If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Funerary_Doom]

I'll eventually answer. I'm not very good at debating on forums because after awhile I feel it's a bit pointless. But I'll respond after work when I've gathered my thoughts more.

 

[Dak]

I like how there's absolutely no thought whatsoever to the ramifications of all the deporting and blowing up of other countries. It seems to be the way with all the Trumpeters. "He's gonna bring fire and show those pesky Muslims what's what and build a WALL! Who needs forethought.

Why should other countries get mad about a wall in the US, and deportations of their citizens back to them?

 

[Einherjar86]

What you speak of is an ideal. The current reality is that Islamic extremism is a current, real threat. Just like Christianity, I believe that Islam will eventually became a stable religion, but at the moment it is subject to a very real and influential terrorist faction. The religion of Islam is at odds with itself, and therefore is a very unstable religion at this current point in history. The difference with the 'reformation' of Christianity is that as a country, the US could not avoid facing it head on. Muslims are not currently a majority in the US; the fight is centered around the middle east. We should not feel obligated to open the flood-gates and allow this war any more traction on US soil. This is not Islamaphobia, this is the recognition of a violent threat that most people here want no part of. Facilitating peace in the middle east is a valiant endeavor, but when it involves subjecting our country to a palpable threat, it becomes unacceptable.

Allowing Muslims to immigrate to the U.S. will not impact our security in any significant way. If terrorists want to send agents here, they'll do so- legally or illegally. It has little or nothing to do with ease of access. And with the spread of information in today's digital age, ISIS can recruit people more easily via the internet. In fact, this could even be preferable to sending their own people; they can remain out of harm's way while new recruits who already live here do their dirty work.

All things considered, I think the evidence is strong that immigration won't have a large impact on national security.

- "the illegal immigrant problem is just x% of our economic problems therefore we shouldn't solve it"
- WEAK

- "more than half of illegals have jobs so they're not a huge problem"
- if NONE of them were here AT ALL, they would NOT BE A PROBLEM at all

- it costs PLENTY http://www.fairus.org/publications/...llegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

- and it's not just welfare costs, but government program costs for them, and the money their jobs make that should have rightfully gone to legal citizens, that they send to mexico

I didn't say we shouldn't solve it, did I? I'm trying to point out issues with your comments.

You want to put heavy restrictions on immigration in order help the economy; but plenty of immigrants contribute to the economy, while a larger percentage (quite possibly) of legal citizens present a more significant economic burden. How is restricting immigration going to fix that problem?

If none of them worked here, you would notice an unpleasant difference in the service and maintenance industries.

$113 billion? That's a small percentage of our welfare spending, I'd say. Sounds like a lot though, I'll give you that.

 

[Dak]

All things considered, I think the evidence is strong that immigration won't have a large impact on national security.

ISIS sending "immigrants" over is sort of a red herring when it comes to national security. The bigger issue is general lack of assimilation and "patriotism", which the internet has made easier even as the "west" has been assimilated to some degree into other countries.

In the not too long past, to immigrate meant a pretty large barrier to communication with those "back home". Now everyone can follow the old home news outlets, fb all their friends, etc etc. So you get essentially foreign citizens at heart. You see this down in the SW, pre-FB era even, because of the proximity of the border and many people having their relatives just a short drive away.

If none of them worked here, you would notice an unpleasant difference in the service and maintenance industries.

For a short period of time, yes. But then a new equilibrium would be found, and those jobs would most likely either go away or start paying more. Large corps and Big Ag love the current situation because it drives down the price of labor. Even if I were inclined to be a field hand, I won't willingly drop my lifestyle down to the living conditions that migrant workers do to make the pure dollar amount received worth it. Thousands of miles away from my family (potentially), living 25 to a dirty shack possibly without running water or electricity, and living on cheap beer and convenience food isn't acceptable.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think eventually those jobs will go away as advanced technologies begin to pick up the slack.

Of course, as technology does become more advanced, I think we'll need to have a serious national discussion over the capacity of new technologies to support feasibly the unemployed. I'm not imagining a post-scarcity society necessarily, but one in which certain services might be performed more easily and therefore more monies can potentially be allocated elsewhere. But that's one of my post-Marxist utopian fantasies...

 

[arg]

Allowing Muslims to immigrate to the U.S. will not impact our security in any significant way. If terrorists want to send agents here, they'll do so- legally or illegally. It has little or nothing to do with ease of access. And with the spread of information in today's digital age, ISIS can recruit people more easily via the internet. In fact, this could even be preferable to sending their own people; they can remain out of harm's way while new recruits who already live here do their dirty work.

