1. #76581
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Phew, good to know that all we need to do is secure our borders and it’ll stop them from overstaying their visas.
    Good to know if we secure our borders, corporations will stop employing illegal immigrants as slave day laborer's and in processing plants all over the midwest and south!!!



    Republicans are never serious about immigration legal or illegal. They know the huge political benefit they get from it being a problem. They know how much money their big donors make off illegals and legal immigration/visa's and no matter how the cut it this country needs immigration till at least we get over the baby boomer hump and they all die off otherwise they will bankrupt this country and its safety nets.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  2. #76582
    Bloodsail Admiral Kheirn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    Illegal immigration is illegal immigration and concerns about it are important concerns that any organized country needs to raise and evaluate. Illegal immigration includes the illegal immigration of white people into white countries too, that much should be obvious. Thinking that this is somehow racist doesn't invalidate the importance of it.
    What makes it racist is that a lot of people talking about illegal immigration equate it to legal immigration. They don't want to change laws to allow for these illegal immigrants to more easily become legal immigrants, i.e. tackling the problem of illegal immigration, they want to stop immigration as a whole. Especially for people from "brown people countries".
    Quote Originally Posted by Rugz
    Holes means you have less of a food to plate ratio, you can get more net weight of pancakes into the same volume and area as you could with waffles. Therefore pancakes win.

  3. #76583
    Quote Originally Posted by Kheirn View Post
    What makes it racist is that a lot of people talking about illegal immigration equate it to legal immigration. They don't want to change laws to allow for these illegal immigrants to more easily become legal immigrants, i.e. tackling the problem of illegal immigration, they want to stop immigration as a whole. Especially for people from "brown people countries".
    My wife has experienced her fair share of racism as a legal immigrant. I have seen it but not really experience it as a legal immigrant as well, mostly minor things related to ignorance rather than blatant racism, must have something to do with being a *white* immigrant, where my wife is not…

  4. #76584
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    Illegal immigration is illegal immigration and concerns about it are important concerns that any organized country needs to raise and evaluate. Illegal immigration includes the illegal immigration of white people into white countries too, that much should be obvious. Thinking that this is somehow racist doesn't invalidate the importance of it.
    Any discussion about illegal immigration is almost entirely about keeping them out, from countries like Mexico and Muslim countries, and not at all about making it easier for them to become legal citizens.

    It's fear mongering, and bog standard racism. Never have discussions about illegal immigration been about keeping immigrant from white countries.

    Why is it important?

  5. #76585
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Any discussion about illegal immigration is almost entirely about keeping them out, from countries like Mexico and Muslim countries, and not at all about making it easier for them to become legal citizens.

    It's fear mongering, and bog standard racism. Never have discussions about illegal immigration been about keeping immigrant from white countries.

    Why is it important?
    Like, seriously. I've had discussions with plenty of folks of the subject. I ask them why they hate illegal immigrants. They insist it's that they're breaking the law, not that they're non-white. So I propose an open border policy, which would eliminate the illegality, and an amnesty to clear the slate for those here. They oppose that, because their issue was never the legality. They lie about that. Because it's a hell of a lot more convenient than admitting they're straight-up racist.

    Because they are. I've yet to meet a single one who responded to "yes, we should definitely make the immigration and visa process much easier so that anyone who wants to come here legally can." They don't want them here at all, and the legality of it does not factor in.


  6. #76586
    Monday's quickie report:

    111,134 new cases; 406 deaths, bringing the total to 646,667. Florida's numbers are still inaccurate.

    Meanwhile:

    Entire Texas town essentially closes with nearly half its people hit by COVID-19--Trumpian Governors continue decimating their own constituents.

    Fauci says he hopes U.S. will have 'some good control' over Covid by spring 2022--Could have been much earlier if a good portion of the population weren't fucking dipshits. Now we'll essentially be losing another year because people think wearing a piece of cloth over their mouth to avoid spreading disease is violating their Freedumbs.

    Stay safe, folks.

  7. #76587
    Quote Originally Posted by Katchii View Post
    Any discussion about illegal immigration is almost entirely about keeping them out, from countries like Mexico and Muslim countries, and not at all about making it easier for them to become legal citizens.

    It's fear mongering, and bog standard racism. Never have discussions about illegal immigration been about keeping immigrant from white countries.

    Why is it important?
    Discussing illegal immigration is about keeping people away from entering any given state illegaly, meaning against the current laws of entering a state. What we're witnessing in the past 10 years is an intensified immigration process where people cross the borders of certain nations with just a rucksack on their back, on boats and by avoiding the officials of the state they're entering.

