The extreme left agenda: What are some elements of it? (1 Viewer)

[TheRealTruth]

This thread is in reference to Richard stating he did not like the extreme left agenda and I was curious to the finer points of what he had said. (Also this is not singling out Richard, just starting a thread of its own because he didn't want to address it in the other thread) What exactly do people not like about the extreme left agenda.

(There will also be a post about the extreme right agenda as well for fairness)

 

[donato]

says the guy from Louisiana.

Which should tell you just how pathetic your statement was lol.

 

[Farb]

I admit, college football in Colorado leaves something to be desired.

To be fair, I am an Auburn guy so I have no love for the university that supplied most of those championships so I get where your coming from. Lol

 

[Farb]

Which should tell you just how pathetic your statement was lol.

Reverse psychology doesnt work on you, I can tell.

 

[not2rich]

I like it. Good stuff and it is sort of scary, but let's face the facts.

In the US we spend more wasted money on excessively priced healthcare than anyone else. We spend multiples of what the rest of the world spends on our military and we don't even have any allies left to defend. We waste money on the dumbest of things willingly and with full throated support yet somehow we can't figure out how to afford the basics necessities of society.

Infrastructure, education, healthcare are all just as important as anything else yet we can have every tiny city in the US driving mechanized infantry vehicles to traffic stops. We can build color changing hospital towers. We can build 100k stadiums for college football and the top 1% owns half of the nation. The top 10% owns 90% of the US yet we are afraid to actually tax corporations and people at the top at the same rates I pay.

We are sissies that have been fully bought and owned by the rich. The sooner we all come to terms with that, things like education and infrastructure will become easy to fix. And, for what it's worth, things like the Green New Deal and Education are likely to be more than self-funding as they provide new technologies and savings that offset the investment cost.

This is spot on. The genius of the really rich is that they've conned 40% of the country into helping their cause by giving them guns, judges, or whatever their concept of "liberty" is. Let folks fear the "radical left" and "socialism" while the capitalists continue to take their money.

 

[MT15]

Wouldn't decriminalization of border crossing fall into open borders? I remember every Democratic Presidential candidate raising their hands when the moderator asked them if they were for decriminalization of the borders.

well, no, decriminalize doesn’t mean open borders. At least not to me. You would still regulate the borders, people could and would still be deported, they just wouldn’t be jailed and treated as if they are criminals, unless they actually are partaking in criminal activities.

We don’t need to treat families as criminals for wanting to migrate here. If we had a better system in place, the truly horrific treatment of families with young children wouldn't happen.

 

[Nebaghead]

well, no, decriminalize doesn’t mean open borders. At least not to me. You would still regulate the borders, people could and would still be deported, they just wouldn’t be jailed and treated as if they are criminals, unless they actually are partaking in criminal activities.

We don’t need to treat families as criminals for wanting to migrate here. If we had a better system in place, the truly horrific treatment of families with young children wouldn't happen.

The fear isn’t open borders and immigration but immigration from the south. No one asked to build a wall up north. I remember the argument against the wall was most undocumented immigrants were people who overstayed their visas. But that wasn’t the concern, just keeping the Mexicans out.

 

[dtc]

The fear isn’t open borders and immigration but immigration from the south. No one asked to build a wall up north. I remember the argument against the wall was most undocumented immigrants were people who overstayed their visas. But that wasn’t the concern, just keeping the Mexicans out.

That's the truth.

And, to add insult to injury, instead of actually doing something about our broken immigration system, Republicans led by Trump have turned it into an even bigger mess.

We could have reformed the process, established clear and efficient immigration policy where people are vetted, approved or not and then allowed to come or not. Instead, we got ICE caging children and Bannon bilking people for a wall.

 

[dtc]

This is spot on. The genius of the really rich is that they've conned 40% of the country into helping their cause by giving them guns, judges, or whatever their concept of "liberty" is. Let folks fear the "radical left" and "socialism" while the capitalists continue to take their money.

Oh, but it's better. Not only have they done what you've said in giving the hoi polloi their God, Guns and Freedom, but they've also redefined what those words mean. God means theocratic, white-Christian fundamentlism. Guns are unfettered access and bizarre legal protections for gun manufacturers and dealers who supply the illegal trade. Freedom is the absence of healthcare and education paired with a complete hatred of financial security via a social safety net.

It's Orwellian. The 1% are truly the dark folks living underground and snacking on Eloi who line up to be fed upon.

 

[SaintForLife]

well, no, decriminalize doesn’t mean open borders. At least not to me. You would still regulate the borders, people could and would still be deported, they just wouldn’t be jailed and treated as if they are criminals, unless they actually are partaking in criminal activities.

We don’t need to treat families as criminals for wanting to migrate here. If we had a better system in place, the truly horrific treatment of families with young children wouldn't happen.

Without a criminal deterrent wouldn't decriminalization encourage even more illegal border crossings? That sounds like an open borders policy to me.

 

[MT15]

No, you can regulate something without criminalizing it. We do it all the time.

 

[RobF]

Without a criminal deterrent wouldn't decriminalization encourage even more illegal border crossings? That sounds like an open borders policy to me.

I don't know the exact laws in the US, but at least in some countries, a lot of speeding offenses are considered civil unless they involve dangerous driving and/or grossly excessive speeds.

That doesn't mean those countries don't have speed limits and just have open speeding.

Additionally, civil infractions can potentially escalate if they're not complied with.

So civil enforcement is still enforcement. It would not amount to open borders by any stretch.

 

[Farb]

Sounds like catch and release?
It is a lot easier to enforce something with your citizens. A lot more difficult if they are not citizens and in your country illegally. It is almost the exact same situation that we are in now, the never ending catch and release.

 

[SaintForLife]

I don't know the exact laws in the US, but at least in some countries, a lot of speeding offenses are considered civil unless they involve dangerous driving and/or grossly excessive speeds.

That doesn't mean those countries don't have speed limits and just have open speeding.

Additionally, civil infractions can potentially escalate if they're not complied with.

So civil enforcement is still enforcement. It would not amount to open borders by any stretch.

I agree with Farb that what you are talking about sounds like catch and release which is not a good policy imo.

I understand that people want to come here to escape bad conditions where they live, but we can't let everyone in.

Congress passed the law making it a criminal offense so until that's changed we need to treat it that way.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is spot on. The genius of the really rich is that they've conned 40% of the country into helping their cause by giving them guns, judges, or whatever their concept of "liberty" is. Let folks fear the "radical left" and "socialism" while the capitalists continue to take their money.

Do you think it's only Republicans who are in the pocket of the rich?

 

[SaintForLife]

The fear isn’t open borders and immigration but immigration from the south. No one asked to build a wall up north. I remember the argument against the wall was most undocumented immigrants were people who overstayed their visas. But that wasn’t the concern, just keeping the Mexicans out.

The illegal border crossings on the Northern border were around 6500 in 2018 and 400,000 on the Southern border.

That's a substantial difference right?

 

[dtc]

Without a criminal deterrent wouldn't decriminalization encourage even more illegal border crossings? That sounds like an open borders policy to me.

You're too smart to say this nonsense.

An open border is one that people pass back and forth through without any restriction like much of the EU.

A decriminalized system may lack criminal deterrent, but it's not open nor is it "like" open.

Deportation, fines and civil remedies would still be more than available and refusal to comply could still be criminalized even in an immigration system that allowed for immigration.

You do realize that if there was a clear and efficient system of applying and being allowed or disallowed that the border crossings would likely dissipate, right?

 

[SaintForLife]

You're too smart to say this nonsense.

An open border is one that people pass back and forth through without any restriction like much of the EU.

A decriminalized system may lack criminal deterrent, but it's not open nor is it "like" open.

Deportation, fines and civil remedies would still be more than available and refusal to comply could still be criminalized even in an immigration system that allowed for immigration.

You do realize that if there was a clear and efficient system of applying and being allowed or disallowed that the border crossings would likely dissipate, right?

There is a big difference between people traveling between counties in the EU and between the US and Mexico.

Those people who are citizens of the counties in the EU are allowed by law to travel between the countries. The US and Mexico are two separate counties so its completely different.

I'm aware that border crossings would decrease in your scenario. Are you saying that all the people that have been entering the country illegally should be allowed to freely into the US by being given green cards or citizenship?

 

[RobF]

Sounds like catch and release?
It is a lot easier to enforce something with your citizens. A lot more difficult if they are not citizens and in your country illegally. It is almost the exact same situation that we are in now, the never ending catch and release.

I agree with Farb that what you are talking about sounds like catch and release which is not a good policy imo.

Well, at least we've gone from "it's open borders" to "it's catch and release". That's some progress.

But still no. You presumably wouldn't describe traffic enforcement as 'catch and release', because even though many or most of the offenses it covers are civil, there are obviously plenty of situations where people are still liable to be arrested. And as Farb says, criminal enforcement also doesn't necessarily involve people being held.

I'd also hope you wouldn't describe it as 'catch and release' because we're talking about people, not fish.

And I'd also dispute that it's much easier to enforce things with citizens. That's debatable, at least. In terms of enforcement, what is it that citizens can't do that illegal immigrants can? One implication is that illegal immigrants can just vanish, but that can be inaccurate; they can easily have as many ties - work, family, etc. - to an area as citizens and can't necessarily vanish any more than citizens can. They may find it easier to leave the country, granted, but then they're not illegal immigrants any more.

Civil enforcement is still enforcement. It's inaccurate to describe it as 'open borders' or 'catch and release'. There are still rules, which are applied, and, as with other things that primarily use civil enforcement, there can be harsh consequences. But it can be operated in a more humane and effective manner which can encourage cooperation, reduce the scale of the problem, and allow better management of immigration through increased engagement.