There is a difference between immigration and asylum.
Many of the people making their way to the United States are doing so for asylum. According to US law, one must be on US soil to file for asylum. This does not make them illegal immigration. I am also going to assume that the caravan will attempt to cross at a legal point of entry.
Not everyone who claims asylum/refugee are granted it. It's up to the individual to demonstrate that they will suffer prosecution based on Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership in a particular social group or Political opinion. If an individual can't prove that, they will be deported.
It should also be noted that refugee/asylum status is not permanent. If situations change in a person's home country that results in them not being persecuted then they will be deported if they haven't been approved of permanent residency.
Plus, the Trump Administration is working to cut down on *legal* immigration, as well. So some people are screwed no matter what they do. They try to cross legally, and they can't because places to cross legally are being shut down. So, if they are desperate, they cross illegally.
Are we somehow 'required' to let people immigrate here? I don't recall reading that in the Constitution. I'm not against people moving here by any means, but I also don't think that we're somehow 'obligated' to allow it. Immigration laws have changed many times over the years for many reasons. I'm also not of the opinion that if we restrict immigration it makes us 'racist' either. Mayhaps we should set a number and acceptable reasons, and go from there. Being oppressed or poor doesn't give you the right to US citizenship. Also, the fact that an illegal has a job is not an acceptable reason to me for legalizing them since that very job may have went to a 'legal' immigrant if they hadn't bypassed the system.
There is a difference between immigration and asylum.
Many of the people making their way to the United States are doing so for asylum. According to US law, one must be on US soil to file for asylum. This does not make them illegal immigration. I am also going to assume that the caravan will attempt to cross at a legal point of entry.
Not everyone who claims asylum/refugee are granted it. It's up to the individual to demonstrate that they will suffer prosecution based on Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership in a particular social group or Political opinion. If an individual can't prove that, they will be deported.
It should also be noted that refugee/asylum status is not permanent. If situations change in a person's home country that results in them not being persecuted then they will be deported if they haven't been approved of permanent residency.
Plus, the Trump Administration is working to cut down on *legal* immigration, as well. So some people are screwed no matter what they do. They try to cross legally, and they can't because places to cross legally are being shut down. So, if they are desperate, they cross illegally.
Are we somehow 'required' to let people immigrate here? I don't recall reading that in the Constitution. I'm not against people moving here by any means, but I also don't think that we're somehow 'obligated' to allow it. Immigration laws have changed many times over the years for many reasons. I'm also not of the opinion that if we restrict immigration it makes us 'racist' either. Mayhaps we should set a number and acceptable reasons, and go from there. Being oppressed or poor doesn't give you the right to US citizenship. Also, the fact that an illegal has a job is not an acceptable reason to me for legalizing them since that very job may have went to a 'legal' immigrant if they hadn't bypassed the system.
The people who wrote the Constitution were themselves immigrants or children of immigrants. And yes, according to the Geneva Convention, we are legally obligated to let them in, if they are escaping conditions in their own country that will lead to threat of violence, or actual violence, against them.
The United States is a party to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. This prescribed the continuing application of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted to address the aftermath of World War II. That original convention was agreed in Geneva so it is sometimes referred to as the Geneva Convention.
As the US voluntarily accepted the 1967 protocol to the refugee convention, it is legally obliged to implement it. Despite Trump’s personal complaints about these “rules,” all other states party to the protocol and convention can legitimately expect the US to comply — hence the expressions of dismay from other heads of state and officials as Trump announced his executive order.
States can recognize that refugee status either when the person presents themselves to the state seeking sanctuary (such as at an embassy, airport or port) or when the person enters a state illegally then seeks sanctuary. The US has a longstanding system of recognizing refugees before they travel to the country (such as in refugee camps) through the US Refugee Admission Program. Once in the country, refugees can be expelled on grounds of national security but they should be allowed to seek refuge elsewhere before being deported.
With regard to refusing entry and sending people back, the law is also clear. Article 33 provides that:
No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
There is a difference between immigration and asylum.
Many of the people making their way to the United States are doing so for asylum. According to US law, one must be on US soil to file for asylum. This does not make them illegal immigration. I am also going to assume that the caravan will attempt to cross at a legal point of entry.
Not everyone who claims asylum/refugee are granted it. It's up to the individual to demonstrate that they will suffer prosecution based on Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership in a particular social group or Political opinion. If an individual can't prove that, they will be deported.
It should also be noted that refugee/asylum status is not permanent. If situations change in a person's home country that results in them not being persecuted then they will be deported if they haven't been approved of permanent residency.
Plus, the Trump Administration is working to cut down on *legal* immigration, as well. So some people are screwed no matter what they do. They try to cross legally, and they can't because places to cross legally are being shut down. So, if they are desperate, they cross illegally.
Are we somehow 'required' to let people immigrate here? I don't recall reading that in the Constitution. I'm not against people moving here by any means, but I also don't think that we're somehow 'obligated' to allow it. Immigration laws have changed many times over the years for many reasons. I'm also not of the opinion that if we restrict immigration it makes us 'racist' either. Mayhaps we should set a number and acceptable reasons, and go from there. Being oppressed or poor doesn't give you the right to US citizenship. Also, the fact that an illegal has a job is not an acceptable reason to me for legalizing them since that very job may have went to a 'legal' immigrant if they hadn't bypassed the system.
The people who wrote the Constitution were themselves immigrants or children of immigrants. And yes, according to the Geneva Convention, we are legally obligated to let them in, if they are escaping conditions in their own country that will lead to threat of violence, or actual violence, against them.
The United States is a party to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. This prescribed the continuing application of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted to address the aftermath of World War II. That original convention was agreed in Geneva so it is sometimes referred to as the Geneva Convention.
As the US voluntarily accepted the 1967 protocol to the refugee convention, it is legally obliged to implement it. Despite Trump’s personal complaints about these “rules,” all other states party to the protocol and convention can legitimately expect the US to comply — hence the expressions of dismay from other heads of state and officials as Trump announced his executive order.
States can recognize that refugee status either when the person presents themselves to the state seeking sanctuary (such as at an embassy, airport or port) or when the person enters a state illegally then seeks sanctuary. The US has a longstanding system of recognizing refugees before they travel to the country (such as in refugee camps) through the US Refugee Admission Program. Once in the country, refugees can be expelled on grounds of national security but they should be allowed to seek refuge elsewhere before being deported.
With regard to refusing entry and sending people back, the law is also clear. Article 33 provides that:
No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
That should then mean that Mexico should harbor them. Correct?
Edit: Could it be that Mexico is racist? Just saying...
There is a difference between immigration and asylum.
Many of the people making their way to the United States are doing so for asylum. According to US law, one must be on US soil to file for asylum. This does not make them illegal immigration. I am also going to assume that the caravan will attempt to cross at a legal point of entry.
Not everyone who claims asylum/refugee are granted it. It's up to the individual to demonstrate that they will suffer prosecution based on Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership in a particular social group or Political opinion. If an individual can't prove that, they will be deported.
It should also be noted that refugee/asylum status is not permanent. If situations change in a person's home country that results in them not being persecuted then they will be deported if they haven't been approved of permanent residency.
Plus, the Trump Administration is working to cut down on *legal* immigration, as well. So some people are screwed no matter what they do. They try to cross legally, and they can't because places to cross legally are being shut down. So, if they are desperate, they cross illegally.
Are we somehow 'required' to let people immigrate here? I don't recall reading that in the Constitution. I'm not against people moving here by any means, but I also don't think that we're somehow 'obligated' to allow it. Immigration laws have changed many times over the years for many reasons. I'm also not of the opinion that if we restrict immigration it makes us 'racist' either. Mayhaps we should set a number and acceptable reasons, and go from there. Being oppressed or poor doesn't give you the right to US citizenship. Also, the fact that an illegal has a job is not an acceptable reason to me for legalizing them since that very job may have went to a 'legal' immigrant if they hadn't bypassed the system.
The people who wrote the Constitution were themselves immigrants or children of immigrants. And yes, according to the Geneva Convention, we are legally obligated to let them in, if they are escaping conditions in their own country that will lead to threat of violence, or actual violence, against them.
The United States is a party to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. This prescribed the continuing application of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted to address the aftermath of World War II. That original convention was agreed in Geneva so it is sometimes referred to as the Geneva Convention.
As the US voluntarily accepted the 1967 protocol to the refugee convention, it is legally obliged to implement it. Despite Trump’s personal complaints about these “rules,” all other states party to the protocol and convention can legitimately expect the US to comply — hence the expressions of dismay from other heads of state and officials as Trump announced his executive order.
States can recognize that refugee status either when the person presents themselves to the state seeking sanctuary (such as at an embassy, airport or port) or when the person enters a state illegally then seeks sanctuary. The US has a longstanding system of recognizing refugees before they travel to the country (such as in refugee camps) through the US Refugee Admission Program. Once in the country, refugees can be expelled on grounds of national security but they should be allowed to seek refuge elsewhere before being deported.
With regard to refusing entry and sending people back, the law is also clear. Article 33 provides that:
No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
That should then mean that Mexico should harbor them. Correct?
If they asked Mexico for sanctuary, yes. But these people apparently only want asylum in the US. Some are afraid to accept asylum in Mexico, apparently because of cartels.
There is a difference between immigration and asylum.
Many of the people making their way to the United States are doing so for asylum. According to US law, one must be on US soil to file for asylum. This does not make them illegal immigration. I am also going to assume that the caravan will attempt to cross at a legal point of entry.
Not everyone who claims asylum/refugee are granted it. It's up to the individual to demonstrate that they will suffer prosecution based on Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership in a particular social group or Political opinion. If an individual can't prove that, they will be deported.
It should also be noted that refugee/asylum status is not permanent. If situations change in a person's home country that results in them not being persecuted then they will be deported if they haven't been approved of permanent residency.
Plus, the Trump Administration is working to cut down on *legal* immigration, as well. So some people are screwed no matter what they do. They try to cross legally, and they can't because places to cross legally are being shut down. So, if they are desperate, they cross illegally.
Are we somehow 'required' to let people immigrate here? I don't recall reading that in the Constitution. I'm not against people moving here by any means, but I also don't think that we're somehow 'obligated' to allow it. Immigration laws have changed many times over the years for many reasons. I'm also not of the opinion that if we restrict immigration it makes us 'racist' either. Mayhaps we should set a number and acceptable reasons, and go from there. Being oppressed or poor doesn't give you the right to US citizenship. Also, the fact that an illegal has a job is not an acceptable reason to me for legalizing them since that very job may have went to a 'legal' immigrant if they hadn't bypassed the system.
The people who wrote the Constitution were themselves immigrants or children of immigrants. And yes, according to the Geneva Convention, we are legally obligated to let them in, if they are escaping conditions in their own country that will lead to threat of violence, or actual violence, against them.
The United States is a party to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. This prescribed the continuing application of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted to address the aftermath of World War II. That original convention was agreed in Geneva so it is sometimes referred to as the Geneva Convention.
As the US voluntarily accepted the 1967 protocol to the refugee convention, it is legally obliged to implement it. Despite Trump’s personal complaints about these “rules,” all other states party to the protocol and convention can legitimately expect the US to comply — hence the expressions of dismay from other heads of state and officials as Trump announced his executive order.
States can recognize that refugee status either when the person presents themselves to the state seeking sanctuary (such as at an embassy, airport or port) or when the person enters a state illegally then seeks sanctuary. The US has a longstanding system of recognizing refugees before they travel to the country (such as in refugee camps) through the US Refugee Admission Program. Once in the country, refugees can be expelled on grounds of national security but they should be allowed to seek refuge elsewhere before being deported.
With regard to refusing entry and sending people back, the law is also clear. Article 33 provides that:
No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
That should then mean that Mexico should harbor them. Correct?
If they asked Mexico for sanctuary, yes. But these people apparently only want asylum in the US. Some are afraid to accept asylum in Mexico, apparently because of cartels.
Because we don't have drug dealers, pimps, slave labor emporiums or other criminals in the US that will take advantage of them? I'm sorry, where is the logic here? I don't mind taking them in as refugees as long as they're not made into citizens solely on the basis of their status of 'oppressed'. How do we keep track of them if not by putting them in camps, like most other nations that harbor refugees do by the way?
Edit: Just so you know, I don't think they're terrorists or anything like that.
There is a difference between immigration and asylum.
Many of the people making their way to the United States are doing so for asylum. According to US law, one must be on US soil to file for asylum. This does not make them illegal immigration. I am also going to assume that the caravan will attempt to cross at a legal point of entry.
Not everyone who claims asylum/refugee are granted it. It's up to the individual to demonstrate that they will suffer prosecution based on Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership in a particular social group or Political opinion. If an individual can't prove that, they will be deported.
It should also be noted that refugee/asylum status is not permanent. If situations change in a person's home country that results in them not being persecuted then they will be deported if they haven't been approved of permanent residency.
Plus, the Trump Administration is working to cut down on *legal* immigration, as well. So some people are screwed no matter what they do. They try to cross legally, and they can't because places to cross legally are being shut down. So, if they are desperate, they cross illegally.
