Immigration is completely out of control (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SystemShock

    Uh yu ka t'ann
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    2,882
    Reaction score
    2,810
    Location
    Xibalba
    Offline
    A couple of days ago, one of the main US-MX border points of entry was blocked by 1000's of migrants demanding entry into the country, which caused chaos for those who lawfully cross the border on business, for work, or for delivery of goods, both ways.

    Lawful border crossings are getting progressively worse across the border, and drug cartels are finding it easier to move product, as the CBP has to transfer personnel and efforts to the processing of migrants.

    It's not different on MX's South border. Yesterday, ~5000 migrants stormed into Chiapas all the way to the INM building (INM is immigration) running over fences, barricades, and elements of the National Guard. They are now taking over an ecological park in Tapachula, Chiapas, which it's going to be severely affected, as it's been the case with just about everywhere migrants squat.

    Unfortunately, Juan Trump (that's Donald Trump's pet name for the President of México) was bamboozled by his "friend" Donald into making MX a "lobby" for migrants trying to reach the U.S.

    Many people would argue that migrants are "good for the economy", but that is not always the case. Billions of dollars leave the U.S. economy every year, because migrants send money from the U.S. to other countries to support families there. The biggest destinations are India and MX, to the tune of 100 billion dollars in 2023 alone, according to the Bank of México (kind of like the MX version of the Fed). These billions of dollars do not circulate in the U.S. economy.

    Speaking of inflation, the past year, the U.S. dollar has lost ~20% of its value against the MX peso. One of the main reasons for it, is the amount of money being sent to MX from the U.S. And MX is the U.S. 2nd largest trading partner.

    Gregg Abbott is a lot of things, but I don't blame him for his attempts at curbing the hordes of people demanding entry into the U.S., even the busing of migrants to other States, making some put their money where their mouth is, like the Mayor of NYC, who was so welcoming of migrants, until he he got a taste, then went crying to the federal government for more money, while the shelters were at full capacity; shelters which BTW serve the NYC poor as well.

    And please, no one mention a wall. There is a wall. A wall can be climbed; a wall can be dug under.; holes can be punched through walls.
     
    The Republicans pretend to be conservative and right, they are not they are fascist authoritarians.

    I don't care what a wikipedia entry says. Right/conservative and left/liberal are about specific principles and following those principles.

    Fascists authoritarians don't follow any principles are ideologies.

    That's neither left or right,

    This is, again, incorrect.

    Fascism is a far-right wing ideology, just as communism is a far-left ideology. Both are prone to authoritarianism.

    The political compass is 2 dimensions for a reason.
     
    This is, again, incorrect.
    We're disagreeing on definitions which means we aren't disagreeing on facts, just how things are or should be defined. Just wanted to be clear on that.


    Fascism is a far-right wing ideology, just as communism is a far-left ideology.
    Those are based on definitions that are not universally agreed to and I am one of those people who do not agree with it.

    Those definitions focus on the outer casing of the machine and not on the engine driving the machine. If you remove the casing from any authoritarian machine, you see it's the same engine driving all of them.

    In other words, if you put the same engine inside a Ford truck body and a Dodge truck body, on the surface they are different vehicles, but if you look under the hood to see what drives both of them, you see they are actually the same.

    Authoritarians wear facades, but those facades are all false.

    The political compass is 2 dimensions for a reason.
    The political compass is arbitrary and subjective. Not everyone agrees with defining and classifying politics in that way. I am one of those people. Scores of political scholars don't agree with that political classification either.

    Again, we are not disagreeing on facts, we are disagreeing on how to define the facts.
     
    as much as i am not a religeous person, i don't think thats true either.
    I went back to the quoted passages Dragon posted and that was from when Jesus was directly addressing his disciples in private. These passages were meant for them at the time. He was speaking in parables, and the context of that quoted passage was the parable of the 10 bridesmaids. It's definitely a hard teaching that many don't want to accept.
     
    So to me, Christ's teachings about how to treat people applied to everyone. The teachings of Christ are about how to treat all people, not just "those like us."
    I can't find the specific passage right now, but church traditions and rules apply to believers. We don't hold unbelievers to those rules. At least that's not our job as believers.

    That said, the basic tenets of Christ's teachings can certainly apply to everyone. The parables weren't a means of making rules, but rather a way to give illustrations to help his followers visualize what he intended to teach about daily living and most of those concepts can apply to anyone.
     
    Which is why our country is in the state it is in.

    People just can’t admit when they’re wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    Do you not understand the subjective nature of definitions?

    Do you not understand that not all political scholars and political scientists agree with the subjective definitions you agree with?

    Do you not understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion?

    Our country is in the state it is in for a lot of reasons. One of the big reasons is that too many people do not know what they think they know. Too many people can not tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion.

