The only way you can stop or RADICALLY reduce immigration (instead of simply trying to manage it better) is to make sure that people don't want to leave their countries. There are very few Japanese or South Koreans immigrating to Europe or America. People immigrate TO Bostwana more than they immigrate FROM Bostwana. It seems that when people live in a country that provides them with a decent living they're less likely to leave it. Imagine that.
Perhaps if instead of wrecking Libya or Iraq or contributing to the Civil War in Syria the American neocons and their European allies had kept their noses out of the area many people who left those countries or, in the case of Lybia, used the wrecks of those countries as springboards to move to Europe would have stayed where they lived.
More seriously, I have a serious problem with “pro-refugee” advocates in Australia. Their fuckwittery has been the primary driver for Australia’s immigration law. Back in the 90s, their constant legal appeals tied up the courts and overturned a high percentage of the Department of Immigration’s decisions. The government’s response was off shore processing as if they’re not on Australia’s landmass, they can’t appeal. While expensive, it was cheaper than the court proceedings. More recently, the government was flying sick applicants to the main land for medical care. Constant fuckery by advocates while they were receiving care meant the government found it easier to install mediocre medical facilities in the off shore centres.
No time for the fuckers who call themselves “pro-refugee” advocates. My mum used to work in public placement. The easiest way to shut the bastards up in the public meetings was to point out that the Department was always looking for people to sponsor and house accepted refugees. Not one would volunteer, but were happy to condemn the government all the same.
As I said above, you need to address both the push and the pull factors. It isn’t enough to just address the push factors, although a lot of Australia’s foreign aid budget does this, you also have to make the destination unattractive.
Illegal entry to the US was generally considered to be a misdemeanor, which usually meant no criminal prosecution, so parents and children could be housed in the same structures before they were either let in or deported. Under Obama the detention centers for children included mostly minors who had came without adults, and so NEEDED to be housed somewhere before you decided what to do with them. Keeping unaccompanied children somewhere where you can watch over them is a practical moral concern (nobody wants minors running around unsupervised). If they have parents or in general adult carers it's better to keep them together, of course, even if they're all eventually deported.
Under Trump prosecutors have been instructed to treat illegal entry as a crime, along with pre-trial detention in jails (which is a waste of time and money anyway). Children can't be housed in jails with their parents, so they have to be separated from their parents and be housed in the detention centers with the unaccompanied minors.
The whole thing is due to Trumpist virtue-signalling about being "tough on immigration" and to an attempt to intimidate other immigrants. There's no practical need to have time-consuming criminal trials for every illegal entry, or to move loads of illegal immigrants to the already over-crowded jails.
Also there's no way to efficiently keep track of the children housed in the detention centers for minors. Many children who HAD parents with them might find it hard to find them. This will only lead to MORE unaccompanied, unsupervised minors, whether they're eventually deported without their parents (and so come back to the US border to find them) or they manage to get lost in the US.
The whole thing is a moral and practical clusterfuck, and it's been done by the Trump administration for three reasons, all of which are a matter of propaganda rather than practicality: a) to show the Trump fan-base that he's being "tough" and "doing something" even though the infamous wall isn't coming anytime soon b) to attempt to reduce the number of immigrants coming to the US through fear and intimidation and c) to bully non-Trumpist authorities to accept the wall by saying that if there's no wall this will keep happening.
You can’t “treat” something as a crime. The option must be there. I understand they are doing mass trials where the visitors all pretty much vote guilty. Which means they get a felony charge next time they try and re-enter.
Hasn’t there been a massive uptick in illegals since word spread that the trumpocalypse was a myth?
That bridge has been crossed some time ago. For example, apparently people should be criticising the British government for legally refusing entry to whomever they wish to refuse entry to. (Although the legality of that decision is due to be determined in court - last I heard).
Really though - nobody has to announce, pronounce, renounce or denounce anyone or thing that they don't want to.
That said though word has it that Richard Spencer is just misunderstood. (At least in some people's eyes).
Richard Spencer is a fucking moron who has no political power at all. The only reason anyone knows who he is is because we need a distraction from the extreme left wing authoritarians we refuse to address. That doesn’t mean I think he should be punched.
