But that's not what you actually said.
Advertisement
by Nazi Flower Power » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:17 pm
by The American Company » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:18 pm
Death Metal wrote:The American Company wrote:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/25 ... n-20130126
At least in parts, black people are no longer welcome in some Latino majority areas. Granted it's an extreme example, and it was done by gang members, but it's a sign of things to come if we cannot get a grip on who comes over (since some of the people who can come over are gangsters.)
And if we made it easier to immigrate legally, nobody would use the cartels to immigrate.
Not to mention the myriad of sociological factors involved, namely the nationalistic stigmatization of minorities (Which is hardly a new phenomenon. For example, the Irish syndicates)
by Death Metal » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:22 pm
Lemanrussland wrote:Not necessarily.
by Death Metal » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:29 pm
The American Company wrote:Death Metal wrote:
And if we made it easier to immigrate legally, nobody would use the cartels to immigrate.
Not to mention the myriad of sociological factors involved, namely the nationalistic stigmatization of minorities (Which is hardly a new phenomenon. For example, the Irish syndicates)
Making legal immigration easier would solve.... nothing.
by The American Company » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:34 pm
Death Metal wrote:
Yes, it would. If they can't find work because of their undocumented status, and are persecuted for that status, what is their alternative? Organized crime.
Plus, you know, being indebted to drug and gun dealers for getting you across the border makes it pretty easy for them to coerce you into working for them anyway.
Not to mention that immigration transportation schemes have ended up with the immigrants turning into sex slaves.
So, yeah, a lot would change. Even more when we start treating immigrants, illegal or legal, like humans for once... which we didn't do with the Irish that I mentioned earlier.
by Death Metal » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:44 pm
The American Company wrote:That's great, except you missed out on all of the rest of my post. Now, what would you do about the flow of criminals across an unsecured border?
As for finding work, I mean, what about people who are *already* criminals in Mexico?
by Viritica » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:45 pm
The American Company wrote:Death Metal wrote:
Yes, it would. If they can't find work because of their undocumented status, and are persecuted for that status, what is their alternative? Organized crime.
Plus, you know, being indebted to drug and gun dealers for getting you across the border makes it pretty easy for them to coerce you into working for them anyway.
Not to mention that immigration transportation schemes have ended up with the immigrants turning into sex slaves.
So, yeah, a lot would change. Even more when we start treating immigrants, illegal or legal, like humans for once... which we didn't do with the Irish that I mentioned earlier.
That's great, except you missed out on all of the rest of my post. Now, what would you do about the flow of criminals across an unsecured border?
As for finding work, I mean, what about people who are *already* criminals in Mexico?
by Kiribati-Tarawa » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:46 pm
by The American Company » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:49 pm
Death Metal wrote:The American Company wrote:That's great, except you missed out on all of the rest of my post. Now, what would you do about the flow of criminals across an unsecured border?
As for finding work, I mean, what about people who are *already* criminals in Mexico?
Well, since we wouldn't be busy chasing people who just want to make an honest living and left their country to avoid being in a gang, our exiting resources will be sufficient to deal with the criminal organizations. Which is what they're actually there for, not putting 8 year olds into gulags.
by Death Metal » Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:56 pm
The American Company wrote:Death Metal wrote:
Well, since we wouldn't be busy chasing people who just want to make an honest living and left their country to avoid being in a gang, our exiting resources will be sufficient to deal with the criminal organizations. Which is what they're actually there for, not putting 8 year olds into gulags.
I never knew the LAPD patrolled the border. Or for that matter, drew from the same resource/money pool as the federal government.
by The American Company » Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:01 am
Death Metal wrote:The American Company wrote:
I never knew the LAPD patrolled the border. Or for that matter, drew from the same resource/money pool as the federal government.
What the fuck, the LAPD has nothing to do with it. ICE and DHS are the ones whose resources are being wasted and will be put to use dealing with cartels crossing the border.
And if a non-citizen resident is arrested and convicted, they'll be deported... which is what we do already, documented or not, so nothing changes on the LAPD's end at all.
by Death Metal » Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:17 am
The American Company wrote:Death Metal wrote:
What the fuck, the LAPD has nothing to do with it. ICE and DHS are the ones whose resources are being wasted and will be put to use dealing with cartels crossing the border.
