Poll of the Day > I didn't know America had children concentration camps

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migrant-children-separated-from-family-new-video-detention-facility-new-york-cayuga-centers/
---

Metal_Mario99 posted...

I never did anything racist to anybody.

But we all know you're a racist, ok?
---

A thread filled with sjws and snowflakes with victim mentalities.

Shocking, I know.
---

Evil is afoot.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

A thread filled with sjws and snowflakes with victim mentalities.

Shocking, I know.

Look, a Republican that literally wants to put Mexican children in internment camps.

Aren't you stunned!??

You would put Batman to shame the way you protect our country.
---

Yellow posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

A thread filled with sjws and snowflakes with victim mentalities.

Shocking, I know.

Look, a Republican that literally wants to put Mexican children in internment camps.

Aren't you stunned!??

You would put Batman to shame the way you protect our country.

Look, a liberal that wants to abolish borders and ignore the rule of law. I'm fucking shocked.
---

Metal_Mario99 posted...

Look, a liberal that wants to abolish borders and ignore the rule of law. I'm fucking shocked.

Fucking where? You're imagination? Is he a voice in your head?
---

Yellow posted...

Metal_Mario99 posted...

Look, a liberal that wants to abolish borders and ignore the rule of law. I'm fucking shocked.

Fucking where? You're imagination? Is he a voice in your head?

Same place where you asspulls come from.
---

They don't. This is nothing new. They entered the country illegally, giving a big FU to citizens and immigrants following the rules. Shame on parents from bringing kids into a situation that that know is wrong.
---

We don't. It's erroneously reported shock news that's about as accurate as claiming that America didn't land on the moon because Russia did so first. That is to say it's got a tiny nugget of truth from something completely unrelated misconstrued for shock value with no actual evidence to support it presented as fact to tug on emotional heartstrings to ignore all facts and logic about the situation in favor of a narrative.
---

Peterass posted...

They don't. This is nothing new. They entered the country illegally, giving a big FU to citizens and immigrants following the rules. Shame on parents from bringing kids into a situation that that know is wrong.

Yes, illegally crossing a border with their kids makes them such worse parents than staying put and getting murdered would.

What a maroon.
---

adjl posted...

Peterass posted...

They don't. This is nothing new. They entered the country illegally, giving a big FU to citizens and immigrants following the rules. Shame on parents from bringing kids into a situation that that know is wrong.

Yes, illegally crossing a border with their kids makes them such worse parents than staying put and getting murdered would.

What a maroon.

Taking their kids through a situation with an 80% rape risk is worse than staying put in a situation where you could get murdered but it hasn't happened to you for the life you grew up and had children in. Low risk of terrible situation is better than high risk of bad situation.
---

adjl posted...

ssj4supervegeta posted...

Yeah, it's weird to separate kids from abusive parents and people who are just trafficking them.

When there's evidence of abuse or trafficking? Sure. When it's done as a precautionary measure to every kid that crosses the border just in case they're being abused or trafficked? That's not remotely how a justice system should ever work.

You have proof this is happening to every child?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

Peterass posted...

They don't. This is nothing new. They entered the country illegally, giving a big FU to citizens and immigrants following the rules. Shame on parents from bringing kids into a situation that that know is wrong.

Yes, illegally crossing a border with their kids makes them such worse parents than staying put and getting murdered would.

What a maroon.

Taking their kids through a situation with an 80% rape risk is worse than staying put in a situation where you could get murdered but it hasn't happened to you for the life you grew up and had children in. Low risk of terrible situation is better than high risk of bad situation.

Because it's not like situations can ever change, right?

If you weren't murdered today, you'll obviously never be murdered. Totally accurate.
---

xOmniCloudx posted...

Metal_Mario99 posted...

xOmniCloudx posted...

We do but only if you're not seen as White. For most "minorities" your everyday life is essentially a concentration camp.

Bullshit.

Only in the minds of White men, especially the ones harboring guilt so deny it to cope with it. In actual reality for everybody else, real shit, every day.

The irony is that the far left are closer to white supremacists that any of the right because they actually believe that white people are superior and feel guilty about it. That's why they talk constantly about how white culture dominates and oppresses others and white privilege etc...

Yellow posted...

The children are sent to gay baby jail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3BemacwMl8" data-time="

The funny part is that in the video you posted it was proven that the child was never separated from her mother

darkknight109 posted...

Because it's not like situations can ever change, right?

If you weren't murdered today, you'll obviously never be murdered. Totally accurate.

