Nonexistent emergency at the border getting worse

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Still don't understand what Torra's saying, do you? Lemme see if I can break it down.
When someone desperately wants something and it's really, really hard to obtain, they might try not-so-good ways to get it. For example, a poor father with a family of 6 might deal drugs in order to put food on the table. But if it's very easy to get that which you so desperately want, then you get by good, legal means. For example, that poor father with a family of 6 obtains a legal job instead of dealing drugs. It's the same process here.

Amin, go away.

No.

You support slavery.

1: That's an ad-hoc. Don't use fallacies when debating next time.
2: I support Islamic slavery.

Nothing you say about anything is ever relevant.

I'm pretty sure me talking about immigration in a thread about immigration is completely relevant.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

But border security is racist, though. So is CBP. Why would you want to fund such racist institutions?

I believe we should have some border security so we can keep out legitimate criminals, but also let in those who actually need to get in.

I'm with you here, the only reason that any kind of restriction should be put on borders is to catch people with genuine malicious intent, such as drug smugglers, slavers, etc.

[Nova Cyberia]

This was the post that I was responding to when you decided to insert yourself into our conversation:

I mean, I get that you don't like reading but how the fuck did you not even understand the conversation?

Absolutely pathetic.

My post was in response to the OP that you so conveniently chose to disregard almost as soon as somebody posted contrary to your position. It had absolutely no relation to that conversation, which anyone with half a brain can see. Stop this fucking lying of yours.

Really?

Because here's when you decided to argue with me and pretend as if me and him were talking about streamlining immigration, which we weren't.

I've said it several times over.

I believe rewarding people for violating the law is bad because it only incentivizes further law-breaking.

TIL'd that making a process like legal immigration simpler and easier = encouraging more illegal immigration.

You're a liar. A bad liar.

[Torrocca]

Amin, go away.

You support slavery.

Nothing you say about anything is ever relevant.

Again, such is not relevant to the debate.

I mean, it's pretty fucking clear by now that OP doesn't give a shit about arguing in good faith.

[Nova Cyberia]

Amin, go away.

No.

You support slavery.

1: That's an ad-hoc. Don't use fallacies when debating next time.
2: I support Islamic slavery.

Nothing you say about anything is ever relevant.

I'm pretty sure me talking about immigration in a thread about immigration is completely relevant.

You aren't a moral person. You're morally bankrupt. You have no grounds to argue with anyone about anything.

[Nova Cyberia]

It's never going to be as simple and quick as simply hoping the border and then being given a path to citizenship.

A path of difficulty and stringent (no-second-chance) requirements. It's like saying that I'm generous for giving you a path littered with broken glass.

The opportunity is the reward.

[Dormill and Stiura]

You aren't a moral person. You're morally bankrupt. You have no grounds to argue with anyone about anything.

Says the racist, the irony here is palpable.

[The South Falls]

Another solution to all this is actually fixing the problems that cause people to leave. Such as aiding foreign governments in rooting out drugs and gangs, and making space livable.

[Nova Cyberia]

You aren't a moral person. You're morally bankrupt. You have no grounds to argue with anyone about anything.

Says the racist, the irony here is palpable.

I forgot, Torra said I'm racist so it must be true.

[The South Falls]

Also, morality is relative. Who can say that anyone is morally bankrupt?

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

No.

1: That's an ad-hoc. Don't use fallacies when debating next time.
2: I support Islamic slavery.

I'm pretty sure me talking about immigration in a thread about immigration is completely relevant.

You aren't a moral person. You're morally bankrupt. You have no grounds to argue with anyone about anything.

You might want to cool your jets a little there, insulting your interlocutor without engaging with their argument in the slightest isn't a good look.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

No.

1: That's an ad-hoc. Don't use fallacies when debating next time.
2: I support Islamic slavery.

I'm pretty sure me talking about immigration in a thread about immigration is completely relevant.

You aren't a moral person. You're morally bankrupt. You have no grounds to argue with anyone about anything.

Are you going to actually debate or make the same logical fallacy?

[Nova Cyberia]

You aren't a moral person. You're morally bankrupt. You have no grounds to argue with anyone about anything.

Are you going to actually debate or make the same logical fallacy?

I'm debating with Torra, not you.

You I'm dismissive toward, because you're an inherently malicious individual and not worth my time.

[Dormill and Stiura]

I forgot, Torra said I'm racist so it must be true.

AlHamdulillah.

Your Arabic gibberish is not a point.

Huh, would you look at that? Seems like you said it yourself. I've never seen this Torra fellow until tonight so what else do you have to say on this matter?

[Novus America]

It's never going to be as simple and quick as simply hoping the border and then being given a path to citizenship.

Depends on how simple you make it.

And also, again, of course the correct answer is to have enough resources into the legal side of the immigration process so that judges can properly weigh up the validity of each individual case they get.

But we still will not be letting in everyone.
Those sneaking in illegally are often not qualified in the first place.

Because we will not be letting in everyone, there are going to be people trying to get in illegally.
Making the process faster will not do anything unless you massively expand the annual intake.

It is still a numbers game.

We bring in about a million a year.

But 750 million adults want to leave there country, and the US is the first choice of 158 million.
Plus remember that is only adults.

We are not going to be bringing in enough to eliminate or probably even significantly reduce illegal immigration.

We will still have to rely on border security, deterrence and removal measures to bring illegal immigration under control.

[Torrocca]

My post was in response to the OP that you so conveniently chose to disregard almost as soon as somebody posted contrary to your position. It had absolutely no relation to that conversation, which anyone with half a brain can see. Stop this fucking lying of yours.

Really?

Because here's when you decided to argue with me and pretend as if me and him were talking about streamlining immigration, which we weren't.

TIL'd that making a process like legal immigration simpler and easier = encouraging more illegal immigration.

You're a liar. A bad liar.

Holy shit, this is the fucking easiest lie in the world to break down:

I'm still not understanding why it's such an issue if these people become legal citizens.

That kinda nips the whole issue in the bud.

The point is that they don't want the brown-skinned foreigners to be seen as equals to America's citizenry and would thus rather prevent them from being Americans as much as possible.

If that wasn't the case, they'd fully support easing both the immigration and citizenship processes and thus eradicate the issues of illegal immigration in the easiest way imaginable, rather than a border wall across the US-Mexico alone, with no regard for the other border up north.

The point is that they don't want the brown-skinned foreigners to be seen as equals to America's citizenry and would thus rather prevent them from being Americans as much as possible.

If that wasn't the case, they'd fully support easing both the immigration and citizenship processes and thus eradicate the issues of illegal immigration in the easiest way imaginable, rather than a border wall across the US-Mexico alone, with no regard for the other border up north.

And the inevitable weak appeal to racism that you insert in lieu of an actual argument.

So predictable. So lame.

And the inevitable weak appeal to racism that you insert in lieu of an actual argument.

So predictable. So lame.

It's a better response than just refusing to say why it's so bad to let people become citizens.

It's a better response than just refusing to say why it's so bad to let people become citizens.

I've said it several times over.

I believe rewarding people for violating the law is bad because it only incentivizes further law-breaking.

Do you fucking notice how that STARTED with a fucking statement by me that suggested streamlining legal immigration? DO YOU FUCKING SEE? Or are you gonna keep being this fucking disingenuous and pretend you aren't fucking lying so as to pretty up your shitty argument?

[Nova Cyberia]

I forgot, Torra said I'm racist so it must be true.

Your Arabic gibberish is not a point.

Huh, would you look at that? Seems like you said it yourself. I've never seen this Torra fellow until tonight so what else do you have to say on this matter?

Yeah, I don't speak Arabic. It's gibberish to me. Most people here don't, since this is an English-speaking forum.

[Nova Cyberia]

Really?

Because here's when you decided to argue with me and pretend as if me and him were talking about streamlining immigration, which we weren't.

You're a liar. A bad liar.

Holy shit, this is the fucking easiest lie in the world to break down:

The point is that they don't want the brown-skinned foreigners to be seen as equals to America's citizenry and would thus rather prevent them from being Americans as much as possible.

If that wasn't the case, they'd fully support easing both the immigration and citizenship processes and thus eradicate the issues of illegal immigration in the easiest way imaginable, rather than a border wall across the US-Mexico alone, with no regard for the other border up north.

And the inevitable weak appeal to racism that you insert in lieu of an actual argument.

So predictable. So lame.

It's a better response than just refusing to say why it's so bad to let people become citizens.

I've said it several times over.

I believe rewarding people for violating the law is bad because it only incentivizes further law-breaking.

Do you fucking notice how that STARTED with a fucking statement by me that suggested streamlining legal immigration? DO YOU FUCKING SEE? Or are you gonna keep being this fucking disingenuous and pretend you aren't fucking lying so as to pretty up your shitty argument?

Do you see how I didn't actually enter that discussion with him until he said this?

It's a better response than just refusing to say why it's so bad to let people become citizens.

I've said it several times over.

I believe rewarding people for violating the law is bad because it only incentivizes further law-breaking.

[Torrocca]

Holy shit, this is the fucking easiest lie in the world to break down:









Do you fucking notice how that STARTED with a fucking statement by me that suggested streamlining legal immigration? DO YOU FUCKING SEE? Or are you gonna keep being this fucking disingenuous and pretend you aren't fucking lying so as to pretty up your shitty argument?

Do you see how I didn't actually enter that discussion with him until he said this?

I've said it several times over.

I believe rewarding people for violating the law is bad because it only incentivizes further law-breaking.

Who honestly gives a single iota of a fuck who you responded to when that was a conversation entirely related to a point I made about the shittiness of your beliefs?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Are you going to actually debate or make the same logical fallacy?

I'm debating with Torra, not you.

You I'm dismissive toward, because you're an inherently malicious individual and not worth my time.

So yes, you're committing a logical fallacy over and over again. Imma still respond to you tho.

Huh, would you look at that? Seems like you said it yourself. I've never seen this Torra fellow until tonight so what else do you have to say on this matter?

Yeah, I don't speak Arabic. It's gibberish to me. Most people here don't, since this is an English-speaking forum.

A language you don't understand is not gibberish. It's a language.

[Chan Island]

Depends on how simple you make it.

And also, again, of course the correct answer is to have enough resources into the legal side of the immigration process so that judges can properly weigh up the validity of each individual case they get.

I think that people need to be free of diseases, have no criminal record, speak English, have preferably have some form of higher education and have some form of employment waiting for them so they aren't a drain when they come here.

But that's just me.

Some of those should be waived in the case of a person claiming refugee status, however they would need to be swapped for a compelling argument that they are in physical danger if they stay in their country.

And as for employment, it might be wise to have a set time limit of, say, 1 month for them to find work (or enrol into education) because the reality is sometimes that might not be feasible.

And, once again, all of that should have a standard of proof that a reasonable person should be able to quickly compile, and the immigration courts should be funded enough so that there are enough bureaucrats to efficiently process the case.

[Dormill and Stiura]

Huh, would you look at that? Seems like you said it yourself. I've never seen this Torra fellow until tonight so what else do you have to say on this matter?

Yeah, I don't speak Arabic. It's gibberish to me. Most people here don't, since this is an English-speaking forum.

Except for all the foreign language threads on here. I'd also like to make the point that calling another language "gibberish" just by virtue of your lack of understanding it (or, idk, using google translate to figure out that our friend here was saying something close to "Thank God") is bigoted at the very least.

But back to the argument at hand, if Legal Immigration were easier for people to gain access to, then it should be a logical thought that Illegal Immigration would be less prevalent. Of those that would persist in trying to enter the nation illegally, they should be met with an effective border security force that's actually capable of processing them in a humane fashion. Is that so much to ask for?

[Nova Cyberia]

Do you see how I didn't actually enter that discussion with him until he said this?

Who honestly gives a single iota of a fuck who you responded to when that was a conversation entirely related to a point I made about the shittiness of your beliefs?

Because context actually matters.

I didn't enter into it until he said to me that he didn't see what was wrong with letting illegal immigrants become citizens.

Only then did I say what I said. And then you decided to argue with me about... streamlining immigration? When I was talking about not giving illegal aliens citizenship?

But I guess context doesn't matter when you're looking for a reason to be outraged.

[Novus America]

Another solution to all this is actually fixing the problems that cause people to leave. Such as aiding foreign governments in rooting out drugs and gangs, and making space livable.

Aiding governments does nothing when the governments are the problem.
Throwing money at a corrupt government never makes it less corrupt.

[Nova Cyberia]

Yeah, I don't speak Arabic. It's gibberish to me. Most people here don't, since this is an English-speaking forum.

Except for all the foreign language threads on here. I'd also like to make the point that calling another language "gibberish" just by virtue of your lack of understanding it (or, idk, using google translate to figure out that our friend here was saying something close to "Thank God") is bigoted at the very least.

But back to the argument at hand, if Legal Immigration were easier for people to gain access to, then it should be a logical thought that Illegal Immigration would be less prevalent. Of those that would persist in trying to enter the nation illegally, they should be met with an effective border security force that's actually capable of processing them in a humane fashion. Is that so much to ask for?

Yeah, and those foreign language threads are specifically designated.

Every other thread people speak English in. Like, ya know, this one.