Illegal Aliens, Bankrupt FEMA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ConfederateSS]

--------Yes , Duk people who go through the process of becoming an American citizen through proper channels...Are welcome, they don't drain Government resources....
---------- No country, not even Canada, who has the population of California, can absorb....20 million Illegal Aliens...That is why there is a set limit of people allowed in the country, on their way to U.S. citizenship....
--------- Didn't a bunch of Russians cross into the Ukraine... Illegally... Doesn't America send 100s of Billions of Dollars...To push the Illegal Russian Aliens out of the Ukraine...Or are you sticking with everyone should be allowed to go where ever they want... Breaking the laws of the country they are invading....WELL Duk.............Still feel the same.......The Russians just want a piece of Ukrainian pie!!!... Countries around the world have emptied their prisons.....The crime rate in Venezuela has dropped 71%....1st Canada wouldn't let 20 million Illegal Aliens into Canada all at once, Canada could never afford it....2nd Canada would check those coming in.... Canada would not allow the world released criminals into the country... Because Canada enforces It's borders...I believe the proper term is venting...China and the drug Cartels pour drugs through the Northern border through Canada, Illegal Aliens go through Canada into America....
----------There are some who go to Canada, pick tomatoes in Leamington, Ontario, Go to America during the winter, back to Leamington during crop season....They have proper paper work between the 2 countries, that's the difference... Although walking across open west land , is different than crossing check points like the Detroit River, other eastern water ways...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[Votanic]

Morally, it's crystal clear that people fleeing from tyranny have a right to ask for asylum. If your government has starved the legal system for decades, so that now it takes five years for a refugee to have their case heard, that's on your government. Apparently, bombing Belgrade takes priority over keeping the courts flowing smoothly. If cases were heard promptly, most of these refugees in the country would either be admitted and gainfully employed and paying taxes (assuming their case is valid) or they would be quickly deported (assuming their case is invalid.)

More self-serving morality, Duk'?

Self-serving? In what way do you believe this serves me?

You previously made allusions to your own immigration to Canada, but as I've already said:
1. Ancestral immigration is near-universal. Fully universal of ancient within-Africa immigration is included.
2. In any case, past occurrences do not create any justification or condemnation (either a priori or a posteriori). Immigration is only a situation, with nothing inherently virtuous about the act.
3. Regardless of motivation, your relatively recent immigration was presumably legal under the laws of the receiving country (Canada).
Therefore it doesn't really apply to the current situation anyway, and is not a valid comparison.

Perhaps, they have the right to ask, but not the right to insist or trespass.
Also, a country has a right to refuse admittance. That is why there are borders, visas, etc.

There are borders because those in power like to regulate those without power.

Until recently, borders existed only so those in power could claim the right to tax those inside a certain line.

Only in the last two or three centuries have things like passports and visas appeared, and then only in a few parts of the world. Only since WW II have they become common.

Until then, nobody was crazy enough to turn down the appearance of fresh, cheap labour on his shores. (With obvious exceptions for wars, plagues, and paranoid shoguns.)

People often romanticize the fact that they had immigrant ancestors (virtually everybody has), but then otherwise ignore the context and the complications.

Maybe, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to point to an actual person who "ignores the context and the complications."

Almost everyone (like me) who favours immigration is cognizant of thing like the fact that, while immigration is always good for the economy in the long run, it does create some problems, sometimes serious problems, in the short run.

Your response is largely obfuscation. There is good evidence that even as far back as the paleolithic, different tribal or family groups divided up land resources, ...or fought wars if an agreement could not be reached. The concept of trespass is doubtlessly far older than humanity. many animals have home-territories that they will defend.

They also ignore the fact that they also had native ancestors who often had to resist invaders.
Many of these natives who stayed in place were actually more valiant and deserving.
Instead of fleeing to another ocuntry when things got rough, they chose stay and fight in place for a better life.

Now who's "romanticizing"?

There's nothing valiant about the first person to arrive on a nice resource claiming it all for himself and denying a slice of the pie to those who come later. It's just greed and voracity.[/quote]
First come, first served is actually a widespread way of reducing conflict. Prior possession being a criterion that is often used as the way disputes are settled. Obviously abandonment and other issues add complexity to this (though not in this case), but the idea that everyone must share everything with whomever comes along later is ridiculous. That is unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as personal rights with regard to trespass, ...or theft, ...or rape, ...or slavery, ...or even ultimately murder.
If you can take it, take it. Is that right?

