Conquer Club

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote: Morally, it's crystal clear that people fleeing from tyranny have a right to ask for asylum. If your government has starved the legal system for decades, so that now it takes five years for a refugee to have their case heard, that's on your government. Apparently, bombing Belgrade takes priority over keeping the courts flowing smoothly. If cases were heard promptly, most of these refugees in the country would either be admitted and gainfully employed and paying taxes (assuming their case is valid) or they would be quickly deported (assuming their case is invalid.)

More self-serving morality, Duk'?

Self-serving? In what way do you believe this serves me?

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:Perhaps, they have the right to ask, but not the right to insist or trespass.
Also, a country has a right to refuse admittance. That is why there are borders, visas, etc.

There are borders because those in power like to regulate those without power.

Until recently, borders existed only so those in power could claim the right to tax those inside a certain line.

Only in the last two or three centuries have things like passports and visas appeared, and then only in a few parts of the world. Only since WW II have they become common.

Until then, nobody was crazy enough to turn down the appearance of fresh, cheap labour on his shores. (With obvious exceptions for wars, plagues, and paranoid shoguns.)

Votanic wrote:People often romanticize the fact that they had immigrant ancestors (virtually everybody has), but then otherwise ignore the context and the complications.

Maybe, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to point to an actual person who "ignores the context and the complications."

Almost everyone (like me) who favours immigration is cognizant of thing like the fact that, while immigration is always good for the economy in the long run, it does create some problems, sometimes serious problems, in the short run.

Votanic wrote:They also ignore the fact that they also had native ancestors who often had to resist invaders.
Many of these natives who stayed in place were actually more valiant and deserving.
Instead of fleeing to another ocuntry when things got rough, they chose stay and fight in place for a better life.

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:Imigration is in no way an inherent virtue, Duk ....it is merely a situation.
And those that immigrate illegally are showing right off the bat that they are criminals and scofflaws.

Lawbreakers, sometimes. Scofflaws, usually not. A scofflaw is a cynic who habitually breaks the law because enforcement is weak and he knows he can easily get away with it. Illegal immigrants almost never are. Most make good-faith efforts to enter legally, but find out just how ruthlessly the cards are stacked against them, and have to go ahead with some illegal Plan B, which in most cases is difficult and dangerous. Enforcement is not weak -- most are caught, many are detained under brutal conditions, and once released their troubles are not over. Most would be happy to make their case in a court of law, but don't get the opportunity.

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote: Morally, it's crystal clear that people fleeing from tyranny have a right to ask for asylum. If your government has starved the legal system for decades, so that now it takes five years for a refugee to have their case heard, that's on your government. Apparently, bombing Belgrade takes priority over keeping the courts flowing smoothly. If cases were heard promptly, most of these refugees in the country would either be admitted and gainfully employed and paying taxes (assuming their case is valid) or they would be quickly deported (assuming their case is invalid.)

More self-serving morality, Duk'?

Self-serving? In what way do you believe this serves me?

You previously made allusions to your own immigration to Canada, but as I've already said:
1. Ancestral immigration is near-universal. Fully universal of ancient within-Africa immigration is included.
2. In any case, past occurrences do not create any justification or condemnation (either a priori or a posteriori). Immigration is only a situation, with nothing inherently virtuous about the act.
3. Regardless of motivation, your relatively recent immigration was presumably legal under the laws of the receiving country (Canada).
Therefore it doesn't really apply to the current situation anyway, and is not a valid comparison.

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:Perhaps, they have the right to ask, but not the right to insist or trespass.
Also, a country has a right to refuse admittance. That is why there are borders, visas, etc.

There are borders because those in power like to regulate those without power.

Until recently, borders existed only so those in power could claim the right to tax those inside a certain line.

Only in the last two or three centuries have things like passports and visas appeared, and then only in a few parts of the world. Only since WW II have they become common.

Until then, nobody was crazy enough to turn down the appearance of fresh, cheap labour on his shores. (With obvious exceptions for wars, plagues, and paranoid shoguns.)

Votanic wrote:People often romanticize the fact that they had immigrant ancestors (virtually everybody has), but then otherwise ignore the context and the complications.

Maybe, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to point to an actual person who "ignores the context and the complications."

Almost everyone (like me) who favours immigration is cognizant of thing like the fact that, while immigration is always good for the economy in the long run, it does create some problems, sometimes serious problems, in the short run.

Your response is largely obfuscation. There is good evidence that even as far back as the paleolithic, different tribal or family groups divided up land resources, ...or fought wars if an agreement could not be reached. The concept of trespass is doubtlessly far older than humanity. many animals have home-territories that they will defend.

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:They also ignore the fact that they also had native ancestors who often had to resist invaders.
Many of these natives who stayed in place were actually more valiant and deserving.
Instead of fleeing to another ocuntry when things got rough, they chose stay and fight in place for a better life.

Now who's "romanticizing"?

There's nothing valiant about the first person to arrive on a nice resource claiming it all for himself and denying a slice of the pie to those who come later. It's just greed and voracity.

First come, first served is actually a widespread way of reducing conflict. Prior possession being a criterion that is often used as the way disputes are settled. Obviously abandonment and other issues add complexity to this (though not in this case), but the idea that everyone must share everything with whomever comes along later is ridiculous. That is unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as personal rights with regard to trespass, ...or theft, ...or rape, ...or slavery, ...or even ultimately murder.
If you can take it, take it. Is that right?

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:Imigration is in no way an inherent virtue, Duk ....it is merely a situation.
And those that immigrate illegally are showing right off the bat that they are criminals and scofflaws.

Lawbreakers, sometimes. Scofflaws, usually not. A scofflaw is a cynic who habitually breaks the law because enforcement is weak and he knows he can easily get away with it. Illegal immigrants almost never are. Most make good-faith efforts to enter legally, but find out just how ruthlessly the cards are stacked against them, and have to go ahead with some illegal Plan B, which in most cases is difficult and dangerous. Enforcement is not weak -- most are caught, many are detained under brutal conditions, and once released their troubles are not over. Most would be happy to make their case in a court of law, but don't get the opportunity.

So now you're giving a big dumb argument saying that the criminals should decide what is a law to follow and what is not. I just can't...

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote: Morally, it's crystal clear that people fleeing from tyranny have a right to ask for asylum. If your government has starved the legal system for decades, so that now it takes five years for a refugee to have their case heard, that's on your government. Apparently, bombing Belgrade takes priority over keeping the courts flowing smoothly. If cases were heard promptly, most of these refugees in the country would either be admitted and gainfully employed and paying taxes (assuming their case is valid) or they would be quickly deported (assuming their case is invalid.)

More self-serving morality, Duk'?

Self-serving? In what way do you believe this serves me?

You previously made allusions to your own immigration to Canada, but as I've already said:
1. Ancestral immigration is near-universal. Fully universal of ancient within-Africa immigration is included.
2. In any case, past occurrences do not create any justification or condemnation (either a priori or a posteriori). Immigration is only a situation, with nothing inherently virtuous about the act.
3. Regardless of motivation, your relatively recent immigration was presumably legal under the laws of the receiving country (Canada).
Therefore it doesn't really apply to the current situation anyway, and is not a valid comparison.

Exactly. Which is why I didn't bring it up. I came to Canada through legal channels, I've been a Canadian citizen since 1970, so there's absolutely zero chance that your country's immigration policies today would have any tangible effect on me.

So, back to my question: why do you think that my comments on your policies are "self-serving"? In what way can any of it serve me?

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:Perhaps, they have the right to ask, but not the right to insist or trespass.
Also, a country has a right to refuse admittance. That is why there are borders, visas, etc.

There are borders because those in power like to regulate those without power.

Until recently, borders existed only so those in power could claim the right to tax those inside a certain line.

Only in the last two or three centuries have things like passports and visas appeared, and then only in a few parts of the world. Only since WW II have they become common.

