2024 US Presidential Election Thread

[TexRex]

Money certainly helps, but it's the only factor in a good life. If your government has a poor rights record, being paid well might not make up for that.

This discussion fundamentally involves criticism of the role the United States government plays in the lives of its citizens and residents, and would-be citizens and residents, and that's something one doesn't engage in in China (assuming one even has the opportunity to do so over the internet) with the expectation that freedom will be maintained.

 

[Keef]

This discussion fundamentally involves criticism of the role the United States government plays in the lives of its citizens and residents, and would-be citizens and residents, and that's something one doesn't engage in in China (assuming one even has the opportunity to do so over the internet) with the expectation that freedom will be maintained.

Is it wrong that so many folks don't want a bunch of rascals running around town completely outside of our legal system, unaccounted for and unaccountable? Why the hell do I have to follow the rules if they don't? They're not even citizens. It's creating a massive tragedy of the commons. Climb the fence, hang out, grab a beer, who gives a ****. Regardless, I see you aruing happily but not proposing any sort of solutions.

I'm just glad I can finally afford to not be affected by any of this. Illegal immigrants aren't a problem inside airport security.

 

[McLaren]

Is it wrong that so many folks don't want a bunch of rascals running around town completely outside of our legal system, unaccounted for and unaccountable? Why the hell do I have to follow the rules if they don't? They're not even citizens. It's creating a massive tragedy of the commons. Climb the fence, hang out, grab a beer, who gives a ****. Regardless, I see you aruing happily but not proposing any sort of solutions.

I'm just glad I can finally afford to not be affected by any of this. Illegal immigrants aren't a problem inside airport security.

You been drinking the right-wing kool-aid? Because this is what Republicans love to push.
"The vast majority of individuals that we’re releasing out are not showing up for hearings." Republican James Lankford.

Reality:

A new report released today by the American Immigration Council examines 11 years of government data on the rate at which immigrants appear for hearings in U.S. immigration court. The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants attend their immigration court hearings, and those who fail to appear in court often did not receive notice or faced hardship in getting to court.

11 Years of Government Data Reveal That Immigrants Do Show Up for Court

A new report released today by the American Immigration Council examines 11 years of government data on the rate at which immigrants appear for hearings in U.S. immigration court. The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

What Greg Abbott & DeSantis pulled last year by flying people up north put many of these very people in jeopardy with no way back to attend court dates.

 

[TexRex]

Is it wrong that so many folks don't want a bunch of rascals running around town completely outside of our legal system, unaccounted for and unaccountable?

You can't possibly be so stupid to believe they're not subject to enforcement of laws which reasonably preserve individual rights, can you?

Why the hell do I have to follow the rules if they don't?

Are they not following any rules which are rules more than for the sake of being rules? If they aren't, why do those rules exist? Is there any possibility of you, subject to your particular circumstance, not following those rules? Do they, as individuals, represent a legitimate threat to other individuals?

I realize these are de facto rhetorical questions as you saw fit to nope your way past a bunch of questions I posed to you in a post you disregarded wholesale, but I ask them anyway and I'd be curious how you answer them should you not see fit to nope your way past them.

They're not even citizens.

Lots of legal immigrant residents aren't.

I mean it kind of seems like the issue you have is with immigration broadly, without regard for legality, and so you're engaging in bad faith by focusing on illegal immigration. It's...it's not original.

Climb the fence, hang out, grab a beer, who gives a ****.

Certainly not me. Not if they're not violating anyone's rights.

Regardless, I see you aruing happily but not proposing any sort of solutions.

It was in the post of mine which you disregarded wholesale. Let them in and let them work.

Go a step farther and end the war on drugs (this should happen anyway because prohibition violates individual rights and hurts people), and then the likelihood that someone gaining entry anywhere other than an official port of entry is a violent criminal goes up exponentially. It's probably not 100%, but I'd wager it's easier to get to official ports from most anywhere south of the border than unofficial ports, given general traffic flow.

I'm just glad I can finally afford to not be affected by any of this. Illegal immigrants aren't a problem inside airport security.

But it concerns you that people are [preposterously] coming from China. Curious.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It was in the post of mine which you disregarded wholesale. Let them in and let them work.

Would you set a cap, or aim to have a limit per year?

 

[TexRex]

Would you set a cap, or aim to have a limit per year?

What the **** is it my business to?

 

[HenrySwanson]

What the **** is it my business to?

As in from your government.

Would you expect that of them?