Are we somehow 'required' to let people immigrate here? I don't recall reading that in the Constitution. I'm not against people moving here by any means, but I also don't think that we're somehow 'obligated' to allow it. Immigration laws have changed many times over the years for many reasons. I'm also not of the opinion that if we restrict immigration it makes us 'racist' either. Mayhaps we should set a number and acceptable reasons, and go from there. Being oppressed or poor doesn't give you the right to US citizenship. Also, the fact that an illegal has a job is not an acceptable reason to me for legalizing them since that very job may have went to a 'legal' immigrant if they hadn't bypassed the system.
The people who wrote the Constitution were themselves immigrants or children of immigrants. And yes, according to the Geneva Convention, we are legally obligated to let them in, if they are escaping conditions in their own country that will lead to threat of violence, or actual violence, against them.
The United States is a party to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. This prescribed the continuing application of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted to address the aftermath of World War II. That original convention was agreed in Geneva so it is sometimes referred to as the Geneva Convention.
As the US voluntarily accepted the 1967 protocol to the refugee convention, it is legally obliged to implement it. Despite Trump’s personal complaints about these “rules,” all other states party to the protocol and convention can legitimately expect the US to comply — hence the expressions of dismay from other heads of state and officials as Trump announced his executive order.
States can recognize that refugee status either when the person presents themselves to the state seeking sanctuary (such as at an embassy, airport or port) or when the person enters a state illegally then seeks sanctuary. The US has a longstanding system of recognizing refugees before they travel to the country (such as in refugee camps) through the US Refugee Admission Program. Once in the country, refugees can be expelled on grounds of national security but they should be allowed to seek refuge elsewhere before being deported.
With regard to refusing entry and sending people back, the law is also clear. Article 33 provides that:
No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
That should then mean that Mexico should harbor them. Correct?
If they asked Mexico for sanctuary, yes. But these people apparently only want asylum in the US. Some are afraid to accept asylum in Mexico, apparently because of cartels.
Because we don't have drug dealers, pimps, slave labor emporiums or other criminals in the US that will take advantage of them? I'm sorry, where is the logic here? I don't mind taking them in as refugees as long as they're not made into citizens solely on the basis of their status of 'oppressed'. How do we keep track of them if not by putting them in camps, like most other nations that harbor refugees do by the way?
Edit: Just so you know, I don't think they're terrorists or anything like that.
I understand that. But the Cartels in Mexico are far worse than any crime they will face here, and far more widespread.
At any point, even if they covered 20 miles a day from where they are currently, it will take them 63 days to get to the border of America. There are 6500 of them (about), many of which are kids.
(Women and children comprise more than half of the approximately 5,100 migrants counted by the Suchiate municipal government in southern Mexico).
But among those walking, many say reaching the United States isn't their goal; rather, it is getting out of Honduras, where life has gotten markedly worse under President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who took office in January 2014.
There's a middle ground somewhere but nobody is talking about it. Maybe petition individual states (including Canada) and see if any are willing to take some or all of them in? I'm pretty sure there would be takers. Michigan is looking for workers. Not sure how many of these people have necessary skills but I'm sure at least some of them do. If they're willing to trek thousands of miles it doesn't sound like they're lazy!
The bent of this thread tends to ebb and flow. Lately it's been majority liberal by a considerable degree, but it vacillates back and forth. We've had a conservative bent to the thread at certain times in the past, though we more often have a liberal bent because the liberal posters tend to be more consistently active on the forum. Several of the most strongly conservative posters only stop by occasionally, like @SorcererV1ct0r.
I an right lib not conservative. Sure, between a politician who will take some rights of association and a politician who praises the Venezuelan model, i will chose the first(less evil), the ideal is economic and social freedom, but i don't agree with interventionism. Problems like refugee crisis, government debt, etc only becomes worse thanks to interventionism.
But i criticize the left because i know how is to live in a mostly left country. I know what is an strict gun control who makes permanent blinding a man(destroying a life) giving less prison time than owning a illegal 9mm(note that any pistol stronger than the anemic .380 is restricted and takes an eternity to get a legal weapon), how have affirmative actions to protect the non white majority from white minority and some politicians wanting to expand it to companies, making impossible for me get a job(doesn't matter if slavery ended by a blonde, blue eyed princess - Isabel), i know how hard is to have no freedom os speech, no gun right, no defense rights and be a tax salve with an public healthcare that costs insanely high to the tax payer and have insane long waiting times and that allows sex exchange surgery but doesn't allow facial reconstruction, how centralization always fails and honestly think that nobody deserves live on my country.
Brazil should't even exist IMO. Northeast should be Dutch( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Brazil ), the south should be independent, SP too and Amazonas should be an owned by his original owners(indigenous)
The bent of this thread tends to ebb and flow. Lately it's been majority liberal by a considerable degree, but it vacillates back and forth. We've had a conservative bent to the thread at certain times in the past, though we more often have a liberal bent because the liberal posters tend to be more consistently active on the forum. Several of the most strongly conservative posters only stop by occasionally, like @SorcererV1ct0r.
I an right lib not conservative. Sure, between a politician who will take some rights of association and a politician who praises the Venezuelan model, i will chose the first(less evil), the ideal is economic and social freedom, but i don't agree with interventionism. Problems like refugee crisis, government debt, etc only becomes worse thanks to interventionism.
But i criticize the left because i know how is to live in a mostly left country. I know what is an strict gun control who makes permanent blinding a man(destroying a life) giving less prison time than owning a illegal 9mm(note that any pistol stronger than the anemic .380 is restricted and takes an eternity to get a legal weapon), how have affirmative actions to protect the non white majority from white minority and some politicians wanting to expand it to companies, making impossible for me get a job(doesn't matter if slavery ended by a blonde, blue eyed princess - Isabel), i know how hard is to have no freedom os speech, no gun right, no defense rights and be a tax salve with an public healthcare that costs insanely high to the tax payer and have insane long waiting times and that allows sex exchange surgery but doesn't allow facial reconstruction, how centralization always fails and honestly think that nobody deserves live on my country.
Brazil should't even exist IMO. Northeast should be Dutch( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Brazil ), the south should be independent, SP too and Amazonas should be an owned by his original owners(indigenous)
Is the solution then to fractionate a country into even more separate countries if that's the case? I guess it sort of worked for Yugoslavia and the USSR (eventually). It would be better if people could learn to just get along (imo) but maybe that really is a pipe dream. For my country, the USA, maybe we should just split into 4 or 5 separate countries . I honestly don't really think that's a horrible idea anymore...
Edit: Of course, that's exactly what Russia and China want and are striving to achieve.
Edit: Oooh, I have an even better idea. How about like Mexico, we give them safe passage to march to Canada? I wonder how willing our northern neighbor would be to grant them asylum or even better, full citizenship!
You mean like all the Haitians? Oh! or how about all the other refugees flying to the united states, taking a taxi to a corn field and crossing there, where we have our own border patrol waiting to take them to the closest immigration processing station for them to claim asylum?