Imigration is in no way an inherent virtue, Duk ....it is merely a situation.
And those that immigrate illegally are showing right off the bat that they are criminals and scofflaws.

Lawbreakers, sometimes. Scofflaws, usually not. A scofflaw is a cynic who habitually breaks the law because enforcement is weak and he knows he can easily get away with it. Illegal immigrants almost never are. Most make good-faith efforts to enter legally, but find out just how ruthlessly the cards are stacked against them, and have to go ahead with some illegal Plan B, which in most cases is difficult and dangerous. Enforcement is not weak -- most are caught, many are detained under brutal conditions, and once released their troubles are not over. Most would be happy to make their case in a court of law, but don't get the opportunity.

So now you're giving a big dumb argument saying that the criminals should decide what is a law to follow and what is not. I just can't...

[Dukasaur]

Morally, it's crystal clear that people fleeing from tyranny have a right to ask for asylum. If your government has starved the legal system for decades, so that now it takes five years for a refugee to have their case heard, that's on your government. Apparently, bombing Belgrade takes priority over keeping the courts flowing smoothly. If cases were heard promptly, most of these refugees in the country would either be admitted and gainfully employed and paying taxes (assuming their case is valid) or they would be quickly deported (assuming their case is invalid.)

More self-serving morality, Duk'?

Self-serving? In what way do you believe this serves me?

You previously made allusions to your own immigration to Canada, but as I've already said:
1. Ancestral immigration is near-universal. Fully universal of ancient within-Africa immigration is included.
2. In any case, past occurrences do not create any justification or condemnation (either a priori or a posteriori). Immigration is only a situation, with nothing inherently virtuous about the act.
3. Regardless of motivation, your relatively recent immigration was presumably legal under the laws of the receiving country (Canada).
Therefore it doesn't really apply to the current situation anyway, and is not a valid comparison.

Exactly. Which is why I didn't bring it up. I came to Canada through legal channels, I've been a Canadian citizen since 1970, so there's absolutely zero chance that your country's immigration policies today would have any tangible effect on me.

So, back to my question: why do you think that my comments on your policies are "self-serving"? In what way can any of it serve me?

Perhaps, they have the right to ask, but not the right to insist or trespass.
Also, a country has a right to refuse admittance. That is why there are borders, visas, etc.

There are borders because those in power like to regulate those without power.

Until recently, borders existed only so those in power could claim the right to tax those inside a certain line.

Only in the last two or three centuries have things like passports and visas appeared, and then only in a few parts of the world. Only since WW II have they become common.

Until then, nobody was crazy enough to turn down the appearance of fresh, cheap labour on his shores. (With obvious exceptions for wars, plagues, and paranoid shoguns.)

People often romanticize the fact that they had immigrant ancestors (virtually everybody has), but then otherwise ignore the context and the complications.

Maybe, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to point to an actual person who "ignores the context and the complications."

Almost everyone (like me) who favours immigration is cognizant of thing like the fact that, while immigration is always good for the economy in the long run, it does create some problems, sometimes serious problems, in the short run.

Your response is largely obfuscation. There is good evidence that even as far back as the paleolithic, different tribal or family groups divided up land resources, ...or fought wars if an agreement could not be reached. The concept of trespass is doubtlessly far older than humanity. many animals have home-territories that they will defend.

They also ignore the fact that they also had native ancestors who often had to resist invaders.
Many of these natives who stayed in place were actually more valiant and deserving.
Instead of fleeing to another ocuntry when things got rough, they chose stay and fight in place for a better life.

Now who's "romanticizing"?

There's nothing valiant about the first person to arrive on a nice resource claiming it all for himself and denying a slice of the pie to those who come later. It's just greed and voracity.

First come, first served is actually a widespread way of reducing conflict. Prior possession being a criterion that is often used as the way disputes are settled. Obviously abandonment and other issues add complexity to this (though not in this case), but the idea that everyone must share everything with whomever comes along later is ridiculous. That is unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as personal rights with regard to trespass, ...or theft, ...or rape, ...or slavery, ...or even ultimately murder.
If you can take it, take it. Is that right?

Immigrants aren't "taking" anything.

