If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

fwiw, for a completely random anecdote, I do know that Gabe Newell (who is relatively non-political and a billionaire) has mentioned that Valve lost a few Iranian engineers who were overseas at the time of Trump's "Muslim ban". (Funny trivia tidbit: the original programmer behind the original Final Fantasy games was an Iranian, despite Japanese companies being generally opposed to foreign workers; ancient mathematical Persian blood at work.) But it's really only the "Muslim ban" countries where I've heard of legitimate workers getting fucked over, and the majority of those countries are not exactly sending their best. If Ein's colleagues have been shaken by deportations of Central Americans, it's because they had to hire new maids at double the rates. Trump, if anything, has been very supportive of legitimate visa workers.

You actually think this is what's happening? And I'm the one dissociated from reality.

Those kids and pregnant women man, such a threat.

They've absolutely "encroach[ed] upon : infringe[d]" American soil. The plunder bit is a little more abstract in that they plunder social services via the law rather than via horseback riding Mongols, but uneducated women and children are absolutely a threat to public coffers, more so than the uneducated men who (at least on average) depend less on the government and work more productive jobs.

the social opportunities of working with caravans

lmao

 

[Einherjar86]

If Ein's colleagues have been shaken by deportations of Central Americans, it's because they had to hire new maids at double the rates. Trump, if anything, has been very supportive of legitimate visa workers.

omg, you think my colleagues have maids.

You guys think all academics make six figures or something?

They've absolutely "encroach[ed] upon : infringe[d]" American soil. The plunder bit is a little more abstract in that they plunder social services via the law rather than via horseback riding Mongols, but uneducated women and children are absolutely a threat to public coffers, more so than the uneducated men who (at least on average) depend less on the government and work more productive jobs.

Definitions don't work this way. "Invade" carries different connotations than "encroach" and "infringe." When you use words, you have to consider their implications.

You prefer to think of language like it's math, i.e. "invade = infringe." That's simply not how it works at all.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The caravans come here in large, consciously-formed waves, and their occupants come here to stay. That's plenty 'invasion' to me. It's not like Juanita and her 10000 co-invaders drunkenly stumble onto American soil, say "Whoopsie, wrong room!" and then return back to their side.

 

[Einherjar86]

The caravans come here in large, consciously-formed waves, and their occupants come here to stay. That's plenty 'invasion' to me. It's not like Juanita and her 10000 co-invaders drunkenly stumble onto American soil, say "Whoopsie, wrong room!" and then return back to their side.

They come seeking asylum. That's not a hostile takeover, it's a cry for help--and it's a far cry from "barbarians at the gates."

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Let them cry



Wonder if the MSM will report this one. I'm not sure if the "black Sanders supporter" claim is true, from what I can tell "Black Guns Matter" seems to be adopted more by the right anyways, but still, it's some pasty white dude assaulting a black guy (who seems to want to deescalate), not the best optics for any campaign.

 

[CiG]

Terrible optics considering the MSM has been bringing up the "#BernieBros are toxic white male supporters" narrative recently.

 

[Einherjar86]

Let them cry

I mean, I knew this is where we'd eventually end up; but the point is that invaders don't show up crying at the door begging to be let in--or even sneak in, accept work from eager American businesses (whose owners aren't ignorant to what's going on), and quietly go about their lives.

So I say again, no invasion. My point was about your word choice, not whether there are people coming to the southern border. There certainly are, a lot of them; and something needs to be done other than simply letting everyone in without a process or institution in place. Calling it an invasion is less a semantically accurate statement than a rhetorically charged statement. It achieves its linguistic force through its connotative suggestions, not through what it denotes.

 

[rms]

Wasted too much time responding to the ridiculousness of basement dwellers calling migrants Invaders

 

[Einherjar86]

Well that's certainly true, but if I duck out or stop responding because I value my time, it's seen as retreat; if I press on and continue the conversation, then people see it as wasting my time.

Can't win around here, the game's rigged.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I mean, I knew this is where we'd eventually end up; but the point is that invaders don't show up crying at the door begging to be let in--or even sneak in, accept work from eager American businesses (whose owners aren't ignorant to what's going on), and quietly go about their lives.

So I say again, no invasion. My point was about your word choice, not whether there are people coming to the southern border. There certainly are, a lot of them; and something needs to be done other than simply letting everyone in without a process or institution in place. Calling it an invasion is less a semantically accurate statement than a rhetorically charged statement. It achieves its linguistic force through its connotative suggestions, not through what it denotes.