    Definitions and language are arbitrary and subjective. They are not objective facts. An objective fact exists without the presence of humans. Language and political philosophy as we believe it to be does not exist without us humans. It's something we make up which makes it entirely subjective and lacking any absolute, fixed truth.

    On this specific issue, neither one of us is wrong and neither one of us is right, because definitions and all language are a matter of opinion, not objective fact. Word referents have no inherent meaning. They only have the meaning we agree to give them. If I call a bird a ajpoijwe, I haven't changed the objective truth of what the bird is, I've only changed the word and sounds I use to identify it.

    I'll say one last time, there are a lot of political scholars and political scientist who do not agree with the definitions you agree with. Neither one of us is right or wrong, we just disagree.
     
    Last edited:
    I can't find the specific passage right now, but church traditions and rules apply to believers. We don't hold unbelievers to those rules. At least that's not our job as believers.

    That said, the basic tenets of Christ's teachings can certainly apply to everyone. The parables weren't a means of making rules, but rather a way to give illustrations to help his followers visualize what he intended to teach about daily living and most of those concepts can apply to anyone.
    I've read the entire New Testament for myself throughout high school, because it was required reading at the Catholic high school I went to. My comprehension was that Christ very clearly taught that we should be kind and compassionate to all people, be they "us" or "them." In my experience, a person has to take passages out of both historical and textual context to support the idea that Christ did not teach treating all people with equal respect, kindness and compassion.
     
    Running from their problems isn’t going to fix anything and they will lose what’s left of their country if they don’t fix it.

    People have to suffer to create change. It’s no different here than there. Just look at what people in our own country went through to make change. You can’t run away from your problems and from bullies. You stand up and fight. People have to stand up for themselves eventually.

    hmm kind of like those pilgrims escaping persecution in the 1600s, traveling thousands of miles to a new foreign world, all in hopes of a better life?
     
    Do you not understand the subjective nature of definitions?
    Definitions are not subjective.

    Do you not understand that not all political scholars and political scientists agree with the subjective definitions you agree with?
    Cite one.

    Do you not understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion?
    I do. Do you?

    Our country is in the state it is in for a lot of reasons. One of the big reasons is that too many people do not know what they think they know. Too many people can not tell the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion.
    No arguments here.

    Definitions and language are arbitrary and subjective.
    Language is fluid. Definitions may change over time.

    But accurate definitions are factual in their contextual time. They are not opinions. A definition, by definition, is an exact meaning of a word.

    Also, I wasn’t really defining a word anyway. I was stating a factual characteristic of nazism. Nazism is a right-wing ideology. This is not an opinion. This is a fact. It’s not something that’s open to interpretation. It is a fact.

    I'll say one last time, there are a lot of political scholars and political scientist who do not agree with the definitions you agree with.
    Cite one.
     


    Even Nikolai Bukharin, the leading Soviet ideologist purged by Joseph Stalin, began to have misgivings about the Revolution and to allude to the emerging system’s fascist features. Says Professor Gregor: “By the early 1930s, the ‘convergence’ of fascism and Stalinism struck Marxists and non-Marxists alike. . . . By the mid-1930s, even Trotsky could insist that ‘Stalinism and fascism, in spite of deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena.’ ...


    1. Fascism is Anti-Liberal: Fascists oppose pluralism, tolerance, individualism, democracy, the idea of natural rights, and the like. While fascist movements have often used democratic means to achieve power this does not deny their anti-democratic ends. Fascists view liberalism as a decedent and failed ideology.
    2. Fascism is Anti-Conservative: The key element of Fascism is that it seeks a “national rebirth” or “new order”, this may make reference to a glorious past but doesn’t call for a to return to it. They reject conservative status quo politics.

    1. Fascist Eclecticism: The concepts that make up Fascism are various, and historically ideas have been taken from both the far right (illiberalism, racism) and the far left (syndicalism). This was considered a strength by fascist leaders and these nearly contradictory ideas are always united by their relation to the concept of national rebirth.


    Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of the nation over the individual. This model of government stands in contrast to liberal democracies that support individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent.
    ...

    And although fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality, their regimes often align with powerful business interests.
     
    Last edited:
    I've read the entire New Testament for myself throughout high school, because it was required reading at the Catholic high school I went to. My comprehension was that Christ very clearly taught that we should be kind and compassionate to all people, be they "us" or "them." In my experience, a person has to take passages out of both historical and textual context to support the idea that Christ did not teach treating all people with equal respect, kindness and compassion.
    I was agreeing with you. I didn't say anything that contradicts what you're saying.
     
    Based on what? Who says it’s illegal? Obviously the WH legal team thinks it is legal.
    They may, but the courts might think differently, and likely the SC for reasons similar to what they argued when Trump administration did something similar. Maybe there's more to it or they might view it differently now, but I suspect not.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom