I think that is a bad analogy, for it to make sense the house has to be huge and I need to not know 90% of the people in it and everyone in it contributes a little so everyone eats-> yes let them in.
"Why does Sok always debunk my over-simplifications and unsubstantiated claims with facts and evidence? IT'S SO UNFAIR! He should just speak in rhetoric and lies like me! Guess I better just double down on my strategy of ignoring arguments and facts I don't like and just continue to attack the way Sok discusses issues instead of the issue themselves!"
Lol then your opinion on this is irrelevant. "Ew no" is your response. You obviously dont care about the well being of the US. You just have your opinions about it. Me and @super71, being US citizens care about what is best for America. We fundamentally believe different things than you and @Sokolov so we will never see eye to eye.
I believe that: Society should strive to maximize the liberty of everyone People of all ideologies should be fairly represented politically (the current electoral system in the US works against this and entrenches the 2 dominant parties) We should protect the common resources (land/water/air) because it maximizes liberty for future inhabitants We should enact policies based on facts and evidence and not rhetoric (i.e. Trump's trade war is dumb because it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of trade and the historical, proven effects of tariffs) We should not be scared of trying different things (i.e. the US has been cutting taxes for the top for 50 years and it has not yet yielded the type of sustained growth that's been promised, maybe we should try something else?) The thing is, different ideologies can believe they want what is "best." Pretending that only your side wants what is "best" and other people hate America or whatever is just a way of discrediting their ideas without engaging with them.
I care about what is best for Americans and Humanity as a whole, you only care about a country occupying huge swathes of land stolen from different other groups regardless of how it mistreats humans living within and without. yes I can see how we will not see Eye to eye on this. I do think you ragequitting because I called into question the validity of your analogy is hilarious though.
This is exactly an example of the type of nonsensical arguments the right makes all the time. They use oversimplification and abstract a situation into something that isn't happening and force you to answer "a simple question" that basically excludes all the facts and evidence. The reality is that the US (like most opther sovereign nations), have a robust immigration policy and vetting process by which they allow people to come into the country - i.e. the proper channels. The suggestion that there's anything remotely resembling "free access", "open borders" or as super71 puts it before as the US being the only country not allowed to enforce immigration laws or whatever is a straw man. This doesn't happen. So the real question: It's like this; you enjoy your house. It makes you feel secure at night sleeping there with the doors locked and your family protected knowing who and what is inside. There are a bunch of people outside (many of whom are women and children) who have applied to come into the house and you have run background checks on them and vetted them (and know that statistically they are less likely to be criminals than the people inside your house) - do you invite a couple of them in so they can sleep inside instead of outside? Because that's what's actually happening in the US right now. Yes, some people come through the border illegally, but that's not what the question is asking about and the number of people who are newly illegal in the US are more likely to be people previously vetted having come through the proper channels (i.e. overstaying VISAs). And you know what? I have actually done this. I have opened my doors to multiple people (ironically, all of them Republican who are anti-welfare) into my home when they needed help. I let them stay in my house rent-free until they could get back on their feet. ~ Now, my turn for questions. Why do you post so many incorrect/false things? Why do you never acknowledge when your false ideas/claims have been debunked or challenged? Why do you oversimplify complex situations and ask questions like this which do not in any way reflect reality? Why do you disengage whenever facts and data are presented and only seem to speak in rhetoric or attack people instead of engaging with the facts?
Still didn’t answer my simple question from before, you are anti-American in every way. Distract, divert, deflect, you have mastered it bud. The problem is things really are that simple, your either for illegal immigration, or for legal migration, I’m for legal migration but not “illegal”. You can show a billion graphs, but one version is illegal by United States law, and the other isn’t. That is as simple as it gets.
Your trying to steer the conversation again in a way that fits your narrative, when you continue to do that it’s a dishonest conversation. Your a liberal, and judging by the American hate I’d say most likely of a certain religious background that dislikes America.
If this is how you feel, then we can relate. I too am pro-LEGAL immigration. But trying to justify people overstaying their visas is where we differ. I dont think they should be staying here after their visas expire as it is no longer LEGAL immigration at that point
nobody is saying it is, he is saying that banning legal immigration in the form of asylum seekers and building a wall are ridiculous and that creating an eastern bloc method where everyone spies on everyone for the goverment is a bad thing to do.
I don't hate americans. just you and the way you guys justify dumb goverment policies which does affect how the rest of he world operates. I am also an atheist as I have stated many times.
The definition of seeking asylum is going to the NEAREST safe country, not traveling hundreds and hundreds of miles past safety to the country you WANT to be in (assuming you are referring to that recent caravan). The purpose of the wall is to reduce or deter the illegal immigration that has been happening for decades. I dont really care too much about the wall but I'm definitely not 100% against it. And I am not sure what you are referring to as far as the spying and eastern bloc method. I dont concern myself with politics in other countries (call me foolish or whatever). I keep up with big things but I'm definitely not super informed in international policies. My main issue right now is the divisiveness and partisanism the US is dealing with. Instead of focusing on the things the people agree on, the media likes the highlight each and everything that they disagree on because they want ratings. I wouldnt be surprised if eventually America experienced another civil war.
they want to be safe from the cartels. the cartels are in Mexico so the US is the nearest safe country. there you go. and seeking asylum by applying for it is legal. you then have a special court system to find out if it has merit, but Trump severely cut the funding to those things didn't he? it's almost like he is breaking down a system meant to prevent people from misusing asylum so he can be a horrible person that should be dragged to the hague to answer for his neglect in matters of human decency. I did not read the rest of what you wrote.
Super's posts in this thread remind me a lot of this moment from The Boondocks (specifically from 0:20 onward): Liking America is fine and dandy, but you're really just shooting your argument in the foot when you imply that presenting graphs and other valid statistical data is the same as being anti-American. No political issues are that black-and-white. That's why we debate them. And FYI, United States law isn't immutable; it's been changed and reformed many times in the past. Just because it's legal or illegal to do something doesn't make that thing morally right or wrong. You strike me as the type of person who would defend racism if they were living in the 1960s because "it's against the law for black people to do X".
Just for interest's sake: We should also note that the US practices what is known as "case law" which means that statues and regulations are interpreted and then later cited as precedent for how future cases can be decided. This is why stuff like Roe v Wade, once decided, becomes functionally "law" but can also be overturned by a future ruling setting a new/alternative precedent. This is as opposed to a "civil law" system where each case is decided on its own merits with regards to written statues and precedent rarely comes into play. In such system, if abortion is written as legal, the courts could never decide it wasn't legal, and it'd take legislative action to change such law.