I do tend to take Tommy Robinson’s side, because I’ve heard him speak enough to know his heart is at least in the right place. I do agree he broke the law, but I think the response was on over reaction. I posted an extract from his book because I wanted to make the point that the claims he’s been put in harms way by prison staff is not new, and thus current claims are in line with that. That said, I’m agnostic on the particular point today. There’s been enough claims made on his behalf that are clearly wrong for me to not trust one way or the other.
In general the more stable and less corrupt a country is, the less people want to leave it.
Big Powers (not just 'Murica, the Soviet Union too, along with France, the UK, the Gulf Theocracies, Iran to a lesser extent, and in these recent years also China and the New Russia) have routinely wrecked local governments, promoted extremists, bribed government officials, launched coups, and gotten favorable conditions from corrupt governments in Africa and the Middle East-Western Asia for decades.
They still do it now, because if you want a favorable contract to exploit resources in some areas it's cheaper and more expedient to fund a militia of religious or political nutters to create chaos and/or to pay a corrupt local official than to negotiate with a stable local government which has its own interests. Also wrecking the ally of your enemy is a good way to hurt your enemy indirectly. So everyone plays the Wrecking Game.
The local populations of the Big Powers don't really have a say in the matter. Lots of British people were against the Iraq War, but the UK joined America in the invasion anyway. Lots of Americans today aren't so keen on military interventions abroad, but if the Big Donors and Big Lobbies want to invade a country or wreck a government because it's profitable to their interests eventually they will find a way, and they're never accountable for their mistakes. To say nothing of those who live in Big Powers which aren't even liberal democracies.
As a result of the policies of promoting coups, violence and corruption on a massive scale Africa, the Middle East and East Asia, large parts of Central and South Americas and the Caribbeans into shitholes where governmental corruption, political and social instability, weak social institutions, shitty economic and social decisions and ideas, wars and ethno-religious tensions, and widespread poverty/deprivation convince a lot of locals that it's better to leave and go to the comparatively immensely rich, stable, and advanced Europe, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
A world with a relatively more stable, more peaceful and less corrupt Middle East, Africa and West Asia would be a world with MUCH less immigration, and a larger part of that immigration would be of educated professionals who can wait in line and get good jobs.
Brive1987 wrote: ↑You can’t “treat” something as a crime. The option must be there. I understand they are doing mass trials where the visitors all pretty much vote guilty. Which means they get a felony charge next time they try and re-enter.
Hasn’t there been a massive uptick in illegals since word spread that the trumpocalypse was a myth?
The mass trails are a reason why this is such a clusterfuck. Mass trials mean mass incarcerations, which also mean lots of children separated from the parents and in the case of the US, where they can get lost in a bureaucratic mess AND are a burden to maintain. Even leaving aside morals (and that's a pretty huge "even"), even from a right-wing nativist point of view the mass trials are just a show of force. It'd be better, if you really want to deport people, to deport them along with their children.
However the whole thing is propaganda. Trump and his cronies want to capitalize on the "tough line on immigration" with their nativist base, and some hope that the draconian approach will lead to less immigration.
However the propaganda is turning against the Trump faction. It turns out that a lot of people don't like to see kids being separated from their parents and put into detention centers. It might have something to do with the fact that kids need their parents and/or relatives and/or parental substitutes and taking children away without any guardians and throwing them into mass detention centers might mess them up and should be the extra ratio, not a common policy, but who am I to talk.
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑A world with a relatively more stable, more peaceful and less corrupt Middle East, Africa and West Asia would be a world with MUCH less immigration, and a larger part of that immigration would be of educated professionals who can wait in line and get good jobs.
Who do you think disagrees with this verbosity? I said many times that one of the major things that turned me off Clinton was her disasterous push to get Obama to intervene in Libya. I certainly didn’t think the Iraq war was a good idea either.
That said, the population projections by themselves are enough to cause concern.
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
In general the more stable and less corrupt a country is, the less people want to leave it.
Big Powers (not just 'Murica, the Soviet Union too, along with France, the UK, the Gulf Theocracies, Iran to a lesser extent, and in these recent years also China and the New Russia) have routinely wrecked local governments, promoted extremists, bribed government officials, launched coups, and gotten favorable conditions from corrupt governments in Africa and the Middle East-Western Asia for decades.
They still do it now, because if you want a favorable contract to exploit resources in some areas it's cheaper and more expedient to fund a militia of religious or political nutters to create chaos and/or to pay a corrupt local official than to negotiate with a stable local government which has its own interests. Also wrecking the ally of your enemy is a good way to hurt your enemy indirectly. So everyone plays the Wrecking Game.