    It is important for as long as the international order has states and nations. It isn't fear mongering nor is it bod standard racism. It is a bad stereotype that any and all discussions about controlling who gets into your country and how is racism. Immigration made easier would cause certain centres in the world to implode economically, culturally and in many other ways. Someone coming to your country is not just another human changing the soil they walk on; it raises questions about how they'll provide for themselves, the capability to communicate, the capability to adhere to laws, wether they pose a risk to the health of your population(ie unvaccinated migrants), the capability to find employment and to function as a native born in said country would. It is in fact a very responsible way of looking at things when you impose strict regulations on visas because you're making sure that an individual that your country can give certain opportunities to can also give value back to said country.

    People entering by the hundreds of thousands by floating their boats into terriorial waters of EU states is no way of immigrating to a country because of all the aforementioned problems. If your idea is that the world would be a better place where we'd be one globalized community with no national border or at least no immigration laws, then I can understand such a position because it is a sociopolitical view just like any other.
    Last edited by Magnagarde; 2021-08-24 at 04:50 PM.

  8. #76588
    Not a single mention of people overstaying their VISAs.

    A lot of fear of the dreaded illegal, though.

  9. #76589
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    Not a single mention of people overstaying their VISAs.

    A lot of fear of the dreaded illegal, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Phew, good to know that all we need to do is secure our borders and it’ll stop them from overstaying their visas.
    I feel invisible.

  10. #76590
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    I feel invisible.

  11. #76591
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    Discussing illegal immigration is about keeping people away from entering any given state illegaly, meaning against the current laws of entering a state. What we're witnessing in the past 10 years is an intensified immigration process where people cross the borders of certain nations with just a rucksack on their back, on boats and by avoiding the officials of the state they're entering.
    Despite what GOP fearmongering would have you believe, none of this is true. Illegal immigration as a whole has actually been trending down since 2005. Moreover, the majority of illegal immigrants are not "crossing the border with just a rucksack on their back." They're entering the country legally, and then simply never leaving.

    It is important for as long as the international order has states and nations. It isn't fear mongering nor is it bod standard racism. It is a bad stereotype that any and all discussions about controlling who gets into your country and how is racism. Immigration made easier would cause certain centres in the world to implode economically, culturally and in many other ways.
    Fun fact: until 1924, there was no such thing as "illegal immigration." Anyone who came into the country and wanted to live here did.

    Someone coming to your country is not just another human changing the soil they walk on; it raises questions about how they'll provide for themselves, the capability to communicate, the capability to adhere to laws, wether they pose a risk to the health of your population(ie unvaccinated migrants), the capability to find employment and to function as a native born in said country would. It is in fact a very responsible way of looking at things when you impose strict regulations on visas because you're making sure that an individual that your country can give certain opportunities to can also give value back to said country.

    People entering by the hundreds of thousands by floating their boats into terriorial waters of EU states is no way of immigrating to a country because of all the aforementioned problems. If your idea is that the world would be a better place where we'd be one globalized community with no national border or at least no immigration laws, then I can understand such a position because it is a sociopolitical view just like any other.
    So basically, Trump's exceptionally racist "we don't want people from shithole countries" statement, except couched in language that tries to sound logical and nice. But couching racist bullshit in flowery words is still just flowery bullshit.

  12. #76592
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Like, seriously. I've had discussions with plenty of folks of the subject. I ask them why they hate illegal immigrants. They insist it's that they're breaking the law, not that they're non-white. So I propose an open border policy, which would eliminate the illegality, and an amnesty to clear the slate for those here. They oppose that, because their issue was never the legality. They lie about that. Because it's a hell of a lot more convenient than admitting they're straight-up racist.

    Because they are. I've yet to meet a single one who responded to "yes, we should definitely make the immigration and visa process much easier so that anyone who wants to come here legally can." They don't want them here at all, and the legality of it does not factor in.
    An open border policy is a nihilistic way of looking at your nation and the reason why it is bad is because the whole world is based on state and national identity and laws. Certain countries come together to facilitate entry of their people, but these are highly concerted efforts(ie the Schengen in the EU).

    As opposed to the current world order where statehood matters, you seem to believe - or at least it seems to me that you do - that people should have the right to chose where they wish to go at any point in their lives and they must be granted their wish. If you do not think like this, then I've been mistaken, but then how do you justify legalizing the staying of those who came into the any country illegaly makes sense? How do you build a modern, democratic country that obviously has to be based on an experienced and good judicial system that can provide for its people, when you can't even enforce said system upon outsiders?

    I can tell you from experience that the process of getting a visa legally is extremely slow in certain cases and it is extremely efficient in others. My profession allows me to have priviledged priority in the process, but I am not under the illusion that it is extremely slow, poorly defined and highly dependent on people who are usually not too enthusiastic about being of assistance. Therefor I can wholeheartedly agree that the visa process should be made easier for people to legally enter a country, but not by allowing unregulated circulation of people across the globe, but for strictly defined categories(ie work-related visa, tourist visa, a visa to visit family, a visa for education and more).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Despite what GOP fearmongering would have you believe, none of this is true. Illegal immigration as a whole has actually been trending down since 2005. Moreover, the majority of illegal immigrants are not "crossing the border with just a rucksack on their back." They're entering the country legally, and then simply never leaving.

    Fun fact: until 1924, there was no such thing as "illegal immigration." Anyone who came into the country and wanted to live here did.
    The current international order was established after the Second World war. At the time that you're describing, the only larger international geopolitical body that was binding to its signatories was the League of Nations.

    I am also under no illusion that Europeans didn't migrate by the millions into the US in the 20th century, but as you said, there was no such thing as "illegal immigration" or at least not an international, wholly-encompassing system that would regulate it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Despite what GOP fearmongering would have you believe, none of this is true. Illegal immigration as a whole has actually been trending down since 2005. Moreover, the majority of illegal immigrants are not "crossing the border with just a rucksack on their back." They're entering the country legally, and then simply never leaving.
    I don't follow GOP sources because I honestly didn't even know what "the GOP" was untill the Republican party started trending in the news with Trump and I realized that it was basically another name for it. To me as an European, it has always been just the "Republican party". There were some funny memes coming out of some sources that were openly Republican and I do value the entertainment, but that's about it.

    In regards to illegal immigration; the story is completely different in Europe, so that might be the difference between our understanding of the situation. I am wholeheartedly supportive of people immigrating into other countries, as long as it is purposeful, meaningful and is based on mutually benefitial exchanges for both the host and the guest.
    Last edited by Magnagarde; 2021-08-24 at 05:12 PM.

  13. #76593
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkTZeratul View Post
    Fun fact: until 1924, there was no such thing as "illegal immigration." Anyone who came into the country and wanted to live here did.
    Not entirely true.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

    Still one of the most racist things ever passed in America. I’m sure it’s a model the GOP wishes it could follow.

  14. #76594
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    An open border policy is a nihilistic way of looking at your nation and the reason why it is bad is because the whole world is based on state and national identity and laws.
    I mean, you aren't just implying ethnonationalism, here, you're coming right out and stating it up front.

    Rejection of ethnonationalism is not "nihilism", it's just a lack of prejudice.

    As opposed to the current world order where statehood matters, you seem to believe - or at least it seems to me that you do - that people should have the right to chose where they wish to go at any point in their lives and they must be granted their wish. If you do not think like this, then I've been mistaken, but then how do you justify legalizing the staying of those who came into the any country illegaly makes sense?
    My main concerns with immigration can effectively be split into two categories. If we're talking refugees from some circumstance, they should be admitted unless there's some kind of concerning criminal history, like active terrorism or something. This should be adjudicated with a critical eye towards the circumstances they're fleeing; a gay couple seeking entry where both had convictions for whatever nonsense charge "being gay" boils down to in their home country, that criminal history is just reason to approve their entry. And the second category is economic, and there, if you've got a job offer or you have in-demand skills, welcome to the country.

    How do you build a modern, democratic country that obviously has to be based on an experienced and good judicial system that can provide for its people, when you can't even enforce said system upon outsiders?
    This is a nonsense question, since nobody suggested giving immigrants any exceptions to the legal system. I'm flatly not going to entertain garbage like this.


  15. #76595
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Technically, yes, but that was targeted legislation affecting only immigration from one region. The Immigration Act of 1924 is really what made illegal immigration in general a thing:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

  16. #76596
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Not entirely true.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

    Still one of the most racist things ever passed in America. I’m sure it’s a model the GOP wishes it could follow.
    Being racist - in terms of what is understood as racism in the present - was more of a norm, rather than the exception for the entire world at the time. Appart from a strong sense of national belonging, a strong sense of racial and religious identity was extremely important to people at the time. The Asian countries were extremely racist to one another too; Japanese attrocities in Asia are one example.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post

    This is a nonsense question, since nobody suggested giving immigrants any exceptions to the legal system. I'm flatly not going to entertain garbage like this.
    No, you're not doing that indeed; what you're doing is clearly favouring the implementation of a system where the laws would be watered down to the extent that they might not even exist. If everyone who came into any country illegally is to be given a legal status(I am addressing this because you indirectly made the question in your quote to me), just because they're currently there, then what is the point of having laws in the first place? Why have laws to prevent people coming into any country illegally, if they're going to be given legal status once they get there illegaly? The things you're bringing up as examples are self-defeating arguements.

    I am not seeking your attention in the first place; if you are not going to entertain it, then please feel free to not do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I mean, you aren't just implying ethnonationalism, here, you're coming right out and stating it up front.