"work"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

Even looking at nationalities broadly, those of shithole countries are generally the poorest and least capable among all groups, and that ignores that illegal workers frequently do not have their wages reported. The work they produce is frequently useless and a net drain on the economy after factoring in the copious public goods they leech. But it's funny how on one hand these parasites from Central America are supposed to be such great contributors to the American economy, but on the other hand it's totally raycis and yuge when Trump wants to deport those that are a public charge.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

crying at the door begging to be let in--or even sneak in, accept work from eager American businesses (whose owners aren't ignorant to what's going on), and quietly go about their lives.

spoken like the true clueless idiot you are.

 

[Einherjar86]

spoken like the true clueless idiot you are.

... oh look, the scorned twat who cant stop mentioning me just because i've continually handed him his own ass for the last few weeks. Lulz, you must really like the taste of my balls!

"work"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

Even looking at nationalities broadly, those of shithole countries are generally the poorest and least capable among all groups, and that ignores that illegal workers frequently do not have their wages reported. The work they produce is frequently useless and a net drain on the economy after factoring in the copious public goods they leech.

The “copious public goods they leech” is an unknown number, but best estimates suggest it’s a negligible value at most. Research shows that legal immigrants tend to improve the wages of high school-educated Americans, and in fact use fewer welfare resources than low-income natives. It’s very likely that legal immigrant production offsets any drain that illegal immigrants might pose—and it’s possible they pose none.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

but i never said i'm gonna stop heckling your "bitch ass". I've actually said the opposite numerous times ....

 

[arg]

They come seeking asylum. That's not a hostile takeover, it's a cry for help--and it's a far cry from "barbarians at the gates."

Is poverty grounds for asylum?

You said letting everyone in is not the answer... so who would you reject?

 

[Einherjar86]

but i never said i'm gonna stop heckling your "bitch ass". I've actually said the opposite numerous times ....

Is poverty grounds for asylum?

You said letting everyone in is not the answer... so who would you reject?

I said that opening the gates to all without any extensive infrastructure in place for acclimation and naturalization isn't the answer. The system we currently have isn't equipped to handle the global refugee crisis. There needs to be a coordinated international effort to intercept and redistribute those displaced by regional violence and resource loss.

Ideally, no one gets rejected.

 

[arg]

I said that opening the gates to all without any extensive infrastructure in place for acclimation and naturalization isn't the answer. The system we currently have isn't equipped to handle the global refugee crisis. There needs to be a coordinated international effort to intercept and redistribute those displaced by regional violence and resource loss.

Ideally, no one gets rejected.

Of course you wouldn’t open the gates to all, you’re smart. Well since that system doesn’t exist right now, we gotta have criteria for who gets in and who doesn’t, right? At least in the meantime, while we improve our infrastructure. So what’ll be your criteria? Surely not just being poor?

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't think I have the authority to come up with criteria. Speaking as a non-expert on the issue, this is what I'd say:

Poverty/precarity should be a criteria for entry. Of course, most of the people fleeing Central American countries are already deeply impoverished, so that's not something that really needs to be identified. If I'm being forced into the decision of making a choice, then I'd say priority should be given to families with minors and women traveling alone.

 

[arg]

I don't think I have the authority to come up with criteria. Speaking as a non-expert on the issue, this is what I'd say:

Poverty/precarity should be a criteria for entry. Of course, most of the people fleeing Central American countries are already deeply impoverished, so that's not something that really needs to be identified. If I'm being forced into the decision of making a choice, then I'd say priority should be given to families with minors and women traveling alone.

So you’d reject poor adult males and accept poor women and children, ok you have a threshold, an easy one to reach, but at least you have one. Would you consider level of poverty, or just anyone who looks kinda poor even if they have smartphones?

On the international refugee redistribution system, we see them trying it in Europe, but every time a boat shows up they fight bitterly over who takes the migrants. So how will you make receiving countries/cities accept them?

 

[Einherjar86]

I appreciate you asking all these questions, but I simply don't have the geopolitical expertise to comment on resolving international disputes; but the fact that countries have disputes isn't an excuse to do nothing. As far as level of poverty, I would think it would an inevitable part of the process, as much as that's possible (considering what can and can't be known about migrants' histories); but I don't know what the variation would look like.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The “copious public goods they leech” is an unknown number, but best estimates suggest it’s a negligible value at most. Research shows that legal immigrants tend to improve the wages of high school-educated Americans, and in fact use fewer welfare resources than low-income natives. It’s very likely that legal immigrant production offsets any drain that illegal immigrants might pose—and it’s possible they pose none.

That's because the majority of legal immigrants receive citizenship based on merit. I'm only (but completely) opposed the asylees receiving citizenship. Engineers, scientists, doctors, tax-reducing millionaires/billionaires, etc, open the floodgates. "Future engineers and doctors", no thanks.