Surge 2014: A debate on Illegal Immigration and US Policies.

[Geilinor]

A great show of humanity there.

It's like graffiti-ing a wall. You repaint it.

There are human traffickers who bring people in. There aren't human traffickers who go the other way.

[Scomagia]

A great show of humanity there.

It's like graffiti-ing a wall. You repaint it.

Refugees from Central America are like spray paint on a wall? Interesting, I thought they were human beings. Silly me.

[Couasia]

Refugees from Central America are like spray paint on a wall? Interesting, I thought they were human beings. Silly me.

They broke the law, and since they are illegal aliens, the Constitution doesn't apply to them. Only to taxpaying American citizens.

[Scomagia]

Refugees from Central America are like spray paint on a wall? Interesting, I thought they were human beings. Silly me.

They broke the law, and since they are illegal aliens, the Constitution doesn't apply to them. Only to taxpaying American citizens.

I never said anything about the Constitution. Though, if your only argument is that "It's technically not against the constitution", you might want to reconsider your position.

[Lalaki]

Refugees from Central America are like spray paint on a wall? Interesting, I thought they were human beings. Silly me.

They broke the law, and since they are illegal aliens, the Constitution doesn't apply to them. Only to taxpaying American citizens.

Still, they are human beings.

Have you ever considered that, if allowed to come into the country, we had have more taxpaying people in the country? I say we document all non-criminals that come into the US. That way, hard working people can get in easier, while people who break laws can be tracked easier by the government.

And what about documented immigrants? Surely, the Constitution applies to them?

The United States is composed of peoples from around the world. There is no set American race, only a mixture under one common nationality.

[Liriena]

1. To which I'd respond: "It would be a greater injustice to let refugees suffer and probably die back in the place they escaped, for no reason other than simply not wanting to spend money."


2. Hey, I'm not the one who tried to predict what I would say.


3. No. You are a liar for claiming it was my only argument.

Let me quote what you said:


4. See? I may have "opened the door", but it was not even remotely close to being my only argument, or even the center of my argument.

5. So, yeah, you are a liar.


6. Nope.

I have a younger brother. I can go at this for weeks.


7. Your personal belief being: "Fuck refugees! If you weren't born on my side of this imaginary line I've been raised to see as some sort of sacrosanct symbol, I don't want the state to spend any money on you."

1. To which I'd reply: "Stop constructing strawmen. Not wanting to spend money is not the primary reason. Placing an unjust burden on the system and those who live off it would cruel to our citizens."

Becaused increased spending... causes physical suffering to the American citizenry?

2. And that's prejudice... How exactly?

Deriving conclusions from your negative preconception of me and/or my beliefs.

3. It was the start of it.

No. It was literally the last few words of a much larger paragraph.

Also, you did not say it was "the start of it". You said:

You have literally no case beyond endlessly whining about how apparently entitled the people in the superpowers feel.

Meaning, you claimed it was my only argument. Not the start of it.
And you were lying. It wasn't the "start" of my argument.

4. Your point?

You lied in the cited sentence.

5. Not really.

Yes, really.

7. Again, nice strawman. Oh, by the way, those imaginary lines do matter. National sovereignty and all that.

National sovereignity is not an exemption from taking care of your refugees.

[Lalaki]

National sovereignity is not an exemption from taking care of your refugees.

Here, here!

[Rio Cana]

Ending the drug war wouldn't cost us money. It would save us money.

Central America would still suck.

Not Nicaragua which would not bend to US political pressures unlike the three Northern Central American nations were all those illegal kids are coming from.

Central America is a growing destination for moderately wealthy Americans looking to leave the rat race behind. In their search for quieter and less expensive places, some have chosen to settle in Nicaragua — the poorest nation in mainland Latin America, but also the safest

Although Nicaragua hasn't had good relationships with the US over the last three decades, it is a popular destination for US citizens.

The article - http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... ragua?lite

[Viritica]

1. To which I'd reply: "Stop constructing strawmen. Not wanting to spend money is not the primary reason. Placing an unjust burden on the system and those who live off it would cruel to our citizens."

1. Because increased spending... causes physical suffering to the American citizenry?

2. And that's prejudice... How exactly?

2. Deriving conclusions from your negative preconception of me and/or my beliefs.

3. It was the start of it.

3. No. It was literally the last few words of a much larger paragraph.

Also, you did not say it was "the start of it". You said:

You have literally no case beyond endlessly whining about how apparently entitled the people in the superpowers feel.

4. Meaning, you claimed it was my only argument. Not the start of it.
And you were lying. It wasn't the "start" of my argument.

4. Your point?

5. You lied in the cited sentence.

5. Not really.

6. Yes, really.

7. Again, nice strawman. Oh, by the way, those imaginary lines do matter. National sovereignty and all that.

7. National sovereignity is not an exemption from taking care of your refugees.

1. Spending isn't the only issue. There are too many children in the system, they're spending too long there, and not enough children are being adopted. That's kind of why I said the system was "overcrowded".

2. You seem to believe people in superpowers feel entitled.

3. It was still there.

4. Perhaps I should have worded if better, but that's beside the point.

5. Nope.

6. See above.

7. *illegal immigrants

And it is an exemption when it would harm the people who are already here.

