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

[Viritica]

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

1. 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.

2. 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:

These illegal immigrants don't fit those qualifications.

3. 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.

4. 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.

1. I suppose you do.
2. Not really.
3. I have a right to make mistakes and learn from them, you know.
4. They are harmed when they depend on an already overcrowded system. If you don't believe that overcrowding the system more would harm them then there is no hope for you.

[Jamjai]

Viritica is the chupacabra

...

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

yes, you are right

I am the real chupacabre

I have to man!

[Liriena]

4. They are harmed when they depend on an already overcrowded system. If you don't believe that overcrowding the system more would harm them then there is no hope for you.

If more resources were allocated, then the overcrowded system wouldn't suffer so much, if at all. And the American children in foster care who are not being adopted right now won't see their chances suffer any more if the foster care system starts taking care of refugees as well.

[Viritica]

4. They are harmed when they depend on an already overcrowded system. If you don't believe that overcrowding the system more would harm them then there is no hope for you.

If more resources were allocated, then the overcrowded system wouldn't suffer so much, if at all. And the American children in foster care who are not being adopted right now won't see their chances suffer any more if the foster care system starts taking care of refugees as well.

You don't understand that the problem isn't entirely a lack of resources. As I said, there are already too many children in the system, and many of them spend lengthy times in foster care. Furthermore, there aren't enough parents adopting kids. It's just simply overcrowded.

[Liriena]

If more resources were allocated, then the overcrowded system wouldn't suffer so much, if at all. And the American children in foster care who are not being adopted right now won't see their chances suffer any more if the foster care system starts taking care of refugees as well.

You don't understand that the problem isn't entirely a lack of resources. As I said, there are already too many children in the system, and many of them spend lengthy times in foster care.

I am well aware of that. The length of time they spend in forster care won't be affected by the refugees, and an increased number of children can be dealt with with more resources.

Furthermore, there aren't enough parents adopting kids.

Again: the chances of those children being adopted won't change with the arrival of the refugees.

It's just simply overcrowded.

And the overcrowding can be fixed with some effort on the state's part. It's not a problem without solution.

[Viritica]

You don't understand that the problem isn't entirely a lack of resources. As I said, there are already too many children in the system, and many of them spend lengthy times in foster care.

1. I am well aware of that. The length of time they spend in forster care won't be affected by the refugees, and an increased number of children can be dealt with with more resources.

2. Furthermore, there aren't enough parents adopting kids.

2. Again: the chances of those children being adopted won't change with the arrival of the refugees.

It's just simply overcrowded.

3. And the overcrowding can be fixed with some effort on the state's part. It's not a problem without solution.

1. Yes, but it'll result in even more overcrowding with even more kids spending lengthy times in foster care.

2. It'd arguably reduce the chances of the current kids being adopted.

3. It's relatively hard to address when so few kids are being adopted.

[Liriena]

1. I am well aware of that. The length of time they spend in forster care won't be affected by the refugees, and an increased number of children can be dealt with with more resources.


2. Again: the chances of those children being adopted won't change with the arrival of the refugees.


3. And the overcrowding can be fixed with some effort on the state's part. It's not a problem without solution.

1. Yes, but it'll result in even more overcrowding with even more kids spending lengthy times in foster care.

Create more foster homes and improve the system around them.

2. It'd arguably reduce the chances of the current kids being adopted.

How?

3. It's relatively hard to address when so few kids are being adopted.

Hard? Yeah. It's hard addressing profound problems, but they still can and have to be addressed.

[Viritica]

1. Yes, but it'll result in even more overcrowding with even more kids spending lengthy times in foster care.

1. Create more foster homes and improve the system around them.

2. It'd arguably reduce the chances of the current kids being adopted.

2. How?

3. It's relatively hard to address when so few kids are being adopted.

3. Hard? Yeah. It's hard addressing profound problems, but they still can and have to be addressed.

1. Which still doesn't solve the problem that there are so many kids not being adopted.

2. There are more kids, giving potential parents more kids to choose from, thus reducing the overall chance that a particular kid is going to be adopted.

3. What do you intend to do? Force adults to adopt kids?

[Liriena]

1. Create more foster homes and improve the system around them.


2. How?


3. Hard? Yeah. It's hard addressing profound problems, but they still can and have to be addressed.

1. Which still doesn't solve the problem that there are so many kids not being adopted.

A problem that has nothing to do with the refugees.

2. There are more kids, giving potential parents more kids to choose from, thus reducing the overall chance that a particular kid is going to be adopted.

Implying that refugee childrens would be put up for adoption through the same process as American-born children in foster care.

3. What do you intend to do? Force adults to adopt kids?

No.

[Blakk Metal]

1. Which still doesn't solve the problem that there are so many kids not being adopted.

A problem that has nothing to do with the refugees.

2. There are more kids, giving potential parents more kids to choose from, thus reducing the overall chance that a particular kid is going to be adopted.

Implying that refugee childrens would be put up for adoption through the same process as American-born children in foster care.

3. What do you intend to do? Force adults to adopt kids?

No.

How are you going to get an increased population of adopting parents?

[Liriena]

A problem that has nothing to do with the refugees.


Implying that refugee childrens would be put up for adoption through the same process as American-born children in foster care.


No.

How are you going to get an increased population of adopting parents?

I don't know.

[Viritica]

1. Which still doesn't solve the problem that there are so many kids not being adopted.

1. A problem that has nothing to do with the refugees.

2. There are more kids, giving potential parents more kids to choose from, thus reducing the overall chance that a particular kid is going to be adopted.

2. Implying that refugee childrens would be put up for adoption through the same process as American-born children in foster care.

3. What do you intend to do? Force adults to adopt kids?

3. No.

1. A lot of the refugees are unaccompanied minors. It has everything to do with them.

2. I don't see why not.

3. Then what?

[Wisconsin9]

Is there actually a surge, or is it just Republicans making a stink about Obama doing something and/or not doing something so they can make the Dems look bad before the midterms?

[Blakk Metal]

Is there actually a surge, or is it just Republicans making a stink about Obama doing something and/or not doing something so they can make the Dems look bad before the midterms?

There's actually been an increase.

[Viritica]

Is there actually a surge, or is it just Republicans making a stink about Obama doing something and/or not doing something so they can make the Dems look bad before the midterms?

Yes, there's a surge. The fact that you are unaware of this is rather alarming.

[Wisconsin9]

Is there actually a surge, or is it just Republicans making a stink about Obama doing something and/or not doing something so they can make the Dems look bad before the midterms?

Yes, there's a surge. The fact that you are unaware of this is rather alarming.

I get my news from what shows up on NS.

[Liriena]

3. Then what?

I don't know, but I sure as hell don't think kicking child refugees out is the answer.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

The only reason the US is so rich is because its gene pool is dominated by barbarian blood and barbarian values.

The most genetically Palaeolithic Europeans are the Portuguese, followed by the Spaniards.

These represent a supermajority of the genetic basis in about all countries of the region. Amerindian DNA is just 35% of the blood of the average Mexican, that is less white than the Mexican-American demographic composed in 51% of white people.

Not even your racism makes sense. Try harder.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

That still doesn't explain how we're barbarians.

The US is dominated by Germanic and Celtic people.

You know that genetically Iberians are part of the Atlantic façade that goes up to Friesland and embraces the British Isles, and that culturally/linguistically we are sort of French-like, right?

Not that Italians, for example, are less of an extremely desirable immigrant group.

[Viritica]

3. Then what?

I don't know, but I sure as hell don't think kicking child refugees out is the answer.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree, because I just feel that now simply isn't the right to be taking in illegal immigrants.

[Blakk Metal]

The only reason the US is so rich is because its gene pool is dominated by barbarian blood and barbarian values.

The most genetically Palaeolithic Europeans are the Portuguese, followed by the Spaniards.

These represent a supermajority of the genetic basis in about all countries of the region. Amerindian DNA is just 35% of the blood of the average Mexican, that is less white than the Mexican-American demographic composed in 51% of white people.

Not even your racism makes sense. Try harder.

By barbarian I did not mean "Paleolithic Europeans", I meant "Europeans who defeated the Romans and were despised by the Romans thereafter until they destroyed the Roman Empire."

The US is dominated by Germanic and Celtic people.

You know that genetically Iberians are part of the Atlantic façade that goes up to Friesland and embraces the British Isles, and that culturally/linguistically we are sort of French-like, right?

Not that Italians, for example, are less of an extremely desirable immigrant group.

The Roman Empire was dysgenic.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I'm not sure race has much to do with the success of a nation.

It does. The richest countries in Europe and the richest regions of the US are Germanic.

You know fucking nothing of European genetics, motherfucking God.

There's no such thing as Germanic race. You're what happens when you mix ancestral Atlantic Europeans from the Ice Age Iberian refugee and the ancestors of Eastern Europeans from around the Caucasus (yes, the ones that gave origin to the Indo-European language family for some thousands of years). ADMIXTURE. Of ancestral "Poles" and "Portuguese".

[Blakk Metal]

It does. The richest countries in Europe and the richest regions of the US are Germanic.

You know fucking nothing of European genetics, motherfucking God.

There's no such thing as Germanic race. You're what happens when you mix ancestral Atlantic Europeans from the Ice Age Iberian refugee and the ancestors of Eastern Europeans from around the Caucasus (yes, the ones that gave origin to the Indo-European language family for some thousands of years). ADMIXTURE. Of ancestral "Poles" and "Portuguese".

I'm not Germanic and I never said race.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

The Roman Empire was dysgenic.

Europe is "dysgenic".

Only the Irish and the Portuguese are minimally unmixed with the groups that have their origin in the Italo-Balkan and Caucasian Ice Age refugees.

Blue eyes and fair hair are a mutation from 6000 years ago, the first from the Balkans and later from the northern coast of the Baltic Sea. Look at how fucking pervasive they are in this minimal amount of time. In a continent with genetically established population groups since 40.000 years ago.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Its white population is predominantly Romance.

Latin American cultures, like yours, are melting pots, and that makes us richer and stronger.