"Deportation vs. the Cost of Letting Illegal Immigrants Stay"

[bluefirecorp_]

Thread's logic;

"Let's remove immigrants from the land of immigrants"

Ya know, without immigrants, our GDP would be 0   

[KingScorpio]

Thread's logic;

"Let's remove immigrants from the land of immigrants"

Ya know, without immigrants, our GDP would be 0   

jeah look at brexit britain what is happening there

[TECSHARE]

We are providing expensive security for people and places much further away.  These people are on our doorstep.  If our resources were ever close to being stretched too thing, then we would need to go back to letting our military be about defense and close all the bases around the world and bring home the 165,000 troops stationed in 150 countries.  Thats a ton of resources going to provide security to a lot of people who are better off than many Americans. 

Just because I said our resources aren't stretched too thin doesn't mean I think they are properly allocated.  Suddenly now you care about education, housing and healthcare for people here when those are things I've been pushing for in nearly every thread and you have been the main one claiming everyone doesn't deserve those things. 

Fuck everyone who needs help already here right? It is your right to take those collective resources and hand them out to people who never paid into our system!

As you can see from the original quote on top, my goal has always been to help both.  I don't separate people as immigrants vs americans and think they all deserve things I consider human rights.  The cool part is that once they have education and healthcare, they will be in a position where they will work, expand the economy and more than carry their weight in taxes. You've gotta think about the big picture. 

This isn't just what is best for me, this is what is best for the whole fucking country, and fuck you very much with your moral grand standing.

but even now you have an imaginary border around the people you want the best for.  caring only about people who are in your family, close to you, or in your geographic region is only a small expansion from only caring about yourself.   "Fuck everyone who happened to be born outside of that imaginary boundary" is your POV and theres a difference between being a racist and holding a racist point of view. I wouldn't say you are racist based on this point of view but I wouldn't rule it out either. 

I never said anything about "all immigrants", here you are purposely conflating all immigration with illegal immigration again to try to turn this into a race issue. First of all it is a fact illegal immigrants take more from they system than they put in. A FACT.

I'm all for reforming the system so that these people have a legal way to flow into the country.  If we made legal immigration from the South easier and more accessible for people in duress, we could be harsh on illegal immigrants.  You don't get to decide if their claim to asylum should be approved.  They have a right to come here, enter, and claim it.   Ellis Island had a 98% acceptance rate and granted citizenship within as little as a few hours and no more than a few weeks.  That should show you that Immigration from poverty could be a lot easier than it is today

[THEY] are the wealthy capitaiist class who set the rules and benefit from turning working class people against each other.  They are the ones who are sucking up all of the resources.  They are the reason why people in the richest country in the history of the world go without adequate housing, healthcare or education.  Keeping poor people from central America out wouldn't alleviate that one bit.   Its a separate fight.  Just because something is legal/illegal doesn't make it right. Nuremburg laws were legal, slavery was legal.  Stop using legality as an argument.  Might does not mean right.

And? Your argument is a non-sequitur. We are talking about immigration policy, not the military. I don't have to support or oppose the status quo to make my argument, the fact is, it is. Your "what ifs" are meaningless and a diversion from the topic.

Resources are finite, and are in fact stretched thin as well as being poorly allocated. Your goal is irrelevant. You might have a goal of trimming your hair with a blowtorch, but the fact is the most likely scenario is you will set your head on fire. The fact that you intended just to trim your hair is irrelevant because your methodology is flawed. No one deserves anything, "what people deserve" is a bullshit metric which is totally meaningless and arbitrary. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to food, the property and work of others AKA a commodity. You have a right to defend yourself and your property using firearms if need be. You do not have a right to healthcare, which is again composed of the property, time, and resources of others. You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to education, which is once more composed of the property and time of others. Are you noticing a theme here? Actual rights restrict the government or other individuals from acting upon you in certain ways. Rights are not entitlements to property, resources, and the time of others. Having rights to the time of others is also known as slavery. Coincidentally that is the end result of your moronic Marxist policies once they inevitably reach their end point of degradation and a functional society again needs to be rebuilt in its ashes after great bloodshed.