And if a non-citizen resident is arrested and convicted, they'll be deported... which is what we do already, documented or not, so nothing changes on the LAPD's end at all.
First off, you implied resources we use to arrest illegal immigrants could be better used to catch criminals inside our country. Problem is Border Patrol and other such agencies mostly handle border security, while in most of the US, crime on a local level is handled by a city police department, county sheriff, or state patrol. Occasionally if a department is strapped for resources, and it is within 100 miles of the border, the Border patrol can help out, but I assure you there are illegal immigrant communities not within 100 miles of any US border. In theory, you could reduce funds for the border patrol, and just hand out that money to local cops, so, I guess you got me there.
Second off, that's great if they book the guy, and find out he is wanted in Mexico and send him back. Problem is, he already committed a crime (say, terrorizing a black family). Likewise, if you invest in border security, you catch the guy at the border, and send him back or send him to jail.
No crime. No terrorized black people. No simmering low level racial war that barely involves white people (liberal or conservative).
Plus, once again, a lot of non criminal Latinos at the very least, have some negative views about blacks, much less other groups.
by The American Company » Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:37 am
Death Metal wrote:The American Company wrote:
First off, you implied resources we use to arrest illegal immigrants could be better used to catch criminals inside our country. Problem is Border Patrol and other such agencies mostly handle border security, while in most of the US, crime on a local level is handled by a city police department, county sheriff, or state patrol. Occasionally if a department is strapped for resources, and it is within 100 miles of the border, the Border patrol can help out, but I assure you there are illegal immigrant communities not within 100 miles of any US border. In theory, you could reduce funds for the border patrol, and just hand out that money to local cops, so, I guess you got me there.
Second off, that's great if they book the guy, and find out he is wanted in Mexico and send him back. Problem is, he already committed a crime (say, terrorizing a black family). Likewise, if you invest in border security, you catch the guy at the border, and send him back or send him to jail.
No crime. No terrorized black people. No simmering low level racial war that barely involves white people (liberal or conservative).
Plus, once again, a lot of non criminal Latinos at the very least, have some negative views about blacks, much less other groups.
First, dealing with smugglers etc is a border patrol issue, and dealt with using the same pool of resources used to turn away undocumented immigrants. Non-border crime is already handled by local police regardless. So the local police are unaffected because their jobs are unchanged.
Second, finding out someone is wanted at home is something that can happen regardless of immigration policy, and the people that avoid proper channels for that reason would avoid proper channels anways. So all keeping the status quo does is continue to persecute people who would be otherwise law-abiding immigrants.
Your last point, that's irrelevant as there are a myriad of social issues that are factors for that hostility, not the least of which is the social acceptability of African-Americans vs Hispanic-Americans. Social acceptability, by the way, I had already addressed twice in pointing out the advent of the Irish mafias. It's simple behavioral psychology: If Group A persecutes Group B, and is more accepting of Group C, it is not unreasonable to expect misplaced hostility from Group B to Group C. Group C would likely reciprocate, as they are blamed for what is essentially Group A's actions. As we can therefore assume that a portion of that hostility is due to the status quo, keeping that status quo will only further impede progress between the two groups vis a vis mutual acceptance.
by Viritica » Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:42 am
by Death Metal » Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:57 am
The American Company wrote:
First, you are trying to morph points.1 We were not debating legal immigration policy (that I would be happy to discuss later), we were rather discussing physical border security. You basically stated before:
"Well, since we wouldn't be busy chasing people..."
If you are a border patrol officer out in the field, and you see people coming across, you have no idea who is actually a criminal, and who is just a guy really2. Now, if you take them to be processed, that is a different story, but I limited myself purely to discussing physical security of the border. You seemed opposed before. I guess either you were not making your points clear before, or you had a microideological conversion in the past 15 minutes.
Second, they would never be in a position to avoid proper channels in the first place if they could not get in at all.3 Again, an argument for more physical border security.
Third, I don't see what part about terrorized black American people is "irrelevant," unless you happen to be a hardline anti black racist. On to the other point, yes, there is still some white racism in America, but how can you accept a person if you cannot even speak the same language and discern intentions? 4
As for the Irish.... why don't we hear about anti Irish sentiment anymore? Why do all the Irish Americans speak English in American accents of their region?
