That's about as simple as I can make it for you.
"Our country is full"
- Thread starter Old Trapper
- Start date
That's about as simple as I can make it for you.
hahahaha ... you've discovered the 'Point'. "Businesses have an interest in maximizing profits".
You understand they have NO INTEREST in 'Quality of Life'.
And again, that definition fits dozens of millions of people. If we didn't live so far away from Africa, we'd be getting far more refugees than we currently do. Should we take in that many people if they arrive, or are there practical limits that can be enforced that aren't "oppressive"?
"Simple" does not a good case make. You're either drunk, high, or stupid because your incoherent meanderings throughout this thread are meaningless.
What you cited in the other post is still subject to interpretation.
"any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."
Well-founded is relative. One can intepret that narrowly or broadly, depending on the context.
What does quality of life have to do with anything and by what standards are you evaluating it? Your claim was that the US is too crowded. People who live in crowded urban areas, which account for around 2% of the entirety of the US's land area, tend to do so voluntarily. When quality of life includes, as it does, access to culture, entertainment, world cuisine, efficient public transportation, availability of diverse goods, etc., then urban areas often provide a high quality of life. Likewise, access to open space, availability of outdoor recreation, unobstructed skies, etc. also contribute to quality of life.
You have demonstrated a partisan reflex to an uncomplicated question and spent five pages digging your hole deeper. Your contribution to this thread has been thoughtless and unhelpful.
Were not going to either. There is still a lot of your money and future money out there for us to steal from you. After we have picked your poverty ridden bones clean then your age group has our permission to pass on and we will move on to the next generation to rob. No my poor lad,..... we will still be raping this world raw long after you guys are just a memory. Even if we have to do it from life support!
I think that a national government, landmass, and infrastructure can be taxed to their capacities. The US isn't within seven million miles of that point. People have an obligation to help other people when they have the abilities to do so. Setting aside the moral argument, since it is arguable by definition, the US has a legal and international obligation to process asylum seekers. This is not an academic exercise. If the US wants to arbitrarily forbid refugees for seeking asylum, then it needs to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions. That should go over really well.
You're more deluded than I expected. I won't waste any further time with you.
"Well-founded" has been significantly defined, although not conclusively, throughout many decades of international and domestic caselaw. There is some room for interpretation, but "well-founded" is a reasonable standard that does not allow "unfounded" asylum claims.
Ok... good luck with all that. I can see that you really don't understand how much that would harm the economy and lower our standard of living.
I've done the best I can to make my point. Your choice whether to grasp the meaning.
It isn't a matter of grasping. I have grasped every word you've typed. I've shot down everything you've said like a game of Duck Hunt. You have been unable to substantiate your point.
Old Trapper
Verified User
Good. Your too much the fool anyway, and I only argue with fools for a limited time:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...rn-border-migrant-detention-facilities-trump/
Oh, I see. Brown and black people will harm the economy and lower our standard of living if we don't lock the gates. Once again, the US signed the Geneva Conventions. It's a contract. Responsible parties honor their contracts or legally withdraw from them.
You are misguided.
Old Trapper
Verified User
It's not about race. It's about the speed at which infrastructure can adapt. I used the example earlier to see if you believed there were any practical limits to how many people should be let in at once. That was a measure of whether you actually had any focus on what a society can adapt to. If you want to see what happens when a country does not implement reasonable limits, look at the massive ghettos that have formed in Sweden with Afghani refugees.
If Sweden had taken a more limited approach, their society could have adapted better to having so many people arrive. The same number of Afghanis could have entered over a 25 year period, and things would have worked out much better.
The same logic applies here. The fact that we have so much land is irrelevant, because a large portion of our land is undeveloped. It takes time for communities to absorb immigrants and to help them assimilate, so limits are present to aid in that. It also takes time and money to develop land that isn't currently used.
It does not violate the Geneva Conventions to keep the asylum process slow enough to give us time to adapt.
"maybe" means is a guesstimate -the numbers are allover the place. I've done a lot of research.
It isn't the "1%" Trump claims and it sure isn't the vast majority Biden claims
My best guesstimate in the high side is maybe 50%
You do realize the "caravans" have literally stopped since Trump negotiated REMAIN with Mexico?
They can still come and apply. The caravans were full of sex trafficers,and the people were preyed upon by coyotes
If we had a decent border wall and immigration reform,they could apply in an ORDERLY FASHION
instead of overwhelming the holding facilities and be forced to released into our cities without process.
"braindead toadys" like your self never want to address the problem with illegal and mass immigration
that overwhelm our ability to process
I assume you read what I wrote since that is necessary for this dialogue to mean anything. I acknowledged that there can be limits on the number of refugees that a society can reasonably accommodate. The US is not Sweden. I understand your analogy, but it is inept.
To your last statement, yes, it does. I encourage you to study international law related to the Geneva Conventions. There is no humanitarian crisis in the US. There is no unmanageable influx of people who need to "assimilate". It's a fabricated problem concocted by cynical political types who are terrified that the lack of a white majority will result in the degradation of their social power and privileges.
ButtBoy: "What does quality of life have to do with anything"
Jack; It's the entire premise of my argument.
Your own words, "Businesses have an interest in maximizing profits", sums it up pretty nicely. 'Business', 'Corporate America', has an interest in MORE PEOPLE. Conversely, The Worker Drone Class is kept at a subsistent level by importing more competition from Third World Countries. Driving DOWN Wages.
You get to choose.
1. Support the American Working Class.
2. Support Corporate America and the Elites.
YOU ... have been brainwashed into stabbing your fellow Americans in the back under the guise of 'compassion' for some Stranger over in Bangladesh who has contributed nothing to this Country, while your neighbors down the street struggle to reach the American Dream.