Until then, nobody was crazy enough to turn down the appearance of fresh, cheap labour on his shores. (With obvious exceptions for wars, plagues, and paranoid shoguns.)

Votanic wrote:People often romanticize the fact that they had immigrant ancestors (virtually everybody has), but then otherwise ignore the context and the complications.

Maybe, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to point to an actual person who "ignores the context and the complications."

Almost everyone (like me) who favours immigration is cognizant of thing like the fact that, while immigration is always good for the economy in the long run, it does create some problems, sometimes serious problems, in the short run.

Your response is largely obfuscation. There is good evidence that even as far back as the paleolithic, different tribal or family groups divided up land resources, ...or fought wars if an agreement could not be reached. The concept of trespass is doubtlessly far older than humanity. many animals have home-territories that they will defend.

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:They also ignore the fact that they also had native ancestors who often had to resist invaders.
Many of these natives who stayed in place were actually more valiant and deserving.
Instead of fleeing to another ocuntry when things got rough, they chose stay and fight in place for a better life.

Now who's "romanticizing"?

There's nothing valiant about the first person to arrive on a nice resource claiming it all for himself and denying a slice of the pie to those who come later. It's just greed and voracity.

First come, first served is actually a widespread way of reducing conflict. Prior possession being a criterion that is often used as the way disputes are settled. Obviously abandonment and other issues add complexity to this (though not in this case), but the idea that everyone must share everything with whomever comes along later is ridiculous. That is unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as personal rights with regard to trespass, ...or theft, ...or rape, ...or slavery, ...or even ultimately murder.
If you can take it, take it. Is that right?

Immigrants aren't "taking" anything.

They rent homes from landlords who willingly offer them for rent. They do work that employers need done. They buy food at the grocery store and pay the same prices you do.

There's no "taking" involved.

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:Imigration is in no way an inherent virtue, Duk ....it is merely a situation.
And those that immigrate illegally are showing right off the bat that they are criminals and scofflaws.

Lawbreakers, sometimes. Scofflaws, usually not. A scofflaw is a cynic who habitually breaks the law because enforcement is weak and he knows he can easily get away with it. Illegal immigrants almost never are. Most make good-faith efforts to enter legally, but find out just how ruthlessly the cards are stacked against them, and have to go ahead with some illegal Plan B, which in most cases is difficult and dangerous. Enforcement is not weak -- most are caught, many are detained under brutal conditions, and once released their troubles are not over. Most would be happy to make their case in a court of law, but don't get the opportunity.

So now you're giving a big dumb argument saying that the criminals should decide what is a law to follow and what is not. I just can't...

You're the one who's always arguing that words should be interpreted literally.

"Scofflaw" has a clear dictionary definition. It is someone who habitually breaks laws because he he knows that they are rarely enforced and he knows he can almost certainly get away with it with little risk to himself. These people are breaking laws, yes, but laws that are aggressively enforced and which one breaks only at immense risks to oneself. Follow your own advice and use words correctly. Call these people lawbreakers if you will, but don't smear them as "scofflaws". These are courageous people that risk pain, imprisonment, and often death, in order to make a better life for their descendants.

jusplay4fun wrote:

Pack Rat wrote:Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants./quote]

It was a horrible immigration bill; it did not deserve to be passed. pee-rat merely repeats Kamala's weak and pathetic pre-planned response to HER FAILURE to immigration crises she and Old Joe CAUSED. Get original, at some point, pee-rat.

Mr. World Salad who barely comprehends the arguments is lecturing the rest of US? PITY, since none of pee-rat's points are valid. BUT WAIT, pee-rat will soon post a video to TRY to explain ALL this. RIGHT......

And when I caught pee-rat in a LIE, he cannot deny it, trying instead to deflect his mistake by throwing out insults. Those are tactics of a weak debater.

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)
Or how about your election prediction?
Shouldnt be that hard for a sunday school teacher.

pmac666 wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:

Pack Rat wrote:Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants./quote]

It was a horrible immigration bill; it did not deserve to be passed. pee-rat merely repeats Kamala's weak and pathetic pre-planned response to HER FAILURE to immigration crises she and Old Joe CAUSED. Get original, at some point, pee-rat.