I've posted before on how Toronto was completely filled up with refugee claimants that even university dorms were completely filled with them. We still process them all in under four months.
Then there is also the safe third country law that was signed by Canada and the United States. Basically claimants need to file asylum at the first safe country they enter. If they're coming from the south, that's usually the US. If their coming from the West, that's usually Canada.
I've been thinking about this a lot today so thought I'd share. This forum is honestly the best I've seen for sharing political ideas on both sides of the spectrum. I can't help wondering about the banning of TStael and Stormvessel. I don't want to start a coup or anything, but even though I only agreed with those two about 5% of the time I really enjoyed hearing their viewpoints. I admit I never argued a lot with Stormvessel but I had rows with TStael, some in private. I'm just pondering if we should relax a bit in regards to banning. Unless there were warnings issued in posts I'm unaware of, of course. Do we really need to be so afraid of confrontation? I realize that I probably have an unrealistic thick skin compared to most, but I just want to throw this out there for thoughts...
Edit: I agree that arguing with them was pretty futile, but that doesn't mean that their viewpoints were invalid or unworthy of consideration. I actually gained some understanding of the far left viewpoint from Stormvessel for example...
I know you have only the best of motives, @Balrog99, but public discussion of moderation is against our policy. If you have any thoughts on the matter, contact a moderator via PM; not in a public thread.
I know you have only the best of motives, @Balrog99, but public discussion of moderation is against our policy. If you have any thoughts on the matter, contact a moderator via PM; not in a public thread.
Sorry, @semiticgod, just sharing my thoughts. Hopefully you don't delete them.
I've been thinking about this a lot today so thought I'd share. This forum is honestly the best I've seen for sharing political ideas on both sides of the spectrum. I can't help wondering about the banning of TStael and Stormvessel. I don't want to start a coup or anything, but even though I only agreed with those two about 5% of the time I really enjoyed hearing their viewpoints. I admit I never argued a lot with Stormvessel but I had rows with TStael, some in private. I'm just pondering if we should relax a bit in regards to banning. Unless there were warnings issued in posts I'm unaware of, of course. Do we really need to be so afraid of confrontation? I realize that I probably have an unrealistic thick skin compared to most, but I just want to throw this out there for thoughts...
Edit: I agree that arguing with them was pretty futile, but that doesn't mean that their viewpoints were invalid or unworthy of consideration. I actually gained some understanding of the far left viewpoint from Stormvessel for example...
I agree this forum is good for sharing political ideas, I don't think we need to bring more trolls here. Not that we have any now, just saying we don't need more than we have (any increase even zero to one is too many).
One of the things I learned from my 11th grade US History teacher was that the political spectrum was circular and the far left and the far right almost meet at the extremes. I've never forgotten that and I've actually incorporated it into my personal philosophy. It's why my warning flags fly when I look at the polarized politics today. It's also why I decided to engage rather than drop out of this forum when I saw the direction it was taking the last month or so. I actually thought about not posting anymore because I don't really like Trump but don't agree with the left. You can actually not like Trump but also not agree with the left. I'm proof of this. That doesn't mean I won't vote for the asshole once more if the Democrats pick Hillary again. Just to be clear...
I've been thinking about this a lot today so thought I'd share. This forum is honestly the best I've seen for sharing political ideas on both sides of the spectrum. I can't help wondering about the banning of TStael and Stormvessel. I don't want to start a coup or anything, but even though I only agreed with those two about 5% of the time I really enjoyed hearing their viewpoints. I admit I never argued a lot with Stormvessel but I had rows with TStael, some in private. I'm just pondering if we should relax a bit in regards to banning. Unless there were warnings issued in posts I'm unaware of, of course. Do we really need to be so afraid of confrontation? I realize that I probably have an unrealistic thick skin compared to most, but I just want to throw this out there for thoughts...
Edit: I agree that arguing with them was pretty futile, but that doesn't mean that their viewpoints were invalid or unworthy of consideration. I actually gained some understanding of the far left viewpoint from Stormvessel for example...
I agree this forum is good for sharing political ideas, I don't think we need to bring more trolls here. Not that we have any now, just saying we don't need more than we have (any increase even zero to one is too many).
Trolls have viewpoints too though. Are you saying that there's no changing their views. They're mostly bluster with nothing to back them up. Is it impossible to make them think? Even in this relatively small forum? This might actually be the perfect place to broaden their mindsets. Just saying...
Edit: The alternative might be finding forums where everybody agrees with them. Is that preferable?
I've been thinking about this a lot today so thought I'd share. This forum is honestly the best I've seen for sharing political ideas on both sides of the spectrum. I can't help wondering about the banning of TStael and Stormvessel. I don't want to start a coup or anything, but even though I only agreed with those two about 5% of the time I really enjoyed hearing their viewpoints. I admit I never argued a lot with Stormvessel but I had rows with TStael, some in private. I'm just pondering if we should relax a bit in regards to banning. Unless there were warnings issued in posts I'm unaware of, of course. Do we really need to be so afraid of confrontation? I realize that I probably have an unrealistic thick skin compared to most, but I just want to throw this out there for thoughts...
Edit: I agree that arguing with them was pretty futile, but that doesn't mean that their viewpoints were invalid or unworthy of consideration. I actually gained some understanding of the far left viewpoint from Stormvessel for example...
I agree this forum is good for sharing political ideas, I don't think we need to bring more trolls here. Not that we have any now, just saying we don't need more than we have (any increase even zero to one is too many).
Trolls have viewpoints too though. Are you saying that there's no changing their views. They're mostly bluster with nothing to back them up. Is it impossible to make them think? Even in this relatively small forum? This might actually be the perfect place to broaden their mindsets. Just saying...
If people are dishonestly arguing or paid to stir up stuff then you are wasting your breath. With the ones we have I think if a good point is made we all at least consider it even if it goes against our 'team'. Earlier I claimed, when I was caught up in the domestic terrorist attacks of the MAGAbomber, that I couldn't think of any left wing terrorism attacks. Someone brought up the Republican softball shooter as an example off the top of their head. Of course they we're right, I had just completely blanked that one out. I did a bit of research and it's "only" like 75% of terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been right wing terrorism. Of course none are acceptable but I recognize I was wrong there.
White supremacist, anti-government and neo-Nazi extremists have been responsible for 73 percent of deadly terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the Government Accountability Office. Also notable is that in many cases, Muslims have become the target of violence.
And here's some stuff that all occurred in a single week in May of 2017 and yet President Trump is still waiting for all the facts before he does anything.
>• May 20 – Richard Collins III, an African American and Bowie State University student, was stabbed to death by Sean Urbanski, a member of a Facebook group called the "Alt-Reich: Nation."
> • May 26 – Three men in Portland tried to stop white supremacist Jeremy Christian from harassing two women who appeared to be Muslim. For their bravery, the three men were viciously attacked; two were murdered and the third was seriously injured.
>• May 27 – Anthony Hammond was arrested in Clearlake, Calif. for allegedly stabbing a black man with a machete, after yelling racial slurs. While en route to the Lake County Jail, Hammond threatened to kill the transporting officer and his family once he was released. Hammond was charged with committing a hate crime, among other charges.
>• May 28 – Two Native American men in Washington State were run over by a pickup truck driven by a white man shouting racial slurs and war whoops. One of the tribal members was killed and the other hospitalized.
___________ Some more...
CBS - Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic And Political Climate Fueling Resurgence In PBS - U.S. sees 300 violent attacks inspired by far right every year
I've been thinking about this a lot today so thought I'd share. This forum is honestly the best I've seen for sharing political ideas on both sides of the spectrum. I can't help wondering about the banning of TStael and Stormvessel. I don't want to start a coup or anything, but even though I only agreed with those two about 5% of the time I really enjoyed hearing their viewpoints. I admit I never argued a lot with Stormvessel but I had rows with TStael, some in private. I'm just pondering if we should relax a bit in regards to banning. Unless there were warnings issued in posts I'm unaware of, of course. Do we really need to be so afraid of confrontation? I realize that I probably have an unrealistic thick skin compared to most, but I just want to throw this out there for thoughts...
Edit: I agree that arguing with them was pretty futile, but that doesn't mean that their viewpoints were invalid or unworthy of consideration. I actually gained some understanding of the far left viewpoint from Stormvessel for example...
I agree this forum is good for sharing political ideas, I don't think we need to bring more trolls here. Not that we have any now, just saying we don't need more than we have (any increase even zero to one is too many).
Trolls have viewpoints too though. Are you saying that there's no changing their views. They're mostly bluster with nothing to back them up. Is it impossible to make them think? Even in this relatively small forum? This might actually be the perfect place to broaden their mindsets. Just saying...
If people are dishonestly arguing or paid to stir up stuff then you are wasting your breath. With the ones we have I think if a good point is made we all at least consider it even if it goes against our 'team'. Earlier I claimed, when I was caught up in the domestic terrorist attacks of the MAGAbomber, that I couldn't think of any left wing terrorism attacks. Someone brought up the Republican softball shooter as an example off the top of their head. Of course they we're right, I had just completely blanked that one out. I did a bit of research and it's "only" like 75% of terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been right wing terrorism. Of course none are acceptable but I recognize I was wrong there.
White supremacist, anti-government and neo-Nazi extremists have been responsible for 73 percent of deadly terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the Government Accountability Office. Also notable is that in many cases, Muslims have become the target of violence.
And here's some stuff that all occurred in a single week in May of 2017 and yet President Trump is still waiting for all the facts before he does anything.
>• May 20 – Richard Collins III, an African American and Bowie State University student, was stabbed to death by Sean Urbanski, a member of a Facebook group called the "Alt-Reich: Nation."
> • May 26 – Three men in Portland tried to stop white supremacist Jeremy Christian from harassing two women who appeared to be Muslim. For their bravery, the three men were viciously attacked; two were murdered and the third was seriously injured.
>• May 27 – Anthony Hammond was arrested in Clearlake, Calif. for allegedly stabbing a black man with a machete, after yelling racial slurs. While en route to the Lake County Jail, Hammond threatened to kill the transporting officer and his family once he was released. Hammond was charged with committing a hate crime, among other charges.
>• May 28 – Two Native American men in Washington State were run over by a pickup truck driven by a white man shouting racial slurs and war whoops. One of the tribal members was killed and the other hospitalized.
___________ Some more...
1) [CBS - Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic And Political Climate Fueling Resurgence In PBS - U.S. sees 300 violent attacks inspired by far right every year
I sincerely doubt anybody has been paid to post on this particular forum. The two I've been trying to make a case for are far more likely to agree with you than me. I like the dialogue, I couldn't care less if they agree with me.
Edit: God forbid if somebody in the extreme of your position makes you look 'bad', even if you use the extreme position 'against' your position to make them look 'bad'.
The bent of this thread tends to ebb and flow. Lately it's been majority liberal by a considerable degree, but it vacillates back and forth. We've had a conservative bent to the thread at certain times in the past, though we more often have a liberal bent because the liberal posters tend to be more consistently active on the forum. Several of the most strongly conservative posters only stop by occasionally, like @SorcererV1ct0r.
I an right lib not conservative. Sure, between a politician who will take some rights of association and a politician who praises the Venezuelan model, i will chose the first(less evil), the ideal is economic and social freedom, but i don't agree with interventionism. Problems like refugee crisis, government debt, etc only becomes worse thanks to interventionism.
But i criticize the left because i know how is to live in a mostly left country. I know what is an strict gun control who makes permanent blinding a man(destroying a life) giving less prison time than owning a illegal 9mm(note that any pistol stronger than the anemic .380 is restricted and takes an eternity to get a legal weapon), how have affirmative actions to protect the non white majority from white minority and some politicians wanting to expand it to companies, making impossible for me get a job(doesn't matter if slavery ended by a blonde, blue eyed princess - Isabel), i know how hard is to have no freedom os speech, no gun right, no defense rights and be a tax salve with an public healthcare that costs insanely high to the tax payer and have insane long waiting times and that allows sex exchange surgery but doesn't allow facial reconstruction, how centralization always fails and honestly think that nobody deserves live on my country.
Brazil should't even exist IMO. Northeast should be Dutch( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Brazil ), the south should be independent, SP too and Amazonas should be an owned by his original owners(indigenous)
Is the solution then to fractionate a country into even more separate countries if that's the case? I guess it sort of worked for Yugoslavia and the USSR (eventually). It would be better if people could learn to just get along (imo) but maybe that really is a pipe dream. For my country, the USA, maybe we should just split into 4 or 5 separate countries . I honestly don't really think that's a horrible idea anymore...
Edit: Of course, that's exactly what Russia and China want and are striving to achieve.
It's already sort of a SCOTUS decision that individual states don't have the right to leave the Union by themselves. There'd probably have to be some sort of convention of the states to do so.
Which will never happen, because too many states wouldn't want the hassle or the expense of being their own countries. Also that the uneven ability to project power as a collection of states rather than individual states. Also some states realizing probably subconsciously just how good they have it. For example, why, in the FUCKING HELL is IOWA so goddamned important for the election process that every presidential candidate needs to suck up to EVERY. SINGLE. IOWAN?!? It has a crap population and crap economy (relatively speaking, that is, it's 30th in population and a middling economy). That shit needs to go away and the state casting the first primaries needs to become randomly chosen every election cycle. This is the 21st century, we have computers to do summations, tabulations, and calculations. We have phones to communicate instantly instead of in-person. We don't need the electoral college to take weeks to meet, we don't need first-past-the-post voting blocks of the states. If anything, proportional division of the electors of the electoral college by state is the way to go and could be reported the day after elections.
