The approaching Honduran migrant caravan

[Simple Minded]

The most troubling issue at the moment seems to be physical and sexual abuse of minor children interned by the US government. But I think the quick solution there is not expecting guards at for-profit concentration camps to be saints, but rather to not have said camps at all.

One of the major arguments for Trump's wall and immediate deportation.

Exactly. And yet another excellent argument for not letting anyone into the US until the paperwork of each individual is approved. Mexico deliberately let the caravan into their country, in violation of their own laws. Possibly to embarrass the US and/or Trump?

The whole caravan can stay in Mexico until each individual is approved on an case by case basis and admitted into the US. This is the easiest way to ensure none are abused at the hands of the brutish, hateful, racist, abusive Merkins. We keep our dogs on leashes!

Once again, the fence is not to protect "the good us" from "the evil them," but to protect "the good them" from "the evil us." We stuck a ton of BEWARE OF DOG! signs on the south side of the US border, for their own protection, but some people just ignore the warnings and walk right past them.

Imagine the change in Trudeau's tone if Trump said "Come on in, but only as long as you keep moving all the way to Canada. In fact, we will even escort you all the way to Ottawa."

"They can always do more."

[Simple Minded]

The "Migrant Caravan" appears to have been mostly failed PR stunt. Mexico has a wall on the southern and rather strict immigration standards. Even as far north as the Yucatan I was stopped, searched and questioned frequently by armed military squads looking for illegal Guatemaltecos.

http://humanevents.com/2006/05/08/mexic ... e-at-home/

There is the immigration law we should emulate. Plus, since it comes from another country, it can't be a racist law!

[Simple Minded]

countries which arent bounded by frozen hell holes and deadly oceans dont have the luxury of picking and choosing, so they trigger far more primal responses from their populations.

As the old saying goes "Good fences make good neighbors."

Stopping illegal immigration is a very easily solved problem. Bizarre that DC refuses to do so decade after decade.

[noddy]

countries which arent bounded by frozen hell holes and deadly oceans dont have the luxury of picking and choosing, so they trigger far more primal responses from their populations.

As the old saying goes "Good fences make good neighbors."

Stopping illegal immigration is a very easily solved problem. Bizarre that DC refuses to do so decade after decade.

yah , the rules for america are different.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The USA has 47M legal immigrants per year and 1.5M illegal immigrants.

It is an insult to the legal immigrants that illegal immigrants are allowed to jump the queue. We wouldn't put up with this in a grocery store queue, so why should we allow it at the border?

The liberal 'Atlantic' magazine on why Democrats used to abhor illegal immigrants but now are their fanboys.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ke/528678/

[Simple Minded]

The USA has 47M legal immigrants per year and 1.5M illegal immigrants.

It is an insult to the legal immigrants that illegal immigrants are allowed to jump the queue. We wouldn't put up with this in a grocery store queue, so why should we allow it at the border?

The liberal 'Atlantic' magazine on why Democrats used to abhor illegal immigrants but now are their fanboys.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ke/528678/

Very much a common sense article. Thanks for posting Nonc.

Not surprisingly, the harshest critics of illegal immigrantion are the immigrants who abided by the rules to get here. In the olden days, I think they called them, legal immigrants.

Peter Beinart, a self described liberal, sounds an awful lot like a conservative to me.

[Ibrahim]

The most troubling issue at the moment seems to be physical and sexual abuse of minor children interned by the US government. But I think the quick solution there is not expecting guards at for-profit concentration camps to be saints, but rather to not have said camps at all.

One of the major arguments for Trump's wall and immediate deportation.

Or they could just stop separating families and house people humanely while they await deportation or asylum, depending on the merits of their case. But the cruelty seems to be an attraction for a least a segment of the population.

The wall is a non-starter, there will never be a wall. At best there will be small sections of wall, which is what already exists.

It is an insult to the legal immigrants that illegal immigrants are allowed to jump the queue. We wouldn't put up with this in a grocery store queue, so why should we allow it at the border?

When I show up at the Emergency Room with a broken finger, and they let the man who is having a heart attack "jump the queue," I don't get offended.

Democrats used to abhor illegal immigrants but now are their fanboys.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ke/528678/

Not too worried about what Democrats think or used to think. They used to be the party of Segregation, don't you know.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The problem is the children who have been sold to coyotes, who want to keep them undocumented so they can be resold to pedophiles. Undocumented adults too are preferred for the slavery trade along with the homeless. No paper trail. That is why Obama started seperating the children.