If you weren't murdered in 7500 days then you could try to claim 7500/1 odds you'll be murdered tomorrow (unless you did something to bait getting killed which leads to another kettle of fish). If you try to cross the border tomorrow then statistics show you have a 4/5 chance of being raped.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Taking their kids through a situation with an 80% rape risk is worse than staying put in a situation where you could get murdered but it hasn't happened to you for the life you grew up and had children in.

For one thing, you're presuming the risk of getting murdered hasn't changed over the course of those parents lives, which is objectively false. For another, you're presuming the destination country can't do anything to improve that risk of being raped, which is also objectively false. So I guess you're just wrong in every way. Bummer.
---

adjl posted...

For one thing, you're presuming the risk of getting murdered hasn't changed over the course of those parents lives, which is objectively false.

If they've done something to make themselves a target of murder that they successfully avoided until now, they aren't people you want in your country.
---

adjl posted...

For another, you're presuming the destination country can't do anything to improve that risk of being raped, which is also objectively false.

They can build a wall to physically stop smugglers. Oh wait, that's what's happening!
---

It's called abortion clinic.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

adjl posted...

For one thing, you're presuming the risk of getting murdered hasn't changed over the course of those parents lives, which is objectively false.

If they've done something to make themselves a target of murder that they successfully avoided until now, they aren't people you want in your country.

In many cases, that something is "living in a town that has more murderers now than it did 20 years ago." In many other cases, that something is "not wanting their child to be a drug mule."

For somebody who doesn't see the problem with "letting all these muslims into the country is going to get us all jihadi-bombed!", you seem to have a strange amount of difficulty understanding that one's risk of getting murdered can be dependent on factors other than one's personal decisions to endanger themselves.
---

adjl posted...

In many cases, that something is "living in a town that has more murderers now than it did 20 years ago."

I doubt it rised a significant degree to close up on the danger they weren't subject to prior, and regardless that is a reason to fix your country not run.

adjl posted...

In many other cases, that something is "not wanting their child to be a drug mule."

The US doesn't want your child drug mules either.

adjl posted...

For somebody who doesn't see the problem with "letting all these muslims into the country is going to get us all jihadi-bombed!", you seem to have a strange amount of difficulty understanding that one's risk of getting murdered can be dependent on factors other than one's personal decisions to endanger themselves.

You have no sense of nuance. You are responsible for your problems. The US is morally responsible for criminals crossing the border and Mexico is morally responsible for being a hub of criminality.

You don't get to run from your problems and defer responsibility down the line.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I doubt it rised a significant degree to close up on the danger they weren't subject to prior

There are literally towns in Mexico that have been taken over by drug cartels within the past few years, who are quite happy to brutally murder people to scare the rest of the town into compliance. It has absolutely risen by a significant degree. Pay attention.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The US doesn't want your child drug mules either.

As in, the cartels running the town wanted to use the kid as a drug mule and the parents opted to run away instead of complying or saying no and being murdered for doing so. Not "my kid's dealing drugs I'd better move him to a better environment." My apologies, I didn't realize you were so ignorant of the situation in Mexico as to be unable to figure out what I meant. I hope this clarifies it for you.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You have no sense of nuance. You are responsible for your problems. The US is morally responsible for criminals crossing the border and Mexico is morally responsible for being a hub of criminality.

What power do you think ordinary citizens have to clean up Mexico's drug scene?
---

adjl posted...

There are literally towns in Mexico that have been taken over by drug cartels within the past few years, who are quite happy to brutally murder people to scare the rest of the town into compliance. It has absolutely risen by a significant degree. Pay attention.

Oh well my city has had a steep rise in acid attacks in the last few years, hold on while I immigrate to Japan to escape my city's problems.

adjl posted...

As in, the cartels running the town wanted to use the kid as a drug mule and the parents opted to run away instead of complying or saying no and being murdered for doing so. Not "my kid's dealing drugs I'd better move him to a better environment." My apologies, I didn't realize you were so ignorant of the situation in Mexico as to be unable to figure out what I meant. I hope this clarifies it for you.

Are you really so ignorant as to flirt with the issue but not see it? Both acts occur and we can't filter them apart if they don't go through the immigration process. Some Mexicans suffering at home is not justification to bring other people to the US who will make citizens suffer in their home.

adjl posted...

What power do you think ordinary citizens have to clean up Mexico's drug scene?

Ordinary people voted in Trump, ordinary people started the cartels, ordinary people became vigilantes to hunt down the cartels in Mexico.

The people of Mexico made Mexico a cartel, so the people of Mexico can make it something else.