They rent homes from landlords who willingly offer them for rent. They do work that employers need done. They buy food at the grocery store and pay the same prices you do.

There's no "taking" involved.

Imigration is in no way an inherent virtue, Duk ....it is merely a situation.
And those that immigrate illegally are showing right off the bat that they are criminals and scofflaws.

Lawbreakers, sometimes. Scofflaws, usually not. A scofflaw is a cynic who habitually breaks the law because enforcement is weak and he knows he can easily get away with it. Illegal immigrants almost never are. Most make good-faith efforts to enter legally, but find out just how ruthlessly the cards are stacked against them, and have to go ahead with some illegal Plan B, which in most cases is difficult and dangerous. Enforcement is not weak -- most are caught, many are detained under brutal conditions, and once released their troubles are not over. Most would be happy to make their case in a court of law, but don't get the opportunity.

So now you're giving a big dumb argument saying that the criminals should decide what is a law to follow and what is not. I just can't...

You're the one who's always arguing that words should be interpreted literally.

"Scofflaw" has a clear dictionary definition. It is someone who habitually breaks laws because he he knows that they are rarely enforced and he knows he can almost certainly get away with it with little risk to himself. These people are breaking laws, yes, but laws that are aggressively enforced and which one breaks only at immense risks to oneself. Follow your own advice and use words correctly. Call these people lawbreakers if you will, but don't smear them as "scofflaws". These are courageous people that risk pain, imprisonment, and often death, in order to make a better life for their descendants.

[Votanic]

Morally, it's crystal clear that people fleeing from tyranny have a right to ask for asylum. If your government has starved the legal system for decades, so that now it takes five years for a refugee to have their case heard, that's on your government. Apparently, bombing Belgrade takes priority over keeping the courts flowing smoothly. If cases were heard promptly, most of these refugees in the country would either be admitted and gainfully employed and paying taxes (assuming their case is valid) or they would be quickly deported (assuming their case is invalid.)

More self-serving morality, Duk'?

Self-serving? In what way do you believe this serves me?

You previously made allusions to your own immigration to Canada, but as I've already said:
1. Ancestral immigration is near-universal. Fully universal of ancient within-Africa immigration is included.
2. In any case, past occurrences do not create any justification or condemnation (either a priori or a posteriori). Immigration is only a situation, with nothing inherently virtuous about the act.
3. Regardless of motivation, your relatively recent immigration was presumably legal under the laws of the receiving country (Canada).
Therefore it doesn't really apply to the current situation anyway, and is not a valid comparison.

Exactly. Which is why I didn't bring it up. I came to Canada through legal channels, I've been a Canadian citizen since 1970, so there's absolutely zero chance that your country's immigration policies today would have any tangible effect on me.

So, back to my question: why do you think that my comments on your policies are "self-serving"? In what way can any of it serve me?

Perhaps, they have the right to ask, but not the right to insist or trespass.
Also, a country has a right to refuse admittance. That is why there are borders, visas, etc.

There are borders because those in power like to regulate those without power.

Until recently, borders existed only so those in power could claim the right to tax those inside a certain line.

Only in the last two or three centuries have things like passports and visas appeared, and then only in a few parts of the world. Only since WW II have they become common.

Until then, nobody was crazy enough to turn down the appearance of fresh, cheap labour on his shores. (With obvious exceptions for wars, plagues, and paranoid shoguns.)

People often romanticize the fact that they had immigrant ancestors (virtually everybody has), but then otherwise ignore the context and the complications.

Maybe, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to point to an actual person who "ignores the context and the complications."

Almost everyone (like me) who favours immigration is cognizant of thing like the fact that, while immigration is always good for the economy in the long run, it does create some problems, sometimes serious problems, in the short run.

Your response is largely obfuscation. There is good evidence that even as far back as the paleolithic, different tribal or family groups divided up land resources, ...or fought wars if an agreement could not be reached. The concept of trespass is doubtlessly far older than humanity. many animals have home-territories that they will defend.

They also ignore the fact that they also had native ancestors who often had to resist invaders.
Many of these natives who stayed in place were actually more valiant and deserving.
Instead of fleeing to another ocuntry when things got rough, they chose stay and fight in place for a better life.

Now who's "romanticizing"?

There's nothing valiant about the first person to arrive on a nice resource claiming it all for himself and denying a slice of the pie to those who come later. It's just greed and voracity.