The ER comment is odd. Are legal immigrants less deserving? Legal immigration is comparable to triage and the waiting room.

I agree the wall is largely symbolic, but Trump has earned the right to keep his campaign pledge.

[noddy]

the aspect of immigration thats front and centre for me is the contradiction between private ownership, environmental protection and high immigration.

this particular dystopia is really bad in austalia right now - we have hardly any wild forest left, many creatures are on the edge of extinction, so unlike the northern hemisphere which has long since steralised its environment we have something to lose.

however, protecting this has meant that the existing land that is opened for residential has massively increased in value and the government cant do anything about it because all the land is privately owned and only changes density or price at the whims of the market.

the only way for humanity to stop turning the entire planet into grainfields and concrete jungles is to not constantly expand the population, or, we end up in situation that we require government takeover of the housing and food and everyone lives in a tiny apartment in a high rise as a way of dealing with it.

so.. what is the moral obligation to ruin your lifestyle and wild nature because other countries wont take responsibility for theirs ? why should all the human populations constantly grow, destroying the world around them ? is that moral ?

their was a dodgy sfifi movie on that, Equilibrium, it asked this question, it painted the fancy living people as the baddies, yet, what was the benefit of destroying their world so they lived in a ghetto like the rest.

[Simple Minded]

noddy,

I think you might appreciate this. one of my light skinned co-workers and his wife adopted two brown skinned girls from Ecuador. good people, or anti-American racists because they did not adopt even darker skinned American orphans from Chicago?

depends on who you ask. life is weird like that.

[Doc]

the aspect of immigration thats front and centre for me is the contradiction between private ownership, environmental protection and high immigration.

this particular dystopia is really bad in austalia right now - we have hardly any wild forest left, many creatures are on the edge of extinction, so unlike the northern hemisphere which has long since steralised its environment we have something to lose.

however, protecting this has meant that the existing land that is opened for residential has massively increased in value and the government cant do anything about it because all the land is privately owned and only changes density or price at the whims of the market.

the only way for humanity to stop turning the entire planet into grainfields and concrete jungles is to not constantly expand the population, or, we end up in situation that we require government takeover of the housing and food and everyone lives in a tiny apartment in a high rise as a way of dealing with it.

so.. what is the moral obligation to ruin your lifestyle and wild nature because other countries wont take responsibility for theirs ? why should all the human populations constantly grow, destroying the world around them ? is that moral ?

their was a dodgy sfifi movie on that, Equilibrium, it asked this question, it painted the fancy living people as the baddies, yet, what was the benefit of destroying their world so they lived in a ghetto like the rest.

It is generally believe that Human population will top out at between 9 and 11 billion people Noddy. There are large portions of the planet where there is no population at all. My guess is that Australia's population is growing due to immigration more than anything else.

[Ibrahim]

The problem is the children who have been sold to coyotes, who want to keep them undocumented so they can be resold to pedophiles. Undocumented adults too are preferred for the slavery trade along with the homeless. No paper trail. That is why Obama started seperating the children.

I question how many of these children are being trafficked, the administration certainly wants to highball it, understandably. We can at least agree that some number are being trafficked and some number have simply been punitively separated from their families. In either case they shouldn't be housed in for-profit concentration camps in the desert.

The ER comment is odd. Are legal immigrants less deserving? Legal immigration is comparable to triage and the waiting room.

A refugee fleeing some sort of deadly situation should not have to face the delays that a legal immigrant from a safe country usually incurs. To legally immigrate to e.g. Canada takes about a year. If your village is about to be ethnically cleansed I don't think you should have to wait a year, we'll move things along and get you to safety and then catch up with the paperwork and vetting after you're out of machete range.

If you were a prospective immigrant would this really offend you?

I agree the wall is largely symbolic, but Trump has earned the right to keep his campaign pledge.

Its even simpler than that. If he can manage to get it built then he gets to have it. I expect they will refurbish or slightly extend some existing wall and then he'll call it a win.