If Mexico wants America's help then it can ask for that, but it can't give up and sneak in to safety.
---

adjl posted...

Furthermore, you kind of dodged the actual point of that passage. Shall I interpret that as you admitting that one's risk of being murdered depends on factors beyond one's own actions? Not that accepting empirical reality like that should really be worth remarking on, but you do seem to be having some trouble with the concept.

That is true but also not the US's responsibility.

They are still capable of reducing their risk by taking action as a group, but if this becomes too difficult then the world can reasonably recognise Mexico as a place people need to seek refuge from. If this occurs then Mexicans can cross and apply for refugee status legitimately.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Oh well my city has had a steep rise in acid attacks in the last few years, hold on while I immigrate to Japan to escape my city's problems.

I'd love to hear why you think that's comparable. With numbers. Good luck.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Are you really so ignorant as to flirt with the issue but not see it? Both acts occur and we can't filter them apart if they don't go through the immigration process. Some Mexicans suffering at home is not justification to bring other people to the US who will make citizens suffer in their home.

You're very much fixating on a different issue to avoid admitting that you said something stupid when you said that these people only have themselves to blame for increasing their risk of getting murdered.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Ordinary people voted in Trump, ordinary people started the cartels, ordinary people became vigilantes to hunt down the cartels in Mexico.

The people of Mexico made Mexico a cartel, so the people of Mexico can make it something else.

If Mexico wants America's help then it can ask for that, but it can't give up and sneak in to safety.

You seem to be conflating all of Mexico with the decisions of individual immigrants, and I'm not really sure why. It's really not unreasonable to say "I'm going to die if I stay here, I'm going to go somewhere where I'll have a better chance," even if that other chance also isn't that great. It's also not unreasonable for that destination country to take steps to ensure that those immigrants aren't going to be harmful. It is, however, unreasonable for the destination country to fabricate a migrant crisis by closing legal border crossings then commit flagrant human rights violations that they try to justify by citing said migrant crisis.
---

adjl posted...

I'd love to hear why you think that's comparable. With numbers. Good luck.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/acid-attack-violence-in-london-soars-by-more-than-78-per-cent-a3736516.html
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/01/22/americas/mexico-murders-2017/index.html

78% increase vs 23% increase, London is getting worse quicker so my concern in my country grows quicker than Mexico's. (Note: I am not claiming London is in a worse condition, only that the situation is worsening quicker).

adjl posted...

You're very much fixating on a different issue to avoid admitting that you said something stupid when you said that these people only have themselves to blame for increasing their risk of getting murdered.

Not at all. They still can't justify leaving because their shithole has gained a little more poop recently, they only get to leave when a crisis takes place and they can seek refuge.

While they are not to blame for the risk increasing (don't put words in my mouth), they are to blame for not lowering it.

adjl posted...

You seem to be conflating all of Mexico with the decisions of individual immigrants, and I'm not really sure why. It's really not unreasonable to say "I'm going to die if I stay here, I'm going to go somewhere where I'll have a better chance," even if that other chance also isn't that great.

It's not unreasonable, but by the same token it's not unreasonable to say "They may be at risk of dying if we don't let them in, but if we let them in we may actually endangering our own so we best not let them in.".

It's also not unreasonable for them to say "I'm probably going to die if I stay here, but I'm going to fight the cartel with my suffering neighbours to chase a better chance for my kids," even if that chance also isn't that great.

adjl posted...

It's also not unreasonable for that destination country to take steps to ensure that those immigrants aren't going to be harmful.

Oh so we agree.

adjl posted...

It is, however, unreasonable for the destination country to fabricate a migrant crisis by closing legal border crossings then commit flagrant human rights violations that they try to justify by citing said migrant crisis.

lol "fabricate" the drugs crossing to such a degree that users were wide spread enough to get their drug decriminalised.

Also, citations please. I'm sure people would entertain your point if you could prove the US blocked legal immigration.
---

Yellow posted...

Look, a Republican that literally wants to put Mexican children in internment camps.

Aren't you stunned!?? You would put Batman to shame the way you protect our country.

The welfare moochers can stay in their shit hole countries. Or they can go to Europe. They're doing a good job turning the countries over there into shit holes as well.
---

OhhhJa posted...

The irony is that the far left are closer to white supremacists that any of the right

Is that why actual white supremacists are running for office as Republicans?
---

Ohhhja commenting on race after all his shit is hilarious
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

OhhhJa posted...

The irony is that the far left are closer to white supremacists that any of the right

Is that why actual white supremacists are running for office as Republicans?

For note, your use of "actual" indicates your lack of understanding of what he meant.

If a white country says a non-white country can't help itself but it's the responsibility of ol' whitey to save their people and sort out their problems for them, it implies the white country sees itself as superior to the non-white country. This is a theme of the US left that suggests that the democrats doesn't see non-whites as equals but rather as savages impoverished by the nature of who they are.
---

You know, this always bothered me about the who 'illegal alien' thing.

Why?

Seriously; why? Why is this even an issue? Would the democrats be so willing to jump to the defense of a Canadian illegal? What about a German or Japanese? Why is it that a nation, for some reason, doesn't have a right to protect it's own borders? To send back those who try to enter the country illegally? Why have a border at all if it holds no actual power or meaning? If you had someone who moved from NY to Cali then didn't proceed to file the proper paperwork and broke the laws for things legal in NY but not in Cali and got arrested for it; you wouldn't give a ****; and they're actual American citizens in America! Yet someone who is literally not an American citizen living in America against the laws of an entire nation gets caught suddenly it's some massive crime against humanity to deport them? This isn't some game of tag with a safe zone. This is real, adult, life!
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

While they are not to blame for the risk increasing (don't put words in my mouth), they are to blame for not lowering it.

So I guess you're at fault for acid attacks in London being so high. Why aren't you and the other Londoners doing anything to lower it? What's wrong with you? Here you are complaining on the internet instead of fixing your country - you really don't have any right to complain about it, because it's obviously your fault to begin with, at least according to what you've just said.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Phantom_Nook posted...

OhhhJa posted...

The irony is that the far left are closer to white supremacists that any of the right

Is that why actual white supremacists are running for office as Republicans?

For note, your use of "actual" indicates your lack of understanding of what he meant.

If a white country says a non-white country can't help itself but it's the responsibility of ol' whitey to save their people and sort out their problems for them, it implies the white country sees itself as superior to the non-white country. This is a theme of the US left that suggests that the democrats doesn't see non-whites as equals but rather as savages impoverished by the nature of who they are.

Exactly. But when you force a leftist to look on the mirror and see their own incredible hypocrisy, they tend to start screaming labels like racist at you to attack your character to try and discredit you. It's textbook ad hominem

Unbridled9 posted...

You know, this always bothered me about the who 'illegal alien' thing.

Why?

Seriously; why? Why is this even an issue? Would the democrats be so willing to jump to the defense of a Canadian illegal? What about a German or Japanese? Why is it that a nation, for some reason, doesn't have a right to protect it's own borders? To send back those who try to enter the country illegally? Why have a border at all if it holds no actual power or meaning? If you had someone who moved from NY to Cali then didn't proceed to file the proper paperwork and broke the laws for things legal in NY but not in Cali and got arrested for it; you wouldn't give a ****; and they're actual American citizens in America! Yet someone who is literally not an American citizen living in America against the laws of an entire nation gets caught suddenly it's some massive crime against humanity to deport them? This isn't some game of tag with a safe zone. This is real, adult, life!

Because Canada, Germany, Japan, and other parts of the US, are first world nations with low crime, low corruption, and excellent economic prospects, three descriptors that don't apply to huge swathes of Central America.

And ditch the buzzwords about how the US "is not allowed" to protect its border. No one is suggesting that violent felons or gang members be allowed to stream unimpeded across the border and implying otherwise is completely counterproductive to the discussion, because anyone who doesn't already agree with you is going to immediately ignore anything else you have to say because you're peddling in gross exaggerations and falsehoods (it's the same as people on the left calling Trump a fascist dictator - whatever point you're trying to make is lost at that point, because you've displayed a willingness to exaggerate facts to the point where they are no longer grounded in reality).

Yes, the US has a right to protect its southern border. It also has a moral and legal responsibility to offer safe harbour to legitimate refugees, and to treat those who do not meet that description ethically and humanely. Tearing kids from their parents' arms and leaving them separated for months, with no concrete process to reunite them, is neither ethical nor humane.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Phantom_Nook posted...

OhhhJa posted...

The irony is that the far left are closer to white supremacists that any of the right

Is that why actual white supremacists are running for office as Republicans?

For note, your use of "actual" indicates your lack of understanding of what he meant.