The local populations of the Big Powers don't really have a say in the matter. Lots of British people were against the Iraq War, but the UK joined America in the invasion anyway. Lots of Americans today aren't so keen on military interventions abroad, but if the Big Donors and Big Lobbies want to invade a country or wreck a government because it's profitable to their interests eventually they will find a way, and they're never accountable for their mistakes. To say nothing of those who live in Big Powers which aren't even liberal democracies.
As a result of the policies of promoting coups, violence and corruption on a massive scale Africa, the Middle East and East Asia, large parts of Central and South Americas and the Caribbeans into shitholes where governmental corruption, political and social instability, weak social institutions, shitty economic and social decisions and ideas, wars and ethno-religious tensions, and widespread poverty/deprivation convince a lot of locals that it's better to leave and go to the comparatively immensely rich, stable, and advanced Europe, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
A world with a relatively more stable, more peaceful and less corrupt Middle East, Africa and West Asia would be a world with MUCH less immigration, and a larger part of that immigration would be of educated professionals who can wait in line and get good jobs.
People like west style stable govts.
The Big Donors and Big Lobbies - a subset of (((globalists))) - evilily destroy noble savage nations.
The West Govts are also complicit
Immigration is therefore our fault.
Repent and redeem immediately and the third world will turn into Wakanda Lite.
Brive1987 wrote: ↑People like west style stable govts.
Liberal democracies in general, including Japan, or South Korea, or Bostwana. And it's not about "liking" but more about "being able to live there without leaving in droves to find decent standards of living".
The Big Donors and Big Lobbies - a subset of (((globalists))) - evilily destroy noble savage nations.
More like "get favorable contracts by bribing corrupt locals in underdeveloped countries and by inciting violence for their ends, without caring about the consequences".
The West Govts are also complicit
More like "follow the money and the geopolitical short-term considerations, again, regardless of long-term consequences".
Immigration is therefore our fault.
More like "mass immigration is therefore pretty much inevitable, and you can manage it, but not stop it".
Repent and redeem immediately and the third world will turn into Wakanda Lite.
For a guy who whines about how I lack nuance when talking about your darlings, and how Dugin is just a misunderstood philosopher whose ideas should be given the benefit of the doubt, you seem to rely a lot on very crude stereotypes of the ideas you don't like.
Why has it taken so long to get diversity across boring uniformity? Personally I’d like to see the Hare Krishna variant.
He's the only guard there who actually looks effective. Everyone else has a LARGE FURRY HAT. For reasons I'll never fathom, THEY AREN'T EVEN STRAPPED ON PROPERLY.
Why has it taken so long to get diversity across boring uniformity? Personally I’d like to see the Hare Krishna variant.
He's the only guard there who actually looks effective. Everyone else has a LARGE FURRY HAT. For reasons I'll never fathom, THEY AREN'T EVEN STRAPPED ON PROPERLY.
There will be tears all round if apparent “effectiveness” progresses to empty click on initial contact. :) I suspect that weapon will come apart if put to an actual bayonet drill.
Brive1987 wrote: ↑People like west style stable govts.
Immigration is therefore our fault.
More like "mass immigration is therefore pretty much inevitable, and you can manage it, but not stop it".
And yet, that’s not what you said. Your words were that the govt and (((company))) agendas created conditions that required people to move on to the West.
I am general against the way Trump is doing shit but Kirbmarc said two things that really stood out as off to me.
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Under Trump prosecutors have been instructed to treat illegal entry as a crime, along with pre-trial detention in jails (which is a waste of time and money anyway).
It's not. Most of these people I am told (mostly by progressive people yelling at me on facebook) are first time offenders. The first time it's a misdemeanor they are almost giving time served and sent out of the country. They get caught again it's a felony. That appears not to be happening a lot. I think a lot of people (and I am not saying this applies to you Kirb) think these people are completely ignorant of the laws. I believe most of them understand them and know what they are doing. I frankly find it a little racist (again not you Kirb) when people act like these central americans just can't meet the requirements or know how to apply.
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Also there's no way to efficiently keep track of the children housed in the detention centers for minors.
Bullshit. They might not be doing it but there are many ways to track which child belongs with which family. Hospitals do it is which bracelets with barcodes. Combine that with fingerprints and you are done.
Why has it taken so long to get diversity across boring uniformity? Personally I’d like to see the Hare Krishna variant.
He's the only guard there who actually looks effective. Everyone else has a LARGE FURRY HAT. For reasons I'll never fathom, THEY AREN'T EVEN STRAPPED ON PROPERLY.
Lol this. Looks like some of those other guys can't even see past their hats.
Canada has quietly taken a step towards enforcing rightthink this week, and I find it a bit disturbing. Americans are quite used to having 'universities' that are run by all sorts of religious institutions, and we have a few old catholic universities. In recent years an evangelical group started a private university in BC - Trinity Western University, which has a code of conduct for students that includes a pledge to refrain from indulging in premarital sex. TWU wanted to open a law school, but the law societies of three provinces indicated they would not accredit graduates as lawyers on the grounds that the students' charter rights (freedoms of religion, expression and association) had been infringed. In NS the provincial supreme court found in favour of the university, but in the case of BC and ON the case found its way up to the Supreme Court of Canada and that court has ruled that the law societies are in the right, using the reasoning that whilst strict charter freedoms had not been infringed, the university's Community Covenant is contrary to 'charter values'. No one is forced to attend TWU, and there are plenty of other law schools in the country for those who prefer their student years to be more amiable. Students who like and want that kind of thing go there willingly and they pay to do so, not the taxpayer. Presumably the actual underlying motivation behind the action brought by the ON and BC law societies is one of not wanting to allow lawyers into the club who might not conform to the social justice activism that the legal profession generally, and academic lawyers in particular, have embraced. I don't see how it is any of their business unless they simply won't tolerate the wrongthink.
I have no personal axe to grind in that I am an atheist, and I certainly didn't go to university with the intention of maintaining celibacy (mission successful ;) ). I just find it strange that lawyers, who are thought to be remarkably good at putting aside their personal opinions of their clients and advocating for them to the best of their ability, should find themselves unable to allow other lawyers to opinions, beliefs and standards of behaviour unlike their own. It's not my thing, but I don't think it disreputable for someone to voluntarily decide they don't want to have sex before marriage. I wouldn't see that as a barrier to someone entering my profession; we all interact with clients who behave in ways we don't care to applaud, and we do our jobs without letting personal judgements get in the way. This would be like saying no catholic can go to medical school as they would be unable to prescribe contraceptive pills. Even more worrisome is that the Supreme Court should decide the matter without an objective application of the charter of rights and freedoms, but a subjective application of the unwritten 'values' they feel might underlie it. I don't care to have the highest court in the land decide cases by their feelings rather than the law, but perhaps that is now to be part of the molding of allowable thought in our brave new world.
Why has it taken so long to get diversity across boring uniformity? Personally I’d like to see the Hare Krishna variant.
He's the only guard there who actually looks effective. Everyone else has a LARGE FURRY HAT. For reasons I'll never fathom, THEY AREN'T EVEN STRAPPED ON PROPERLY.
Dear boy, if you think that's a 'strap on' there are a few websites that might be of help.
Brive1987 wrote: ↑People like west style stable govts.
Immigration is therefore our fault.
More like "mass immigration is therefore pretty much inevitable, and you can manage it, but not stop it".
And yet, that’s not what you said. Your words were that the govt and (((company))) agendas created conditions that required people to move on to the West.
Own it.
...that's why it's inevitable. I thought that this was what "therefore" means. It's not "our" (us, the "western" public opinion) fault anymore than it's "our" fault if Iraq got invaded.
comhcinc wrote: ↑
I am general against the way Trump is doing shit but Kirbmarc said two things that really stood out as off to me.
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Under Trump prosecutors have been instructed to treat illegal entry as a crime, along with pre-trial detention in jails (which is a waste of time and money anyway).
It's not. Most of these people I am told (mostly by progressive people yelling at me on facebook) are first time offenders. The first time it's a misdemeanor they are almost giving time served and sent out of the country. They get caught again it's a felony. That appears not to be happening a lot. I think a lot of people (and I am not saying this applies to you Kirb) think these people are completely ignorant of the laws. I believe most of them understand them and know what they are doing. I frankly find it a little racist (again not you Kirb) when people act like these central americans just can't meet the requirements or know how to apply.