    Rejection of ethnonationalism is not "nihilism", it's just a lack of prejudice.
    To rid the world of ethnonationalism and the laws pertaining to statehood, humanity would need to reach an equally high level of englightment, education and understanding, all across the board. There is a million ways that aboloshing statehood and national borders would go wrong in the current world.
    Last edited by Magnagarde; 2021-08-24 at 05:26 PM.

  17. #76597
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    In regards to illegal immigration; the story is completely different in Europe, so that might be the difference between our understanding of the situation. I am wholeheartedly supportive of people immigrating into other countries, as long as it is purposeful, meaningful and is based on mutually benefitial exchanges for both the host and the guest.
    In regards to American immigration:
    Purpose: Better paying jobs whilst avoiding criminals that exist mostly because America can't kick its drug habit.
    Meaningful: Having a roof over your head and your kids not having to interact criminals is meaningful.
    Mutual Benefit: America has low unemployment. There's not enough citizens to supply America's employment needs and about 50% of all farm jobs and 25% of all food service jobs are worked by illegal labour. America's food industry doesn't run without it. That's a mutual benefit.

    Your average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration because they're racist. Your average GOP donor likes illegal immigration because illegal immigrants have less worker rights than legal immigrants who in turn have less worker rights than citizens. Its almost like if you keep the immigration system broken you'll still have the employees but you can treat them like shit and they can't complain.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    Being racist - in terms of what is understood as racism in the present - was more of a norm, rather than the exception for the entire world at the time. Appart from a strong sense of national belonging, a strong sense of racial and religious identity was extremely important to people at the time. The Asian countries were extremely racist to one another too; Japanese attrocities in Asia are one example.
    Didn't the US just finish fighting a war over a racist practice? Its almost like they knew racism was wrong but continued to do it anyways.

  18. #76598
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    No, you're not doing that indeed; what you're doing is suggesting to implement a system where the laws would be watered down to the extent that they might not even exist.
    This is a trivial lie. I never suggested anything of the sort.

    If everyone who came into any country illegaly is to be given a legal status(I am addressing this because you indirectly made the question in your quote to me), just because they're currently there, then what is the point of having laws?
    In this hypothetical, that is how the law works, and no laws are being broken.

    This is why I said it's a nonsense question that should not be entertained.

    To rid the world of ethnonationalism and the laws pertaining to statehood, humanity would need to reach an equally high level of englightment, education and understanding, all across the board. There is a million ways that aboloshing statehood and national borders would go wrong in the current world.
    There is no connection whatsoever between ethnonationalism and the concept of statehood. And nobody was talking about attacking the concept of statehood until you chose to try and use that as a straw man.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Your average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration because they're racist. Your average GOP donor likes illegal immigration because illegal immigrants have less worker rights than legal immigrants who in turn have less worker rights than citizens. Its almost like if you keep the immigration system broken you'll still have the employees but you can treat them like shit and they can't complain.
    Like, this isn't an accident. It's a deliberately-crafted system that allows for an underclass to exist which can readily be exploited for profit. The state of illegal immigration in the USA is not in any way a flaw; it's absolutely a desired and intended outcome. The fight over it is mostly that Democrats want to remove the exploitation, and Republicans want that to continue, which is why there are no serious efforts to eliminate it, just showpiece nonsense like talking about walls and shit when the vast majority of illegal immigration to the USA is visa overstays anyway.


  19. #76599
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    There is no connection whatsoever between ethnonationalism and the concept of statehood. And nobody was talking about attacking the concept of statehood until you chose to try and use that as a straw man.
    Nobody was talking about statehood? I was talking about both statehood and nations. You're simply chosing to ignore it and brought up "ethnonationalism".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This is a trivial lie. I never suggested anything of the sort.



    In this hypothetical, that is how the law works, and no laws are being broken.

    This is why I said it's a nonsense question that should not be entertained.
    And I addressed the fact that your hypothetical makes no sense to make because it is a self-defying hypothetical and arguement to make when addressing concerns about illegal immigration. Your hypothetical imagines a watered down system that would prevent illegal immigration. I already stated that I am highly supportive of making it easier for people to enter legally; I however don't favour legalizing illegal entries, which is what you seemingly do by flouting nonsense such as your "hypothetical".
    Last edited by Magnagarde; 2021-08-24 at 05:31 PM.

  20. #76600
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnagarde View Post
    Nobody was talking about statehood? I was talking about statehood. You're simply chosing to ignore it.
    You tried to describe immigration as some kind of risk to statehood. That's just a fundamentally prejudice-based position based on irrational ethnonationalism, not a reasonable point of view worth discussion.

    And I addressed the fact that your hypothetical makes no sense to make because it is a self-defying hypothetical and arguement to make when addressing concerns about illegal immigration.
    There's nothing "self-defying" at all. You are, again, lying.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •