How is it not, both times, an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain, like you just noted in the quote right there? Gunning them down should give you an idea of the unwelcome part, and isn’t the intrusion in question into the — sovereign territory? No, wait — domain in question?
If I were simpatico with one but not the other, that would be having the cake and eating it too. This ain’t that.
I think he’s probably wrong. I think your moral position, astonishingly, manages to be worse than the guy who advocated pedophilia. So I’m not going to spend much time worrying about someone who doesn’t catch the nuances of your monstrous advocacy.
Why yes, you are now going for the stochastic terrorist angle, thanks for clarifying what you are.
Yes, as I noted “Russian troops with tanks and women and children seeking asylum are equally deserving of death.”
Is there an equivalent for those who engage in the, uh, stochastic encouragement of lawbreaking by those who’d illegally cross the border?
They are called people with humane ideals. The reality is that most still do try to make immigrants follow the law, or then decide that instead of shooting them we should declare amnesty to at least the ones that did help their new communities (the vast majority of them).
Why? Serious question. Entering my house without permission is mildly annoying (worse if you break or steal things. But just entering? Annoying.) Entering my country? There’s a lot of country. What makes entering it deplorable?
When large numbers of {tourists} {squatters} {others} are described as an “invasion,” it is (1) metaphorical and (2) strongly negative. Nobody ever says “The annual invasion of tourists is welcome in the little mountain town.” In that context, words like “influx” and similar are used.
Also, as I said way above, many of us white Americans are descended from the LITERAL invaders from the invasion of North America, and accompanying genocidal acts, and maybe should use such words a little more carefully.
For more historical context, when Mexicans, at least, cross illegally, they are coming into territory that was taken from Mexico after the Mexican-American war (with some complications in the case of Texas). Times have changed, but using words like “invasion” seems more like a psychological projection of fears that they’ll do to us what we have done to others than a realistic assessment of the situation.
Wanna bet that TOWP is a right wing media addict?
It’s disgusting. Here’s a man that’s probably never met an illegal immigrant. He’s never lost a job or an opportunity to an illegal immigrant. Illegal immigration has had no tangible effect on his life in any way shape or form whatsoever.
Yet he HATES illegal immigrants. He DESPISES them. He thinks they should be brutally butchered, children too, if they try to set foot in this country. He thinks they’re vermin. He lies awake at night frothing at the mouth with this HATE that burns hotter than the sun.
That’s how he feels about these people that have never harmed him in any tangible way, people that just want to work hard to build a better life for themselves and their families.
But he sits in front of the TV and/or the computer (probably while drinking, because drinking intensifies this shit and he’s been totally intensified) and listens to trolls tell him how horrible these people are and why he should HATE their guts and want them to be killed, and why they are responsible for every bad thing that’s ever happened to him. And he absorbs this shit like the mindless gutless sponge that he is. He’s addicted to HATE, and unfortunately there’s no rehab.
Your country?? At last count you have one share out of 332 million.
Truth be told, i thought my cleaning lady was an illegal immigrant, and operated on a “don’t ask/don’t tell” basis, until she failed to show up one day, and then texted us apologetically that she’d had her citizenship interview and forgot she was supposed to clean our house.
I’m delighted to learn she’s totally legal to work here (she’s a citizen) but whether or not she was, she has done me a valuable service by cleaning my home.
Anyway, if you want to reduce the number of economic migrants, the way to do it isn’t by killing people at the border, it’s by making it harder to hire them. That won’t much reduce the number of refugees, but they are mostly here legally anyway. Attacking employers (like me) who are sloppy at verifying employment eligibility is the way to reduce the number of illegal immigrants.
We decide which people to allow, and which not — and there are some people we want to allow, and some we want very much not to allow — and that’s our call all the way. And there are people that we decide not to grant permission to, and who then decide on that illegal course of action anyway. And there are people who — instead of asking permission, and thereby finding out whether we’ll decide to let them be here — opt not to ask permission, because, hey, who are we to decide? After all, they’ve decided; they’ve decided by the millions, they’re deciding by the millions.
We’ve set up a way for them to ask for permission — precisely so we could grant it when we think it’s okay — and they decided, fuck your permission; we don’t need to get your permission; we don’t even need to ask for your permission.
They brush aside the question of our consent.
I find that unacceptable.
Now, this is the point where Czarcasm notes that me finding it unacceptable is but one share out of 332 million, and that’s fair. But (a) that is my One Share, and (b) out of the other 332 million, how many other One Shares also find it unacceptable? If I’m on the ‘no’ side of such a vote, I’ll of course take that to be the consensus about permission and react accordingly; but when a would-be immigrant is on the ‘no’ side of such a vote, they do — what?
Extremely few people are excluded because of this. Most just don’t meet the quota for immigrants from their country.
I mean, “deplorable” is a pretty strong word. Do you find it equally deplorable when people overstay their time in a parking space? They were specifically excluded from that space after an hour (or whatever). Sure, it’s annoying. And maybe their overstaying makes it hard for paying customers to shop. But we just charge them a fine, we don’t try to kill them. At least, no municipality I’ve lived in used deadly force to enforce the parking regulations.
Yes and whites were never indigenous to the Americas so those from the lower N American continent are more American than whites. ?
Would we rather be an expat or an immigrant what’s the distinction. If I flee a maga landscape?
I don’t entirely understand your point. Aren’t all immigrants also ex-pats? I think most Americans prefer “ex-pat” to “emigrant” only because the notion that anyone would leave the USA for a better life in another country is really challenging to their sense of self.
I emigrated from the USA to Canada. I don’t really consider myself an ex-pat, because I think that’s a label for Americans abroad who aren’t anything else. I’m American, and I’m also Canadian; I crossed a border so I’m an emigrant and an immigrant. I don’t think I’m an invader except in the broader historical sense of being a North American of mostly European descent.
I appreciate your comments!
Im referring to a geographical North America and the people of the continent which includes countries within Central America. perhaps there’s an inherent right for access to the USA from our American counterparts.
No one likes it they can move to Mexico or. Central America as an ex Pat.
My curiosity is getting the better of me here, I think. How, exactly, do you think people can get to those ports of entry?
I guess I’d say the difference is that the place you live in would, in fact, use lethal force against — well, against people that even the SDMB would agree are invaders. That, for me, is the starting point: how would we deal with people that even the SDMB would agree are invaders?
And I start off by figuring, well, kill them, or capture them at gunpoint, or something. And then I’d ask: “but, having established that, we of course ought to clear paths for those people who aren’t invaders, right? Like, shouldn’t we establish places where they can show up to, if appropriate, be given our permission to be here? I mean, sure, The People That Even The SDMB Would Agree Are Invaders would have the option of disregarding that, what with them not being after our permission; they can still try crossing somewhere else, after we’ve patiently explained that doing so involves staring down the barrel of a gun — but can we set up places where the people who in fact want to ask for permission can in fact do so?”
And, AFAICT, the answer would be: “uh, yeah; we’re doing that; we’re providing the option for those who’d like to ask for permission — and, well, anyone who instead wants to go the ‘Invader’ route rather than the ‘Ask For Permission At Those Locations’ route can still do so, at which point we’ll react accordingly: gun, barrel, kill or capture, all that other stuff.”