I'm pretty sure that they know that what they're doing is illegal and that if they get caught they simply get deported. Hell, frankly speaking, a lot of the immigrants probably ARE trying to get in as refugees even though they know that they don't meet the requirements, knowing that at least the process slows down their deportation. The problem I have is that the process of jailing these people, instead of hosting them in a center with their kids, is a waste of time and money in the long run, because you need to have separate facilities for children while the adults go to jail, and then have a process to keep track of the kids and getting them back to their parents. I understand that there probably aren't many facilities for families, and building them would require an investment at a certain point, but carrying on like this for a long time is not viable.
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Also there's no way to efficiently keep track of the children housed in the detention centers for minors.
Bullshit. They might not be doing it but there are many ways to track which child belongs with which family. Hospitals do it is which bracelets with barcodes. Combine that with fingerprints and you are done.
There's no efficient way of tracking children right now.
It's the Salafi salute. ISIS are Salafi, and so is the bearded cunt in the last picture. This IS a genuine concern, although a little overblown by showing only ISIS. The police seem to be pretty clueless about who these guys are and think that they're just "community leaders", likely because that's what their superiors tell them.
It's not that all Salafis are terrorists, but they're all reactionary, integralist cunts. Not the best people to which you should give power and recognition. They take over "muslim communities" and make things worse. But they're usually the richest (Gulf theocracies pay well), most visible, most outspoken and best "connected" people out there, so it's easy for the authorities to think that they're "moderate" and "represent their communities".
It's the Salafi salute. ISIS are Salafi, and so is the bearded cunt in the last picture. This IS a genuine concern, although a little overblown by showing only ISIS. The police seem to be pretty clueless about who these guys are and think that they're just "community leaders", likely because that's what their superiors tell them.
It's not that all Salafis are terrorists, but they're all reactionary, integralist cunts. Not the best people to which you should give power and recognition. They take over "muslim communities" and make things worse. But they're usually the richest (Gulf theocracies pay well), most visible, most outspoken and best "connected" people out there, so it's easy for the authorities to think that they're "moderate" and "represent their communities".
Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Is the difference that Canada places arrested illegals into community housing (with benefits) for years while America puts illegals into jail without their kids until they plead guilty and are fucked off whence they came? Or is this an unfair characterisation?
LOL. We either feed them lunch then drive them back across the border, or release them on their own recognizance on a promise to show up for their court date.
Confused. Isn’t the whole child thing happening because 1000’s of mums and dads are now in jail?
For breaking the law ...
Haha. Yeah. My wife and I were watching the news yesterday and this "think of the children" shit was on. My wife was really upset... you know.... because it is all about the children. And I say, "The parents brought their children with them to illegally enter the US. This is the parents' fault." and she says "But they are just poor people trying to get a better life for their kids!" and I say "There are half a billion poor people in South America that want to come here.... that's not gonna work out." and she says "I can't talk about this." Haha.
She has high agreeableness and high neuroticisms.... so the facts around why we need better laws about immigrants is not important to her. What really pisses me off about this illegal alien topic is that many people just want the President to make everything work out by fiat rather than use the proper process, which is to pass laws in Congress.
Both the Dems and the Reps are complicit in the disaster we have in the US regarding illegal aliens. Both parties actually like the system we have, but the American people, who mostly believe in the rule of law, hate the system. This is what Trump understands.
The Reps like the current process because farmers and construction companies get a steady stream of low paid workers the can exploit. It keep their costs low and their profits high and helps them compete globally.
The Dems like the current process because it is inevitably adding more and more Democrat voters. It also plays to the Dem base who don't like the idea that we have laws and think we need to save the world's brown people.
As I have finally admitted. I am now an unapologetic Trump fan. That ass-hole is the only guy that could pull this kind of thing off. He has the audacity to change the processes he has control over so that he is rounding up children and putting them in camps... and then he says "The Democrats made me do it!" Haha. That's some bold-ass negotiating. And the way this breaks down is that 75% of Americas hate that these kids are going through this.... but.... 50% agree with Trump when he says the laws need changing. This will turn into a political win for Trump himself. In the short term this may be bad for Reps in the midterms, but Trump doesn't care too much about that. He doesn't get much help from most of the current Reps in Congress anyway.
Why has it taken so long to get diversity across boring uniformity? Personally I’d like to see the Hare Krishna variant.
He's the only guard there who actually looks effective. Everyone else has a LARGE FURRY HAT. For reasons I'll never fathom, THEY AREN'T EVEN STRAPPED ON PROPERLY.
He'll have a dagger in there too.
I know who I'd rather have guarding my Crown Jewels.
On children: I don't know how many fall into this, but my understanding is that since the practice was to release anyone with children into the US, the human smugglers now provide children to those who don't have them so that they can be released. So Trump is closing that loophole. Whether the result is better or worse is debatable, but if previous policies were encouraging people to traffic children for the purpose of easier entry to the US, then it is probably better for a child to be in detention in the US as opposed to released into the US with someone who is not their parent and who has no incentive to look after them.
Talia Lavin has turned up in a lot of pitchfork calls recently. She's got a massive fucking chip on her shoulder. Perhaps not surprisingly she bit off more than she could chew.
Peez and Rebecca continue their faceplants while trying to launch themselves into former glory. Nobody wants them, but they won't believe it :D
Creepy old Peez has decided "wacky" works best. His Crazy 1972 TV Pitchman is turning into a fixture on his channel.
Meanwhile, that other 1972 retread - the celebrity panel game - lives on in Rebecca Watson's Quizotron. It is now scheduled monthly at SF's Pianofight Bar, stage 2. That's a venue which seats dozens.
If you can stand 2 and a half hours of forced mirth and gaeity, here is a recording of the last Quizotron:
Rebecca's self-snickering served her well back in the day. It encouraged friendly audiences to laugh along. But it can't carry a whole panel of unfunny people. Still, she tries, amping it up into a heartily insane clown cackle.
BTW, turn your speakers DOWN before listening to the audio above :shock:
3 old white guys and a tranny. The fem icon couldn't scrape anything better together. Only by counting the tranny and Rebecca (moderator) does the panel meet Rebecca's 40% requirement.
$15 gets you the smallest, least diverse Quizotron panel ever. The flabby camel toe is a free bonus.
Ape+lust wrote: ↑
Creepy old Peez has decided "wacky" works best. His Crazy 1972 TV Pitchman is turning into a fixture on his channel.
All of this because he got a haircut he doesn't like. We've all known for years that he has a massively over-inflated opinion of his intellect, but it is really weird to discover this pride in his physical self.
Guest_3bc53337 wrote: ↑
On children: I don't know how many fall into this, but my understanding is that since the practice was to release anyone with children into the US, the human smugglers now provide children to those who don't have them so that they can be released. So Trump is closing that loophole. Whether the result is better or worse is debatable, but if previous policies were encouraging people to traffic children for the purpose of easier entry to the US, then it is probably better for a child to be in detention in the US as opposed to released into the US with someone who is not their parent and who has no incentive to look after them.
The is probably true. It has been speculated that many "parents" of these kids had no proof that the "children" are even theirs. Human trafficking right under our noses.
Funny - I took the OCEAN test for the second time. I took it originally about a year ago. My scores are similar, but they moved even more to the edges of the distribution.
Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Is the difference that Canada places arrested illegals into community housing (with benefits) for years while America puts illegals into jail without their kids until they plead guilty and are fucked off whence they came? Or is this an unfair characterisation?
LOL. We either feed them lunch then drive them back across the border, or release them on their own recognizance on a promise to show up for their court date.
Confused. Isn’t the whole child thing happening because 1000’s of mums and dads are now in jail?
For breaking the law ...
They stopped 'catching & releasing' and started actually enforcing the law, you see. Which is literally as bad as the platform at Auschwitz or the African slave trade.
Christ -- deal the Dems a strong hand, and they will eventually overplay it.
Through a combination of blatant lies and photos of crying toddlers, the Dems actually had public opinion on their side. The optics of this, however, is disastrous: to score political points, the Dems are willing to prolong the suffering of those po' widdle chillin they'd been pretending to care about.
Brive1987 wrote: ↑
Is the difference that Canada places arrested illegals into community housing (with benefits) for years while America puts illegals into jail without their kids until they plead guilty and are fucked off whence they came? Or is this an unfair characterisation?
LOL. We either feed them lunch then drive them back across the border, or release them on their own recognizance on a promise to show up for their court date.
"community housing with benefits" They aren't allowed to work so instead we just watch them kill and eat their kids. We would send them to an island hellhole in the Pacific like they do in Australia except the major accessible island hellhole on the Pacific we have (where I live btw) doesn't have enough cheap housing.
the goddamn actual law wrote:(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penaltiesAny alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
There's no practical need to have time-consuming criminal trials for every illegal entry....
Christ -- deal the Dems a strong hand, and they will eventually overplay it.
Through a combination of blatant lies and photos of crying toddlers, the Dems actually had public opinion on their side. The optics of this, however, is disastrous: to score political points, the Dems are willing to prolong the suffering of those po' widdle chillin they'd been pretending to care about.
I honestly don't think a lot of them understand how things work.
John D wrote: ↑
This is a very good discussion.... IMHO.
Yes worth watching (Sue B almost gets to the crux of some of his dubious religious stuff) and reminds me what pisses me off about Peterson (among other things)
1. JD makes sweeping statement like the West is all brilliant hunky dory and "nothing like an African dictatorship".
Someone (who has done some homework) makes contrasting factual point, eg the high incarceration rate of the US , JD immediately concedes the point which contradicts his gospel (that things are are as black white as he suggests) and changes subject.
2. When asked if he believes in God, he says "depends what you mean by belief or God"
Interviewers don't seem to pin him down on definitions, his, or theirs OK , JD what the fuck do you mean by God, or do you believe in omniscient all powerful intelligent deity and creator of the universe or NOT
and he talks about "souls" yet he gets a free pass on this term (and others ) without defining it .
The moderator in this one (presumably a Christian) didnt do much, as I said before, JD needs better interviewers /chairs to pin him down.
Listened to this last night.
It's just going to reflect previous criticisms I've made of Peterson: the refusal to engage in using patently obvious terminology (he knows exactly what we all mean my 'believe' and 'god'), the overbearing generalisations of his arguments, and the stuffy tone/attitude he has a tendency to adopt.
I really think he evaded or ignored lots of Blackmore's ideas, and he was uncharitably aloof whereas she was at least interested in his ideas and approaching the whole thing with a sense of fun.
Peterson's argument that atheists aren't atheists if they behave in a way he determines is christian is utter shite, and conveniently posits him as final arbiter of what is and isn't christian. Voting in an election doesn't make you an Athenian.
His attempts to link mythology to biology are proper head-up-arse stuff as well, 3/10 see me.
Watched the Dillahunty "conversation" the other week as Peterson works his "Considerably more sceptical than you skeptics" trick. but he's actually implied that the recurrent snake motif from ancient history/legends is actually a representation
of the structure of DNA (ie these cultures somehow "knew" the structure before Crick & Watson), citing a book " The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge Paperback –by Jeremy Narby
This is bordering on Von Daniken crackpot theories.
Trudeau criticized the US over their handling of migrants and Trump almost immediately makes an about face and vows to change the policy.
Trump is a weakling. A loser.
Yeah, darn little buggers crossing the border without papers all the time and taking illegal shelter in caves and abandoned sheds. "Flying mammals" my arse, flying rats more like.
Does any reputable scientist / mythologist / psychiatrist (or whatever Peterson does) - use his 'Darwinian' and 'Newtonian' truth definitions?
He does seem honest to a fault (or at least uncomfortable in telling an outright lie) - but defining two types of truth, (which can be conveniently confused at the appropriate moment), seems to be setting thing up for some outright pedantic sophistry. (Even if he does not do it himself).
He's the only guard there who actually looks effective. Everyone else has a LARGE FURRY HAT. For reasons I'll never fathom, THEY AREN'T EVEN STRAPPED ON PROPERLY.
The idea is probably that attackers are psychologically seduced to take aim at the hat, which, when hit, releases a flurry of squeaking rubber ducks so they laugh themselves to death.
MarcusAu wrote: ↑
Does any reputable scientist / mythologist / psychiatrist (or whatever Peterson does) - use his 'Darwinian' and 'Newtonian' truth definitions?
He does seem honest to a fault (or at least uncomfortable in telling an outright lie) - but defining two types of truth, (which can be conveniently confused at the appropriate moment), seems to be setting thing up for some outright pedantic sophistry. (Even if he does not do it himself).
I'd also be really interested to know if his definition of a 'True' atheist as being psychotic has widespread support in the psychiatric / psychological communities or organisations that he is a member of.
MarcusAu wrote: ↑
I'd also be really interested to know if his definition of a 'True' atheist as being psychotic has widespread support in the psychiatric / psychological communities or organisations that he is a member of.
I don't know, but you might look at Theodore Parker's sermon on "practical atheism" to see where Peterson is coming from.