Again, your theoretical potential long term unproven and not guaranteed long term benefits are meaningless. Your head could technically turn into a mushroom, but this is neither guaranteed nor likely. You simply declaring it as such is just your fantasizing about what could be, coincidentally that is if the laws of economics magically don't apply. You lecture me about "the big picture" while you obsess over alleviating short term suffering at the expense of the destruction of the foundations of our society itself. You are chopping off your feet and stacking them on your head because you think it makes you look taller, then you bleed to death a few minutes later because of your short shortsightedness. I always cared about education and healthcare, that is why I think people like you should be kept as far away as possible from being involved in these kind of policy decisions, because your ideology is a cancer on society.

Marxism is a tumor fed by good the intents by masses of ignorant and easily manipulated people. It is a form of collective narcissism where these ignorant masses, devoid of any kind of meaning in their life, seek to create it by advocating for causes which superficially sound great. The unfortunate truth is that these people are devoid of meaning because they don't want to actually spend actual effort learning about these subjects, and simply regurgitate what people who they perceive as having authority have told them to. Then they all stand around and reassure each other of how good and correct they all are in their ideology. In short they want to feel good about themselves while exhibiting the minimal amount of effort.

The USA already takes in more immigrants than any country on Earth. "making it easier" is just a euphemism for making illegal immigration legal. It is illegal for MANY good reasons. The economy is not imaginary. The culture of the USA is not imaginary. Neither of those things, among others, can be maintained without enforcing a national border. Again, you just find another way to call me selfish and racist by another name. "points of view" are not racist. Ideas can not practice racism. People do. This is just another pathetic crutch that people like you must use because you lack any actual argument to defend your position, therefore you must attack the character of your opponent by associating them with "undesirables".
The USA was a much different place when Ellis Island was open, furthermore even there they had a process where people were quarantined and documented, and numbers incoming controlled. Illegal immigration is illegal for good reasons, I don't advocate enforcing our borders just because it is the law. Nice invocation of the Nazis you slipped in there BTW, always a sign of a strong argument.

Thread's logic;

"Let's remove immigrants from the land of immigrants"

Ya know, without immigrants, our GDP would be 0   

No one here is advocating getting rid of all immigrants. The title clearly says "illegal immigrants". You, much like most of the modern Marxist left try to conflate illegal immigration with all immigration in a pathetic attempt to relate the issue to racism or xenophobia rather than economics, laws, and a functional society we all benefit from. Tell me some more about logic as your own statements are completely vacant of it.

[bluefirecorp_]

Thread's logic;

"Let's remove immigrants from the land of immigrants"

Ya know, without immigrants, our GDP would be 0  

The title clearly says "illegal immigrants".

Oh, so prisoners are less valuable that members of society? Maybe we shouldn't make them prisoners and let them work and pay taxes

They'll even have American born children one day.

[coolcoinz]

Thread's logic;

"Let's remove immigrants from the land of immigrants"

Ya know, without immigrants, our GDP would be 0  

So according to your logic only immigrants are working. Check out countries with very low immigration. How come they aren't begging for scraps yet?
Is it better to put illiterate migrant thieves and rapist into the justice system and grind them down at the taxpayers expense?

[bluefirecorp_]

Thread's logic;

"Let's remove immigrants from the land of immigrants"

Ya know, without immigrants, our GDP would be 0  

So according to your logic only immigrants are working. Check out countries with very low immigration. How come they aren't begging for scraps yet?

I mean...we're all immigrants my friend.

Is it better to put illiterate migrant thieves and rapist into the justice system and grind them down at the taxpayers expense?

Source? I think there's a lot of hard working people coming up, not "thieves" or "rapists".

Then again, rehabilitative justice does wonders.

[Spendulus]

....

Source? I think there's a lot of hard working people coming up, not "thieves" or "rapists".

Then again, rehabilitative justice does wonders.

Really?

I would wonder, if you take a look at various categories of people who are excluded from US citizenship by statutes, if you agree or disagree with those statutes.

These people are in fact attempting an end run around those rules, so that they do not apply.

In turn this means, yes, thieves and rapists are in the groups.

If you have ever been convicted of one of the following, you are permanently denied U.S. citizenship:
murder, or
an aggravated felony (if the conviction was after November 29, 1990).
These bars are automatic. In other words, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer who interviews you and reviews your citizenship application will have no choice but to deny your application for naturalization.

Here is a summary list of the crimes that make you temporarily ineligible for citizenship:
You operated a commercial vice enterprise—for example, were a prostitute, ran a call-girl ring, or sold pornography.
You participated in illegal vice activities—for example, hired a prostitute.
You have been convicted of or admitted to a crime involving moral turpitude, such as fraud.
You spent 180 days or more in jail or prison for any crime.
You committed any crime related to illegal drugs other than a single offense involving 30 grams or less of marijuana. (Note also that, even without a criminal conviction, admitting to using marijuana or being part of the marijuana production industry can block your application for citizenship on good moral character grounds, regardless of whether its use is legal in your state; see Chapter 5 of the USCIS Policy Manual.) Also see Risks of Applying for Naturalized U.S. Citizenship: Denial or Even Deportation.
You have been convicted of two or more crimes, the combination of which got you a total prison sentence of five years or more.
You get most of your income from illegal gambling or have been convicted of two or more gambling crimes.
The crimes on this list prevent you from establishing the necessary good moral character during the required period (three or five years).


https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crimes-that-will-prevent-you-from-receiving-us-citizenship.html

[bluefirecorp_]

https://www.axios.com/immigrants-founders-fortune-500-companies-7e883b5a-1b76-462c-83b5-be68e2e9cae4.html

Nice. 45% of top 500 companies in US were immigrant founded. I guess if we lost that GDP, we'd be better off /s

[coins4commies]

And? Your argument is a non-sequitur. We are talking about immigration policy, not the military. I don't have to support or oppose the status quo to make my argument, the fact is, it is. Your "what ifs" are meaningless and a diversion from the topic.

Resources are finite, and are in fact stretched thin as well as being poorly allocated. Your goal is irrelevant. You might have a goal of trimming your hair with a blowtorch, but the fact is the most likely scenario is you will set your head on fire. The fact that you intended just to trim your hair is irrelevant because your methodology is flawed. No one deserves anything, "what people deserve" is a bullshit metric which is totally meaningless and arbitrary. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to food, the property and work of others AKA a commodity. You have a right to defend yourself and your property using firearms if need be. You do not have a right to healthcare, which is again composed of the property, time, and resources of others. You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to education, which is once more composed of the property and time of others. Are you noticing a theme here? Actual rights restrict the government or other individuals from acting upon you in certain ways. Rights are not entitlements to property, resources, and the time of others. Having rights to the time of others is also known as slavery. Coincidentally that is the end result of your moronic Marxist policies once they inevitably reach their end point of degradation and a functional society again needs to be rebuilt in its ashes after great bloodshed.

Again, your theoretical potential long term unproven and not guaranteed long term benefits are meaningless. Your head could technically turn into a mushroom, but this is neither guaranteed nor likely. You simply declaring it as such is just your fantasizing about what could be, coincidentally that is if the laws of economics magically don't apply. You lecture me about "the big picture" while you obsess over alleviating short term suffering at the expense of the destruction of the foundations of our society itself. You are chopping off your feet and stacking them on your head because you think it makes you look taller, then you bleed to death a few minutes later because of your short shortsightedness. I always cared about education and healthcare, that is why I think people like you should be kept as far away as possible from being involved in these kind of policy decisions, because your ideology is a cancer on society.

You made the argument about budget when you said we didn't have enough resources to add more people as your main anti-immigration argument.  You can't have it both ways.

Again, it is a moral argument being made not a natural one.  You are correct in saying that not everyone has a right to food but my argument is an ethical argument that everyone SHOULD have a right to food, shelter, healthcare and education.  Its not just about identifying the way things are now but identifying ways we can fundamentally change the way society functions.  The only reason we have the rights we have today is because people advocated for more rights.   Property rights are even more arbitrary than commodity rights because property ownership is inherently subjective.    You want to pick and choose that property rights are something people are entitled to while rights I advocate for are taking property from someone else.  Again, you are playing both sides and contradicting yourself.  The paradox is if people aren't entitled to property then how could any right entitle someone to someone else's property? The answer is that you believe people are entitled to the property they occupy and nothing else.    The concept of property ownership implies that some-people have an entitlement to property.  

unfortunate truth is that these people are devoid of meaning because they don't want to actually spend actual effort learning about these subjects, and simply regurgitate what people who they perceive as having authority have told them to. Then they all stand around and reassure each other of how good and correct they all are in their ideology. In short they want to feel good about themselves while exhibiting the minimal amount of effort.

