortunately, were at least partially criminal gangs.) All that's happened in the 20th century is that the charitable activities which used to be performed mostly by churches and fraternities are performed mostly by governments. But the relative size of the safety net, actually, has not changed much. The tithe traditionally paid to the church was one-tenth of income, and the part of your taxes that supports social program is, for most people, about one-tenth of their income. So neither the activity nor the cost of it has changed much; the only thing that has really changed has been the identity of who administers it.

In any case, it's a red herring. Immigrants only rely on the social net for as little time as possible; they are highly motivated to work and move into the workforce as quickly as possible. The people who tend to be "welfare lifers" and sponge off the system for years tend to be people who were born here and have the sense of entitlement that comes with it.

Duk speaks of "highly motivated cheap labour

Yes? What of it? Do you deny it?

Do you have any idea what it means to sell every single fucking thing you own so you can pay a smuggler to get your over the border, leave your home with nothing but the clothes on your back and the contents of your pockets, leave behind all your friends and relatives, walk 2000 miles in the blazing heat, face the prospect of little or no food, little water, the ground for a bed and a rock for a pillow, the chance of being robbed, raped, or murdered by various criminal gangs and corrupt cops along the way, the strong chance of ending up in a jail or a forced-labour camp, the strong chance of never seeing any of your family again, and walk to a place you don't know in search of a new life and a fresh hope? And you think someone motivated to do all that has an end goal of sitting in a motel room drawing welfare? Seriously?

Get your head out of Rush Limbaugh's ass and open your eyes. In any community, the most earnestly hard-working people you will find are the recent immigrants. The ones leaning up against a post are the ones who are born there.

[riskllama]

lol, duk wins this thread...