NPR's Border Fact Check

[Spendulus]

....
I'm pretty sure you have the definition of totalitarianism completely backwards.  Unjust laws need to be broken and challenged constantly until they are moot.  This is called active protest and its been the most effective way for people to overcome totalitarian tendencies.  

You should go on down there and stick your face in that tear gas and shield a couple of them from it. I hear the criminal count in that crowd is up to 600+, but if you are careful you probably won't get knifed in the back. Might lose a wallet, but so what? You can cross back in illegal with them and gain first hand experience with Tijuana.

Please just do it and report back on what they think of your communist schemes. No, maybe you should stay 100% quiet about those crazy ideas. If you want to make it back....

This is an interesting article.

TOP 5 MEDIA LIES ON THE MIGRANT CARAVAN

https://pjmedia.com/trending/top-five-media-lies-on-the-migrant-caravan/

But they don't get to the Big Lie, which is that it's a spontaneous surge of people wanting a better life.

Actually it's a purposeful anti-American, anti-Trump scheme funded and deployed by enemies.

[TECSHARE]

I'm pretty sure you have the definition of totalitarianism completely backwards.  Unjust laws need to be broken and challenged constantly until they are moot.  This is called active protest and its been the most effective way for people to overcome totalitarian tendencies.

No, the totalitarianism comes after you get control. Enforcing ones borders is one of the oldest recognized rights of a sovereign nation. This is the case because without controlling for this factor nations have the real potential to fall. Purposely attempting to collapse the nation with uncontrolled immigration is treason, not protest. It doesn't matter how ignorant you are of the reality of the results of your actions.

[coins4commies]

I'm pretty sure you have the definition of totalitarianism completely backwards.  Unjust laws need to be broken and challenged constantly until they are moot.  This is called active protest and its been the most effective way for people to overcome totalitarian tendencies.

No, the totalitarianism comes after you get control. Enforcing ones borders is one of the oldest recognized rights of a sovereign nation. This is the case because without controlling for this factor nations have the real potential to fall. Purposely attempting to collapse the nation with uncontrolled immigration is treason, not protest. It doesn't matter how ignorant you are of the reality of the results of your actions.

The problem with that is how do we figure out when to start recognizing these old rights of sovereign nations? Today? Last week? 2010? 2003? 2001? 1991? 1989? 1973? 1971? 1967? 1953? 1950? 1492?

[Spendulus]

Looks like the Fake Caravan hasn't turned out too well.

Manufacture a Caravan Human Rights Crisis, What if it Boomerangs on You?

https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2018/12/caravan-crisis-boomeranged-latin-american-left/

[TECSHARE]

No, the totalitarianism comes after you get control. Enforcing ones borders is one of the oldest recognized rights of a sovereign nation. This is the case because without controlling for this factor nations have the real potential to fall. Purposely attempting to collapse the nation with uncontrolled immigration is treason, not protest. It doesn't matter how ignorant you are of the reality of the results of your actions.

The problem with that is how do we figure out when to start recognizing these old rights of sovereign nations? Today? Last week? 2010? 2003? 2001? 1991? 1989? 1973? 1971? 1967? 1953? 1950? 1492?

Ah yes, the ever refreshing argument of the Socialist. We are just too advanced for those old stale ancient ways!

We aren't talking about trading women for goats here. Border controls are just as important as they ever were. The question is when did you stop recognizing these rights?

[coins4commies]

No, the totalitarianism comes after you get control. Enforcing ones borders is one of the oldest recognized rights of a sovereign nation. This is the case because without controlling for this factor nations have the real potential to fall. Purposely attempting to collapse the nation with uncontrolled immigration is treason, not protest. It doesn't matter how ignorant you are of the reality of the results of your actions.

The problem with that is how do we figure out when to start recognizing these old rights of sovereign nations? Today? Last week? 2010? 2003? 2001? 1991? 1989? 1973? 1971? 1967? 1953? 1950? 1492?

Ah yes, the ever refreshing argument of the Socialist. We are just too advanced for those old stale ancient ways!

We aren't talking about trading women for goats here. Border controls are just as important as they ever were. The question is when did you stop recognizing these rights?

I've never thought about how borders are recognized because its just another make believe human construct that kills poor people but doesn't affect me at all.  I have border privilege until I try to enter a country where Americans are not automatically allowed.    I am not a government so I am asking this question from the perspective of my government.  I'm simply asking when should we start recognizing borders?  Since borders are old, do we go back to ancient borders?  I am not asking rhetorically, I am literally asking when you think we should have started recognizing borders because apparently if we don't start now, we won't have the same country and if we go back far enough, we won't have the same country either.  

Are you talking about restoring the original borders of this land?
https://native-land.ca/
It seems complicated but I'm not rejecting it because I have an open mind.  I'm just curious about how that would work because so many of them overlap.  

[TECSHARE]

No, the totalitarianism comes after you get control. Enforcing ones borders is one of the oldest recognized rights of a sovereign nation. This is the case because without controlling for this factor nations have the real potential to fall. Purposely attempting to collapse the nation with uncontrolled immigration is treason, not protest. It doesn't matter how ignorant you are of the reality of the results of your actions.

The problem with that is how do we figure out when to start recognizing these old rights of sovereign nations? Today? Last week? 2010? 2003? 2001? 1991? 1989? 1973? 1971? 1967? 1953? 1950? 1492?

Ah yes, the ever refreshing argument of the Socialist. We are just too advanced for those old stale ancient ways!

We aren't talking about trading women for goats here. Border controls are just as important as they ever were. The question is when did you stop recognizing these rights?

I've never thought about how borders are recognized because its just another make believe human construct that kills poor people but doesn't affect me at all.  I have border privilege until I try to enter a country where Americans are not automatically allowed.    I am not a government so I am asking this question from the perspective of my government.  I'm simply asking when should we start recognizing borders?  Since borders are old, do we go back to ancient borders?  I am not asking rhetorically, I am literally asking when you think we should have started recognizing borders because apparently if we don't start now, we won't have the same country and if we go back far enough, we won't have the same country either.  