[Geilinor]

1. Because increased spending... causes physical suffering to the American citizenry?


2. Deriving conclusions from your negative preconception of me and/or my beliefs.


3. No. It was literally the last few words of a much larger paragraph.

Also, you did not say it was "the start of it". You said:

4. Meaning, you claimed it was my only argument. Not the start of it.
And you were lying. It wasn't the "start" of my argument.


5. You lied in the cited sentence.


6. Yes, really.


7. National sovereignity is not an exemption from taking care of your refugees.

7. *illegal immigrants

They must clearly be fleeing something if they're ready to risk their lives to get here. And don't tell me "they want welfare", because that's a BS reason and it isn't easy for illegal immigrants to get government benefits.

[Norstal]

You want to fly unattended children on a plane, drop them off to an airport where they may possibly get lost. And some of these children would probably have little to no documentation on them either.

Do you know what kind of international relations shitstorm would brew from this idea? Even Congo would laugh at how they treat refugees better than us.

What in the name of Zeus makes you think they would just be dropped off at an airport? Do you have any idea how illogical that is? Arrange for them to be picked up by the proper state officials of their respective countries and then send them home.

And what makes you think they want, or even capable of, handling such things if they're in a crisis? If their government even cares for these refugees, they wouldn't be refugees in the first place. It's obvious they're trying to escape from something, whether it'd be the state or other circumstances.

[Viritica]

7. *illegal immigrants

They must clearly be fleeing something if they're ready to risk their lives to get here. And don't tell me "they want welfare", because that's a BS reason and it isn't easy for illegal immigrants to get government benefits.

According to Wikipedia (just Google refugee) a refugee is defined as:

[A]ny person who: owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".[3]

I'm not seeing how these illegal immigrants fill those qualifications.

[Viritica]

What in the name of Zeus makes you think they would just be dropped off at an airport? Do you have any idea how illogical that is? Arrange for them to be picked up by the proper state officials of their respective countries and then send them home.

And what makes you think they want, or even capable of, handling such things if they're in a crisis? If their government even cares for these refugees, they wouldn't be refugees in the first place. It's obvious they're trying to escape from something, whether it'd be the state or other circumstances.

Well, forty illegals were just sent home, so I'm assuming the situation was handled well.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/undocumented-women-children-deported-honduras-n155606

[Scomagia]

And what makes you think they want, or even capable of, handling such things if they're in a crisis? If their government even cares for these refugees, they wouldn't be refugees in the first place. It's obvious they're trying to escape from something, whether it'd be the state or other circumstances.

Well, forty illegals were just sent home, so I'm assuming the situation was handled well.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/undocumented-women-children-deported-honduras-n155606

Please stop calling them illegals. Please. Illegal immigrants if you MUST, but please stop calling them illegals.

[Viritica]

Well, forty illegals were just sent home, so I'm assuming the situation was handled well.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/undocumented-women-children-deported-honduras-n155606

Please stop calling them illegals. Please. Illegal immigrants if you MUST, but please stop calling them illegals.

If it bugs you so much then fine, I will stop.

[Scomagia]

Please stop calling them illegals. Please. Illegal immigrants if you MUST, but please stop calling them illegals.

If it bugs you so much then fine, I will stop.

Thank you.

[Liriena]

1. Because increased spending... causes physical suffering to the American citizenry?


2. Deriving conclusions from your negative preconception of me and/or my beliefs.


3. No. It was literally the last few words of a much larger paragraph.

Also, you did not say it was "the start of it". You said:

4. Meaning, you claimed it was my only argument. Not the start of it.
And you were lying. It wasn't the "start" of my argument.


5. You lied in the cited sentence.


6. Yes, really.


7. National sovereignity is not an exemption from taking care of your refugees.

1. Spending isn't the only issue. There are too many children in the system, they're spending too long there, and not enough children are being adopted. That's kind of why I said the system was "overcrowded".

And while that is a serious problem, and it should be addressed, it's still no excuse for disregarding the human rights of children refugees.

2. You seem to believe people in superpowers feel entitled.

Truth be told, I'm not so sure about that particular fragment of my original post anymore. However, I do believe some, though certainly not all inhabitants of developed nations seem to believe that having being born in a superpower gives them the right to keep out or vilify anybody who, living in regions where their lives are in constant peril, desperately seek peace and comfort in regions where quality of life is substantially higher and food and health care shortages are not a life-threatening problem for most people.

3. It was still there.

Yes, but not the way you claimed it was.

4. Perhaps I should have worded if better, but that's beside the point.

No. You should have told the truth about what I said.

5. Nope.

6. See above.

Yep. And to prove you were lying, this is my first post:

As someone who lives in a Latin American nation and descends from early twentieth century immigrants from the impoverished regions of Southern Europe... yeah, not fond of the rhetoric being used to excuse being neglectful in the face of a severe humanitarian crisis involving people, many of them not nearly old enough to work or try to come in through the thoroughly broken current system on their own, living in miserable conditions in a land with little to no opportunities for peace or growth, and going through a veritable hell in the search for the comfort that a superpower's inhabitants feel they are exclusively entitled to for being born there, as if nationality was some sort of nobiliary title.