I mean, here's a House of Representatives candidate who said that "God is racist and white supremacist" and that Jews are "descendants of Satan".
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article213937944.html

Here's another, running to replace Paul Ryan, who self identifies as "the pro-White Christian American candidate", has a long history of racist, islamophobic, and anti-Semitic comments (including the "Jews control the world media" schtick), and is so far off the deep end even Breitbart thinks he's crazy.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/12/17224086/paul-nehlen-alt-right-paul-ryan-race

And, of course, we have Arthur Jones, Illinois candidate, who his own party has decried as a Nazi
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/politics/arthur-jones-illinois.html

But sure, obviously it's the left that has the white supremacy problem.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Phantom_Nook posted...

OhhhJa posted...

The irony is that the far left are closer to white supremacists that any of the right

Is that why actual white supremacists are running for office as Republicans?

For note, your use of "actual" indicates your lack of understanding of what he meant.

I mean, here's a House of Representatives candidate who said that "God is racist and white supremacist" and that Jews are "descendants of Satan".
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article213937944.html

Here's another, running to replace Paul Ryan, who self identifies as "the pro-White Christian American candidate", has a long history of racist, islamophobic, and anti-Semitic comments (including the "Jews control the world media" schtick), and is so far off the deep end even Breitbart thinks he's crazy.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/12/17224086/paul-nehlen-alt-right-paul-ryan-race

And, of course, we have Arthur Jones, Illinois candidate, who his own party has decried as a Nazi
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/politics/arthur-jones-illinois.html

But sure, obviously it's the left that has the white supremacy problem.

I'm saying that the right has the self admitted white supremacists and yeah... I dont think anyone is saying that isn't bad. The left has the white supremacists with a guilt complex... and there are plenty more of those than there are actual white supremacists on the right. When these guys actually start getting a substantial amount of votes then it's time to worry but there's no chance in hell an actual self proclaimed white suprecamist will ever win an election in the U.S.

OhhhJa posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Phantom_Nook posted...

OhhhJa posted...

The irony is that the far left are closer to white supremacists that any of the right

Is that why actual white supremacists are running for office as Republicans?

For note, your use of "actual" indicates your lack of understanding of what he meant.

I mean, here's a House of Representatives candidate who said that "God is racist and white supremacist" and that Jews are "descendants of Satan".
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article213937944.html

Here's another, running to replace Paul Ryan, who self identifies as "the pro-White Christian American candidate", has a long history of racist, islamophobic, and anti-Semitic comments (including the "Jews control the world media" schtick), and is so far off the deep end even Breitbart thinks he's crazy.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/12/17224086/paul-nehlen-alt-right-paul-ryan-race

And, of course, we have Arthur Jones, Illinois candidate, who his own party has decried as a Nazi
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/politics/arthur-jones-illinois.html

But sure, obviously it's the left that has the white supremacy problem.

I'm saying that the right has the self admitted white supremacists and yeah... I dont think anyone is saying that isn't bad. The left has the white supremacists with a guilt complex... and there are plenty more of those than there are actual white supremacists on the right. When these guys actually start getting a substantial amount of votes then it's time to worry but there's no chance in hell an actual self proclaimed white suprecamist will ever win an election in the U.S.

acknowledging and being able to comprehend white privilege (which is not superiority of white people) is not racism. one of these things is not like the other

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/latest-news/article213937944.html
---

OhhhJa posted...

The left has the white supremacists with a guilt complex... and there are plenty more of those than there are actual white supremacists on the right.

I'm not sure you know what the term "white supremacist" means, if you think that it involves a guilt complex.

Sure, "White Guilt" is an actual thing, and yes, it's far more common on the left than the right, but it's very much a separate beast than "White Supremacy" and to confuse the two is to muddy the issues.

For what it's worth, I don't know of anyone who is upset about kids being separated from their parents because they have more melanin in their skin - they're upset because separating kids from parents is a really, really shitty thing to do, regardless of whether those kids and their parents are black, white, brown, or purple.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Because Canada, Germany, Japan, and other parts of the US, are first world nations with low crime, low corruption, and excellent economic prospects, three descriptors that don't apply to huge swathes of Central America.

So what? Because their country is a shithole it's suddenly A-okay to cross the border and everyone should be welcoming and all that stuff? Bullshit. If Mexico suddenly became prosperous you know damned well that this exact same debate would still be happening with a bunch of bleeding heart emotionalizers claiming we should take every illegal immigrant. Just because America is wealthy doesn't mean I should suddenly feel bad about kicking someone out who snuck in through the back door. They want in? They can legally immigrate like they're supposed to.

And ditch the buzzwords about how the US "is not allowed" to protect its border. No one is suggesting that violent felons or gang members be allowed to stream unimpeded across the border and implying otherwise is completely counterproductive to the discussion, because anyone who doesn't already agree with you is going to immediately ignore anything else you have to say because you're peddling in gross exaggerations and falsehoods (it's the same as people on the left calling Trump a fascist dictator - whatever point you're trying to make is lost at that point, because you've displayed a willingness to exaggerate facts to the point where they are no longer grounded in reality).

It ain't a buzzword. If some non-violent, non felonious, non-gangmember person walked right up to the border, not even trying to hide it, walked right up to the check point and proceeded to pat the guards on the back before walking right on in, would you approve? Would you claim that they should just be allowed to enter in? Come to their defense when people get upset and insist that they get returned?

Yes, the US has a right to protect its southern border. It also has a moral and legal responsibility to offer safe harbour to legitimate refugees, and to treat those who do not meet that description ethically and humanely. Tearing kids from their parents' arms and leaving them separated for months, with no concrete process to reunite them, is neither ethical nor humane.

No we don't. And, even if we DID, we have the ability to offer that harboring WITHOUT just allowing anyone to cross over unimpeded to live their life basically un-monitored and without someone screeching the moment we try to deport ACTUAL CRIMINALS who DO get caught! And that's ignoring the biggest thing.

These people aren't ****ing refugees! There are precisely 0 actual wars going on with Mexico ATM beyond the conflict with their own drug runners. These are people who tried to come to America to live a life of wealth and prosperity without having to do things like 'pay taxes' and 'become actual citizens'. When ACTUAL criminals get caught they get bleeding hearts rushing to defend them. When they get involved in violent affairs, things that would get people thrown in jail or worse, they might get caught and thrown in jail or *gasp* deported!

Face it. When it comes to 'why' the reason is 'because I feel guilty and want to look good'. Your job and livelihood isn't in jeopardy, you don't live anywhere near these people, you wouldn't even consider going to do charity work or anything to try and help these other nations or these people, all you want to do is sound like you're a damned champion of the people without doing jack shit and blame it on someone else when problems arise.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

So what? Because their country is a shithole it's suddenly A-okay to cross the border and everyone should be welcoming and all that stuff?

This is not what I said.

Unbridled9 posted...

If Mexico suddenly became prosperous you know damned well that this exact same debate would still be happening with a bunch of bleeding heart emotionalizers claiming we should take every illegal immigrant.

This is meaningless speculation.

Unbridled9 posted...

If some non-violent, non felonious, non-gangmember person walked right up to the border, not even trying to hide it, walked right up to the check point and proceeded to pat the guards on the back before walking right on in, would you approve?

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

Unbridled9 posted...

No we don't

Yes, you do. It is written directly into US law and international treaties to which the US is a signatory. You may not like it, but them's the breaks.

Unbridled9 posted...

These are people who tried to come to America to live a life of wealth and prosperity without having to do things like 'pay taxes' and 'become actual citizens'.

According to a study - which, I hasten to add, was commissioned by the Trump administration, aka a group whose antipathy towards immigration is well-known and oft-stated - illegal immigrants are net-contributors to the US tax system to the tune of some $65 billion dollars a year. This is mostly because they still have to pay things like income and sales tax, which goes towards various social security programs that they cannot use by dint of not being citizens. In other words, they pay into the system and get very little back out of it.

Of note, the Trump administration attempted to bury these findings when they first came out, because it was inconvenient to their message of how illegal immigrants are all free-loading drains on the system. Simple fact is, if every illegal immigrant were to voluntarily stand up and walk out of the country with not a single penny of taxpayer money facilitating that exodus, America would still lose a considerable amount of money on the deal.

Unbridled9 posted...

Face it. When it comes to 'why' the reason is 'because I feel guilty and want to look good'.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that people may legitimately believe that these people are being given a shit deal? That they don't deserve to have their kids ripped away from them because that's a tremendously shitty thing to do? Why do you automatically assume it's about image and self-centredness, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary?

Are you that much of a sociopath that basic human compassion is a completely alien concept to you?

Unbridled9 posted...

you wouldn't even consider going to do charity work or anything to try and help these other nations or these people

Absolute fucking horseshit I don't. Don't pretend you know how I spend my charity money or my time volunteering, because you plainly don't and are just making yourself look like an asshat.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Because Canada, Germany, Japan, and other parts of the US, are first world nations with low crime, low corruption, and excellent economic prospects, three descriptors that don't apply to huge swathes of Central America.

So what? Because their country is a shithole it's suddenly A-okay to cross the border and everyone should be welcoming and all that stuff? Bullshit. If Mexico suddenly became prosperous you know damned well that this exact same debate would still be happening with a bunch of bleeding heart emotionalizers claiming we should take every illegal immigrant. Just because America is wealthy doesn't mean I should suddenly feel bad about kicking someone out who snuck in through the back door. They want in? They can legally immigrate like they're supposed to.

And ditch the buzzwords about how the US "is not allowed" to protect its border. No one is suggesting that violent felons or gang members be allowed to stream unimpeded across the border and implying otherwise is completely counterproductive to the discussion, because anyone who doesn't already agree with you is going to immediately ignore anything else you have to say because you're peddling in gross exaggerations and falsehoods (it's the same as people on the left calling Trump a fascist dictator - whatever point you're trying to make is lost at that point, because you've displayed a willingness to exaggerate facts to the point where they are no longer grounded in reality).

It ain't a buzzword. If some non-violent, non felonious, non-gangmember person walked right up to the border, not even trying to hide it, walked right up to the check point and proceeded to pat the guards on the back before walking right on in, would you approve? Would you claim that they should just be allowed to enter in? Come to their defense when people get upset and insist that they get returned?

Yes, the US has a right to protect its southern border. It also has a moral and legal responsibility to offer safe harbour to legitimate refugees, and to treat those who do not meet that description ethically and humanely. Tearing kids from their parents' arms and leaving them separated for months, with no concrete process to reunite them, is neither ethical nor humane.

No we don't. And, even if we DID, we have the ability to offer that harboring WITHOUT just allowing anyone to cross over unimpeded to live their life basically un-monitored and without someone screeching the moment we try to deport ACTUAL CRIMINALS who DO get caught! And that's ignoring the biggest thing.

These people aren't ****ing refugees! There are precisely 0 actual wars going on with Mexico ATM beyond the conflict with their own drug runners. These are people who tried to come to America to live a life of wealth and prosperity without having to do things like 'pay taxes' and 'become actual citizens'. When ACTUAL criminals get caught they get bleeding hearts rushing to defend them. When they get involved in violent affairs, things that would get people thrown in jail or worse, they might get caught and thrown in jail or *gasp* deported!

Face it. When it comes to 'why' the reason is 'because I feel guilty and want to look good'. Your job and livelihood isn't in jeopardy, you don't live anywhere near these people, you wouldn't even consider going to do charity work or anything to try and help these other nations or these people, all you want to do is sound like you're a damned champion of the people without doing jack shit and blame it on someone else when problems arise.

You can't be serious.
---

This is not what I said.

Yes; it is. Exactly what you said. That places like Canada and Japan are places with low crime, low corruption, and high wealth while large swaths of Central America are not. They are places with high crime, high corruption, and low wealth. This is a heavy implication that this is why you'd be okay with a Mexican walking into America but would have issues with a Canadian or Japanese person. Or would you be a-okay with them entering too illegally?

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

Yes. It does. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. If someone from Mexico can walk up to the border and walk on by without being a U.S. citizen, not even having basic traveling papers (like passports), and will get greeted and defended by democrats who believe deporting them is wrong, we may as well not have a border since we're not defending it with even the most basic means.

Or do you think the government should turn them away? If so, what's the difference between fighting tooth and nail to keep someone who snuck across the border into America as some poor refugee who will be killed by crime lords and someone just up and walking across the border? Is it because the former had to sneak in? Do you only care about deporting them once they're actually here?

According to a study -

I'm not going to bother with the study, because that's not the point. We're having a bunch of people cross the border and come into our land because they want to live a life of comparative wealth and ease. Not because they have people who will hunt them down back home or because American soil somehow cures some rare disease that they and only they have.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that people may legitimately believe that these people are being given a shit deal?

I believe it. I just don't care. They want a better deal; go back to Mexico then immigrate legally.

That they don't deserve to have their kids ripped away from them because that's a tremendously shitty thing to do? Why do you automatically assume it's about image and self-centredness, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary?

Are you that much of a sociopath that basic human compassion is a completely alien concept to you?

My parents, when they were younger, went down to Mexico for several months to help out the poor. My dad even proposed to her soon after returning. They went around the world to multiple locations and did their best to help out the poor, the needy, and the ill. I live in a neighborhood that is so heavily hispanic that almost two thirds the local businesses that aren't big corps like Subway use Spanish as their default language. Our local community shelters, which I give quite a bit to, are full of hispanic people. My job has far more immigrants than Native-born Americans (I don't mean 'white people' either. The vast majority moved from places like India or Russia. Ironically our hispanic workers are the only ethnic group with NO immigrants).

And here's how I know this is about image and self-centeredness. Because people who actually care about this situation DO things about these situations. At work I'm regularly standing up for my co-workers and helping them when some racist ass gets uppity. If you actually cared about helping the poor down in Mexico you'd be doing your best to either help Mexico improve or help people immigrate legally or find some other avenue that doesn't involve breaking laws and borders.
---

Maybe you can sponsor a student so that Mexico can have new doctors and engineers. Maybe you can support groups that seek to offer aid internationally (remember; Mexico isn't the only place in the world with 'a shit deal'). After all, this is about things like human compassion, right?

Yet, instead of doing these things people sit down and talk only about one nation, the nation right to the south of America, ignore the many nations in the world with massive problems that are far worse than what Mexico has to offer or, at best, think it's only places like 'Africa' where the destitute are, turn a blind eye to even notions like 'make sure we aren't letting legit criminals cross the border', treat people whom have fears and concerns (legitimate or not) about such things like they're a-moral asses who are one bedsheet away from the KKK, act like the government is a wolf in a chicken-coup going around and ripping people from their homes and dragging them off in the middle of the night to detention camps on people who are otherwise basically Ghandi and Mother Therisa with little Buddha and Mary bawling their eyes out as they watch the government bludgeon their parents into submission, and then run out to act like they're some paragon of morality for standing up 'against horrible abuse and government tyranny' without even stopping to think about the basics.

When my mom went to Poland years ago her class was greeted by an armed guard who almost shot one of the students and detained two others on suspicion of spying for America. They had problems finding things like 'working toilets'. In places like China and North Korea people starve to death regularly while singing the praised of a government that only barely, if at all, hides their atrocities. There are places where 'school' is basically a shack with a hot tin roof and chalkboard. Places where child slavery and soldiers aren't just 'something that happens' but 'every day life'. Mexico may as well be Eden compared to a place like Mali.

You want to know how I can be such a 'sociopath'? Because I realized a long time ago that the only way to actually help these places, the only way to actually change anything, is to become the evil imperialist that so many people condemn. That the only way to actually make these places 'better' would be to either pack up and devote my entire life to making that tiny little corner of the world suck less or to engage in a total takeover and fix it and pray we actually get the job done as opposed to just half-assing it then pulling out the moment we get bored or it starts to hurt. You can't just run in, build a school, and call it a victory. You gotta commit. Yet we have so many people running around like their own little victory of not getting Jose, their gardener who they only learned the name of when the government started coming a-knocking... and it's actually 'Juan', deported is somehow some great moral victory.

We have our own little slice of the world, a slice we worked hard to create, to make better, and turn into basically the best place on Earth. I'm more than willing to share it, but you got to follow the rules if you do and we also have to work hard to make sure that it keeps being the best place on Earth and not breaking out in hysterics the moment something 'feels morally wrong' and ignoring arguments dependent entirely on emotional appeal. If you have two slices of cake and you see someone with none it's okay to want to share with them, but if you see someone swoop down and demand you share because otherwise 'you're a heartless monster', you're not really sharing then; are you? If I put up a fence around my house I'm not unwilling to invite you inside, but I also expect you to use the gate and to be able to tell someone to leave if they just hop over it for trespassing.
---

So you don't deny being a sociopath.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

If I put up a fence around my house I'm not unwilling to invite you inside, but I also expect you to use the gate and to be able to tell someone to leave if they just hop over it for trespassing.

Would you expect to be able to put their children in cages indefinitely with the possibility the family will forever be separated
---

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

While they are not to blame for the risk increasing (don't put words in my mouth), they are to blame for not lowering it.

So I guess you're at fault for acid attacks in London being so high. Why aren't you and the other Londoners doing anything to lower it? What's wrong with you? Here you are complaining on the internet instead of fixing your country - you really don't have any right to complain about it, because it's obviously your fault to begin with, at least according to what you've just said.

I absolutely am responsible for fixing this as a responsible citizen, note how I'm not running away to another country.

darkknight109 posted...

I'm not sure you know what the term "white supremacist" means, if you think that it involves a guilt complex.

Sure, "White Guilt" is an actual thing, and yes, it's far more common on the left than the right, but it's very much a separate beast than "White Supremacy" and to confuse the two is to muddy the issues.

To say white people are inherently better off is to say that white people are superior, particularly when citing an international stage where Mexicans would have Mexican privilege in Mexico.
---

ZackMorris posted...

So you don't deny being a sociopath.

I also don't deny have both a foot-long shlong and F-cup breasts.
---