Are you talking about restoring the original borders of this land?
https://native-land.ca/
It seems complicated but I'm not rejecting it because I have an open mind.  I'm just curious about how that would work because so many of them overlap.  

More postmodernist mind mush. You are an enemy of the nation and I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up in a cell. It doesn't really matter how you rationalize irresponsible, criminal, and dangerous activities, they are still irresponsible, criminal, and dangerous.

[coins4commies]

Its not a valid response to just classify things as "postmodernist" but that is almost all you do.  Even if it was postmodernist, you haven't addressed any of the questions or facts put forward.  You haven't even explained how its postmodernist.  

Perhaps its because you are afraid of your own answers to the questions that have been put forward.  Perhaps answering the questions would force you into a contradiction.  

The irony of someone who is so paranoid about falling under authoritarian rule calling for someone be locked up for asking questions is golden.  I guess you are an authoritarian as long as you get to be the dictator.

Harriet Tubman's underground railroad was illegal, Nicholas Winton's smuggling of Jewish children during the Holocaust was illegal,  Jim crow sit ins were illegal.  Might is not right and sometimes the best thing to do is illegal and the law itself is unjust.  

Additionally, danger is measurable.  You don't just get to say my positions are dangerous when its clear that the most dangerous options would be for these people to stay stranded in northern Mexico or return home.  Even with the teargas and concentration camps, pushing the US is the option that gives them the best opportunity to achieve safety and that is what is driving this entire process. 

[TECSHARE]

Its not a valid response to just classify things as "postmodernist" but that is almost all you do.  Even if it was postmodernist, you haven't addressed any of the questions or facts put forward.  You haven't even explained how its postmodernist.  

Perhaps its because you are afraid of your own answers to the questions that have been put forward.  Perhaps answering the questions would force you into a contradiction.  

The irony of someone who is so paranoid about falling under authoritarian rule calling for someone be locked up for asking questions is golden.  I guess you are an authoritarian as long as you get to be the dictator.

Harriet Tubman's underground railroad was illegal, Nicholas Winton's smuggling of Jewish children during the Holocaust was illegal,  Jim crow sit ins were illegal.  Might is not right and sometimes the best thing to do is illegal and the law itself is unjust.  

Additionally, danger is measurable.  You don't just get to say my positions are dangerous when its clear that the most dangerous options would be for these people to stay stranded in northern Mexico or return home.  Even with the teargas and concentration camps, pushing the US is the option that gives them the best opportunity to achieve safety and that is what is driving this entire process.  

It is all I do when all you do is post relativist deconstructivist bullshit straight out of Critical Theory. "Postmodernist mind mush" isn't an insult, it is an observation of the fact that you repeatedly use the Hegelian dialectic to argue contradictory views of your ideology in order to create a relativist subjectivity that on a Sophistic level seems to be valid, but upon closer critical examination is nothing but 100% horse shit right out of your imagination.

You CONSTANTLY contradict yourself and you have the nerve to accuse me of being afraid of examining the truth because I might find conflict? Yeah, those loons being afraid of authoritarian rule! Who in their right mind would think active prevention of ideologies that spawn authoritarianism is worth while? Never in history has this ideology lead to genocide! Quite paranoid. Maybe instead we should go out and punch some Nazis?

I didn't call for you to be locked up. I was telling you regardless of how you justify your bullshit in your mind, you are still actively advocating for conditions that would destroy the nation, and as a result I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up in a cage over it if you are taking any actions in that direction.

There is a difference between civil disobedience and ignoring laws that endanger others. You wanna risk jail time to protest that is on you. You don't get to trade OTHER PEOPLE'S security for your cause. Who's safety? At what cost? Who pays that cost? You certainly fucking aren't but you have no problem putting that burden on everyone else right? It is very generous of you to spend other people's money and give away their safety. You are quite a saint. Just like Harriet Tubman.

[Spendulus]

....the most dangerous options would be for these people to stay stranded in northern Mexico or return home.  Even with the teargas and concentration camps, pushing the US is the option that gives them the best opportunity to achieve safety and that is what is driving this entire process. 

What's driving this entire process is the Leftist agitators and funding sources that created this entire problem, and now seems to have left these poor people to their own devices at the border's edge. I think you  should go take care of them, and pay their way back home.

....

I didn't call for you to be locked up. ....

Only, I suspect, because Hillary's cell is looking like it might have a full house.

[coins4commies]

Its not a valid response to just classify things as "postmodernist" but that is almost all you do.  Even if it was postmodernist, you haven't addressed any of the questions or facts put forward.  You haven't even explained how its postmodernist.  

Perhaps its because you are afraid of your own answers to the questions that have been put forward.  Perhaps answering the questions would force you into a contradiction.  

The irony of someone who is so paranoid about falling under authoritarian rule calling for someone be locked up for asking questions is golden.  I guess you are an authoritarian as long as you get to be the dictator.

Harriet Tubman's underground railroad was illegal, Nicholas Winton's smuggling of Jewish children during the Holocaust was illegal,  Jim crow sit ins were illegal.  Might is not right and sometimes the best thing to do is illegal and the law itself is unjust.  

Additionally, danger is measurable.  You don't just get to say my positions are dangerous when its clear that the most dangerous options would be for these people to stay stranded in northern Mexico or return home.  Even with the teargas and concentration camps, pushing the US is the option that gives them the best opportunity to achieve safety and that is what is driving this entire process.  

It is all I do when all you do is post relativist deconstructivist bullshit straight out of Critical Theory. "Postmodernist mind mush" isn't an insult, it is an observation of the fact that you repeatedly use the Hegelian dialectic to argue contradictory views of your ideology in order to create a relativist subjectivity that on a Sophistic level seems to be valid, but upon closer critical examination is nothing but 100% horse shit right out of your imagination.

You CONSTANTLY contradict yourself and you have the nerve to accuse me of being afraid of examining the truth because I might find conflict? Yeah, those loons being afraid of authoritarian rule! Who in their right mind would think active prevention of ideologies that spawn authoritarianism is worth while? Never in history has this ideology lead to genocide! Quite paranoid. Maybe instead we should go out and punch some Nazis?

I didn't call for you to be locked up. I was telling you regardless of how you justify your bullshit in your mind, you are still actively advocating for conditions that would destroy the nation, and as a result I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up in a cage over it if you are taking any actions in that direction.

The problem is not with classifying things but classifying things without any reasoning.  You just say everything is postmodernist (maybe it is?) but you give no reasoning for how its postmodernist or what is wrong with it in the particular context.  You say I contradict myself all the time but instead of pointing out the contradictions, you just say its "straight outta critical theory" and leave it at that.

And maybe you don't want to break down my positions.  Thats fine.  You still haven't answered any of my questions about your position in this thread. 

There is a difference between civil disobedience and ignoring laws that endanger others. You wanna risk jail time to protest that is on you. You don't get to trade OTHER PEOPLE'S security for your cause. Who's safety? At what cost? Who pays that cost? You certainly fucking aren't but you have no problem putting that burden on everyone else right? It is very generous of you to spend other people's money and give away their safety. You are quite a saint. Just like Harriet Tubman.

No I am actually arguing for the opposite of what you stated in bold.   Not only am I against funding a wall that would jeopardize the safety of these people, I am actually advocating for the abolishment of ICE which would save a lot of money.  It seems you are the one arguing we spend money to send these people back to very dangerous conditions. 

What's driving this entire process is the Leftist agitators and funding sources that created this entire problem, and now seems to have left these poor people to their own devices at the border's edge. I think you  should go take care of them, and pay their way back home.

The violence in Honduras is what is driving this entire process.  Do you think leftist agitators destabilized these countries?  I donate to border angels.  https://www.borderangels.org/

[TECSHARE]

The problem is not with classifying things but classifying things without any reasoning.  You just say everything is postmodernist (maybe it is?) but you give no reasoning for how its postmodernist or what is wrong with it in the particular context.  You say I contradict myself all the time but instead of pointing out the contradictions, you just say its "straight outta critical theory" and leave it at that.

And maybe you don't want to break down my positions.  Thats fine.  You still haven't answered any of my questions about your position in this thread.

"reasoning", as you define it is EXTREMELY subjective. You call it "reason" I call it "rationalization" and "sophistry". I don't say everything is Postmodernist. If you are tired of hearing me call you Postmodernist, stop spouting the tenets of Critical Theory constantly. I JUST EXPLAINED the meaning of this (AGAIN). I am very sorry your confirmation bias is so dominant you can't even retain words that cause cognitive dissonance, but the fact is I did explain it, why it is bad, and how you are doing it.
Trying to explain contradictions in the though of Communists TO Communists is about as effective as using logic to explain to a child why there is no monster under their bed. The best you can do is tell them there is no monster and move on. In your case if I explained to you every contradiction you made of yourself I would have time for nothing else, and you STILL would use your Postmodernist mind mush to excuse it away anyway. It is a bit like telling an alcoholic why it is bad to drink. Not going to do much.

I however explained all of my positions in detail, and explained why your positions are dangerous. I haven't answered your questions because they are retarded nonsense loaded questions. If you want to rephrase them in a less presumptuous way I would be happy to answer.

No I am actually arguing for the opposite of what you stated in bold.   Not only am I against funding a wall that would jeopardize the safety of these people, I am actually advocating for the abolishment of ICE which would save a lot of money.  It seems you are the one arguing we spend money to send these people back to very dangerous conditions.

It is irrelevant what you are arguing for, this will be the result. I could argue that jumping in a vat of radioactive waste will give you super powers, but if you do it you will likely just get super cancer.

Again, oh how magnanimous and generous you are! How big of you to use other peoples tax dollars to fund entitlement programs for these people! So generous!
What about the safety of the people ALREADY HERE? YOU DON'T GET TO CHOOSE FOR EVERYONE. All you are doing is handing out OTHER PEOPLES RESOURCES AND SAFETY so you can alleviate your own self loathing and guilt and feel like you are contributing. That is not generosity or kindness, that is malignant narcissism.

Getting rid of ICE will not save money because of the flood of people resulting from your retarded ideas that will then be sucking off the tit of the state. Then there is the question of terrorist infiltration using the open border, as well as gang, cartel, and other criminal activity. All of these things cost THIS NATION, not just money but LIVES. Who the fuck are you to decide their lives are more important than ours?

[coins4commies]

I however explained all of my positions in detail, and explained why your positions are dangerous. I haven't answered your questions because they are retarded nonsense loaded questions. If you want to rephrase them in a less presumptuous way I would be happy to answer.

You haven't explained when borders started being recognized.  You said that they are an ancient thing and you said they should always be respected but you won't answer this question because it is retarded.  It is retarded because it paints you into a crossroads of hypocrisy and capitulation.  You don't believe what you actually typed.  You don't think we should recognize the sovereignty of native lands because it would be contrary to your goal.  There is no way you can be consistent on this topic so its better to just not answer questions.

No I am actually arguing for the opposite of what you stated in bold.   Not only am I against funding a wall that would jeopardize the safety of these people, I am actually advocating for the abolishment of ICE which would save a lot of money.  It seems you are the one arguing we spend money to send these people back to very dangerous conditions.

It is irrelevant what you are arguing for, this will be the result. I could argue that jumping in a vat of radioactive waste will give you super powers, but if you do it you will likely just get super cancer.

Again, oh how magnanimous and generous you are! How big of you to use other peoples tax dollars to fund entitlement programs for these people! So generous!
What about the safety of the people ALREADY HERE? YOU DON'T GET TO CHOOSE FOR EVERYONE. All you are doing is handing out OTHER PEOPLES RESOURCES AND SAFETY so you can alleviate your own self loathing and guilt and feel like you are contributing. That is not generosity or kindness, that is malignant narcissism.

Getting rid of ICE will not save money because of the flood of people resulting from your retarded ideas that will then be sucking off the tit of the state. Then there is the question of terrorist infiltration using the open border, as well as gang, cartel, and other criminal activity. All of these things cost THIS NATION, not just money but LIVES. Who the fuck are you to decide their lives are more important than ours?