Edit-It's not like the parties aren't using math, statistics modelling, and computers to decide, down to the street or even individual house levels, how to create voting district lines for the perfect gerrymandering.
I despise this artificial importance on certain states because of tradition. I despise the concept of "battleground" states. ALL the voters should matter, not the ones in 6 states.
One of the things I learned from my 11th grade US History teacher was that the political spectrum was circular and the far left and the far right almost meet at the extremes. I've never forgotten that and I've actually incorporated it into my personal philosophy. It's why my warning flags fly when I look at the polarized politics today. It's also why I decided to engage rather than drop out of this forum when I saw the direction it was taking the last month or so. I actually thought about not posting anymore because I don't really like Trump but don't agree with the left. You can actually not like Trump but also not agree with the left. I'm proof of this. That doesn't mean I won't vote for the asshole once more if the Democrats pick Hillary again. Just to be clear...
The political spectrum isn't circular, but it's not linear either. Like reality, it's three-dimensional with many axes. Individualism vs. collectivism, nationalism vs globalism, free market vs. regulated market, and other things.
Each major party is a locus of various ideals, and I would say the ideals are adopted or not based on the evolution of support of those ideals. I don't think that most people are going to be 100% for either major party because few people are going to agree with ALL the ideals. I for example, according to some political party affliation poll, am roughly 100% Green Party, 80% Democrat, 50% Libertarian, and 35% Republican, despite being really liberal. And indeed, I agree with the entire Green Party platform, all of it. There are a few things I disagree with Democrats and agree with Republicans over, usually relating to some individual rights, hence why I'd be more Libertarian than classical Republican.
The bent of this thread tends to ebb and flow. Lately it's been majority liberal by a considerable degree, but it vacillates back and forth. We've had a conservative bent to the thread at certain times in the past, though we more often have a liberal bent because the liberal posters tend to be more consistently active on the forum. Several of the most strongly conservative posters only stop by occasionally, like @SorcererV1ct0r.
I an right lib not conservative. Sure, between a politician who will take some rights of association and a politician who praises the Venezuelan model, i will chose the first(less evil), the ideal is economic and social freedom, but i don't agree with interventionism. Problems like refugee crisis, government debt, etc only becomes worse thanks to interventionism.
But i criticize the left because i know how is to live in a mostly left country. I know what is an strict gun control who makes permanent blinding a man(destroying a life) giving less prison time than owning a illegal 9mm(note that any pistol stronger than the anemic .380 is restricted and takes an eternity to get a legal weapon), how have affirmative actions to protect the non white majority from white minority and some politicians wanting to expand it to companies, making impossible for me get a job(doesn't matter if slavery ended by a blonde, blue eyed princess - Isabel), i know how hard is to have no freedom os speech, no gun right, no defense rights and be a tax salve with an public healthcare that costs insanely high to the tax payer and have insane long waiting times and that allows sex exchange surgery but doesn't allow facial reconstruction, how centralization always fails and honestly think that nobody deserves live on my country.
Brazil should't even exist IMO. Northeast should be Dutch( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Brazil ), the south should be independent, SP too and Amazonas should be an owned by his original owners(indigenous)
Is the solution then to fractionate a country into even more separate countries if that's the case? I guess it sort of worked for Yugoslavia and the USSR (eventually). It would be better if people could learn to just get along (imo) but maybe that really is a pipe dream. For my country, the USA, maybe we should just split into 4 or 5 separate countries . I honestly don't really think that's a horrible idea anymore...
Edit: Of course, that's exactly what Russia and China want and are striving to achieve.
It's already sort of acontribute.Ion that individual states don't have the right to leave the Union by themselves. There'd probably have to be some sort of convention of the states to do so.
Which will never happen, because too many states wouldn't want the hassle or the expense of being their own countries. Also that the uneven ability to project power as a collection of states rather than individual states. Also some states realizing probably subconsciously just how good they have it. For example, why, in the FUCKING HELL is IOWA so goddamned important for the election process that every presidential candidate needs to suck up to EVERY. SINGLE. IOWAN?!? It has a crap population and crap economy (relatively speaking, that is, it's 30th in population and a middling economy). That shit needs to go away and the state casting the first primaries needs to become randomly chosen every election cycle. This is the 21st century, we have computers to do summations, tabulations, and calculations. We have phones to communicate instantly instead of in-person. We don't need the electoral college to take weeks to meet, we don't need first-past-the-post voting blocks of the states. If anything, proportional division of the electors of the electoral college by state is the way to go and could be reported the day after elections.
I despise this artificial importance on certain states because of tradition. I despise the concept of "battleground" states. ALL the voters should matter, not the ones in 6 states.
One of the things I learned from my 11th grade US History teacher was that the political spectrum was circular and the far left and the far right almost meet at the extremes. I've never forgotten that and I've actually incorporated it into my personal philosophy. It's why my warning flags fly when I look at the polarized politics today. It's also why I decided to engage rather than drop out of this forum when I saw the direction it was taking the last month or so. I actually thought about not posting anymore because I don't really like Trump but don't agree with the left. You can actually not like Trump but also not agree with the left. I'm proof of this. That doesn't mean I won't vote for the asshole once more if the Democrats pick Hillary again. Just to be clear...
The political spectrum isn't circular, but it's not linear either. Like reality, it's three-dimensional with many axes. Individualism vs. collectivism, nationalism vs globalism, free market vs. regulated market, and other things.
Each major party is a locus of various ideals, and I would say the ideals are adopted or not based on the evolution of support of those ideals. I don't think that most people are going to be 100% for either major party because few people are going to agree with ALL the ideals. I for example, according to some political party affliation poll, am roughly 100% Green Party, 80% Democrat, 50% Libertarian, and 35% Republican, despite being really liberal. And indeed, I agree with the entire Green Party platform, all of it. There are a few things I disagree with Democrats and agree with Republicans over, usually relating to some individual rights, hence why I'd be more Libertarian than classical Republican.
I'd guess I'm 45% Libertarian, 35% conservative, 10% Democrat and 10% green if I had to profile myself. 100% boring...
Edit: At least I'm in a battleground state though, so my vote is more important than yours...
I very much doubt we'll see any states seceding from the Union. Putting aside the general unpopularity of the concept (anyone who suggests it is going to sound like a Confederate), there's no way the Republican party would surrender the electoral votes from Texas or the Democratic party would surrender the electoral votes of California. Even a smaller state's secession could have major effects on electoral strategies.
I very much doubt we'll see any states seceding from the Union. Putting aside the general unpopularity of the concept (anyone who suggests it is going to sound like a Confederate), there's no way the Republican party would surrender the electoral votes from Texas or the Democratic party would surrender the electoral votes of California. Even a smaller state's secession could have major effects on electoral strategies.
That's precisely why I said 4 or 5 separate countries. California, Oregon, Hawaii & Washington one country. New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania & New Hampshire another. West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, & Kansas another. Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Virginia, Delaware, Georgia, the Carolinas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas yet another. Finally, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, the Dakota's and Alaska.
I very much doubt we'll see any states seceding from the Union. Putting aside the general unpopularity of the concept (anyone who suggests it is going to sound like a Confederate), there's no way the Republican party would surrender the electoral votes from Texas or the Democratic party would surrender the electoral votes of California. Even a smaller state's secession could have major effects on electoral strategies.
That's precisely why I said 4 or 5 separate countries. California, Oregon, Hawaii & Washington one country. New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania & New Hampshire another. West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, & Kansas another. Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Virginia, Delaware, Georgia, the Carolinas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas yet another. Finally, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, the Dakota's and Alaska.
Will the real United States please stand up?
Edit- Ok, let's pretend this was GOING to happen.
How would each daughter "country" treat people visiting/moving from other "countries"? Do visitors from West Liberalia (AKA California) get turned away from the border of Southern Jesustan (Nevada) because they're not god-fearing "people" and don't believe in the right to carry guns?
I very much doubt we'll see any states seceding from the Union. Putting aside the general unpopularity of the concept (anyone who suggests it is going to sound like a Confederate), there's no way the Republican party would surrender the electoral votes from Texas or the Democratic party would surrender the electoral votes of California. Even a smaller state's secession could have major effects on electoral strategies.
That's precisely why I said 4 or 5 separate countries. California, Oregon, Hawaii & Washington one country. New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania & New Hampshire another. West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, & Kansas another. Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Virginia, Delaware, Georgia, the Carolinas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas yet another. Finally, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, the Dakota's and Alaska.
I very much doubt we'll see any states seceding from the Union. Putting aside the general unpopularity of the concept (anyone who suggests it is going to sound like a Confederate), there's no way the Republican party would surrender the electoral votes from Texas or the Democratic party would surrender the electoral votes of California. Even a smaller state's secession could have major effects on electoral strategies.
Would the US be willing to go to war if California or Texas really wanted to secede? I sincerely doubt it in this day and age. We could make it unsavory to secede for sure, but I doubt we'd force the issue military if it came to it.
I very much doubt we'll see any states seceding from the Union. Putting aside the general unpopularity of the concept (anyone who suggests it is going to sound like a Confederate), there's no way the Republican party would surrender the electoral votes from Texas or the Democratic party would surrender the electoral votes of California. Even a smaller state's secession could have major effects on electoral strategies.
Would the US be willing to go to war if California or Texas really wanted to secede? I sincerely doubt it in this day and age. We could make it unsavory to secede for sure, but I doubt we'd force the issue military if it came to it.
Would Texas or California be willing to go to war if the rest of America did?
I very much doubt we'll see any states seceding from the Union. Putting aside the general unpopularity of the concept (anyone who suggests it is going to sound like a Confederate), there's no way the Republican party would surrender the electoral votes from Texas or the Democratic party would surrender the electoral votes of California. Even a smaller state's secession could have major effects on electoral strategies.
Would the US be willing to go to war if California or Texas really wanted to secede? I sincerely doubt it in this day and age. We could make it unsavory to secede for sure, but I doubt we'd force the issue military if it came to it.
Would Texas or California be willing to go to war if the rest of America did?
I don't think they'd have to if they really wanted to secede. No American would be willing to fight a civil war in this day and age. Rightly so IMHO.
I very much doubt we'll see any states seceding from the Union. Putting aside the general unpopularity of the concept (anyone who suggests it is going to sound like a Confederate), there's no way the Republican party would surrender the electoral votes from Texas or the Democratic party would surrender the electoral votes of California. Even a smaller state's secession could have major effects on electoral strategies.
That's precisely why I said 4 or 5 separate countries. California, Oregon, Hawaii & Washington one country. New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania & New Hampshire another. West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, & Kansas another. Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Virginia, Delaware, Georgia, the Carolinas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas yet another. Finally, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, the Dakota's and Alaska.
Will the real United States please stand up?
Is there one? United, that is?
It's probably not THAT bad. Even the worst (well, except for D.C. itself) state in 2016, the farthest from average was not too terrible. By % per state, Trump ranged 30-69%, Clinton ranged 22-62%. If you eliminated W. Virginia, Wyoming, and Hawai'i as outliers (because they were uniformly the best and worst for each), it was 30%-65% Trump, 27-62% Clinton.
That is, the states, taken as a whole state, are not THAT imbalanced. It's not like every single Texan is a gun toting, beer-guzzling, wife-beating inbred redneck cowboy. Nor is every single Californian a free-love gay transvestite illegal immigrant.
Comments
The United States is a party to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. This prescribed the continuing application of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted to address the aftermath of World War II. That original convention was agreed in Geneva so it is sometimes referred to as the Geneva Convention.
As the US voluntarily accepted the 1967 protocol to the refugee convention, it is legally obliged to implement it. Despite Trump’s personal complaints about these “rules,” all other states party to the protocol and convention can legitimately expect the US to comply — hence the expressions of dismay from other heads of state and officials as Trump announced his executive order.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-02-03/guide-geneva-convention-beginners-dummies-and-newly-elected-world-leaders
States can recognize that refugee status either when the person presents themselves to the state seeking sanctuary (such as at an embassy, airport or port) or when the person enters a state illegally then seeks sanctuary. The US has a longstanding system of recognizing refugees before they travel to the country (such as in refugee camps) through the US Refugee Admission Program. Once in the country, refugees can be expelled on grounds of national security but they should be allowed to seek refuge elsewhere before being deported.
With regard to refusing entry and sending people back, the law is also clear. Article 33 provides that:
No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Edit: Could it be that Mexico is racist? Just saying...
Edit: Just so you know, I don't think they're terrorists or anything like that.
At any point, even if they covered 20 miles a day from where they are currently, it will take them 63 days to get to the border of America. There are 6500 of them (about), many of which are kids.
MIGRANTS SAY COMING TO THE U.S. ISN’T THEIR GOAL: “THEY SEE US AS ANIMALS”
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a3pmvg/migrants-say-coming-to-the-us-isnt-their-goal-they-see-us-as-animals?fbclid=IwAR1rDbqAlkIF6GNZ2Oxd6MQK_cMl0Trfm7qrqbOTbuI0yqDIVpdi4XiUN5o
(Women and children comprise more than half of the approximately 5,100 migrants counted by the Suchiate municipal government in southern Mexico).
But among those walking, many say reaching the United States isn't their goal; rather, it is getting out of Honduras, where life has gotten markedly worse under President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who took office in January 2014.
Under new Oregon law, all eligible voters are registered unless they opt out
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-automatic-voter-registration-20150317-story.html?fbclid=IwAR3xJdE1u8B5ms1GXAfof059kiEIcqP7LaarjZJNMGwT3TSwyU6P_Sx5Gfo&int=lat_digitaladshouse_bx-modal_acquisition-subscriber_ngux_display-ad-interstitial_bx-bonus-story_______School excludes boy from lessons because his hair is too short
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/haircut-excluded-school-bedford-free-15291953?fbclid=IwAR3U7sYi4D1sC4Z5vh4tsZGpxzeRrjtoICLeLVrKozN2oGz_1Q-LMxk0Dz4‘I Thought I Was Going To Die’: Teen Girl Says Classmate Set Her Hair On Fire While Others Looked On Laughing
https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2018/10/23/i-thought-i-was-going-to-die-teen-girl-says-classmate-set-her-hair-on-fire-while-others-looked-on-laughing/#.W9DVpD-hYDI.facebookBut i criticize the left because i know how is to live in a mostly left country. I know what is an strict gun control who makes permanent blinding a man(destroying a life) giving less prison time than owning a illegal 9mm(note that any pistol stronger than the anemic .380 is restricted and takes an eternity to get a legal weapon), how have affirmative actions to protect the non white majority from white minority and some politicians wanting to expand it to companies, making impossible for me get a job(doesn't matter if slavery ended by a blonde, blue eyed princess - Isabel), i know how hard is to have no freedom os speech, no gun right, no defense rights and be a tax salve with an public healthcare that costs insanely high to the tax payer and have insane long waiting times and that allows sex exchange surgery but doesn't allow facial reconstruction, how centralization always fails and honestly think that nobody deserves live on my country.
Brazil should't even exist IMO. Northeast should be Dutch( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Brazil ), the south should be independent, SP too and Amazonas should be an owned by his original owners(indigenous)
Edit: Of course, that's exactly what Russia and China want and are striving to achieve.
Edit: I agree that arguing with them was pretty futile, but that doesn't mean that their viewpoints were invalid or unworthy of consideration. I actually gained some understanding of the far left viewpoint from Stormvessel for example...
Edit: The alternative might be finding forums where everybody agrees with them. Is that preferable?
White supremacist, anti-government and neo-Nazi extremists have been responsible for 73 percent of deadly terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the Government Accountability Office. Also notable is that in many cases, Muslims have become the target of violence.
And here's some stuff that all occurred in a single week in May of 2017 and yet President Trump is still waiting for all the facts before he does anything.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/18/president-trump-wants-facts-right-wing-extremism-here-they-are-erroll-southers-column/577308001/)
>• May 20 – Richard Collins III, an African American and Bowie State University student, was stabbed to death by Sean Urbanski, a member of a Facebook group called the "Alt-Reich: Nation."
> • May 26 – Three men in Portland tried to stop white supremacist Jeremy Christian from harassing two women who appeared to be Muslim. For their bravery, the three men were viciously attacked; two were murdered and the third was seriously injured.
>• May 27 – Anthony Hammond was arrested in Clearlake, Calif. for allegedly stabbing a black man with a machete, after yelling racial slurs. While en route to the Lake County Jail, Hammond threatened to kill the transporting officer and his family once he was released. Hammond was charged with committing a hate crime, among other charges.
>• May 28 – Two Native American men in Washington State were run over by a pickup truck driven by a white man shouting racial slurs and war whoops. One of the tribal members was killed and the other hospitalized.
___________
Some more...
CBS - Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic And Political Climate Fueling Resurgence In
PBS - U.S. sees 300 violent attacks inspired by far right every year
Chicago Tribune - 3 Illinois men, including one who drafted a border wall plan for Trump, charged with Minnesota mosque bombing
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-minnesota-mosque-bombing-20180313-story.html
Edit: God forbid if somebody in the extreme of your position makes you look 'bad', even if you use the extreme position 'against' your position to make them look 'bad'.
Which will never happen, because too many states wouldn't want the hassle or the expense of being their own countries. Also that the uneven ability to project power as a collection of states rather than individual states. Also some states realizing probably subconsciously just how good they have it. For example, why, in the FUCKING HELL is IOWA so goddamned important for the election process that every presidential candidate needs to suck up to EVERY. SINGLE. IOWAN?!? It has a crap population and crap economy (relatively speaking, that is, it's 30th in population and a middling economy). That shit needs to go away and the state casting the first primaries needs to become randomly chosen every election cycle. This is the 21st century, we have computers to do summations, tabulations, and calculations. We have phones to communicate instantly instead of in-person. We don't need the electoral college to take weeks to meet, we don't need first-past-the-post voting blocks of the states. If anything, proportional division of the electors of the electoral college by state is the way to go and could be reported the day after elections.
Edit-It's not like the parties aren't using math, statistics modelling, and computers to decide, down to the street or even individual house levels, how to create voting district lines for the perfect gerrymandering.
I despise this artificial importance on certain states because of tradition. I despise the concept of "battleground" states. ALL the voters should matter, not the ones in 6 states. The political spectrum isn't circular, but it's not linear either. Like reality, it's three-dimensional with many axes. Individualism vs. collectivism, nationalism vs globalism, free market vs. regulated market, and other things.
Each major party is a locus of various ideals, and I would say the ideals are adopted or not based on the evolution of support of those ideals. I don't think that most people are going to be 100% for either major party because few people are going to agree with ALL the ideals. I for example, according to some political party affliation poll, am roughly 100% Green Party, 80% Democrat, 50% Libertarian, and 35% Republican, despite being really liberal. And indeed, I agree with the entire Green Party platform, all of it. There are a few things I disagree with Democrats and agree with Republicans over, usually relating to some individual rights, hence why I'd be more Libertarian than classical Republican.
Edit: At least I'm in a battleground state though, so my vote is more important than yours...
Edit- Ok, let's pretend this was GOING to happen.
How would each daughter "country" treat people visiting/moving from other "countries"? Do visitors from West Liberalia (AKA California) get turned away from the border of Southern Jesustan (Nevada) because they're not god-fearing "people" and don't believe in the right to carry guns?
That is, the states, taken as a whole state, are not THAT imbalanced. It's not like every single Texan is a gun toting, beer-guzzling, wife-beating inbred redneck cowboy. Nor is every single Californian a free-love gay transvestite illegal immigrant.