All things considered, I think the evidence is strong that immigration won't have a large impact on national security.



I didn't say we shouldn't solve it, did I? I'm trying to point out issues with your comments.

You want to put heavy restrictions on immigration in order help the economy; but plenty of immigrants contribute to the economy, while a larger percentage (quite possibly) of legal citizens present a more significant economic burden. How is restricting immigration going to fix that problem?

If none of them worked here, you would notice an unpleasant difference in the service and maintenance industries.

$113 billion? That's a small percentage of our welfare spending, I'd say. Sounds like a lot though, I'll give you that.

Yea what Dak said, it'll suck for awhile but eventually an uneducated but legal citizen will see the toilet cleaning job and say "hey it's the only job I can get, I'll take it" and that's 1 less illegal and 1 less bum

 

[arg]

they should put me in charge of the federal budget
- id shrink the military, put them only where needed
- cut welfare
- cut foreign aid
- put more in energy, education and science
- more in social security that's one social program i don't think sucks
- id cut taxes overall for both individuals and corporations and put more money in citizens pockets which is the best economic stimulus

 

[SentinelSlain]

-severing the umbilical cord with Israel would save a lot of money.
-work with russia and china to massively reduce nuclear stockpiles
-make it free for the really good students to do the really in demand subjects at college and cheaper for the quite good students

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I hope I didn't suggest that mental health is irrelevant. All I'm trying to say is that queer sexuality does not go hand in hand with mental illness. There are plenty of queer people who get along just fine, and in many cases what we identify as mental instability is a result of societal exclusion (and I'm using "exclusion" in a very general sense).

My point was that it's potentially dangerous to link queer sexuality to mental issues caused by genetic or other biological factors. I wasn't accusing anyone here of doing so - simply admitting the wariness I have toward the dime-store psychologizing that happens over the media.

Sure, I can agree with that. I haven't really noticed much talk about homosexuals being mentally ill and being at risk for shootings or whatever in the media, although admittedly I haven't been seeking it out.

Immigration won't prevent terrorism. The Orlando and San Bernardino attacks were carried out by American-born citizens.

As far as your economic concerns go, immigrants contribute significantly to the economy. We've heard that lots of them will perform jobs that Americans won't; but many also start their own small businesses, and those aren't necessarily brain surgeons or rocket scientists.

Not all immigrants are the same. We can bring in Chinese, Vietnamese, etc without having to bring in Afghanistanis, and certainly it's known that Asian communities, even when secluded from general Western culture, have lower crime and higher prosperity than even long-term Anglo citizens. The male shooter at San Bernardino was a second-generation immigrant, and his wife accomplice was an immigrant. Even though we can't constitutionally deprive people of American rights and protections once they are citizens, if there's a trend that certain communities raise children prone to terrorism/violence, that's still a valid justification for nipping things at the bud and holding off on immigrants from certain countries.

fwiw I don't actually think that terrorism/crime committed by Muslims is that worrisome; it's a drop in the bucket compared to the level of gun violence that occurs in many black communities (where homicide is the leading cause of death for men aged 16-30), and in general I think people from Middle-Eastern countries tend to value education and higher-tech jobs, which are very positive qualities for me at least. We already are fairly strict with out legal immigration process, and I think the amount of terrorism that occurs is almost to be expected considering how much we've fucked up their homelands.

 

[CiG]

Australian style points system is quite a good immigration policy tool.

 

[Dak]

http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

This thing is thorough and spot on.

 

[Dak]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...uths-and-half-truths-about-race-campus-part-i

 

[CiG]

Some new information on the Orlando terrorist attack.

https://www.fbi.gov/tampa/press-rel...ive-update-regarding-pulse-nightclub-shooting

 

[Dak]

Well that's blowback for ya.

 

[CiG]

He definitely fits the "not particularly religious" profile...

 

[Dak]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-trump-speech-on-the-stakes-of-the-election-224654

Whoever wrote this speech needs to be paid well. That's a winner.

 

[The Butt]

I don't know if it's true, it's likely false; but I heard there was a quote attributed to Trump calling Canadians "snow Mexicans" which I found funny. If true then it's even more funny. If false then it's marginally funny but less so.

Snow Mexicans.

 

[CiG]

Ice backs.

 

[The Ozzman]

Moose Jockeys

 

[arg]

Obama's amnesty for illegals got its ass kicked by the supreme court

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/2...urt.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/