Notice how the fragment you insist on throwing back at me makes up less than two lines out of seven, and how it's only at the end. Hell, I wrote it as an afterthought.

7. *illegal immigrants

Refugees. They are escaping violence and severe poverty.

And it is an exemption when it would harm the people who are already here.

No. Not even then.

[Viritica]

1. Spending isn't the only issue. There are too many children in the system, they're spending too long there, and not enough children are being adopted. That's kind of why I said the system was "overcrowded".

And while that is a serious problem, and it should be addressed, it's still no excuse for disregarding the human rights of children refugees.

2. You seem to believe people in superpowers feel entitled.

1. Truth be told, I'm not so sure about that particular fragment of my original post anymore. However, I do believe some, though certainly not all inhabitants of developed nations seem to believe that having being born in a superpower gives them the right to keep out or vilify anybody who, living in regions where their lives are in constant peril, desperately seek peace and comfort in regions where quality of life is substantially higher and food and health care shortages are not a life-threatening problem for most people.

3. It was still there.

2. Yes, but not the way you claimed it was.

4. Perhaps I should have worded if better, but that's beside the point.

No. You should have told the truth about what I said.

5. Nope.

6. See above.

Yep. And to prove you were lying, this is my first post:

As someone who lives in a Latin American nation and descends from early twentieth century immigrants from the impoverished regions of Southern Europe... yeah, not fond of the rhetoric being used to excuse being neglectful in the face of a severe humanitarian crisis involving people, many of them not nearly old enough to work or try to come in through the thoroughly broken current system on their own, living in miserable conditions in a land with little to no opportunities for peace or growth, and going through a veritable hell in the search for the comfort that a superpower's inhabitants feel they are exclusively entitled to for being born there, as if nationality was some sort of nobiliary title.

Notice how the fragment you insist on throwing back at me makes up less than two lines out of seven, and how it's only at the end. Hell, I wrote it as an afterthought.

7. *illegal immigrants

3. Refugees. They are escaping violence and severe poverty.

And it is an exemption when it would harm the people who are already here.

4. No. Not even then.

1. If you don't feel so sure about it then perhaps you shouldn't have written it.

2. This largely irrelevant to the discussion anyway so if it makes you feel better then fine, I was incorrect about it being your main point.

3. According to Wikipedia (Google it) a refugee is defined as:

[A]ny person who: owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".[3]

These illegal immigrants don't fit those qualifications.

4. Yes, even. The actual citizens of this country matter more than these illegal immigrants.

[Skeckoa]

Refugees from Central America are like spray paint on a wall? Interesting, I thought they were human beings. Silly me.

Nope, Central Americans are not humans, just subjects used for political gain.

[Jamjai]

If it bugs you so much then fine, I will stop.

Thank you.

Viritica is the chupacabra

...

[Skeckoa]

Viritica is the chupacabra...

[Viritica]

Thank you.

Viritica is the chupacabra

...

Excuse me?

[Liriena]

And while that is a serious problem, and it should be addressed, it's still no excuse for disregarding the human rights of children refugees.


1. Truth be told, I'm not so sure about that particular fragment of my original post anymore. However, I do believe some, though certainly not all inhabitants of developed nations seem to believe that having being born in a superpower gives them the right to keep out or vilify anybody who, living in regions where their lives are in constant peril, desperately seek peace and comfort in regions where quality of life is substantially higher and food and health care shortages are not a life-threatening problem for most people.


2. Yes, but not the way you claimed it was.


No. You should have told the truth about what I said.


Yep. And to prove you were lying, this is my first post:

Notice how the fragment you insist on throwing back at me makes up less than two lines out of seven, and how it's only at the end. Hell, I wrote it as an afterthought.


3. Refugees. They are escaping violence and severe poverty.


4. No. Not even then.

1. If you don't feel so sure about it then perhaps you shouldn't have written it.

I have the right to make mistakes and learn from them, thank you very much. Now find another fragment from my posts to beat like a dead horse.

2. This largely irrelevant to the discussion anyway so if it makes you feel better then fine, I was incorrect about it being your main point.

Wow, it sure took you an awful lot of time to admit it. Was it really that hard?

3. According to Wikipedia (Google it) a refugee is defined as:

[A]ny person who: owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country".[3]

These illegal immigrants don't fit those qualifications.

Read your own source.

The concept of a refugee was expanded by the Convention's 1967 Protocol and by regional conventions in Africa and Latin America to include persons who had fled war or other violence in their home country.

4. Yes, even. The actual citizens of this country matter more than these illegal immigrants.

Oh, for the Universe's sake... For the last time: the state can and has the duty to take care of its refugees, even if it costs money, and even if it means incurring in more debt, they have the capacity to take care of their own citizens and the refugees. And citizens are not harmed by the state spending on refugees.

[Jamjai]

Viritica is the chupacabra

...

Excuse me?

Don't be like this

we amigos, man

[Scomagia]

Thank you.

Viritica is the chupacabra

...

I'm pretty sure he doesn't suck the blood of goats.