[Ibrahim]

the aspect of immigration thats front and centre for me is the contradiction between private ownership, environmental protection and high immigration.

this particular dystopia is really bad in austalia right now - we have hardly any wild forest left, many creatures are on the edge of extinction, so unlike the northern hemisphere which has long since steralised its environment we have something to lose.

however, protecting this has meant that the existing land that is opened for residential has massively increased in value and the government cant do anything about it because all the land is privately owned and only changes density or price at the whims of the market.

the only way for humanity to stop turning the entire planet into grainfields and concrete jungles is to not constantly expand the population, or, we end up in situation that we require government takeover of the housing and food and everyone lives in a tiny apartment in a high rise as a way of dealing with it.

so.. what is the moral obligation to ruin your lifestyle and wild nature because other countries wont take responsibility for theirs ? why should all the human populations constantly grow, destroying the world around them ? is that moral ?

their was a dodgy sfifi movie on that, Equilibrium, it asked this question, it painted the fancy living people as the baddies, yet, what was the benefit of destroying their world so they lived in a ghetto like the rest.

Climate change is going to force these problems on us sooner or later, and we're going to have to decide how we deal with them on an unprecedented scale. You can argue this that this has always been the bargain of civilization, but the trade-offs are going to be in our faces more than ever. I personally am not willing to let millions of people starve or die so I can keep eating beef every day and have a swimming pool. We're all in it together, one way or the other.

[Apollonius]

you are making the argument that countries should change their immigration policies if people are suffering, im just sayin that people suffering is something all countries ignore all the time, its just how humans are.

Peterloo: 1819-2019 - Esmerelda Weatherwax, The Iconoclast, 14 January 2019
https://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_d ... g_id=68039

[Ibrahim]

Tories: "We aren't going to help a bunch of dusky foreigners when we've got our own poor who need help! ... We also won't be helping our own poor."

[noddy]

It is generally believe that Human population will top out at between 9 and 11 billion people Noddy. There are large portions of the planet where there is no population at all. My guess is that Australia's population is growing due to immigration more than anything else.

the only portions of the planet without population are deserts or frozen wastelands, barring a few small rainforests in the southern hemisphere, which are currently disappearing into farmland and suburbia.

cleared forest that grows back doesnt count, its been steralised and only exists as a resource for wood production.

the human population will top out when the last of those forests have been harvested and all the fish are gone and not a moment before.

then we will either die in large numbers or stay in a holding pattern , probably a bit of both.

[noddy]

noddy,

I think you might appreciate this. one of my light skinned co-workers and his wife adopted two brown skinned girls from Ecuador. good people, or anti-American racists because they did not adopt even darker skinned American orphans from Chicago?

depends on who you ask. life is weird like that.

Its obviously the worst of the worst, cultural genocide, taking lovely kids from an authentic culture and then brainwashing them as .... white people.. a terrible crime.

[noddy]

Tories: "We aren't going to help a bunch of dusky foreigners when we've got our own poor who need help! ... We also won't be helping our own poor."

no hyprocrisy nor false expectations, its better for everyone to know how it is really going to play out.

sometimes the folks from smaller village backgrounds get confused by the meaningless of western lefty rhetoric that never actually happens, in australia it took a few generations for the aboriginals to learn to igore it.

[Simple Minded]

noddy,

I think you might appreciate this. one of my light skinned co-workers and his wife adopted two brown skinned girls from Ecuador. good people, or anti-American racists because they did not adopt even darker skinned American orphans from Chicago?

depends on who you ask. life is weird like that.

Its obviously the worst of the worst, cultural genocide, taking lovely kids from an authentic culture and then brainwashing them as .... white people.. a terrible crime.

Wow! I never thought of that. Yer right, as usual. I used to like that couple, now I hate those evil bastards.

You make a good case for how Mexico and Central America need that border wall, now more than ever, to keep the ruthless Merkin mongrel hoard from extinguishing their superior cultures.

Helping people and possibly changing the quality of their lives, is truly one of the most heinous of all crimes. Worst of all, they don't even call themselves liberals, they call themselves conservatives.

The kids actually seem happy, but the poor little bastards had their culture taken away from them when they were too young to know better, so they don't even know they have been victimized. They're still in their early teens, hopefully, when they get to college, some professionals can teach them how to be self-righteously miserable.

[Simple Minded]

Tories: "We aren't going to help a bunch of dusky foreigners when we've got our own poor who need help! ... We also won't be helping our own poor."

sometimes the folks from smaller village backgrounds get confused by the meaningless of western lefty rhetoric that never actually happens, in australia it took a few generations for the aboriginals to learn to igore it.