I'm not making any choices about the people already here.  You are the only one trying to make choices for what people should do.  I am making passive choices for the migrants but suggesting they be allowed to go where they need to go.   Once again, you demand the freedom to control other people and that is just not freedom.  Not allowing you to control other people does not mean I am making choices for you.

This topic boils down authority vs liberty once again.  I think people should be free to choose where they feel safe and you think you have a right to make choices for other people and send thousands of people back into a dangerous area where they clearly do not want to be.   I have no idea why you are trying to project your ideals onto me.  

Their lives are not more important than ours and that is a false dichotomy.  Its not "us or them".  We are fine.  I'm not sure why you are so scared of immigrants.  Have you ever met people from these places?

Also, you have the economics wrong.  I think its because you have an idea that we will be building programs and cities from the ground up for these people but the programs already exists.  The space already exists.  They will just be filling it.   "Whatever costs immigrants might present now will be "paid back" by overall economic growth that will lead to more tax revenue on average for the government and less demand for need-based benefit programs. "  

This isn't about the cartels.  The cartels have resources and already been crossing the border back and forth at will.  These people are coming to escape criminal activity.  

[TECSHARE]

I however explained all of my positions in detail, and explained why your positions are dangerous. I haven't answered your questions because they are retarded nonsense loaded questions. If you want to rephrase them in a less presumptuous way I would be happy to answer.

You haven't explained when borders started being recognized.  You said that they are an ancient thing and you said they should always be respected but you won't answer this question because it is retarded.  It is retarded because it paints you into a crossroads of hypocrisy and capitulation.  You don't believe what you actually typed.  You don't think we should recognize the sovereignty of native lands because it would be contrary to your goal.  There is no way you can be consistent on this topic so its better to just not answer questions.

Yeah because that was the retarded Postmodernist mind mush loaded question I was talking about. Can't defend getting rid of borders? Hey lets have a philosophical conversation about the concept and history of borders so we can avoid talking about all the resulting rapes, murders, and stress on public resources created by not enforcing it. I said the concept was ancient, not that "ancient borders should always be respected". Good attempt at word salad spin though!

"...paints you into a crossroads of hypocrisy and capitulation."

BWAHAHAHAA. Ok captain Postmodern. Hey here is a question for you. Can you show me a border not created by blood and conquest? Again you completely rely on relativism and some kind of pathetic play on some kind of misplaced guilt people have for displaced the natives, or beating back Mexico in war. They weren't nice people. They didn't live in a nice time.

That was how shit was done everywhere. Frankly you trying to exploit this to create a sense of guilt today is completely nonsensical because it would equally apply to any nation. I guess nations shouldn't exist any more either right? You'd love it if we had just one big Communist global government wouldn't you?

I'm not making any choices about the people already here.  You are the only one trying to make choices for what people should do.  I am making passive choices for the migrants but suggesting they be allowed to go where they need to go.   Once again, you demand the freedom to control other people and that is just not freedom.  Not allowing you to control other people does not mean I am making choices for you.

This topic boils down authority vs liberty once again.  I think people should be free to choose where they feel safe and you think you have a right to make choices for other people and send thousands of people back into a dangerous area where they clearly do not want to be.   I have no idea why you are trying to project your ideals onto me.  

Their lives are not more important than ours and that is a false dichotomy.  Its not "us or them".  We are fine.  I'm not sure why you are so scared of immigrants.  Have you ever met people from these places?

Also, you have the economics wrong.  I think its because you have an idea that we will be building programs and cities from the ground up for these people but the programs already exists.  The space already exists.  They will just be filling it.   "Whatever costs immigrants might present now will be "paid back" by overall economic growth that will lead to more tax revenue on average for the government and less demand for need-based benefit programs. "  

This isn't about the cartels.  The cartels have resources and already been crossing the border back and forth at will.  These people are coming to escape criminal activity.  

Uh, no. It is a law, a law passed by the representatives voted on by the people of this nation. They decided they wanted a border and wanted it enforced. I am not telling anyone anything except obey this law because it exists for good reason.

You are ABSOLUTELY making choices for the people of the United States. You are not only facilitating theft of their tax resources in the form of all the free healthcare, schooling, food benefits, etc, but putting the people at risk in various physical ways as well. Lets go over some of the risks of not enforcing the border between the US and Mexico.

1. Criminals. It is a fact there is more crime in Mexico, that means more criminals coming over the border and continuing their criminal ways here.

2. Drugs. Drugs like Fentanyl, which is so strong a piece the size of a grain of sand can kill you come across the border all the time in quantities large enough to kill millions.

3. Rape. Rape is much more common in Mexico than it is int he US. So much so to the point that women crossing over illegally in the hands of coyotes just EXPECT to be raped as part of the process. Then those rapists get here and keep raping.

4. Murder. Violence and murder are much more prevalent in Mexico than in the US. The murderers there come here and bring that mentality with them.

5. Disease. Communicable diseases are MUCH more prevalent in Mexico than in the US. Due to poor infrastructure, sanitation, and healthcare, serious diseases are much more rampant. Without proper screening those diseases come here and spread.

6. Theft of resources. In a lot of places school systems are completely over capacity and can barely keep up as property taxes rise to meet this increasing demand all as a direct result of illegal migrant children filling our schools. People are literally being stripped of their homes to pay for their education. This is just one example that can be multiplied across every entitlement program or public service the government offers, even voting!

7. Terrorism. What is the point of having the TSA fondle your balls at the airport if terrorists can just flood in thru Mexico?

There are so many more but these are just some of the basics. I look forward to your accusations of racism and heartlessness as you advocate the victimization of the people of the US in favor of hordes of migrants looking for handouts.

It is absolutely us or them. Much like your ideas of Socialism you imagine that resources are some how magically finite and we can just magically make it work. My economics are in line with reality, your economics are more in line with Huge Chavez, and it will have similar results. What about all the immigrants that worked so hard to get here legally? I guess fuck them too right?

The cartels come and go as they please as a DIRECT RESULT of the border not begin secured. They don't just traffic drugs either, they also traffic women and children for prostitution.

Here are some breakdowns of the economics which I am sure you will promptly ignore or rationalize away, but for everyone else....

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Households-Children

https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-but-illegal-aliens-cost-the-u-s-plenty/


In summary your "they are adding to the economy" spiel is a delusion and simply superficial cover for your new Postmodernist Marxist shit hole formerly known as the USA.

[coins4commies]

Yeah because that was the retarded Postmodernist mind mush loaded question I was talking about. Can't defend getting rid of borders? Hey lets have a philosophical conversation about the concept and history of borders so we can avoid talking about all the resulting rapes, murders, and stress on public resources created by not enforcing it. I said the concept was ancient, not that "ancient borders should always be respected". Good attempt at word salad spin though!

Of course any large group of people would have some crime but all evidence suggests this immigrants have a lower crime rate.  Most people are raped by someone close to them.  Where is your outcry about the Catholic church being allowed in this country?  Nowhere, because that would be silly.  Somehow, the same logic is fine when used against poor people from central America.  

Your argument is worse than saying "lets ban childbirth because some of those children will inevitably grow up to rape". The reason the childbirth strawman would make more sense than your actual argument is because it would be safe to assume our children would commit crime at the similar rate as their parents which is much higher than that of the immigrants.  Take that in...Allowing our own citizens to have children results in more rapists than allowing immigrants to enter.  

Forget all that though because we don't convict populations for crimes and we certainly don't convict individuals for crimes that haven't been committed yet.  This sure is a lot of authoritarianism for someone who's entire world view revolves around fear of dictatorship.  We don't take a machete approach to solving problems.  

"...paints you into a crossroads of hypocrisy and capitulation."

BWAHAHAHAA. Ok captain Postmodern. Hey here is a question for you. Can you show me a border not created by blood and conquest? Again you completely rely on relativism and some kind of pathetic play on some kind of misplaced guilt people have for displaced the natives, or beating back Mexico in war. They weren't nice people. They didn't live in a nice time.

That was how shit was done everywhere. Frankly you trying to exploit this to create a sense of guilt today is completely nonsensical because it would equally apply to any nation. I guess nations shouldn't exist any more either right? You'd love it if we had just one big Communist global government wouldn't you?

I cannot name one because it is the same people that carry out blood and conquest who are obsessed with dividing the planet into political borders in the first place.  How would the guilt be misplaced?  We wiped out all of those nations through genocide and replaced their borders.  Many of these indigenous peoples welcomed outsiders as their own.   Thats how we got here.

Saying nations shouldn't exist would be a stretch.  We definitely shouldn't have borders for the sake of saying who is allowed to move around the planet the planet.  Borders have useful applications but violating human rights isn't one of them.   The concept of borders being used to imprison entire populations is relatively new and useful for those who aim to divide and conquer.  I certainly would not like one global government because I don't think centralized power is either necessary or ethical.

This should actually be classified as "premodern" because mass migration is undeniably human nature.  I'm not even sure if you believe in all of these systems that exist today.  Most people follow them just because thats the way they have always known them.  If they were wiped away and you had to remake them, there is no way you would end up with anything similar.  There is nothing natural about them.

Uh, no. It is a law, a law passed by the representatives voted on by the people of this nation. They decided they wanted a border and wanted it enforced. I am not telling anyone anything except obey this law because it exists for good reason.

You are ABSOLUTELY making choices for the people of the United States. You are not only facilitating theft of their tax resources in the form of all the free healthcare, schooling, food benefits, etc, but putting the people at risk in various physical ways as well. Lets go over some of the risks of not enforcing the border between the US and Mexico.

1. Criminals. It is a fact there is more crime in Mexico, that means more criminals coming over the border and continuing their criminal ways here.

2. Drugs. Drugs like Fentanyl, which is so strong a piece the size of a grain of sand can kill you come across the border all the time in quantities large enough to kill millions.

3. Rape. Rape is much more common in Mexico than it is int he US. So much so to the point that women crossing over illegally in the hands of coyotes just EXPECT to be raped as part of the process. Then those rapists get here and keep raping.

4. Murder. Violence and murder are much more prevalent in Mexico than in the US. The murderers there come here and bring that mentality with them.

5. Disease. Communicable diseases are MUCH more prevalent in Mexico than in the US. Due to poor infrastructure, sanitation, and healthcare, serious diseases are much more rampant. Without proper screening those diseases come here and spread.

6. Theft of resources. In a lot of places school systems are completely over capacity and can barely keep up as property taxes rise to meet this increasing demand all as a direct result of illegal migrant children filling our schools. People are literally being stripped of their homes to pay for their education. This is just one example that can be multiplied across every entitlement program or public service the government offers, even voting!

7. Terrorism. What is the point of having the TSA fondle your balls at the airport if terrorists can just flood in thru Mexico?


In summary your "they are adding to the economy" spiel is a delusion and simply superficial cover for your new Postmodernist Marxist shit hole formerly known as the USA.

What law are you talking about?  Coming to the US to seek asylum is completely legal regardless of how you got here.  You actually have one year to seek asylum after you arrive.  "8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum" is the law that permits it.  Why do you think the ACLU is all over this?  Why do you think organizations like border angels are spending most of their resources on legal consultation and representation for migrants?

1. No evidence of this. The main problem is that racist are not, you are overgeneralizing the population.   The subset of the population desperate to leave are not the people benefiting from the crime and lawlessness.  Thats just logical.   The people benefiting from the lawlessness are not the ones walking thousands of miles to seek a better life with more legitimate opportunities.  Re: "Illegal immigrants are 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal immigrants are 69 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal and illegal immigrants are underrepresented in the incarcerated population while natives are overrepresented."
https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/

2. Are they spiking our drinks or shoving it down our throats?

3. see 1

4. see 1

5.  Not relevant.  Even if you stop immigration, you don't stop the massive amount of routine travel back and forth between the two countries.  No one screens college kids coming back from spring break either.   So lets get everyone here proper screening and make sure we have herd immunity.  That way everyone here will be covered.   If  disease is a problem, you fight disease, not people .  

6.  Its an investment as they will pay back more than they take out.  Even a selfish person should want more educated people in the population.  No one is arguing there isn't a big upfront investment.  You could argue about the opportunity cost of that investment, but I don't see any better spending taking place.  We could always bomb another country or give GM more money to lay people off.  Unlike dropping bombs, this is spending that will actually build productive lives.  Its both beneficial in the long run and the right thing to do.  Paying for schools with property taxes is a horrible system to begin with though.

7. Because terrorists used planes to attack us. TSA is guarding the planes not the border.  Thats why when you go through TSA to get to Detroit, they aren't protecting Detroit from bad people, they are protecting the planes from people.  The southern border isn't going to make it onto any "how terrorist attacks happen" list.  Again, see 1.  If you wanted to disregard ethics in the all-out effort to prevent terror attacks, you'd probably ship out all of the white men first.  

There are so many more but these are just some of the basics. I look forward to your accusations of racism and heartlessness as you advocate the victimization of the people of the US in favor of hordes of migrants looking for handouts.

I'm glad you acknowledge most of this came directly out of the racist playbook.

[Spendulus]

.....The southern border isn't going to make it onto any "how terrorist attacks happen" list.  ....

Actually it's been on that list for good reason for a long time.

But on a more important subject, don't you need to get progressive? Get with the latest on being progressive? I know the positions are changing all the time and it's hard to keep up....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/world/europe/denmark-migrants-island.html?fbclid=IwAR2QOJPWlAlV35COzM-dqGUkMXia0D_CuCU8xLZ8hxw0kxFti2hwQ1HaATU

[TECSHARE]

Of course any large group of people would have some crime but all evidence suggests this immigrants have a lower crime rate.  Most people are raped by someone close to them.  Where is your outcry about the Catholic church being allowed in this country?  Nowhere, because that would be silly.  Somehow, the same logic is fine when used against poor people from central America.  

Your argument is worse than saying "lets ban childbirth because some of those children will inevitably grow up to rape". The reason the childbirth strawman would make more sense than your actual argument is because it would be safe to assume our children would commit crime at the similar rate as their parents which is much higher than that of the immigrants.  Take that in...Allowing our own citizens to have children results in more rapists than allowing immigrants to enter.  

Forget all that though because we don't convict populations for crimes and we certainly don't convict individuals for crimes that haven't been committed yet.  This sure is a lot of authoritarianism for someone who's entire world view revolves around fear of dictatorship.  We don't take a machete approach to solving problems.  

Immigrants? I am talking about ILLEGAL immigrants, but of course you would gloss over some thing like that in an attempt to make the most extremist interpretation as it serves you. Would love to see you source that. I have evidence to the contrary.

What about... what about... what about... we stick to the topic.

Your mental gymnastics here are an impressive display of a combination willful ignorance and Hegelian dialectic. You are just stringing key words together at this point in some desperate attempt to appear like you have an argument.

I am not convicting anyone here. it is a fact there is more crime and therefore more criminals in Mexico. No matter how hard you try to cast it as a racial thing it doesn't change the fact of the state of the nation and those around it.

Tell me, how do you think those nations will get any better with all of its brightest leaving for the US? Perhaps the benevolent Socialist Western dictators will grace them with more hand outs?

I cannot name one because it is the same people that carry out blood and conquest who are obsessed with dividing the planet into political borders in the first place.  How would the guilt be misplaced?  We wiped out all of those nations through genocide and replaced their borders.  Many of these indigenous peoples welcomed outsiders as their own.   Thats how we got here.

Saying nations shouldn't exist would be a stretch.  We definitely shouldn't have borders for the sake of saying who is allowed to move around the planet the planet.  Borders have useful applications but violating human rights isn't one of them.   The concept of borders being used to imprison entire populations is relatively new and useful for those who aim to divide and conquer.  I certainly would not like one global government because I don't think centralized power is either necessary or ethical.

This should actually be classified as "premodern" because mass migration is undeniably human nature.  I'm not even sure if you believe in all of these systems that exist today.  Most people follow them just because thats the way they have always known them.  If they were wiped away and you had to remake them, there is no way you would end up with anything similar.  There is nothing natural about them.

So the people that formed borders hundreds if not thousands of years ago are alive still? Interesting. Didn't you just get done saying...

"Forget all that though because we don't convict populations for crimes and we certainly don't convict individuals for crimes that haven't been committed yet."

You don't convict populations, unless it is convenient for your argument. Some how modern people are responsible for the actions of their ancestors, and they are guilty for crimes their ancestors committed.

THAT'S HOW WE ALL GOT HERE. I am not going to cut my throat over the guilt of existing, and fuck you for cutting the throats of others with your malignant narcissism.


"Saying nations shouldn't exist would be a stretch.  We definitely shouldn't have borders for the sake of saying who is allowed to move around the planet the planet."

This is you advocating for the end of all nations. Without borders there are no nations. Without national sovereignty to decide this, having a "nation" is meaningless. of course that is the idea right? You claim you don't want global government but you advocate for the destruction of everything that makes a nation a nation, and inherently create a condition under which global government would form as a result. You are duplicitous.

I see, now you are getting all relativist over your relativism so you can make things relative some more. Do you ever just look at yourself and be like  "wow I go through an awful lot of rationalization over redefining words to fit my predetermined ideas about the world around me?" Now you want to redefine Postmodernism so it doesn't apply to you, and sounds progressive and evolved in a 100% superficial and sophistic way.

What law are you talking about?  Coming to the US to seek asylum is completely legal regardless of how you got here.  You actually have one year to seek asylum after you arrive.  "8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum" is the law that permits it.  Why do you think the ACLU is all over this?  Why do you think organizations like border angels are spending most of their resources on legal consultation and representation for migrants?

1. No evidence of this. The main problem is that racist are not, you are overgeneralizing the population.   The subset of the population desperate to leave are not the people benefiting from the crime and lawlessness.  Thats just logical.   The people benefiting from the lawlessness are not the ones walking thousands of miles to seek a better life with more legitimate opportunities.  Re: "Illegal immigrants are 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal immigrants are 69 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Legal and illegal immigrants are underrepresented in the incarcerated population while natives are overrepresented."
https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/

2. Are they spiking our drinks or shoving it down our throats?

3. see 1

4. see 1

5.  Not relevant.  Even if you stop immigration, you don't stop the massive amount of routine travel back and forth between the two countries.  No one screens college kids coming back from spring break either.   So lets get everyone here proper screening and make sure we have herd immunity.  That way everyone here will be covered.   If  disease is a problem, you fight disease, not people .  

6.  Its an investment as they will pay back more than they take out.  Even a selfish person should want more educated people in the population.  No one is arguing there isn't a big upfront investment.  You could argue about the opportunity cost of that investment, but I don't see any better spending taking place.  We could always bomb another country or give GM more money to lay people off.  Unlike dropping bombs, this is spending that will actually build productive lives.  Its both beneficial in the long run and the right thing to do.  Paying for schools with property taxes is a horrible system to begin with though.

7. Because terrorists used planes to attack us. TSA is guarding the planes not the border.  Thats why when you go through TSA to get to Detroit, they aren't protecting Detroit from bad people, they are protecting the planes from people.  The southern border isn't going to make it onto any "how terrorist attacks happen" list.  Again, see 1.  If you wanted to disregard ethics in the all-out effort to prevent terror attacks, you'd probably ship out all of the white men first.  

There are so many more but these are just some of the basics. I look forward to your accusations of racism and heartlessness as you advocate the victimization of the people of the US in favor of hordes of migrants looking for handouts.

I'm glad you acknowledge most of this came directly out of the racist playbook.

1. So they are fleeing crime, but there is no less crime there? https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

2. It is interesting you use the term "spiked", because that is exactly what is happening. Spiking a drink for example is commonly known as adding one drug to another drug to dose a person with it without their knowledge. You know the epidemic of "heroin overdoses" we have been having? The vast majority of them are as a result of drug dealers cutting heroin with Fentanyl because it is cheaper and more potent. So now when a heroin user used the heroin, thinking they are taking a normal dose, will actually be taking a lethal dose because they don't know it contains Fentanyl. There is a difference between killing yourself and some one dosing you without your kowledge.

3. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/when-rape-culture-meets-impunity-how-the-mexican_us_5907887ae4b084f59b49fb8e
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/30/mexico-rape-victim-details-wealth-politics-impunity-corruption

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

5. It is absolutely relevant. First of all tourists are vaccinated and have had access to comparably exceptional healthcare. Second of all, they have a right to be here as citizens, as well as travel abroad if the destination nation does so allow. You act as if living with substandard sanitation, healthcare, and vaccinations will have no impact on the number of communicable diseases one has and will carry. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873746/

6. You have no evidence to support this. Additionally educated compared to where? Their home or here? You are inventing benefits to illegal immigration that don't exist. "big upfront investment" You don't have any idea the scope of what you are talking about. This is national default levels of debt in a time when we are already drowning in debt. What about... what about... what about... we stay on topic.

7. It has already been documented terrorists are entering using the Southern border. Just because that attack they used planes some how makes it impossible for them to enter on foot or by car or boat? Nice logic.

"If you wanted to disregard ethics in the all-out effort to prevent terror attacks, you'd probably ship out all of the white men first."

I thought you said I was the racist one. You are the only one talking about skin color here.

[coins4commies]

Immigrants? I am talking about ILLEGAL immigrants, but of course you would gloss over some thing like that in an attempt to make the most extremist interpretation as it serves you. Would love to see you source that. I have evidence to the contrary.

What about... what about... what about... we stick to the topic.

Your mental gymnastics here are an impressive display of a combination willful ignorance and Hegelian dialectic. You are just stringing key words together at this point in some desperate attempt to appear like you have an argument.

I am not convicting anyone here. it is a fact there is more crime and therefore more criminals in Mexico. No matter how hard you try to cast it as a racial thing it doesn't change the fact of the state of the nation and those around it.

Tell me, how do you think those nations will get any better with all of its brightest leaving for the US? Perhaps the benevolent Socialist Western dictators will grace them with more hand outs?

"Undocumented immigrants" is just the humanized version of "illegal immigrants".  The phrases refer to the same people.  Yes there is more crime in Mexico and Honduras and yes the people are coming from those countries but its illogical to say that the people coming are the ones who are committing the crime instead of the ones trying to escape it.  
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-reform-bulletin/criminal-immigrants-their-numbers-demographics-countries
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/restrictionists-are-misleading-you-about-immigrant-crime-rates

We found that even if one includes in the mix those in detention facilities—most whom are there for immigration-related offenses—illegal immigrants are 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans. Excluding those in immigration detention yields an incarceration rate that is almost identical to that of legal immigrants: A dramatic 69 percent lower than that of natives.

So the people that formed borders hundreds if not thousands of years ago are alive still? Interesting. Didn't you just get done saying...

"Forget all that though because we don't convict populations for crimes and we certainly don't convict individuals for crimes that haven't been committed yet."

You don't convict populations, unless it is convenient for your argument. Some how modern people are responsible for the actions of their ancestors, and they are guilty for crimes their ancestors committed.

THAT'S HOW WE ALL GOT HERE. I am not going to cut my throat over the guilt of existing, and fuck you for cutting the throats of others with your malignant narcissism.


"Saying nations shouldn't exist would be a stretch.  We definitely shouldn't have borders for the sake of saying who is allowed to move around the planet the planet."

This is you advocating for the end of all nations. Without borders there are no nations. Without national sovereignty to decide this, having a "nation" is meaningless. of course that is the idea right? You claim you don't want global government but you advocate for the destruction of everything that makes a nation a nation, and inherently create a condition under which global government would form as a result. You are duplicitous.

I see, now you are getting all relativist over your relativism so you can make things relative some more. Do you ever just look at yourself and be like  "wow I go through an awful lot of rationalization over redefining words to fit my predetermined ideas about the world around me?" Now you want to redefine Postmodernism so it doesn't apply to you, and sounds progressive and evolved in a 100% superficial and sophistic way.

You should only hold guilt if you feel entitled to the spoils.  We have no reason to feel any guilt just so long as we don't walk around thinking we deserve to be here more than anyone else.  The guilt directed at people who don't think anyone should be allowed to immigrate to the US is NOT misplaced.  Those are the people who feel entitled to keep the spoils that were stolen long ago.

If I feel entitled to a money bag bank robbers dropped out of the getaway car, I'm guilty by association even though I didn't actually rob the bank.  I should not feel entitled to that money.  

There is a lot more to what makes a border and what makes a nation sovereign.  Believe it or not, Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein, and Switzerland are sovereign nations separate from the EU and anyone can cross into them overland without border checks.   They still have borders and those borders still have all of their meanings.  The nations are still strong, sovereign states.

1. So they are fleeing crime, but there is no less crime there? https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf

2. It is interesting you use the term "spiked", because that is exactly what is happening. Spiking a drink for example is commonly known as adding one drug to another drug to dose a person with it without their knowledge. You know the epidemic of "heroin overdoses" we have been having? The vast majority of them are as a result of drug dealers cutting heroin with Fentanyl because it is cheaper and more potent. So now when a heroin user used the heroin, thinking they are taking a normal dose, will actually be taking a lethal dose because they don't know it contains Fentanyl. There is a difference between killing yourself and some one dosing you without your kowledge.

3. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/when-rape-culture-meets-impunity-how-the-mexican_us_5907887ae4b084f59b49fb8e
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/30/mexico-rape-victim-details-wealth-politics-impunity-corruption

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

5. It is absolutely relevant. First of all tourists are vaccinated and have had access to comparably exceptional healthcare. Second of all, they have a right to be here as citizens, as well as travel abroad if the destination nation does so allow. You act as if living with substandard sanitation, healthcare, and vaccinations will have no impact on the number of communicable diseases one has and will carry. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873746/

6. You have no evidence to support this. Additionally educated compared to where? Their home or here? You are inventing benefits to illegal immigration that don't exist. "big upfront investment" You don't have any idea the scope of what you are talking about. This is national default levels of debt in a time when we are already drowning in debt. What about... what about... what about... we stay on topic.

7. It has already been documented terrorists are entering using the Southern border. Just because that attack they used planes some how makes it impossible for them to enter on foot or by car or boat? Nice logic.

"If you wanted to disregard ethics in the all-out effort to prevent terror attacks, you'd probably ship out all of the white men first."

I thought you said I was the racist one. You are the only one talking about skin color here.

2a. Drug traffickers are not asylum seekers.  Those are people who go back and forth.  Ending immigration would not end drug trafficking.  Two separate issues being conflated with the hopes of demonizing poor people in search of a better life.
2b. immigrants are not forcing people to buy it from traffickers, the government is
2c. legalize drugs so they can be safely produced and consumed
2d. provide mental healthcare for people suffering from addiction

3. Great articles.  I am glad you posted them and hope they helped you see why these people must come here and cannot "just stay in mexico" . Its not safe for them there.  

4.  Yes.  Mexico is dangerous.  The people coming to the US from Mexico are coming to escape that danger.  The migrants themselves are not the danger they are trying to escape.  19/100,000 doesn't mean everyone from that country is a murderer.  The studies show us that the people coming are not only less murderous than the mexican population, but less murderous than our own.  

5.  It does have an impact.  That is why they want/need to come here so they can have those things.  Thats the whole point.  They are trying to improve their lives.  

6. 2nd generation immigrants are more educated and earn more money than their peers here across the board.  More earnings means more tax revenue.  BTW, national default is impossible.

7.  TSA makes it impossible for them to hijack planes yes.  Other forms of terror have overwhelmingly been committed by white males.  Its not my racism because I said "if you suspend ethics in an attempt to prevent all terror" but I understand that you cannot prevent all terror without restricting rights.  Using things that aren't likely to kill people is the definition of fear mongering.  You are trying to generate an irrational fear of undocumented immigrants by making people think undocumented immigrants entering the country will likely kill them.  The probability of being killed by an undocumented immigrant is very low.  Lets worry about the things at the top of the list.  

You can be racist without intent.  We don't "deserve" to be here and have basic access to things like education or healthcare any more than they do.  We are all humans.

[coins4commies]

I have spent a lot of time this week helping with water drops along the border in the Arizona/California desert.   There has been a really good showing and pouring in support from all of the country.  The problem is the CBP and DHS are actively destroying water drops because they hate human life.   

Its unimaginable that they killed a 7 year old girl to punish her parents from coming here.  They made an example out of this innocent child just to send an example to anyone else who might want to bring their kid out of imminent danger. 

It is hard to go on with the good work knowing the level of power and evil we are up against.  This country is already systemically predisposed to human rights violations and being controlled by an egotistical figure and the population has no moral compass.  Where can we find hope?

[Spendulus]

.....Its unimaginable that they killed a 7 year old girl to punish her parents from coming here.  ...

Your lying really has no boundaries, does it?

http://time.com/5479656/immigrant-girl-dies-dehydration/

There’s a small Border Patrol operating base near where the group was found with food, water and bathrooms, but no medical help. The father completed the intake form, and the agents speak Spanish, but it’s possible that he spoke a Mayan dialect.

The migrants were bused from the area to Lordsburg in two groups, including about 50 minors without parents in the first group, officials said. The girl and her father didn’t start the 90-mile journey until about 4:30 a.m., when the bus returned.

The father said the girl was vomiting on the bus. When they arrived to the Border Patrol station in Lordsburg at about 6:30 a.m. Dec. 7, she was not breathing, officials said. Emergency medical technicians discovered the girl’s fever was 105.7 degrees Fahrenheit (40.9 degrees Celsius), and she was airlifted to a hospital. She died shortly after midnight on Dec. 8.