You continue to display that you have only skimmed the surface in regards to what you call "marxist ideology".  Your posts indicate that you see it as a monolith.  You basically only know about Stalinism and have no comprehension of troskyism, anarchism, classical marxism, hoxaism, etc.   You're unaware that there is more difference between different marxist ideologies than there is between stalinism and capitalism.   You have no concept of sliding scales or spectra either.  Everything is either "full blown" or nothing.  No concept of nuance.  You talk about things you know little about and ignore everything you outside of your current model of understanding.  

I would never expect a capitalist to not hate every style of marxist ideology, but anyone who intends on having constructive discussion should be expected to at least acknowledge the nuances of the different philosophies before critiquing them.  Imagine trying to have an in depth discussion on culinary arts with someone who can't get past the fact that they got food poisoning.

The economy is not imaginary.

More people= Bigger economy

The culture of the USA is not imaginary.

Since the genocide of native american cultures, the culture of the USA has been multiculturalism.  

Neither of those things, among others, can be maintained without enforcing a national border. Again, you just find another way to call me selfish and racist by another name.

I'm not saying we should get rid of the border yet.  I'm just saying it shouldn't be a barrier to human movement.  Just because people can cross a border doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  When people cross the new jersey border into new york, is new york no longer a state? Does new york not exist because there is no border check?  I don't get it.   I can go almost anywhere in the world back and forth across borders with very little inconvenience and I think that freedom should be extended to everyone.   How is there a cajun culture in Louisiana without a well-maintained border? Are France and Germany no longer different, independent countries with their own economies?  

[Spendulus]

....

The economy is not imaginary.

More people= Bigger economy
.....

More people can and has resulted in smaller economy, historically and in many cases.

[TECSHARE]

https://www.axios.com/immigrants-founders-fortune-500-companies-7e883b5a-1b76-462c-83b5-be68e2e9cae4.html

Nice. 45% of top 500 companies in US were immigrant founded. I guess if we lost that GDP, we'd be better off /s

Once again you conflate illegal immigration with all immigration. They are not the same thing. Furthermore The USA already takes in more immigrants than anywhere on Earth.

And? Your argument is a non-sequitur. We are talking about immigration policy, not the military. I don't have to support or oppose the status quo to make my argument, the fact is, it is. Your "what ifs" are meaningless and a diversion from the topic.

Resources are finite, and are in fact stretched thin as well as being poorly allocated. Your goal is irrelevant. You might have a goal of trimming your hair with a blowtorch, but the fact is the most likely scenario is you will set your head on fire. The fact that you intended just to trim your hair is irrelevant because your methodology is flawed. No one deserves anything, "what people deserve" is a bullshit metric which is totally meaningless and arbitrary. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to food, the property and work of others AKA a commodity. You have a right to defend yourself and your property using firearms if need be. You do not have a right to healthcare, which is again composed of the property, time, and resources of others. You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to education, which is once more composed of the property and time of others. Are you noticing a theme here? Actual rights restrict the government or other individuals from acting upon you in certain ways. Rights are not entitlements to property, resources, and the time of others. Having rights to the time of others is also known as slavery. Coincidentally that is the end result of your moronic Marxist policies once they inevitably reach their end point of degradation and a functional society again needs to be rebuilt in its ashes after great bloodshed.

Again, your theoretical potential long term unproven and not guaranteed long term benefits are meaningless. Your head could technically turn into a mushroom, but this is neither guaranteed nor likely. You simply declaring it as such is just your fantasizing about what could be, coincidentally that is if the laws of economics magically don't apply. You lecture me about "the big picture" while you obsess over alleviating short term suffering at the expense of the destruction of the foundations of our society itself. You are chopping off your feet and stacking them on your head because you think it makes you look taller, then you bleed to death a few minutes later because of your short shortsightedness. I always cared about education and healthcare, that is why I think people like you should be kept as far away as possible from being involved in these kind of policy decisions, because your ideology is a cancer on society.