In large part, they integrated. That is not happening in a lot of places like Los Angeles now.5
by Reich Line » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:42 am
by L Ron Cupboard » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:45 am
by Organized States » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:57 am
Reich Line wrote:Hmm yes, sending armed soldiers will solve this issue.
by Risottia » Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:23 am
Viritica wrote:Benuty wrote:They cannot doing anything let alone arrest or shoot down immigrants as it would be against the law. So it is a pointless political move that serves little deterrence to people fleeing from something much, much worse.
They can turn people away and send a strong message that Texas isn't accepting anymore illegal immigrants.
by Infected Mushroom » Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:30 am
by Nansurium » Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:19 am
by L Ron Cupboard » Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:11 am
by Ashmoria » Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:12 am
Viritica wrote:I'm surprised no one's reported this yet.
http://www.newsweek.com/gov-rick-perry-deploy-national-guard-usmexico-border-260089tl;dr Basically, due to Obama's refusal to address the humanitarian crisis and his refusal to even visit the Rio Grande while he was in Texas Rick Perry had decided to take matters into his own hands by deploying 1,000 Texas National Guard troops to the Rio Grande.Texas Governor Rick Perry plans to activate and deploy the Texas National Guard to the Rio Grande Valley, Texas State Senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, a Democrat, told The Monitor on Sunday. According to a leaked memo, the governor plans to announce in a press conference today his plan to call “about 1,000 Texas National Guard Troops” to plug perceived gaps in security along the border.
A recent influx of immigrants, some 57,000 children and families from Central America, has placed extra strain on the overlapping network of Federal and State agencies designed to keep the border secure. Last Friday, Perry and state leaders issued a directive to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to begin a “law enforcement surge” along the border designed to alleviate some of that stress. The DPS emphasized that its mission “would not include enforcing immigration laws,” but rather to “deter and disrupt drug and human trafficking, and other border-related crimes,” The Texas Tribune reported.
Some fear that, with the eyes of border security officials turned to easing the humanitarian crisis along the border, Mexican drug cartels will take advantage of gaps in security to smuggle in drugs and other contraband. A representative for Hinojosa told Newsweek that the senator has asked for additional resources to help provide food, clothing and health care for the immigrants in the Rio Grande Valley. So far, however, Austin has focused on law enforcement concerns over humanitarian ones, the representative said.
Newsweek Magazine is Back In Print
While the leaked memo insists otherwise, Hinojosa fears that Perry’s plan to bring the National Guard to the valley amounts to a militarization of the border. "The National Guard are not needed here.… They have a different mission. They have a military mission,” Hinojosa said, according to The Houston Chronicle. The representative for Hinojosa did not know whether the National Guard’s mission would be different from that of the DPS.
By deploying troops, Perry looks be seen as stepping in to fill a gap left by President Obama, who recently asked Congress for $3.7 billion to help with the influx of immigrants. Perry has been a vocal critic of Obama’s response to the border crisis. The governor accused the Obama administration of ineptitude in handling the crisis, and even went so far as to suggest on ABC News that the president might be responsible for the influx of immigrants.
I fully support the Governor's course of action. Texas citizens are suffering due to Obama's ineptitude and Rick Perry has a duty to protect Texas people.
What say ye, NSG?
EDIT: Do try and be polite. If you can't even be bothered to be kind for the sake of the discussion them you have no place in this thread.
by Murkwood » Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:14 am
Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Murkwood, I'm surprised you're not an anti-Semite and don't mind most LGBT rights because boy, aren't you a constellation of the worst opinions to have about everything? o_o
Benuty wrote:I suppose Ken Ham, and the league of Republican-Neocolonialist-Zionist Catholics will not be pleased.
Soldati senza confini wrote:Did I just try to rationalize Murkwood's logic? Please shoot me.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Carameon, Drachovia, Emotional Support Crocodile, Empire of Lettuce, Fartsniffage, Google [Bot], Juristonia, Port Carverton, Som Sikina, The Xenopolis Confederation, Yasuragi
Advertisement