First come, first served is actually a widespread way of reducing conflict. Prior possession being a criterion that is often used as the way disputes are settled. Obviously abandonment and other issues add complexity to this (though not in this case), but the idea that everyone must share everything with whomever comes along later is ridiculous. That is unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as personal rights with regard to trespass, ...or theft, ...or rape, ...or slavery, ...or even ultimately murder.
If you can take it, take it. Is that right?

Immigrants aren't "taking" anything.

They rent homes from landlords who willingly offer them for rent. They do work that employers need done. They buy food at the grocery store and pay the same prices you do.

There's no "taking" involved.

Imigration is in no way an inherent virtue, Duk ....it is merely a situation.
And those that immigrate illegally are showing right off the bat that they are criminals and scofflaws.

Lawbreakers, sometimes. Scofflaws, usually not. A scofflaw is a cynic who habitually breaks the law because enforcement is weak and he knows he can easily get away with it. Illegal immigrants almost never are. Most make good-faith efforts to enter legally, but find out just how ruthlessly the cards are stacked against them, and have to go ahead with some illegal Plan B, which in most cases is difficult and dangerous. Enforcement is not weak -- most are caught, many are detained under brutal conditions, and once released their troubles are not over. Most would be happy to make their case in a court of law, but don't get the opportunity.

So now you're giving a big dumb argument saying that the criminals should decide what is a law to follow and what is not. I just can't...

You're the one who's always arguing that words should be interpreted literally.

"Scofflaw" has a clear dictionary definition. It is someone who habitually breaks laws because he he knows that they are rarely enforced and he knows he can almost certainly get away with it with little risk to himself. These people are breaking laws, yes, but laws that are aggressively enforced and which one breaks only at immense risks to oneself. Follow your own advice and use words correctly. Call these people lawbreakers if you will, but don't smear them as "scofflaws". These are courageous people that risk pain, imprisonment, and often death, in order to make a better life for their descendants.

All your replies are disingenuous.
• If there truly was agreement on there not being 'taking' or other deleterious results to citizenry, then immigration would not be an issue, would it?
• I am using scofflaw correctly, but you can substitute plain old 'criminal' if you prefer.
• Immigration Laws are not efficiently or sufficiently enforced (especially under Biden). If there were then there would be very few illegal aliens, and then only very briefly.
• You being 'self-serving' about it was never my main issue, so don't dwell on that, ...but it does kind-of apply because you are sort-of lefty-liberalish and seem to like stuff like illegal aliens.

[Pack Rat]

Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants.

[jusplay4fun]

[quote="Pack Rat"][b][i]Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants./quote]

It was a horrible immigration bill; it did not deserve to be passed. pee-rat merely repeats Kamala's weak and pathetic pre-planned response to HER FAILURE to immigration crises she and Old Joe CAUSED. Get original, at some point, pee-rat.

Mr. World Salad who barely comprehends the arguments is lecturing the rest of US? PITY, since none of pee-rat's points are valid. BUT WAIT, pee-rat will soon post a video to TRY to explain ALL this. RIGHT......

And when I caught pee-rat in a LIE, he cannot deny it, trying instead to deflect his mistake by throwing out insults. Those are tactics of a weak debater.

[pmac666]

[b][i]Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants./quote]

It was a horrible immigration bill; it did not deserve to be passed. pee-rat merely repeats Kamala's weak and pathetic pre-planned response to HER FAILURE to immigration crises she and Old Joe CAUSED. Get original, at some point, pee-rat.

Mr. World Salad who barely comprehends the arguments is lecturing the rest of US? PITY, since none of pee-rat's points are valid. BUT WAIT, pee-rat will soon post a video to TRY to explain ALL this. RIGHT......

And when I caught pee-rat in a LIE, he cannot deny it, trying instead to deflect his mistake by throwing out insults. Those are tactics of a weak debater.

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)
Or how about your election prediction?
Shouldnt be that hard for a sunday school teacher.

[Votanic]

[i]Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants./quote]

It was a horrible immigration bill; it did not deserve to be passed. pee-rat merely repeats Kamala's weak and pathetic pre-planned response to HER FAILURE to immigration crises she and Old Joe CAUSED. Get original, at some point, pee-rat.

Mr. World Salad who barely comprehends the arguments is lecturing the rest of US? PITY, since none of pee-rat's points are valid. BUT WAIT, pee-rat will soon post a video to TRY to explain ALL this. RIGHT......

And when I caught pee-rat in a LIE, he cannot deny it, trying instead to deflect his mistake by throwing out insults. Those are tactics of a weak debater.

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)
Or how about your election prediction?
Shouldnt be that hard for a sunday school teacher.

[b]@ Duk: You know how the old pmac666 used to post. So what do you think of this obvious recent switcheroo??

[pmac666]

Thats called evolution and getting better at something. I know, a foreign concept for you.
Its unlike devolution, thats what you and your orange hope going through.



But i take that one as compliment ofc.

[ConfederateSS]

----------THE PROOF IS FLOWING TO THE SURFACE...ON FEMA, WITH EVERY PASSING DAY ....
--------- Journalist Savanah Hernandez ----FIRST LOOK....
---------Posted on X(Twitter).... Inside furnished Maine (Brunswick) apartments where Illegal Aliens are getting up to 2 years free rent and utilities...
--------- These apartments are in the same county, which received $6.1 million in funding from the FEMA program that spent 1 billion on housing Illegal Aliens...

--------- On top of that FEMA is all about Equity...
---------- FEMA is The FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY....not The FEDERAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
---------- The top 3 on their website....1) EQUITY, 2) CLIMATE CHANGE, 3) PREPAREDNESS.... PREPAREDNESS SHOULD BE #1 ....
----------- The FEMA employees are actually crying, because their feelings are hurt.... BECAUSE PEOPLE OF HIT AREAS KEEP ASKING, WHERE'S THE HELP ....You could make hours of videos of people asking for help....Why FEMA calls them liers....
---------- Believe the people struggling on the ground in hit areas, over The Government....
---------- When $157 million have been sent to Lebanon, for displaced people....The Biden/Harris America last Administration...,... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[Votanic]

Floridians must be re-housed on a floating continent capable of riding upon the ever-wilder surf of our overheated oceans.
Such a continent could be bio-constructed using GM-bacteria and the millions of tons of microplastics already floating in seawater.
We can do this!

[Pack Rat]

[i]Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants./quote]

It was a horrible immigration bill; it did not deserve to be passed. pee-rat merely repeats Kamala's weak and pathetic pre-planned response to HER FAILURE to immigration crises she and Old Joe CAUSED. Get original, at some point, pee-rat.

Mr. World Salad who barely comprehends the arguments is lecturing the rest of US? PITY, since none of pee-rat's points are valid. BUT WAIT, pee-rat will soon post a video to TRY to explain ALL this. RIGHT......

And when I caught pee-rat in a LIE, he cannot deny it, trying instead to deflect his mistake by throwing out insults. Those are tactics of a weak debater.

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)
Or how about your election prediction?
Shouldnt be that hard for a sunday school teacher.

[b]@ Duk: You know how the old pmac666 used to post. So what do you think of this obvious recent switcheroo??

Just look at Votanic crying for moderation, what a hoot!

[pmac666]

[i]Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants./quote]

It was a horrible immigration bill; it did not deserve to be passed. pee-rat merely repeats Kamala's weak and pathetic pre-planned response to HER FAILURE to immigration crises she and Old Joe CAUSED. Get original, at some point, pee-rat.

Mr. World Salad who barely comprehends the arguments is lecturing the rest of US? PITY, since none of pee-rat's points are valid. BUT WAIT, pee-rat will soon post a video to TRY to explain ALL this. RIGHT......

And when I caught pee-rat in a LIE, he cannot deny it, trying instead to deflect his mistake by throwing out insults. Those are tactics of a weak debater.

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)
Or how about your election prediction?
Shouldnt be that hard for a sunday school teacher.

[b]@ Duk: You know how the old pmac666 used to post. So what do you think of this obvious recent switcheroo??

Just look at Votanic crying for moderation, what a hoot!

Vot wants to see the manager.

Saw that in chat too already.
They think im someone else now cause im improving my english atm quite fast by watching movies and series (with english subs) now in original. And i watch a lot movies and series....
But ofc it HAS to be a conspiracy, everything else would be boring.

But as said, i find it quite flattering.
And its indeed easier now to kick their fascist conspiracy asses. lol

[jusplay4fun]

Here is one feature that made the (failed) border bill bad:

A “Border Emergency Authority” Adding a New, Restrictive, and Opaque Process until Border Crossings Reach Very Low Levels
The “trigger” authority—called the “Border Emergency Authority”—would enable the administration to summarily deport migrants who enter between ports of entry without permitting them to apply for asylum.

The new emergency authority could be activated if border “encounters” reach a daily average of 4,000 over a period of seven days and would become mandatory once border encounters reach over 5,000 over a period of seven days or 8,500 over a single calendar day. However, there are several other rules governing the use of the emergency authority, rendering it much less straightforward than the simple mathematics of crossings (for example, the so-called “discretionary” authority at the 4,000/day level would in fact be mandatory for the first 90 days at that level after passage). In addition, the bill defines “encounters” to exclude apprehensions of unaccompanied migrant children.

The bill gives the federal government significant discretion over exactly when to implement this new emergency summary-deportation process and does not require it to be publicly announced. The upshot is this: on any given day, a would-be asylum seeker would have no idea whether they would be allowed to seek asylum in the U.S. or not. The government would be allowed to opt people out of summary removal for a variety of reasons, including operational constraints such as overcrowding. Non-Mexican unaccompanied children would also be exempted. Those set for summary removal could receive a screening for non-asylum humanitarian protection by affirmatively “manifesting” fear of persecution or torture to a border official—volunteering without prompting that they fear return or showing an obvious sign of fear.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/analysis-senate-border-bill

The Feds decide when to close the border, and as Old Joe and Kamala have done for over THREE YEARS already, they may DO NOTHING. Hence this is a BAD BILL and really does LITTLE to NOTHING, except spend more money.

[pmac666]

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)

Well, you tried Tweedle-maga.

[Pack Rat]

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)

Well, you tried Tweedle-maga.

They don't believe their lying eyes.

[Votanic]

Morally, it's crystal clear that people fleeing from tyranny have a right to ask for asylum. If your government has starved the legal system for decades, so that now it takes five years for a refugee to have their case heard, that's on your government. Apparently, bombing Belgrade takes priority over keeping the courts flowing smoothly. If cases were heard promptly, most of these refugees in the country would either be admitted and gainfully employed and paying taxes (assuming their case is valid) or they would be quickly deported (assuming their case is invalid.)

More self-serving morality, Duk'?

Self-serving? In what way do you believe this serves me?

You previously made allusions to your own immigration to Canada, but as I've already said:
1. Ancestral immigration is near-universal. Fully universal of ancient within-Africa immigration is included.
2. In any case, past occurrences do not create any justification or condemnation (either a priori or a posteriori). Immigration is only a situation, with nothing inherently virtuous about the act.
3. Regardless of motivation, your relatively recent immigration was presumably legal under the laws of the receiving country (Canada).
Therefore it doesn't really apply to the current situation anyway, and is not a valid comparison.

Exactly. Which is why I didn't bring it up. I came to Canada through legal channels, I've been a Canadian citizen since 1970, so there's absolutely zero chance that your country's immigration policies today would have any tangible effect on me.

So, back to my question: why do you think that my comments on your policies are "self-serving"? In what way can any of it serve me?

Perhaps, they have the right to ask, but not the right to insist or trespass.
Also, a country has a right to refuse admittance. That is why there are borders, visas, etc.

There are borders because those in power like to regulate those without power.

Until recently, borders existed only so those in power could claim the right to tax those inside a certain line.

Only in the last two or three centuries have things like passports and visas appeared, and then only in a few parts of the world. Only since WW II have they become common.

Until then, nobody was crazy enough to turn down the appearance of fresh, cheap labour on his shores. (With obvious exceptions for wars, plagues, and paranoid shoguns.)

People often romanticize the fact that they had immigrant ancestors (virtually everybody has), but then otherwise ignore the context and the complications.

Maybe, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to point to an actual person who "ignores the context and the complications."

Almost everyone (like me) who favours immigration is cognizant of thing like the fact that, while immigration is always good for the economy in the long run, it does create some problems, sometimes serious problems, in the short run.

Your response is largely obfuscation. There is good evidence that even as far back as the paleolithic, different tribal or family groups divided up land resources, ...or fought wars if an agreement could not be reached. The concept of trespass is doubtlessly far older than humanity. many animals have home-territories that they will defend.

They also ignore the fact that they also had native ancestors who often had to resist invaders.
Many of these natives who stayed in place were actually more valiant and deserving.
Instead of fleeing to another ocuntry when things got rough, they chose stay and fight in place for a better life.

Now who's "romanticizing"?

There's nothing valiant about the first person to arrive on a nice resource claiming it all for himself and denying a slice of the pie to those who come later. It's just greed and voracity.

First come, first served is actually a widespread way of reducing conflict. Prior possession being a criterion that is often used as the way disputes are settled. Obviously abandonment and other issues add complexity to this (though not in this case), but the idea that everyone must share everything with whomever comes along later is ridiculous. That is unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as personal rights with regard to trespass, ...or theft, ...or rape, ...or slavery, ...or even ultimately murder.
If you can take it, take it. Is that right?

Immigrants aren't "taking" anything.

They rent homes from landlords who willingly offer them for rent. They do work that employers need done. They buy food at the grocery store and pay the same prices you do.

There's no "taking" involved.

Imigration is in no way an inherent virtue, Duk ....it is merely a situation.
And those that immigrate illegally are showing right off the bat that they are criminals and scofflaws.

Lawbreakers, sometimes. Scofflaws, usually not. A scofflaw is a cynic who habitually breaks the law because enforcement is weak and he knows he can easily get away with it. Illegal immigrants almost never are. Most make good-faith efforts to enter legally, but find out just how ruthlessly the cards are stacked against them, and have to go ahead with some illegal Plan B, which in most cases is difficult and dangerous. Enforcement is not weak -- most are caught, many are detained under brutal conditions, and once released their troubles are not over. Most would be happy to make their case in a court of law, but don't get the opportunity.

So now you're giving a big dumb argument saying that the criminals should decide what is a law to follow and what is not. I just can't...

You're the one who's always arguing that words should be interpreted literally.

"Scofflaw" has a clear dictionary definition. It is someone who habitually breaks laws because he he knows that they are rarely enforced and he knows he can almost certainly get away with it with little risk to himself. These people are breaking laws, yes, but laws that are aggressively enforced and which one breaks only at immense risks to oneself. Follow your own advice and use words correctly. Call these people lawbreakers if you will, but don't smear them as "scofflaws". These are courageous people that risk pain, imprisonment, and often death, in order to make a better life for their descendants.

All your replies are disingenuous.
• If there truly was agreement on there not being 'taking' or other deleterious results to citizenry, then immigration would not be an issue, would it?
• I am using scofflaw correctly, but you can substitute plain old 'criminal' if you prefer.
• Immigration Laws are not efficiently or sufficiently enforced (especially under Biden). If there were then there would be very few illegal aliens, and then only very briefly.
• You being 'self-serving' about it was never my main issue, so don't dwell on that, ...but it does kind-of apply because you are sort-of lefty-liberalish and seem to like stuff like illegal aliens.

One other point about this. i personally don't believe your viewpoint is very self-serving at all.
You might think it is the height of radical-chic to promote open (non-)borders that allow any and all (il)legal scofflaw foreign migrants to come and go as they please, but do take care. The same extremist, wokeflakes that go for that garbage, also are likely to demand the defunding/criminalization/eradication of cops ...and mods (You are basically just a type of cop.). If you really are a self-serving rationalist that always promotes his own buttered side of the bread then you might want to think twice jumping into the political sack with the borderless, cop-modless, genderless, anarchist Radical Left.

[jusplay4fun]

[b][i]Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants./quote]

It was a horrible immigration bill; it did not deserve to be passed. pee-rat merely repeats Kamala's weak and pathetic pre-planned response to HER FAILURE to immigration crises she and Old Joe CAUSED. Get original, at some point, pee-rat.

Mr. World Salad who barely comprehends the arguments is lecturing the rest of US? PITY, since none of pee-rat's points are valid. BUT WAIT, pee-rat will soon post a video to TRY to explain ALL this. RIGHT......

And when I caught pee-rat in a LIE, he cannot deny it, trying instead to deflect his mistake by throwing out insults. Those are tactics of a weak debater.

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)
Or how about your election prediction?
Shouldnt be that hard for a sunday school teacher.

Pee Mac is confused. I offer original thoughts SUPPORTED by evidence, unlike pee rat who basically posts videos with NO thoughts, original or otherwise. If pee Mac were not a troll, he might have realized such things. But he tries to troll the weak-minded.

[pmac666]

Yeah and it works on you quite nicely.

[Pack Rat]

Yeah and it works on you quite nicely.

[jusplay4fun]

Yeah and it works on you quite nicely.

You are the weak-minded, pee-mac. And you so is your twin/follower/sycophant called pee-rat.

[Dukasaur]

I think we've beaten this to death, but I would like to respond to your last two points.

In reverse order:

If you really are a self-serving rationalist that always promotes his own buttered side of the bread then you might want to think twice jumping into the political sack with the borderless, cop-modless, genderless, anarchist Radical Left.

I don't think I'm entirely a "self-serving rationalist" but I definitely have never been associated with the Radical Left.

I don't quite fit into any political category very well, but if you absolutely had to stick me somewhere, I think most people would put me in with the moderate left.

You might think it is the height of radical-chic to promote open (non-)borders that allow any and all (il)legal scofflaw foreign migrants to come and go as they please,

I really don't think I care what is or isn't chic, lol.

You already know I object to migrants being smeared as scofflaws, but I won't bother rehashing all that.

What I object to even more in you statement is the oft-repeated lie that what is being promoted are "open" borders, where migrants "come and go as they please."

The statement I originally made, which you objected to, was that "people fleeing from tyranny have a right to ask for asylum."

This does not mean that they have a right to get asylum, only that they have a right to claim it and have their case heard. Obviously, not all claims are valid. Unfortunately, after 30 years of starving your immigration courts, they have developed a backlog of five years. You can't afford to house refugees for five years, so you release them to await their hearing. That's not their choice. Most would be happy to plead their case the same day, but having a trial date five years in the future leaves them in limbo.

But all right, say you got your house in order and ran the courts properly. Would you then be obligated to take any and all refugees from all the world's troubles?

I would say, not.

I'd like to bring in an analogy, if I may, from First Aid training.

One of the things you learn in First Aid is, that once you have the certificate, you have an obligation to help. But you are not obligated to go above and beyond your capabilities.

An even more important thing you learn in First Aid is, don't become one of the casualties. You don't go electrocuting yourself by grabbing a person who's on a live wire. You're no good to anyone if you're laying there dying beside him. You don't go rushing into a burning building to pull people out of the fire, unless you're a trained firefighter with all the proper equipment. You're not helping anyone if you're another piece of charcoal on the fire. Etc., etc.

So by analogy, while I think you do have a moral obligation to accept refugees, you aren't required to accept so many that you break the back of your own country. An intelligent immigration policy which regulates how many refugees can be accepted and triages which ones have the greatest need absolutely makes sense.

Also, and I have said this in this forum before, it needs to be a national policy. I actually do agree with Abbot and other southern governors bussing refugees north. Yes, it's a publicity stunt, but it's made necessary by the lack of proper federal government. The feds should be distributing the refugees evenly around the country, so that no community pays a disproportionate share of the costs of resettling them.

We have the perfect case study in Germany, which in 2015 was hit with a very serious overflow of migrants. They were apportioned to different German cities according to their available housing and job markets, and while some problems do remain, the vast majority have been successfully employed and integrated into German society. Also, those cities that welcomed the migrants with such thing as language training and help with job placement, have fared far better than those who stuck their head in the sand and left the migrants to fend for themselves.

Lack of resettlement policies and a chaotic border are not what I'm advocating. Compassionate but intelligent migrant management is quite possible.

[Votanic]

Lack of resettlement policies and a chaotic border are not what I'm advocating. Compassionate but intelligent migrant management is quite possible.

Many would argue tha tis exactly what strict INS enforcement does. ...but then all the hypocrites who claim that they don't want an open border, but in every way act like they do. ...and in many cases help smuggle and support invaders.
...and that the virtue-signallers must never ever call illegal scofflaws no matter how many immigration laws they actually do break!!!

Maybe everybody tells a lie sometimes, but only the Left gets so virtuously hypocritical about it.
Always demanding the sacred truth except for the zillion inconvenient exceptions that don't match up with their agenda!

P.S. @Max: I saw your comment before you deleted it, you skulking douchbag.

[Pack Rat]

Name one congressperson who wants open borders. You constantly (like a skipping record) tell the same lie.

MAGA lies are so common that even the mainstream media gets overwhelmed by them. But, your only quest is to derail threads and complain you are having your rights violated on a private site.

show