You made the argument about budget when you said we didn't have enough resources to add more people as your main anti-immigration argument.  You can't have it both ways.

Again, it is a moral argument being made not a natural one.  You are correct in saying that not everyone has a right to food but my argument is an ethical argument that everyone SHOULD have a right to food, shelter, healthcare and education.  Its not just about identifying the way things are now but identifying ways we can fundamentally change the way society functions.  The only reason we have the rights we have today is because people advocated for more rights.   Property rights are even more arbitrary than commodity rights because property ownership is inherently subjective.    You want to pick and choose that property rights are something people are entitled to while rights I advocate for are taking property from someone else.  Again, you are playing both sides and contradicting yourself.  The paradox is if people aren't entitled to property then how could any right entitle someone to someone else's property? The answer is that you believe people are entitled to the property they occupy and nothing else.    The concept of property ownership implies that some-people have an entitlement to property.  

unfortunate truth is that these people are devoid of meaning because they don't want to actually spend actual effort learning about these subjects, and simply regurgitate what people who they perceive as having authority have told them to. Then they all stand around and reassure each other of how good and correct they all are in their ideology. In short they want to feel good about themselves while exhibiting the minimal amount of effort.

You continue to display that you have only skimmed the surface in regards to what you call "marxist ideology".  Your posts indicate that you see it as a monolith.  You basically only know about Stalinism and have no comprehension of troskyism, anarchism, classical marxism, hoxaism, etc.   You're unaware that there is more difference between different marxist ideologies than there is between stalinism and capitalism.   You have no concept of sliding scales or spectra either.  Everything is either "full blown" or nothing.  No concept of nuance.  You talk about things you know little about and ignore everything you outside of your current model of understanding.  

I would never expect a capitalist to not hate every style of marxist ideology, but anyone who intends on having constructive discussion should be expected to at least acknowledge the nuances of the different philosophies before critiquing them.  Imagine trying to have an in depth discussion on culinary arts with someone who can't get past the fact that they got food poisoning.

The economy is not imaginary.

More people= Bigger economy

The culture of the USA is not imaginary.

Since the genocide of native american cultures, the culture of the USA has been multiculturalism.  

Neither of those things, among others, can be maintained without enforcing a national border. Again, you just find another way to call me selfish and racist by another name.

I'm not saying we should get rid of the border yet.  I'm just saying it shouldn't be a barrier to human movement.  Just because people can cross a border doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  When people cross the new jersey border into new york, is new york no longer a state? Does new york not exist because there is no border check?  I don't get it.   I can go almost anywhere in the world back and forth across borders with very little inconvenience and I think that freedom should be extended to everyone.   How is there a cajun culture in Louisiana without a well-maintained border? Are France and Germany no longer different, independent countries with their own economies?  

I never said anything about a budget. I said resources were already stretched thin. Money is not the same thing as resources, but I wouldn't expect a Marxist to understand this very simple reality of economics. There is no "both ways", you are arguing a different subject, not the premise of the subject of the thread. Once again, this is a non-sequitur logical fallacy. I don't have to defend myself against your argument because it is not based on the premise. All you are doing is telling me more theoretical ways you imagine things could work, not how they do work. I tell you we only have enough oranges on the tree to feed a classroom. You proceed to tell me that we could have enough oranges for the school if the 10 apples trees next to it were actually orange trees. None of your fantasizing makes more oranges exist.

You are arguing from a position of ethics now? I think what you mean is you are arguing from a position of pathos. Some people don't have enough to eat, that is bad and makes me feel bad, therefore everyone should have a right to eat as much as they want! This doesn't make any more oranges either. You just declaring it a right doesn't fill people's bellies. Building and maintaining an infrastructure that rewards farmers as well as serves consumers does. Your imagination doesn't feed anyone. You don't hold some new evolved more empathetic ideology than everyone else, you are just too ignorant to realize that just because you feel passionately about a subject doesn't fix the logistical issues with the solution that makes you feel good in your tum tum with the least amount of effort. In short you want to give lip service for these disenfranchised people, but only so much as it serves your narcissism, not to the point where you might actually have to live in the real world and draw a line where sacrifices are made in order to at least keep SOME of the people well cared for. What your plan results in is absolutely equality. Equality in poverty, ignorance, and squalor.


"You want to pick and choose that property rights are something people are entitled to while rights I advocate for are taking property from someone else.  Again, you are playing both sides and contradicting yourself.  The paradox is if people aren't entitled to property then how could any right entitle someone to someone else's property? The answer is that you believe people are entitled to the property they occupy and nothing else.    The concept of property ownership implies that some-people have an entitlement to property."

This is quite a trapeze act of semantic gymnastics. I am not "playing both sides" or "contradicting" myself, you are. This whole statement is a word salad inversion designed to confuse who is arguing what so you can some how snatch a sophistic win out of the jaws of logical defeat. The only property rights people are entitled to is those they either created via the fruits of their own labor, or that that they voluntarily contracted with another party to obtain. What you are conflating these property rights with are inalienable rights such as the right to free speech, or the right to bear arms. Inalienable rights are restrictions upon government and other entities from taking those rights from you. They are not rights to the commodities and time of others. Your triple semantic back flip, while quite distracting, is still based in projection and general horse shit.

You believe that these Marxist ideologies are some how different because they have small nuanced differences. Unfortunately just because you hold this belief doesn't make it so. The fact is all of these branches of Marxism all share basic ideological foundations which have very clear, stated, and historical goals that have made themselves evident over and over and over again. The very core of Marxism itself is to constantly infiltrate and occupy other organizations to use them as ideological cover to acheive other unstated goals. This so called nuance you point to is simply evidence of how Marxism infiltrates different organizations, and hollows them out to displace it with its own ideology and acheive Marxist goals.

If more people = a bigger economy, why is it Africa is not an economic powerhouse? How is it Japan has such a massive economy with a comparatively much smaller population? Your premise is laughable.


"Since the genocide of native american cultures, the culture of the USA has been multiculturalism.  "

Actually the culture of the USA has historically been European and Christian. Multiculturalism only exists to the extent that people assimilate to AMERICAN culture, and that it has a system for integrating everyone. This assimilation process is key to that. What you are advocating is totally skipping that assimilation step and just letting other cultures flood in ant take over. All cultures are not equal. There is a reason so much of the world wants to come here, and that is worth protecting no matter how many times you call it racist bigot homophobic etc, because not protecting it means creating more suffering than you can imagine.

Oh, that's very generous of you to phase out the border in steps. This is why Marxism is shit, because it never ends. It is always just a progressive chipping away at the foundations of society all the while crying about how it is just a small compromise over and over and over thousands of times. You get the compromise you want then you move on to pushing it even further. This is why Marxists are inherently deceitful. They think they are lying to you for your own good. The border being a barrier to human movement is literally the most important reason for having a border. You really just got done chastising me over your projections upon me for "having it both ways" then you tell me you want a border, but not one that people are stopped from crossing? This kind of statement is what demonstrates to me that you are very clearly either exceptionally ignorant and unable to control your own mental processes, or you are exceptionally deceitful and actively lying. There is a legal process for crossing borders. People can visit most places freely, but not just stay wherever they like. You are conflating the two ideas. Also The United States not only shares a similar culture throughout it, but also a unified legal system. You are really stretching hard to justify a failing argument. Show me some more of your Grade A Pathos based Marxist sophistry monkey boy.

[BADecker]

Let 'em stay. But make them work as slaves for the rest of us.

[TECSHARE]

Here is a simple economics lesson even Marxists can understand:

"Immigration Poverty and Gumballs"

https://www.bitchute.com/video/NPdx8wOh1O53/

[Indamuck]

I never really cared much about being patriotic.  I just happened to be born on some piece of land and that doesn't mean I will fight or die for a country that is just run by wealthy people that are above the law.  Eventually the world will be one giant country and one government anyways, we are slowly heading towards that.

[TECSHARE]

I never really cared much about being patriotic.  I just happened to be born on some piece of land and that doesn't mean I will fight or die for a country that is just run by wealthy people that are above the law.  Eventually the world will be one giant country and one government anyways, we are slowly heading towards that.

So why not move to Guatemala if everything is the same? It is much cheaper to live there. BTW, this isn't about patriotism, its about reality.

[BADecker]

The point is bolded, below. In the case of the USA, the power would be taken away from the government cartel/gang, to send in their SWAT every time somebody is suspected of using a little MJ.


Mexico Judge Approves Recreational Cocaine Use in Landmark Ruling, Cites Drug's Ability to Provide 'Spiritual Experiences'

A judge in Mexico has approved two people to use cocaine recreationally in what has been described as a historic step toward ending the country's deadly "war on drugs."

In the first ruling of its kind, the district court in Mexico City granted permission for the pair to "possess, transport and use cocaine"—but not sell it—following an injunction request by Mexico United Against Crime.

"We have been working for a safer, more just and peaceful Mexico for years, and with this case we insist on the need to stop criminalizing users of drugs other than marijuana and design better public policies that explore all available options, including the regulation," Lisa Sánchez, director of MUAC, said in a statement.

According to Mexico Daily News, the judge imposed a string of stipulations for the pair in order to allow them to use cocaine. They include limiting their intake to 500 milligrams per day and not working, driving or operating heavy machinery while under the influence. They are also not allowed to take the drug in public, in the presence of children, or encourage others to consume it.

In his ruling, judge Víctor Octavio Luna Escobedo said that recreational use of cocaine has many benefits, including "tension relief, the intensification of perceptions and the desire [to have] new personal and spiritual experiences."

According to the AFP news agency, Mexico's national health regulator—the Federal Commission for the Protection against Sanitary Risk—is seeking to block the judge's order, which was handed down in May. The decision will also be reviewed by a panel of judges at a higher court.

"These cases constitute a further step towards a new drug policy that allows us to build a safer, more just and peaceful Mexico," MUAC added in a statement.

Mexico's President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has promised radical changes in a bid to end the war on drugs in the country, which kills thousands every year.

Obrador, a left-wing politician who took office in December, argued the country should decriminalize all drugs in order to take power away from the cartels and criminal gangs.

[TECSHARE]

Trump Wins ANOTHER Major SCOTUS Victory On Illegal Immigration, New Asylum Rules Will Be UPHELD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGq-GdXavfE

[af_newbie]

US should scale up their deportation efforts to bring the costs down.

BTW, there is no such thing as illegal immigration. Immigration is a legal process to obtain residency.

What we are talking about is illegal border crossers, not illegal immigration.  They should be charged and deported. End of story.

Finally someone speaks some reality.
Im getting tired of hearing all this leftist talk of open border policies making America the new gold rush opportunity...

While im getting fined for having NO healthcare, these illegals get it for free? Dafuq?

Our communities have problems already not getting fixed. Adding all these illegals is jist rediculous

See this is what [THEY] want.  Instead of being angry at the people making you pay a fine, you are angry at other poor people who are in a worse position than you.  In reality, everyone should be getting the healthcare for free and no one should be paying fines but its better for them to tricking you into  scapegoating immigrants.

Last time I checked immigrants enter the country on immigration visas.  That is why countries around the world issue them.

Nobody is scapegoating immigrants.  The people who cross the US southern border are not immigrants.  These people should be charged and convicted with illegal border crossing, making them illegible for any future immigration applications, and send back to their home country.

What is happening in the US is the Wild West.  I do not understand why this is allowed to continue.  Complete ignorance of the US laws.

[coolcoinz]

What is happening in the US is the Wild West.  I do not understand why this is allowed to continue.  Complete ignorance of the US laws.

It's the same in Europe. Hungary has been improving its Southern border since 2015. What is coming to Europe from Africa cannot be called immigrants or refugees, but a menace. Whoever has trouble understanding migration laws should read about the tunnels that were being built to smuggle drugs and people from Mexico to the US, or about those so called refugees from Africa burning cars and raping in Europe.

I think there's a lot of hard working people coming up, not "thieves" or "rapists".

The thread is not about migrants, but illegal migrants. Some people in this thread seem to ignore it and put all of them in one basket. I'm not against migration, you won't find many people that are. Jumping the fence to enter the country because you're a citizen of the world and free to do what you wish is not simply migration.

[Spendulus]

I never really cared much about being patriotic.  I just happened to be born on some piece of land and that doesn't mean I will fight or die for a country that is just run by wealthy people that are above the law.  Eventually the world will be one giant country and one government anyways, we are slowly heading towards that.

That's very unlikely. It is possible that governments will fade to a less significant influence on people...