 

[TexRex]

As in from your government.

Would you expect that of them?

You do realize it imposes caps now, right?

 

[HenrySwanson]

You do realize it imposes caps now, right?

I took it from your posts that you were dissatisfied with the current immigration system of your country.

Was wondering what your ideal solution would be?

 

[Famine]

Just for reference, most citizens of Hong Kong are also citizens of China (according to China) and there may be plenty of good reasons why some Hongkongers might not want to be there any more.

Also, unless you're immigrating on a work sponsored program, in many countries you need to show that you can financially support yourself without a job - with proof of wealth or assets of a certain value - before you're allowed to immigrate. $10,000 actually sounds lowball, and certainly not enough for a year as required.

 

[TexRex]

I took it from your posts that you were dissatisfied with the current immigration system of your country.

Was wondering what your ideal solution would be?

You have a very roundabout way of asking.

I don't have an "ideal solution." The world actually isn't ideal.

I gather you're concerned that the country would be "overrun." I don't have that concern and it's really bizarre to me that one can be nativist with regard to a locale in which one doesn't reside.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You have a very roundabout way of asking.

I don't have an "ideal solution." The world actually isn't ideal.

I gather you're concerned that the country would be "overrun." I don't have that concern and it's really bizarre to me that one can be nativist with regard to a locale in which one doesn't reside.

Eh....

I don't see it as your country being "overrun", I just see similarities in UK politics and your country's.

There's a big bruhaha happening over here because the Conservatives promised to get "tough on immigration" and the latest figures showed a massive increase in net immigration despite Brexit happening. Even Labour winced at the numbers, and the Rwanda farce is something I could see happening in the States as well with a Trump re-election.

I echo your sentiment that people should be let in and able to work (in the UK), but am also mindful that there has to be some kind of limit.

 

[TexRex]

Eh....

lol. lmao, even.

I don't see it as your country being "overrun", I just see similarities in UK politics and your country's.

Politics isn't a reasonable basis for imposing restrictions on immigration. Only preservation of rights is.

There's a big bruhaha happening over here because the Conservatives promised to get "tough on immigration" and the latest figures showed a massive increase in net immigration despite Brexit happening. Even Labour winced at the numbers, and the Rwanda farce is something I could see happening in the States as well with a Trump re-election.

I echo your sentiment that people should be let in and able to work (in the UK), but am also mindful that there has to be some kind of limit.

Why? Also do you know where you are? What the **** does this thread have to do with the UK?

I've criticized the notion that opinions should be disregarded on a geographical basis...

You're not even from the US, so your opinion doesn't mean jack in this instance.

I am, however, and it's my opinion that you're not in a position to make this sort of judgement. You can disagree with such opinions, but nowhere in the forum guidelines is it stated that the validity of users' opinions is restricted geographically.

...but at the same time I think discussion in this thread should adhere somewhat to the topic.

 

[HenrySwanson]

...but at the same time I think discussion in this thread should adhere somewhat to the topic.

Are you saying I haven't?

Politics isn't a reasonable basis for imposing restrictions on immigration. Only preservation of rights is.

Isn't that a tad myopic?

 

[TexRex]

Are you saying I haven't?

Yes. I mean...

UK politics

Brexit

Labour

Rwanda farce

(in the UK)

Isn't that a tad myopic?

Nope.

 

[Keef]

You been drinking the right-wing kool-aid? Because this is what Republicans love to push.
"The vast majority of individuals that we’re releasing out are not showing up for hearings." Republican James Lankford.

Reality:

11 Years of Government Data Reveal That Immigrants Do Show Up for Court

A new report released today by the American Immigration Council examines 11 years of government data on the rate at which immigrants appear for hearings in U.S. immigration court. The report, “Measuring In Absentia Removal in Immigration Court,” concludes that an overwhelming 83% of immigrants...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

What Greg Abbott & DeSantis pulled last year by flying people up north put many of these very people in jeopardy with no way back to attend court dates.

If it's working it's working. If it isn't then it needs fixed, that's all I care about. Thanks for the data.

What's not acceptable is just not caring about borders or soveriegnty or procedures or addressing global issues that are causing this in the first place.

 

[TexRex]

What's not acceptable is just not caring about borders or soveriegnty or procedures or addressing global issues that are causing this in the first place.

Nobody discussing the topic can reasonably be described as apathetic. Saying people don't care because you don't like what they've said is deceitful.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yes. I mean...

I mean....you've just taken examples from one post, which was used to show the problem the US is facing/may face, and with reference to the US election.

Nope.

So the only thing to be taken in consideration when talking about immigration are rights violations?

 

[Danoff]

So the only thing to be taken in consideration when talking about immigration are rights violations?

I'm super curious what else you have in mind.

 

[TexRex]

I mean....you've just taken examples from one post, which was used to show the problem the US is facing/may face, and with reference to the US election.

lol

Weird how I didn't say anything about off-topic discussion until discussion went off-topic and highlighted examples of off-topic discussion when the position I took on off-topic discussion was questioned.

Did...did you fall on your head?

So the only thing to be taken in consideration when talking about immigration are rights violations?

Is there anything else of concern? Why?

(Why do I suspect this is a cultural purity thing?)

 

[HenrySwanson]

lol

Weird how I didn't say anything about off-topic discussion until discussion went off-topic and highlighted examples of off-topic discussion when the position I took on off-topic discussion was questioned.

It's almost as it you've never heard of the word "context" before.

If I talk about Meloni, or Orban in the UK thread, am I veering off-topic?

Is there anything else of concern? Why?

(Why do I suspect this is a cultural purity thing?)

I'm super curious what else you have in mind.

I think pragmatism has to be taken into account.

 

[Danoff]

I think pragmatism has to be taken into account.

Give me an example of the kind of thing you're concerned about that needs to be taken into account.

 

[TexRex]

It's almost as it you've never heard of the word "context" before.

The context was that "politics" is [ambiguously and without substantiation] "like" that in the UK, and that matters to US immigration policy because...reasons.

If I talk about Meloni, or Orban in the UK thread, am I veering off-topic?

You may or may not be. But now you're talking about another thread in this one and it's bizarre.

I think pragmatism has to be taken into account.

That's not an answer, much less one with elaboration as I solicited. No, that's a cop-out.

Maybe prompt ChatGPT and post what it said? (I'm being facetious here. It's been stupid and pathetic when you've done this in the past and it's sure to be again.)

Stop flailing your arms. Stop being a pussy. Be direct.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The context was that "politics" is [ambiguously and without substantiation] "like" that in the UK, and that matters to US immigration policy because...reasons.

What the....

Politics determines who's in charge.

The people in charge determine immigration policy.

Please tell me if you're not keeping up.

You may or may not be. But now you're talking about another thread in this one and it's bizarre.

Not really.

I'm showing how things can be on topic even if using examples from another region.

That's not an answer, much less one with elaboration as I solicited. No, that's a cop-out.

Huh?

Give me an example of the kind of thing you're concerned about that needs to be taken into account.

Infrastructure.

Community cohesion (think Lebanon pre civil war, Israel after the Soviet Union went kaput, Sweden before the Sweden Democrats got so many votes).

Those are the two main ones I think of as being people's concerns whenever immigration is discussed.

Stop flailing your arms. Stop being a pussy. Be direct.

Hmm?

Maybe you should take your advice?

Should there be a cap or not? If so, how much?

 

[Danoff]

Infrastructure.

Infrastructure is quite broad. You're worried about... traffic? I'm not sure exactly what. This can't result in some kind of blanket cap on immigration. "We're worried about LA freeways, so we can only accept X number of immigrants per year". Doesn't really make much sense right? I'm guessing you're thinking it's police. But of course law enforcement has its hands full with the crime of illegal immigration, and one way to reduce that is to make it not a crime. The same is true of other laws like drug use and prostitution.

But if the concern is that the population of a particular region is expanding so fast that its police force cannot cope enforcement of actually necessary laws, there are solutions to that other than capping immigration as a whole.

Specifically what is your infrastructure concern and how do you tie it to immigration policy?

Community cohesion (think Lebanon pre civil war, or Israel after the Soviet Union went kaput).

You're worried about civil unrest among immigrants? What rate of immigration do you think is safe from civil unrest among the immigrant population? Reducing the requirements for immigration to allow more legal immigration strikes me as a way to reduce civil unrest among the population - which might consist more of illegal immigrants instead.

If an immigrant takes up arms against your country, you can deport them. If an illegal immigrant takes up arms against your country, you can deport them. If you deport them before they can do anything, you've reduced the chances that they can take up arms against your country, but you've also done harm not only to them but to your country.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

After Haley and Desantis inevitably get pummeled in NH, Haley should drop out - and then join Biden's campaign as his VP. I think this is the only plausible path forward for the preservation of the Union.

 

[TexRex]

What the....

Politics determines who's in charge.

The people in charge determine immigration policy.

Please tell me if you're not keeping up.

This point can be made without leaning on the irrelevant in a way which has **** all to do with specific policy.

You dumped a bunch of ******** and thrust your hands at it like it's supposed to mean something.

Not really.

I'm showing how things can be on topic even if using examples from another region.

Really.

You're actually just saying they can and making no effort to substantiate the assertion.

Huh?

I asked you what else should be considered and asked you to elaborate. Your response? "Pragmatism."

Infrastructure.

Oh.

Community cohesion (think Lebanon pre civil war, Israel after the Soviet Union went kaput, Sweden before the Sweden Democrats got so many votes).

What is the governmental interest here beyond preservation of individual rights?

Those are the two main ones I think of as being people's concerns whenever immigration is discussed.

Are you aware that you frequently deflect to the views of others when asked for your position?

Hmm?

Maybe you should take your advice?

Should there be a cap or not? If so, how much?

Remember how you asked basically the same question and when I indicated I have no interest in imposing caps you either deflected to a different line of questioning or got back on track (I still can't tell which it was or even if it wasn't something else)? If I had an interest in imposing caps I would have acknowledged as much but caps don't preserve individual rights and so I wouldn't impose any.

It should also be said that caps, broad as they are, don't actually ensure "infrastructure" or "community cohesion."

Really it just seems like you don't want people to immigrate to a country which isn't your own, and that's weird, but you feel like you can't say so much and instead you insist the number of immigrants should be restricted without actually justifying such restrictions.

 

[McLaren]

After Haley and Desantis inevitably get pummeled in NH, Haley should drop out - and then join Biden's campaign as his VP. I think this is the only plausible path forward for the preservation of the Union.

Nah, no thanks.

She made her bed with Republicans by changing her name & submerging her Indian heritage to do so, so she can reap what she gets which right now, is Trump once again using someone's name to mock them.

"Anyone listening to Nikki 'Nimrada' Haley's wacked out speech last night, would think that she won the Iowa Primary.

Donald Trump has meltdown over Nikki Haley

The former president attacks his GOP primary rival multiple times on Truth Social, with the New Hampshire vote coming up.

www.newsweek.com

 

[TexRex]

"The Democrats are making Republicans support Trump!"

This bitch is D-U-M-B, stupid.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Infrastructure is quite broad. You're worried about... traffic? I'm not sure exactly what. This can't result in some kind of blanket cap on immigration. "We're worried about LA freeways, so we can only accept X number of immigrants per year". Doesn't really make much sense right? I'm guessing you're thinking it's police. But of course law enforcement has its hands full with the crime of illegal immigration, and one way to reduce that is to make it not a crime. The same is true of other laws like drug use and prostitution.

But if the concern is that the population of a particular region is expanding so fast that its police force cannot cope enforcement of actually necessary laws, there are solutions to that other than capping immigration as a whole.

Specifically what is your infrastructure concern and how do you tie it to immigration policy?

Everything that is covered by the term infrastructure, be it housing, healthcare, schools. You have to be sure you can cope with x amount of additional people before you open the country up fully.

You're worried about civil unrest among immigrants? What rate of immigration do you think is safe from civil unrest among the immigrant population?

I couldn't say for the US. Note the civil unrest may come from the groups who were already in the country.

Reducing the requirements for immigration to allow more legal immigration strikes me as a way to reduce civil unrest among the population - which might consist more of illegal immigrants instead.

I mean, I gave examples of where mass migration had lasting impacts on the countries that implemented it. Germany as well is another one going to the right.

Remember how you asked basically the same question and when I indicated I have no interest in imposing caps you either deflected to a different line of questioning or got back on track (I still can't tell which it was or even if it wasn't something else)? If I had an interest in imposing caps I would have acknowledged as much but caps don't preserve individual rights and so I wouldn't impose any.

It should also be said that caps, broad as they are, don't actually ensure "infrastructure" or "community cohesion."

What is the purpose of caps then?

Really it just seems like you don't want people to immigrate to a country which isn't your own, and that's weird, but you feel like you can't say so much and instead you insist the number of immigrants should be restricted without actually justifying such restrictions.

Nonsense.

I think we need immigration to develop as a country. Indeed some sectors are reliant on it (although that's another story).

What I don't think is a good idea is unchecked, free for all immigration. There needs to be some balance.