Mr. World Salad who barely comprehends the arguments is lecturing the rest of US? PITY, since none of pee-rat's points are valid. BUT WAIT, pee-rat will soon post a video to TRY to explain ALL this. RIGHT......

And when I caught pee-rat in a LIE, he cannot deny it, trying instead to deflect his mistake by throwing out insults. Those are tactics of a weak debater.

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)
Or how about your election prediction?
Shouldnt be that hard for a sunday school teacher.

Votanic wrote:

pmac666 wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:

Pack Rat wrote:Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants./quote]

It was a horrible immigration bill; it did not deserve to be passed. pee-rat merely repeats Kamala's weak and pathetic pre-planned response to HER FAILURE to immigration crises she and Old Joe CAUSED. Get original, at some point, pee-rat.

Mr. World Salad who barely comprehends the arguments is lecturing the rest of US? PITY, since none of pee-rat's points are valid. BUT WAIT, pee-rat will soon post a video to TRY to explain ALL this. RIGHT......

And when I caught pee-rat in a LIE, he cannot deny it, trying instead to deflect his mistake by throwing out insults. Those are tactics of a weak debater.

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)
Or how about your election prediction?
Shouldnt be that hard for a sunday school teacher.

@ Duk: You know how the old pmac666 used to post. So what do you think of this obvious recent switcheroo??

Pack Rat wrote:

Votanic wrote:

pmac666 wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:

Pack Rat wrote:Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants./quote]

It was a horrible immigration bill; it did not deserve to be passed. pee-rat merely repeats Kamala's weak and pathetic pre-planned response to HER FAILURE to immigration crises she and Old Joe CAUSED. Get original, at some point, pee-rat.

Mr. World Salad who barely comprehends the arguments is lecturing the rest of US? PITY, since none of pee-rat's points are valid. BUT WAIT, pee-rat will soon post a video to TRY to explain ALL this. RIGHT......

And when I caught pee-rat in a LIE, he cannot deny it, trying instead to deflect his mistake by throwing out insults. Those are tactics of a weak debater.

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)
Or how about your election prediction?
Shouldnt be that hard for a sunday school teacher.

@ Duk: You know how the old pmac666 used to post. So what do you think of this obvious recent switcheroo??

Just look at Votanic crying for moderation, what a hoot!

Vot wants to see the manager.

Saw that in chat too already.
They think im someone else now cause im improving my english atm quite fast by watching movies and series (with english subs) now in original. And i watch a lot movies and series....
But ofc it HAS to be a conspiracy, everything else would be boring.

But as said, i find it quite flattering.
And its indeed easier now to kick their fascist conspiracy asses. lol

A “Border Emergency Authority” Adding a New, Restrictive, and Opaque Process until Border Crossings Reach Very Low Levels
The “trigger” authority—called the “Border Emergency Authority”—would enable the administration to summarily deport migrants who enter between ports of entry without permitting them to apply for asylum.

The new emergency authority could be activated if border “encounters” reach a daily average of 4,000 over a period of seven days and would become mandatory once border encounters reach over 5,000 over a period of seven days or 8,500 over a single calendar day. However, there are several other rules governing the use of the emergency authority, rendering it much less straightforward than the simple mathematics of crossings (for example, the so-called “discretionary” authority at the 4,000/day level would in fact be mandatory for the first 90 days at that level after passage). In addition, the bill defines “encounters” to exclude apprehensions of unaccompanied migrant children.

The bill gives the federal government significant discretion over exactly when to implement this new emergency summary-deportation process and does not require it to be publicly announced. The upshot is this: on any given day, a would-be asylum seeker would have no idea whether they would be allowed to seek asylum in the U.S. or not. The government would be allowed to opt people out of summary removal for a variety of reasons, including operational constraints such as overcrowding. Non-Mexican unaccompanied children would also be exempted. Those set for summary removal could receive a screening for non-asylum humanitarian protection by affirmatively “manifesting” fear of persecution or torture to a border official—volunteering without prompting that they fear return or showing an obvious sign of fear.

pmac666 wrote:
When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)

pmac666 wrote:

pmac666 wrote:
When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)

Well, you tried Tweedle-maga.