Now I'm really confused.
Calling SimpleMindedStandians aborigines, it that a compliment or an insult?

personal anecdote: until the white man starting enslaving me by making me learn his alphabet and the numbers he stole from somebody else, I had no idea I was dyslexic. Imagine what I coulda been......

[Simple Minded]

Why Mexico and Central America need the wall:

[Ibrahim]

Tories: "We aren't going to help a bunch of dusky foreigners when we've got our own poor who need help! ... We also won't be helping our own poor."

no hyprocrisy nor false expectations, its better for everyone to know how it is really going to play out.

sometimes the folks from smaller village backgrounds get confused by the meaningless of western lefty rhetoric that never actually happens, in australia it took a few generations for the aboriginals to learn to igore it.

There were some Syrian people who were going to get chopped up by ISIS for various reasons, and now they live in my city. Seems like a success. We still have homeless people, but I'm all for doing more for them too if we could get those suburban types to stop voting Tory.

[noddy]

Tories: "We aren't going to help a bunch of dusky foreigners when we've got our own poor who need help! ... We also won't be helping our own poor."

no hyprocrisy nor false expectations, its better for everyone to know how it is really going to play out.

sometimes the folks from smaller village backgrounds get confused by the meaningless of western lefty rhetoric that never actually happens, in australia it took a few generations for the aboriginals to learn to igore it.

There were some Syrian people who were going to get chopped up by ISIS for various reasons, and now they live in my city. Seems like a success.

a carefully vetted 10 thousand a year from a pool of millions, its a perfectly sensible immigration platform. we covered that before, hardly an emergency refugee intake.

why is canada doing it that way.. nice of you to ask, well, australia took in nearly a 100 thousand unvetted desperate people from the lebanese civil war a while back, we ended up with ghettos of folks who wanted to recreate lebanon in western sydney and no real integration into the wider society.

it was ugly and the western governments decided it was a bad approach, hence the differences in the syrian response, smaller numbers of folks per year, sponsoring and integration as a priority.

which brings us back to the americans wanting todo the same thing on their border wall.

We still have homeless people, but I'm all for doing more for them too if we could get those suburban types to stop voting Tory.

In my country we have these things called elections, sometimes the Righties win, sometimes the Lefties, sometimes one gets both houses, sometimes they get a house each.

despite all the rhetoric which is miles apart, the ghettos and the poor remain as ever, the difference between the 2 parties is usually a squabble over if giving them $4 extra a week will increase their ability to buy a beer and if an alcohol tax at the same time is more appropriate.

[Ibrahim]

There were some Syrian people who were going to get chopped up by ISIS for various reasons, and now they live in my city. Seems like a success.

a carefully vetted 10 thousand a year from a pool of millions, its a perfectly sensible immigration platform. we covered that before, hardly an emergency refugee intake.

It was an emergency for the people being taken in I can assure you. Mind you that's people ultimately granted citizenship. 40,000 is easier to absorb than 4,000,000 I agree. In the case of countries bordering a crisis refugees can be temporarily housed in their millions (e.g. Turkey, Jordan)

why is canada doing it that way.. nice of you to ask, well, australia took in nearly a 100 thousand unvetted desperate people from the lebanese civil war a while back, we ended up with ghettos of folks who wanted to recreate lebanon in western sydney and no real integration into the wider society.

Large influx if Lebanese into my city as well, in the early 80's. I was too young to really judge at the time, but looking around today it seems to have worked out alright.

We still have homeless people, but I'm all for doing more for them too if we could get those suburban types to stop voting Tory.

In my country we have these things called elections, sometimes the Righties win, sometimes the Lefties, sometimes one gets both houses, sometimes they get a house each.

despite all the rhetoric which is miles apart, the ghettos and the poor remain as ever, the difference between the 2 parties is usually a squabble over if giving them $4 extra a week will increase their ability to buy a beer and if an alcohol tax at the same time is more appropriate.

Wealth inequality and the services provided to the poor tend to fluctuate, though, depending on the governing political philosophy. Some people have told me that "the poor will always be with us," which they appear to take as meaning we don't really need to worry about them. I think they're missing the point, but I'm not really qualified to say. What I can say is that if the government wants to take two of my (Canadian) dollars and give one to the domestic poor, and one to help settle refugees, I'm fine with that. Take a third, do something for the First Nations while we're at it. Put a fourth towards a new MRI machine at the hospital. And so on. A few more people with the same view and Canada might be almost as nice as Norway some day.

[Doc]

Why Mexico and Central America need the wall: