News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Trump wall general

Started by orcus, July 29, 2018, 08:37:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

orcus

I'm starting a thread for the discussion of Trump's southern border wall.

orcus

#1
Didn't want to make 1st post an opinion post, so here we are.

I subscribe to a geographical view of politics, namely that much of what determines a country's political fate is the presence of geographical boundaries like mountains and oceans//seas. For example, the reason why India and China haven't had a serious war is the Himalaya Mountain range separating them. It's also why the borders in Southeast Asia look so weird.

The southern US border doesn't really have such a boundary. The Rio Grande in parts can be fairly easily forded even without rafts and such. Because of this, the idea that the US and Mexico can remain separate nation states in the long term with things being the way they are now is pretty laughable.

IMO there are 3 options

1. Build the wall

2. Annex Mexico, but also build the wall, since even if they get annexed, you'll end up with ~150 million refugees, which no nation can possibly handle.

3. The destruction of the US government and financial system over a few short decades.

GSOgymrat

#2
My husband and I disagree about the wall. He is all for a wall, doesn't care how much it costs and believes its value is as much symbolic as practical. He is also for a complete ban of all Muslims immigrating from any country, which I disagree with. I think a wall across the entire southern border is a waste of money and an antiquated solution. First of all, I think there needs to be a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who can prove they have been in the US for at least two years and have no criminal record. Our government didn't enforce immigration laws, US employers hired them and so Americans are partially responsible for these people establishing lives here. Tracking down all these people and going through the deportation process causes more harm than good. Rather than building a wall I propose we eliminate the reason people illegally immigrate to the US. We need to require all US employers, schools, social service agencies, healthcare providers, landlords and lending agencies to use E-Verify to confirm US citizenship before providing services. This system is already in place and merely needs to be expanded. Employers and agencies caught not verifying citizenship would be fined and penalized. Most people won't illegally immigrate to the US if they can't work, enroll their children in school, rent an apartment, receive medical care for anything that isn't life-threatening or debilitating, or get a driver's license. It is easier and less expensive to hold US companies and agencies to the law, to offer whistle-blower protection for employees who report non-compliance, then track down undocumented immigrants who are evading the law. This plan doesn't target people from any specific country and addresses the problem of people staying after their visa has expired. I believe it would be much less expensive and more effective at curbing illegal immigration than constructing and maintaining a border wall.

Hydra009

Quote from: orcus on July 29, 2018, 08:40:46 PMIMO there are 3 options

1. Build the wall

2. Annex Mexico, but also build the wall, since even if they get annexed, you'll end up with ~150 million refugees, which no nation can possibly handle.

3. The destruction of the US government and financial system over a few short decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

Just out of curiousity, what are our options with Canada?

Baruch

#4
Quote from: orcus on July 29, 2018, 08:37:16 PM
I'm starting a thread for the discussion of Trump's southern border wall.

Ain't gonna happen, y'all been pooned again and again.  You can fool all the people all the time.  But things will get interesting with the continuing deterioration in Mexico and places farther south.  The first 100 million should settle in New England, please don't overcrowd California.  My own area has been a settlement for Micronesia refugees displaced by the nuclear testing in the 1950s.  Denver where I used to live had our own little Vietnam.

Canada? Eh?  Are you wanting to move north to escape the Latin American hordes?  Just learn Spanish, you lazy Anglo you.

The US government is being destroyed as we speak.  It no longer serves a useful purpose to the oligarchs.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

orcus

#5
Not as much pressure with Canada. Although I wouldn't rule out something like in Fallout in case of a world war, where the US seizes their uranium and oil.

QuoteThe US government is being destroyed as we speak.  It no longer serves a useful purpose to the oligarchs.

The oligarchy is obsessed with destroying the EU, it also happens to be the only political organization that can and will stand up to multinational corporations. Just look at what a fairly minor privacy regulation did to Facebook's stock price.

The only way to destroy a functioning welfare state such as exists in the EU short of killing everybody is to overload it, for example with a massive migrant influx.

Baruch

Quote from: orcus on July 29, 2018, 11:17:24 PM
Not as much pressure with Canada. Although I wouldn't rule out something like in Fallout in case of a world war, where the US seizes their uranium and oil.

The oligarchy is obsessed with destroying the EU, it also happens to be the only political organization that can and will stand up to multinational corporations. Just look at what a fairly minor privacy regulation did to Facebook's stock price.

The only way to destroy a functioning welfare state such as exists in the EU short of killing everybody is to overload it, for example with a massive migrant influx.

Plan Red, until 1939, the US war plan for war against the British Empire in general, and against Canada in particular.  Look it up on Youtube.

Yes, the ME fracas, and the directing of refugees from African and the ME to Europe ... may have been planned.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mr.Obvious

#7
Quote from: orcus on July 29, 2018, 11:17:24 PM
Not as much pressure with Canada. Although I wouldn't rule out something like in Fallout in case of a world war, where the US seizes their uranium and oil.

The oligarchy is obsessed with destroying the EU, it also happens to be the only political organization that can and will stand up to multinational corporations. Just look at what a fairly minor privacy regulation did to Facebook's stock price.

The only way to destroy a functioning welfare state such as exists in the EU short of killing everybody is to overload it, for example with a massive migrant influx.

Or, you know, to have an aging population. Too many old retired people  that made too little children to replace them in The jobmarket.

Immigration brings iTS own problems, but 'can' aid in that regard.
Illegal immigration is more problematic.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

pr126

#8
GSOgymrat wrote:
QuoteHe is also for a complete ban of all Muslims immigrating from any country, which I disagree with.
Incorrect.

The ban was for 90 days from selected 7 countries: Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen.
The 90 days have long expired. (Summer of 2017)
However, the media is practicing appeal to emotion over facts.


The facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTXVAqU1OcE

Atheon

There' a 4th option: Not build a wall, and maintain the status quo, which we have had for almost two centuries with no ill effects.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

pr126

#10
Quote from: Atheon on July 30, 2018, 03:41:18 AM
There' a 4th option: Not build a wall, and maintain the status quo, which we have had for almost two centuries with no ill effects.
Things have changed dramatically. The status quo is no longer valid.

People feel that they are entitled to move to any country of their choice, and live off the welfare which western countries provide without limits.

Open borders and welfare is a recipe for economic collapse.

You have to provide housing, medical service, schooling, jobs if they are prepared to work, but if you provide welfare there is no need to work, teach them the language, skills necessary to do a job, administration of all this, security, etc.

All cost money. Your taxes. How long is this sustainable?










GSOgymrat

Quote from: pr126 on July 30, 2018, 03:22:16 AM
GSOgymrat wrote:Incorrect.

The ban was for 90 days from selected 7 countries: Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen.
The 90 days have long expired. (Summer of 2017)
However, the media is practicing appeal to emotion over facts.


The facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTXVAqU1OcE

My husband isn't referring to Trump's ban. He wants all Muslims banned from immigrating to the US.

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: pr126 on July 30, 2018, 04:04:40 AM
Things have changed dramatically. The status quo is no longer valid.

People feel that they are entitled to move to any country of their choice, and live off the welfare which western countries provide without limits.

Open borders and welfare is a recipe for economic collapse.

You know... This of course is just my experience as a social worker and not well executed research, ... But most people that come here, to Belgium, do wish to work and contribute to the welfare and the society. There are three problems in the 'migration subpopulation', however, to which I'll count both migrants and their descendants that were born in Belgium.

First problem is that many higher educated migrants that come here wish to work at the same or a similar level as they did at home. Doctors, lawyers, police officers, teachers, ... Problem is they have to go through a proces of an integration course, have to learn a new language (and dutch isn't an easy one) and then either have to study or work or both. But studying isn't Always allowed, which is a frustration, because it is a drain on the welfare.  Having to work as a cleaning lady when you have the qualifications to be a docter and have been in your native country is also frustrating. Some let that stop them, some don't. In either case though, many choose for a 'worse' and unstable and frustrating job because they arrive here, have children they need to support and so on.  But there are those that falter, and those are the first minor drain. An additional problem is that many of these parents seem to want their children to make it bigger, and achieve at least the same level they achieved themselves back home. This urge born from frustration has made it so that some children who would be great carpenters or bookies or social workers or the likes get pushed into educations they can't handle. And their parents can't help them at home as much as they'd want, because all the tests are and all the homework is in a language they haven't learned until the age of like 35. Which results in a second drain as you get school-drop outs and the likes.

Becasue these families are placed in a empoverished state for many years, the chances of their children diminish. I actually don't think there is a lot of racism in the jobmarket. Some, sure. But not a lot. But poverty begets poverty and these diminished chances for the children, paired with the high expectations bring the opposite of the desired effect. A lot of the poverty this way goes from one generation to the next, which of course looks for explanations, as they grow up, for why they are born in poverty and quite often die in poverty. Same for the subpopulation of the 'natives' that are born and die in poverty. Both 'natives' and 'immigrant (descendents)' turn to me with the same explenation; they are poor because of racism.
Truth is, they are most often poor because they were raised in a poor Household and it is extremely difficult to escape poverty.
Not impossible.
But hard.

That being said, there are those that migrate here with either no intent to work or with no option to work. A single mom of 7 that doesn't know the language might be activated by the end of a longer process and heavy care, but by then she might work for 6 more years before the age of retirement kicks in. Meaning that the cost-benefit for this one case isn't in order.
However, in such a case, if handled well, we could potentially have 7 more pairs of hands in the welfare state to cary the load, including the mother's load. Rather than 7 hands that need to be  carried themselves.
And that's the point, if handled well.
We have to think new strategies for breaking this cycle of poverty.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

pr126

Those very people who are skilled with professions are needed in their own countries to make those places better.
Those countries cannot progress and develop if the best of their people leave, as this only leaves the useless eaters.

I do understand that the migrants want a better life, but this is not helping the “developing” countries if they all leave.

Bit of a conundrum.

The migrants in this case are at a disadvantage in their new countries and not helping their old counrties by abandoning it.
A lose lose situation. That’s of course if they are all skilled professionals as you have stated.




Mr.Obvious

Quote from: pr126 on July 30, 2018, 05:35:32 AM
Those very people who are skilled with professions are needed in their own countries to make those places better.
Those countries cannot progress and develop if the best of their people leave, as this only leaves the useless eaters.

I do understand that the migrants want a better life, but this is not helping the “developing” countries if they all leave.

Bit of a conundrum.

The migrants in this case are at a disadvantage in their new countries and not helping their old counrties by abandoning it.
A lose lose situation. That’s of course if they are all skilled professionals as you have stated.

Fair point.
Though in many cases, not all by far, but many cases, it's not as simple as 'wanting a better life'. I could name you, if I were allowed to name them, off the bat 8 families out of my current batch of cliënts  that fled for their lives. Including one family in which one of the children got hit by an explosion before they decided to flee.

There are those that came here solely for financial reasons and to, as you say it, 'profit'. In my current batch, I estimate that is two families (edit: three, come to think of it). More problematic, on a purely mathmatical level, is the amount of cliënts I have that grow up disillusioned by the frustration I mentioned before. Of which a large amount come from migrant families.

Apart from that, there are some others too, that moved here not 'wanting a better life', but for different reasons. Having a parent in Belgium, for example, of having the parent of your child in Belgium. Without it being a ploy to get to Belgium, which also happens, of course.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.