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote: Morally, it's crystal clear that people fleeing from tyranny have a right to ask for asylum. If your government has starved the legal system for decades, so that now it takes five years for a refugee to have their case heard, that's on your government. Apparently, bombing Belgrade takes priority over keeping the courts flowing smoothly. If cases were heard promptly, most of these refugees in the country would either be admitted and gainfully employed and paying taxes (assuming their case is valid) or they would be quickly deported (assuming their case is invalid.)

More self-serving morality, Duk'?

Self-serving? In what way do you believe this serves me?

You previously made allusions to your own immigration to Canada, but as I've already said:
1. Ancestral immigration is near-universal. Fully universal of ancient within-Africa immigration is included.
2. In any case, past occurrences do not create any justification or condemnation (either a priori or a posteriori). Immigration is only a situation, with nothing inherently virtuous about the act.
3. Regardless of motivation, your relatively recent immigration was presumably legal under the laws of the receiving country (Canada).
Therefore it doesn't really apply to the current situation anyway, and is not a valid comparison.

Exactly. Which is why I didn't bring it up. I came to Canada through legal channels, I've been a Canadian citizen since 1970, so there's absolutely zero chance that your country's immigration policies today would have any tangible effect on me.

So, back to my question: why do you think that my comments on your policies are "self-serving"? In what way can any of it serve me?

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:Perhaps, they have the right to ask, but not the right to insist or trespass.
Also, a country has a right to refuse admittance. That is why there are borders, visas, etc.

There are borders because those in power like to regulate those without power.

Until recently, borders existed only so those in power could claim the right to tax those inside a certain line.

Only in the last two or three centuries have things like passports and visas appeared, and then only in a few parts of the world. Only since WW II have they become common.

Until then, nobody was crazy enough to turn down the appearance of fresh, cheap labour on his shores. (With obvious exceptions for wars, plagues, and paranoid shoguns.)

Votanic wrote:People often romanticize the fact that they had immigrant ancestors (virtually everybody has), but then otherwise ignore the context and the complications.

Maybe, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to point to an actual person who "ignores the context and the complications."

Almost everyone (like me) who favours immigration is cognizant of thing like the fact that, while immigration is always good for the economy in the long run, it does create some problems, sometimes serious problems, in the short run.

Your response is largely obfuscation. There is good evidence that even as far back as the paleolithic, different tribal or family groups divided up land resources, ...or fought wars if an agreement could not be reached. The concept of trespass is doubtlessly far older than humanity. many animals have home-territories that they will defend.

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:They also ignore the fact that they also had native ancestors who often had to resist invaders.
Many of these natives who stayed in place were actually more valiant and deserving.
Instead of fleeing to another ocuntry when things got rough, they chose stay and fight in place for a better life.

Now who's "romanticizing"?

There's nothing valiant about the first person to arrive on a nice resource claiming it all for himself and denying a slice of the pie to those who come later. It's just greed and voracity.

First come, first served is actually a widespread way of reducing conflict. Prior possession being a criterion that is often used as the way disputes are settled. Obviously abandonment and other issues add complexity to this (though not in this case), but the idea that everyone must share everything with whomever comes along later is ridiculous. That is unless you want to argue that there is no such thing as personal rights with regard to trespass, ...or theft, ...or rape, ...or slavery, ...or even ultimately murder.
If you can take it, take it. Is that right?

Immigrants aren't "taking" anything.

They rent homes from landlords who willingly offer them for rent. They do work that employers need done. They buy food at the grocery store and pay the same prices you do.

There's no "taking" involved.

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:Imigration is in no way an inherent virtue, Duk ....it is merely a situation.
And those that immigrate illegally are showing right off the bat that they are criminals and scofflaws.

Lawbreakers, sometimes. Scofflaws, usually not. A scofflaw is a cynic who habitually breaks the law because enforcement is weak and he knows he can easily get away with it. Illegal immigrants almost never are. Most make good-faith efforts to enter legally, but find out just how ruthlessly the cards are stacked against them, and have to go ahead with some illegal Plan B, which in most cases is difficult and dangerous. Enforcement is not weak -- most are caught, many are detained under brutal conditions, and once released their troubles are not over. Most would be happy to make their case in a court of law, but don't get the opportunity.

So now you're giving a big dumb argument saying that the criminals should decide what is a law to follow and what is not. I just can't...

You're the one who's always arguing that words should be interpreted literally.

"Scofflaw" has a clear dictionary definition. It is someone who habitually breaks laws because he he knows that they are rarely enforced and he knows he can almost certainly get away with it with little risk to himself. These people are breaking laws, yes, but laws that are aggressively enforced and which one breaks only at immense risks to oneself. Follow your own advice and use words correctly. Call these people lawbreakers if you will, but don't smear them as "scofflaws". These are courageous people that risk pain, imprisonment, and often death, in order to make a better life for their descendants.

All your replies are disingenuous.
• If there truly was agreement on there not being 'taking' or other deleterious results to citizenry, then immigration would not be an issue, would it?
• I am using scofflaw correctly, but you can substitute plain old 'criminal' if you prefer.
• Immigration Laws are not efficiently or sufficiently enforced (especially under Biden). If there were then there would be very few illegal aliens, and then only very briefly.
• You being 'self-serving' about it was never my main issue, so don't dwell on that, ...but it does kind-of apply because you are sort-of lefty-liberalish and seem to like stuff like illegal aliens.

pmac666 wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:

Pack Rat wrote:Bullsh!t and outright lies by the guy who tosses word salad to try to impress us, lol.

There was a very conservative and tough immigration bill that was bi-partisan vote in the Senate. But, once it hit the House, Trump threaten the House Speaker to NOT vote this bill. Trump needs the problems to continue at the border, so only Trump can fix it and whine about those criminal migrants./quote]

It was a horrible immigration bill; it did not deserve to be passed. pee-rat merely repeats Kamala's weak and pathetic pre-planned response to HER FAILURE to immigration crises she and Old Joe CAUSED. Get original, at some point, pee-rat.

Mr. World Salad who barely comprehends the arguments is lecturing the rest of US? PITY, since none of pee-rat's points are valid. BUT WAIT, pee-rat will soon post a video to TRY to explain ALL this. RIGHT......

And when I caught pee-rat in a LIE, he cannot deny it, trying instead to deflect his mistake by throwing out insults. Those are tactics of a weak debater.

When was the last time you posted an original thought?
Cause i only see copy pasta and silly attempts of grade schooler insults.

Why dont you tell us in your own words what you dont like about the border bill? And keep in mind you wont get a better one even when the miracle happens. (unless you also want no one to come and those who are there already, gone.)
Or how about your election prediction?
Shouldnt be that hard for a sunday school teacher.

pmac666 wrote:Yeah and it works on you quite nicely.

pmac666 wrote:Yeah and it works on you quite nicely.

Votanic wrote:If you really are a self-serving rationalist that always promotes his own buttered side of the bread then you might want to think twice jumping into the political sack with the borderless, cop-modless, genderless, anarchist Radical Left.

Votanic wrote: You might think it is the height of radical-chic to promote open (non-)borders that allow any and all (il)legal scofflaw foreign migrants to come and go as they please,

Dukasaur wrote: We have the perfect case study in Germany, which in 2015 was hit with a very serious overflow of migrants. They were apportioned to different German cities according to their available housing and job markets, and while some problems do remain, the vast majority have been successfully employed and integrated into German society. Also, those cities that welcomed the migrants with such thing as language training and help with job placement, have fared far better than those who stuck their head in the sand and left the migrants to fend for themselves.

Dukasaur wrote:Lack of resettlement policies and a chaotic border are not what I'm advocating. Compassionate but intelligent migrant management is quite possible.