"Our country is full"

O

Old Trapper

Verified User
So says trump. But is it?

https://www.magzter.com/article/News/Mother-Jones/OUR-COUNTRY-IS-FULL

What happened under trump was not the first time the US turned its back on Central America even though it was the US that caused the crisis. The same was done under Reagan in the 80's. It was the US that created MS13, and then sent them back to Central America. It is the US that continues to arm the cartels that kill innocent children. It is the US that creates the poverty in Central America that drives the persecution.
 
Last edited:
Old Trapper said:
So says trump. But is it?

https://www.magzter.com/article/News/Mother-Jones/OUR-COUNTRY-IS-FULL
Click to expand...

If the goal is to let everyone in unchecked, then we should dismantle the welfare state first. When people talk about Ellis Island, they forget that the welfare state didn't exist for most of the time of its use as a place to accept immigrants. Most also forget that immigration policies were relatively selective up until 1965. We have a long history of detaining and deporting immigrants for various reasons.

If we did go back to not having a welfare state, then we could theoretically open things up in terms of immigration. Now, before anyone has a tantrum over my mentioning of the welfare state, I'm not saying all or even most immigrants end up on that. I'm acknowledging that many citizens end up on it if they lose their jobs to immigrants. Some people seem to think this doesn't happen, but it does. The effects of wage depression can cause this as well.

Any society with a welfare state is not designed to handle unlimited immigration, and nations that don't recognize this end up with some big problems, like when Sweden went through a few years of accepting thousands upon thousands of Afghani refugees.
 
Woko Haram said:
If the goal is to let everyone in unchecked, then we should dismantle the welfare state first.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about their being "unchecked"? However, if the goal of the right is to see how many can be persecuted, or killed, then you are succeeding.

BTW, what you call the "welfare state" existed in the 40's, and earlier at the foundation of the country.

Then you have the situation with the children, and one is reminded of Nazi's, Germany, and the slaughter of Jews.

Try actually reading the article, and you can actually fast forward to the phrase "That message mattered little to the Reagan administration>"
 
Jack said:
As the World turns to Robotics and Automation, how many MORE humans do you want?
Click to expand...

Even so, we gave over three trillion to the 1%, and now they have taken billions more since the pandemic started.

IF you call yourself a Christian, the question then becomes how many can we afford?
 
Old Trapper said:
Even so, we gave over three trillion to the 1%, and now they have taken billions more since the pandemic started.

IF you call yourself a Christian, the question then becomes how many can we afford?
Click to expand...

How fucking MORE crowded do you want this place?

Let's say you have a fenced in Pasture that can adequately feed 10 Horses. Would it be wise to stick 10 MORE Horses in the Pasture?

Why don't YOU gather all YOUR money and go somewhere (not the US) and feed all the Hungry People.
 
Old Trapper said:
Who said anything about their being "unchecked"? However, if the goal of the right is to see how many can be persecuted, or killed, then you are succeeding.
Click to expand...

If America is so bad, why do you want more people to come here?

Old Trapper said:
BTW, what you call the "welfare state" existed in the 40's, and earlier at the foundation of the country.
Click to expand...

In the 40s, yes. At the foundation, no. What we had before the New Deal was a functional system of private charities that handled poverty quite well.

Old Trapper said:
Then you have the situation with the children, and one is reminded of Nazi's, Germany, and the slaughter of Jews.
Click to expand...

Only if you have no comprehension of history or historical sense of perspective. Going headlong into Godwin's Law doesn't strengthen your argument.

Old Trapper said:
Try actually reading the article, and you can actually fast forward to the phrase "That message mattered little to the Reagan administration>"
Click to expand...

Just because Latin America is a mess, it doesn't mean we have to let people in who are seeking asylum. Now, I would agree with the notion of no longer meddling with Latin American governments. Granted, every time that Trump tries to withdraw us from foreign meddling, the Democrats claim we're engaging in "isolationism" or "ignoring American interests."
 
Old Trapper said:
Even so, we gave over three trillion to the 1%, and now they have taken billions more since the pandemic started.

IF you call yourself a Christian, the question then becomes how many can we afford?
Click to expand...

I'm not a Christian myself, but since I was raised with the religion, I understand its principles. Nothing in the Bible suggests that a nation take in all those in need.

There's a nuance to the story of the good Samaritan that is often missed by both Christians and secular humanists. The message isn't that you should love all your neighbors -- it's that you should love only the neighbors who are fundamentally good in heart.

There are numerous bad people out there. Some of them are refugees. There are plenty of examples of Sudanese refugees that have come here and committed violent crimes. There are plenty of people who have come to the West but were raised as child soldiers and have a twisted mindset as a result. Because we can't assume that all who seek asylum are good of heart, we have a vested interest in detaining and screening those who arrive.

Also, if you've been following a lot of what has happened at the border in recent years, many human traffickers come to the border with children and pose as parents. If they successfully enter the country without having the children separated from them, the children are then sold into slavery or worse. So detainment and screening is actually a crucial part of protecting child asylum seekers.
 
Jack said:
How fucking MORE crowded do you want this place?

Let's say you have a fenced in Pasture that can adequately feed 10 Horses. Would it be wise to stick 10 MORE Horses in the Pasture?

Why don't YOU gather all YOUR money and go somewhere (not the US) and feed all the Hungry People.
Click to expand...

I'm really not surprised at your self centered attitude, however, do you have a f**king clue as to how much vacant land we have in this country? Or how much of it is farmable? How much food is wasted every year?

But I would rather feed those in need then to give to the wealthy each year as you would.
 
Old Trapper said:
So says trump. But is it?

https://www.magzter.com/article/News/Mother-Jones/OUR-COUNTRY-IS-FULL

What happened under trump was not the first time the US turned its back on Central America even though it was the US that caused the crisis. The same was done under Reagan in the 80's. It was the US that created MS13, and then sent them back to Central America. It is the US that continues to arm the cartels that kill innocent children. It is the US that creates the poverty in Central America that drives the persecution.
Click to expand...

Our country isn't full. You need to get out into the country more. Cartels buy their guns from the U.S., true. We make the best guns in the world.

Poverty in Mexico is caused by corrupt government, the cartels and their thugs (not the guns they use), and a certain laziness by a significant number of the population.
 
Jack said:
How fucking MORE crowded do you want this place?

Let's say you have a fenced in Pasture that can adequately feed 10 Horses. Would it be wise to stick 10 MORE Horses in the Pasture?

Why don't YOU gather all YOUR money and go somewhere (not the US) and feed all the Hungry People.
Click to expand...

Crowded? Where do you live? NYC is crowded, but it's also among the highest performing cities on the planet. The vast majority of the US is not densely populated.
 
Jack said:
As the World turns to Robotics and Automation, how many MORE humans do you want?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Humans built those robots and automation. Humans buy those robots and automation. Humans maintain those robots and automation. There can be good money in it.
 
Woko Haram said:
If America is so bad, why do you want more people to come here?



In the 40s, yes. At the foundation, no. What we had before the New Deal was a functional system of private charities that handled poverty quite well.



Only if you have no comprehension of history or historical sense of perspective. Going headlong into Godwin's Law doesn't strengthen your argument.



Just because Latin America is a mess, it doesn't mean we have to let people in who are seeking asylum. Now, I would agree with the notion of no longer meddling with Latin American governments. Granted, every time that Trump tries to withdraw us from foreign meddling, the Democrats claim we're engaging in "isolationism" or "ignoring American interests."
Click to expand...

Yes, the US does have to recognize valid asylum claims. That is the promise the country made in 1951.
 
Jack said:
How fucking MORE crowded do you want this place?

Let's say you have a fenced in Pasture that can adequately feed 10 Horses. Would it be wise to stick 10 MORE Horses in the Pasture?

Why don't YOU gather all YOUR money and go somewhere (not the US) and feed all the Hungry People.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't get out much. There is a LOT of open country out there in the U.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top