[theqoo] Trump plans to deport 110k Korean undocumented immigrants

Quote

9. Wow I'm even surprised they have 110K Korean undocumented immigrants

We probably don't. Where did they even get this number? There are less than 2 million documented Korean-Americans.

Unless there is threat of political or religious persecution - all countries should be able to expel immigrants - even legal ones, but definitely illegals and origin countries should accept them.

US is not a big deal, most are economic immigrants.

But the fun will start when Europe, India etc., start expelling their illegals, most often they are Islamic and not known to go peaceable even in peaceful times.

US doing so, gives cover to other countries doing so. Often it is the busybody leftist from the US who prevent such things, now they will have to shut up.

Quote from bbgc

all countries should be able to expel immigrants - even legal ones

Uhh... what?

Quote from bbgc

Often it is the busybody leftist from the US who prevent such things, now they will have to shut up.

"Leftists" don't have to "shut up," or do anything you want them to for that matter. We have freedom of speech in this country, and you're kidding yourself if you think everyone is just going sit quietly while Trump activates his gestapo. The pushback has already begun, including from some prominent Republicans.

Quote from Popper-of-Ks

Uhh... what?

"Leftists" don't have to "shut up," or do anything you want them to for that matter. We have freedom of speech in this country, and you're kidding yourself if you think everyone is just going sit quietly while Trump activates his gestapo. The pushback has already begun, including from some prominent Republicans.

Of course, they don't need to shut up.. they don't mind being hypocrites or have any such sensibility.

I meant countries have the right to expel any immigrants - if they want to do so. Not that they should necessarily do so.

As to whatever 'pushback' happening in US, good -let them stay busy with that, so that my country can do what it ought to do with infiltrators without the busybody interference.

Quote from bbgc

Of course, they don't need to shut up.. they don't mind being hypocrites or have any such sensibility.

I meant countries have the right to expel any immigrants - if they want to do so. Not that they should necessarily do so.

As to whatever 'pushback' happening in US, good -let them stay busy with that, so that my country can do what it ought to do with infiltrators without the busybody interference.

I'd love to hear how being against Trump's raids & deportations is "hypocritical," and what's so sensible about detaining citizens, including veterans & Native Americans of all people, just because of the color of their skin. Because that's exactly what's happening.

I have no idea WHY you would want to deport LEGAL immigrants who've done nothing wrong, unless you just get your jollies out of seeing it happen, but you certainly cannot "expel" a naturalized citizen except under certain unusual circumstances, such as fraud or a conviction of a serious crime such as terrorism. Otherwise? No bueno.

Quote from Popper-of-Ks

I'd love to hear how being against Trump's raids & deportations is "hypocritical," and what's so sensible about detaining citizens, including veterans & Native Americans of all people, just because of the color of their skin. Because that's exactly what's happening.

I have no idea WHY you would want to deport LEGAL immigrants who've done nothing wrong, unless you just get your jollies out of seeing it happen, but you certainly cannot "expel" a naturalized citizen except under certain unusual circumstances, such as fraud or a conviction of a serious crime such as terrorism. Otherwise? No bueno.

It when they interfere with other countries, when they can't fix shit at home or act differently, they are hypocritical. But then geo-politics is often hypocritical

Where did I mention 'citizens' or 'colour of the skin'. Typical Lefty tactic - changing the conversation from illegal immigrants to legal and from immigrants to citizens. But if Trumpsters are expelling citizens, sure oppose it.

Theoritically any non-citizen can be expelled, only citizens can't be. It need not be a question of crime, but simply say economy not doing well.

Again.. I never said anything about "citizen"... stop putting words in other people's mouths, to push your nonsense.

Quote from bbgc

It when they interfere with other countries, when they can't fix shit at home or act differently, they are hypocritical. But then geo-politics is often hypocritical

I genuinely haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about at this point. Could you be a little less vague?

Quote from bbgc

Where did I mention 'citizens' or 'colour of the skin'. Typical Lefty tactic - changing the conversation from illegal immigrants to legal and from immigrants to citizens. But if Trumpsters are expelling citizens, sure oppose it.

You're the one who brought up legal immigrants and the notion of deporting them, not me. Do you suffer from short term memory loss? Just scroll up a bit. I promise it's still there. Regardless, you dodged the meat of the topic, which is what Trump's gestapo is actually doing to people, immigrants -- both illegal and legal -- and even citizens. Dodging tough subject matter has always been a popular righty tactic, so I can't say I'm too surprised.

Quote from bbgc

Theoritically any non-citizen can be expelled, only citizens can't be. It need not be a question of crime, but simply say economy not doing well.

Yeah... no. That excuse might work in your country, but not here. That's simply not how we do things.

Quote from Popper-of-Ks

I genuinely haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about at this point. Could you be a little less vague?

You would, if you can think of a world outside the US. Anyway don't bother your head about it.

Quote from Popper-of-Ks

You're the one who brought up legal immigrants and the notion of deporting them, not me. Do you suffer from short term memory loss? Just scroll up a bit. I promise it's still there. Regardless, you dodged the meat of the topic, which is what Trump's gestapo is actually doing to people, immigrants -- both illegal and legal -- and even citizens. Dodging tough subject matter has always been a popular righty tactic, so I can't say I'm too surprised.

Again how is my mentioning legal immigrants = citizens. You lack login.

As to your ranting about Gestapo, calling everybody you don't like as Nazi..that is your psychosis, I don't need to indulge it.

Quote from Popper-of-Ks

Yeah... no. That excuse might work in your country, but not here. That's simply not how we do things.

Again the stupid American-centricism, never seeing the issue universally. As to "we", 50% of your country differs from the other 50% - go figure your "we"

This is all the reason you deserve Trump. Now enjoy the next years.

It is fun to watch from the outside. The defeat of Globalist Nosey Left is good for the world, whatever Trump brings or not.

Quote from bbgc

You would, if you can think of a world outside the US. Anyway don't bother your head about it.

I'll take that as a no. I figured as much.

Quote from bbgc

You would, if you can think of a world outside the US. Anyway don't bother your head about it.

Again how is my mentioning legal immigrants = citizens. You lack login.

As to your ranting about Gestapo, calling everybody you don't like as Nazi..that is your psychosis, I don't need to indulge it.

If the shoe fits...

I don't call everyone I don't like a Nazi. Just the Nazis.

Once you're done being pedantic about the difference between a naturalized citizen and other types of legal immigrants, you can finally start to explain why you would want to deport upstanding people who are innocent of any wrongdoing, without hiding behind insanely poor, thinly-veiled excuses like "the economy." Because that sounds pretty fascist to me.

As for your ridiculous claim of me being "American centric," the thread is literally about AMERICAN politics. If you don't want to talk about AMERICAN politics, why are you even here? Just so you can make some snide, toothless remarks about liberals and how we somehow deserve this shit stain for president? I just wish I could see the look on your face when you realize he's going to ruin far more than just America. Hold onto your butt.

Quote from Popper-of-Ks

If the shoe fits...

I care about US only to the extent it impacts global narratives. So I am happy with the return of Trump.

If it causes domestic issues to whatever your causes are - meh, deal with it.

As to this conversation, apparently we have different understanding of the terms - immigrants, citizens etc., and you don't have the grace to clear that, before getting deranged.

What do they call it - TDS, yes.

Stay pissed. Trump is going to give you a lot of material.

Does not matter to me, to bother debating.

You can scratch your itch claiming victory in this random forum encounter.. Congrats, you have defeated Nazism.

Bye

Quote from bbgc

I care about US only to the extent it impacts global narratives. So I am happy with the return of Trump.

If it causes domestic issues to whatever your causes are - meh, deal with it.

As to this conversation, apparently we have different understanding of the terms - immigrants, citizens etc., and you don't have the grace to clear that, before getting deranged.

What do they call it - TDS, yes.

Stay pissed. Trump is going to give you a lot of material.

Does not matter to me, to bother debating.

You can scratch your itch claiming victory in this random forum encounter.. Congrats, you have defeated Nazism.

Bye

Display More

Actually I'm going to scratch my itch by blocking you now.

Quote from bbgc

I meant countries have the right to expel any immigrants - if they want to do so. Not that they should necessarily do so.

Okay WHY would they want to do so?

Quote from CaraFIMIE

Okay WHY would they want to do so?

First to clarify.,., I am only talking about Non-Citizens, however they become citizens and not racial or other categories.

But hypothetical situations,

Supposing country X has LEGAL immigrants from country Y and country X & Y end up in war, then it is better to expel the immigrants from either side.

Supposing country X has an economic collapse, and reduction of population will help, then again.

In fact, in such situations, your typical economic immigrants themselves, would want to exit the country.

The point is, no country owes anything to immigrants, other than some basic humanity. Their duty is to the citizens. Similarly no immigrant should feel entitled to any consideration from the host country, until they become citizens.

There are of course exceptions, like if the immigrant is religiously persecuted in their origin country or politically. But just "economics" can't be the reason.

Quote from bbgc

First to clarify.,., I am only talking about Non-Citizens, however they become citizens and not racial or other categories.

But hypothetical situations,

Supposing country X has LEGAL immigrants from country Y and country X & Y end up in war, then it is better to expel the immigrants from either side.

Supposing country X has an economic collapse, and reduction of population will help, then again.

In fact, in such situations, your typical economic immigrants themselves, would want to exit the country.

The point is, no country owes anything to immigrants, other than some basic humanity. Their duty is to the citizens. Similarly no immigrant should feel entitled to any consideration from the host country, until they become citizens.

There are of course exceptions, like if the immigrant is religiously persecuted in their origin country or politically. But just "economics" can't be the reason.

Display More

in a globalized world, economics means money means life.

without money, you're dead bro.

Now for the questions;
1. Why is it better to expel legal immigrants (non-citizens) from either side during wartime?

2. What is the underlying reason that so called "economic" immigrants would want to leave?

Comments: (from an american point of view, and uses the american immigration system and history as examples.)
3. the purpose of allowing immigrants to gain green cards, work visas, and the like is because they fill an economic niche as seen by the employer. This includes high value immigrants like engineers, scientists, graduate students, etc, on top of the classic stars of the public mind: the farmers, the janitors, the home renovation contractor, etc. Pull that away, and you cause economic pain for employers, not to mention knowledge flight due to high value immigrants being forced to leave too.
4. As exemplified by the "Nisei", Second generation japanese-americans during world war 2, they fully believe that not only them but also their parents of the first generation japanese are all Americans. Forcing them to leave is a betrayal of such sentiments. This is a rather frivolous matter, as the american government demonstrated, by forcing them into concentration camps. Commitments like research projects, small businesses, families, including pregnant wives, small children and their education, are often factors that tie down a person to their host country. Disrupting all of that will inevitably damage their future prospects, not to mention the guaranteed stress, anxiety, and lack of support during deportation. Without careful protections and planning, You, as a country, will condemn their future to being worse than it could be, entirely out of their control and without their agreement.
5. Often, those with permanent resident statuses (green card) often gain such statuses due to the promise of citizenship. It is a requirement for naturalization - it is needed to become a citizen. Deporting these people will basically invalidate likely a decade or more of work to become a citizen. A social contract of "do this and you'll get citizenship" would have been violated.

6. TL;DR it is often in the best interest of a country to promise a slew of benefits to attract prospective citizens that would enrich the economy and scientific knowledge. As such, when these promises are handed out, they are owed to the legal immigrants that are forced through a labyrinthine naturalization process. Disrupting them in the middle would severely hurt the inflow of high value people or useful people, and force a country as a society to invest great gobs of resources to grow a newborn citizen with no chance of guaranteeing anywhere near the same knowledge base, skills, etc.

7. In fact, I think religion should be ranked severely (ranked low) when it comes to considerations for not deporting someone, especially for a country as secular as the US( for what that statement is worth, ahem christains) outside of putting a thorn in peer adversaries (reference American Asylum for Falun Gong cult/religion, and blatant anti PRC programming from Shen Yun and other Falun gong enterprises).


Overall the comments I've presented are real concerns, however weak they seem to be in a sanitized and idealistic point of view.

Edit: Addendum: I will mention this: when a nation fails to deport non-citizens who've violated immigration law or other laws while they are within the borders of said nation because "their cases aren't severe enough" or "we need their labor" or what have you, I will concede that is a genuine failure. As with everything, it is best taken on a case-by-case basis, and if that's not possible, it's a clear sign of underfunding. These deportation or "keep them in" initiatives by republicans and democrats, respectively, are short sighted and reactionary, often founded upon flawed, generalized, and emotional reasoning, and both are doomed to cause harm to Americans as a societal unit. I bear extreme ill will to those who politicize it any other way.

Quote from bbgc

Again how is my mentioning legal immigrants = citizens. You lack login.

legal immigrants can be citizens.

Quote from Haolat

legal immigrants can be citizens.

Sure, when they become citizens, they should get all the protections.

But when they haven't, they can be treated differently as required by the nation and its policies.

Quote from bbgc

Again how is my mentioning legal immigrants = citizens. You lack login.

I'd like to mention that you fail to use the commonly accepted vocabulary.
Legal immigrant often refers to both citizens and non citizens who've followed the law to stay within a country legally either temporarily or permanently. The distinction for "immigrant" is that they were simply not born in the country that they currently reside in.

Often you should be more precise when mentioning non-citizen legal immigrants, such as using "non-citizen legal immigrants" like said here, or other more precise/granular classifications like "visa workers", "permanent resident card holder", "green card holder", "student visa holder", or even "Vacation visa holder" although the last one is rarely considered an "immigrant" legal or not due to the strong temporal nature of their stay in a country as allowed by a tourist visa.

This is a question of semantics and widely accepted definitions of individual terms used, rather than of legal immigrants themselves.

Quote from Kataphract

I'd like to mention that you fail to use the commonly accepted vocabulary.
Legal immigrant often refers to both citizens and non citizens who've followed the law to stay within a country legally either temporarily or permanently.

Often you should be more precise when mentioning non-citizen legal immigrants, such as using "non-citizen legal immigrants" like said here, or other more precise/granular classifications like "visa workers", "permanent resident card holder", "green card holder", "student visa holder", or even "Vacation visa holder" although the last one is rarely considered an "immigrant" legal or not due to the strong temporal nature of their stay in a country as allowed by a tourist visa.

This is a question of semantics and widely accepted definitions of individual terms used, rather than of legal immigrants themselves.

I disagree.. the various methods how one becomes a 'citizen' is irrelevant after they become a 'citizen'

But fine, for the sake of conversation, it is better to clarify terms - rather than assume these are 'commonly accepted'. Besides much of this is 'legal', so claims of common semantics, widely accepted are meh.. lawyers won't care.

All that is besides the point and diversion.

All 'Citizens' have unalienable rights, under the laws of a nation.

Non-citizens, whatever be the varieties, immigrant, legal, illegal, undocumented - don't have such rights and should not feel entitled.

The host nation is under no obligation to them and can change laws/treatments as they see fit.

Sure the citizens of the said nations can have internal debates about such, but in case of the current administration in the US, Trump promised that action, yet was elected. So electoral democracy has decided.

That is good enough as the larger principle. Of course these things will always have nuance in details, that has to be dealt case by case.

I hope the US example inspires other nations to deal with their rampant illegal immigrants, so far many were gaslight by global leftist forces despite the interests of their own citizens.

Quote from bbgc

Supposing country X has an economic collapse, and reduction of population will help, then again.

And what if country X's economy thrives on those hardworking immigrants?

Quote from bbgc

The point is, no country owes anything to immigrants, other than some basic humanity

"basic humanity" is being expelled from a place you seek asylum?

Quote from CaraFIMIE

And what if country X's economy thrives on those hardworking immigrants?

That is for the country to decide. And in case of the US, it is has decided via electoral democracy. If the decision is a mistake, they will find out soon enough to their own cost.

Quote from CaraFIMIE

"basic humanity" is being expelled from a place you seek asylum?

New word introduced "asylum" - typically used when fleeing persecution and not because "my country sucks, I am poor there, too much political instability, religion is harsh" - so I will come to your place. i.e. immigration.

Asylum is granted to rare cases of persecution, not for a millions every year.

Quote from bbgc

Non-citizens, whatever be the varieties, immigrant, legal, illegal, undocumented - don't have such rights and should not feel entitled.

The host nation is under no obligation to them and can change laws/treatments as they see fit.

Sure the citizens of the said nations can have internal debates about such, but in case of the current administration in the US, Trump promised that action, yet was elected. So electoral democracy has decided.

That is good enough as the larger principle. Of course these things will always have nuance in details, that has to be dealt case by case.

I hope the US example inspires other nations to deal with their rampant illegal immigrants, so far many were gaslight by global leftist forces despite the interests of their own citizens.

(the previous unquoted I do not dispute)

I suppose this is not an exhaustive rebuttal, but it is enough to render your statement of "the host nation is under no obligation to them and can change laws/treatments as they see fit" false.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/

Inexhaustive sum: Constitutional and legal protections are extended to all aliens - legal or not via supreme court decision. Due process must be observed, as some rights might not be practical, depending on developed ties to the US, among other considerations.

Addendum: The footnotes should take precedence as they, in no uncertain terms, decide that rights are naturally given unto an immigrant of legal status, rights that increase with increasing identity and status within the US.

Edit: The current administration, however elected, is not above our constitution, lest they become a dictatorial oligarchy or monarchy. Unless the extreme requirements are met by the people of the united states or by broad agreement by elected representatives in congress to push through an amendment as a proxy of the american people, there is no such way that a president and his cabinet or staff can overthrow our constitution. Thus it is not good enough as a larger principle as it is restricted and fettered by the constitution, and the rarity of the broad agreement of the American people.

I do not wish our heavy handed and imprecise politics and governmental execution becomes any role model of any sort. that includes letting illegal immigrants stay or raiding them to deport them. Due process is due process.

Quote from Kataphract

(the previous unquoted I do not dispute)

I suppose this is not an exhaustive rebuttal, but it is enough to render your statement of "the host nation is under no obligation to them and can change laws/treatments as they see fit"

https://constitution.congress.…-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/

Inexhaustive sum: Constitutional and legal protections are extended to all aliens - legal or not via supreme court decision. Due process must be observed, as some rights might not be practical, depending on developed ties to the US, among other considerations.

Addendum: The footnotes should take precedence as they, in no uncertain terms, decide that rights are naturally given unto an immigrant of legal status, rights that increase with increasing identity and status within the US.

Footnotes; Black text explains rights and protections conferred to an immigrant. Please See 3. if nothing else.

pasted-from-clipboard.png

Display More

I am not speaking specific to any law/constitution of any nation. but as a general principle.

Each nation will have different laws with regards to non-citizens. I have little knowledge about them.

All I know about US is that Trump ran a platform seeking to change the laws/implementation with regards to non-citizens and has the mandate now.

How he will implement that through the legal systems of the United States, is to be seen.

I only support the larger principle that unrestricted immigration of the past decade with little to no integration, that too often of intransigent religions/cultures has been a bad policy for many nations.

So support restrictions and rollbacks, which includes repatriating to their original countries.

But with the larger principle, I am also concerned about bureacratic overreach, where blunt official action will ignore specific circumstances and do horrible stuff.

That is the problem.

Quote from crystalblues

Likely the saddest f--king part of this is that most have applied for citizenship but the system here is so shitty that it takes over 15 years for it to be processed. So many of these people if there are even that many undocumented, have TRIED and done all the things they were SUPPOSED to do.

Agreed. Legal immigration is horribly broken in US and also elsewhere.

Another failure of Democracy and Democrats/Left in general.

Similar to how abortions have been made very easy, but adoptions are horrible red tape.

Quote from crystalblues

I would say this is a gross overstatement of people who are of that religion. I have met quite a few people over the last 10 years who are an part of the religion and are not extremists or violent in any sense.

Anecdotally I know many nice people too. But group reputation is not made by the nice people.

It is like the "hitchhikers" thing, not all hitchhikers are serial murderers, but the reputation is built that nobody gives rides anymore.

In Europe and S.Asia majority of migrants are Muslims and they also have the greatest challenge integrating with other cultures, accepting other civil codes/Laws

Hence the statement, if you feel it is overstatement, then you have not been following the news.

Quote from crystalblues

Okay maybe it is not being translated by others fully but here in Arizona, ICE has been gathering and detaining people even who have legal residence and are citizens. They have wrangled up close to 250 Native Americans and sat them in detention centers, which is ridiculous as this was literally native's land first.

This is not people freaking out over nothing, this is something actively happening to even minorities who are citizens here. One of our housemates nearly broke down as she works in the legal field and has seen numerous unlawful detentions of minorities in just this week, where ICE would barge into a school or a family's home while they were eating dinner, and not even give them a second to show them their paperwork before pinning them down to take them to detention centers. Then even after they showed their paperwork for their citizenship they were still stuck there despite it being cruel and unlawful.

ICE are trying to tell Native Americans that tribal and state IDs and tribal birth certificates do not "prove they are citizens and here legally" when again this was literally an non white country first and foremost. I think you are blinded by your hatred of the people you view as "infiltrators" and people stealing resources and not realizing the full picture of what is actually happening.

That is the mess of officialdom and bureacratic idiocy that spoils valid plans.

Horrible for the people affected. And yes, should be fought.

However, that is a failure in execution. Does not justify any nation doing nothing about illegal immigrants flooding their society.

And you are blinded by individual virtue signaling that you ignore the impact of infiltrators. Or is it TDS?

Quote from bbgc

I am not speaking specific to any law/constitution of any nation. but as a general principle.

Such a general observation is invalid if held true due to sheer variation between countries and -

Quote from bbgc

Each nation will have different laws with regards to non-citizens. I have little knowledge about them.

- it seems that you agree.

Quote from bbgc

All I know about US is that Trump ran a platform seeking to change the laws/implementation with regards to non-citizens and has the mandate now.

How he will implement that through the legal systems of the United States, is to be seen.

As with any good legal system, there are still many junctures where his decisions on the matter can still be rightfully and effectively challenged. A given mandate by a slim majority is as sturdy as is that slim majority represents the whole. He may be able to force, legally, action on the part of the government (executive orders). I bear no hope that he will be able to handle this situation in any broadly satisfactory manner.

Quote from bbgc

I only support the larger principle that unrestricted immigration of the past decade with little to no integration, that too often of intransigent religions/cultures has been a bad policy for many nations.

So support restrictions and rollbacks, which includes repatriating to their original countries.

I tend to say instead that culture has no rightful place in consideration with immigration. Indeed unrestricted immigration did happen, although it was largely stopped in the 1920s. From then on, restrictions and regulations only started to tighten with varying degrees throughout the years. It is disingenuous to say that anyone besides the eldest of elderly had benefitted from unrestricted immigration.

Stubborn practice of one's own culture, within the laws as set out by the home country, is completely legal and is no longer the concern of governments. Assimilation need not be the goal as long as the law is followed and legal coexistence can be achieved. Societal coexistence often requires a higher level of personal tolerance, which often spills into culturally or racially motivated crimes in both ways due to the lack of such tolerance.

Deporting one due to their culture necessarily means that one should need to construct laws outlawing certain cultures in the first place, so that they can violate these laws, and in turn be eligible for deportation. Barring them entry requires the same laws.

Quote from bbgc

But with the larger principle, I am also concerned about bureacratic overreach, where blunt official action will ignore specific circumstances and do horrible stuff.

That is the problem.

I fear that this is the current situation that we are in. The President, without any input from the wider populace or even government directly initiated, via executive order, these deportation programs. Although we gave him this power by electing him into office, this is a sweeping exercise of power, and steps over existing systems or uses them not as they were made to be used. It also papers over systemic issues in the immigration system in favor of a political tour-de-force, showing action where governments were historically glacial and misrepresenting it as effective governance. it is blatant pandering to a large portion of citizens who do not understand the complex legal landscape that was constructed out of political spite, reasonable governance, and political impotence, caused by governments -again- pandering for their votes. I am extremely critical of this recent deportation push simply because it treats the perceived symptoms of a broken immigration system, not even real symptoms or the cause itself.

An educated populace is the best safeguard for the classic pitfalls of government and no one seems to be willing to learn as an emotional principle, being addicted to the visions that quick fixes promise, and not even stopping to check their abysmal results.

(edit: this is because an educated populace will have learned histories and the work ethic needed to understand the current societal landscape, how it relates to them, what policies benefit them the most, without having thought leaders explain it to them, often with such heavy political coloring it could make a Monet look like a Pollock.)


I apologize; I let my frustration wander loose in my reply, and you, by far, are not the target of most of my ire.

Quote from bbgc

That is for the country to decide. And in case of the US, it is has decided via electoral democracy. If the decision is a mistake, they will find out soon enough to their own cost.

New word introduced "asylum" - typically used when fleeing persecution and not because "my country sucks, I am poor there, too much political instability, religion is harsh" - so I will come to your place. i.e. immigration.

Asylum is granted to rare cases of persecution, not for a millions every year.

A lot of times, the threat of persecution is CAUSED by political instability.

Most countries have political instability because people can't just help being selfish.

Quote from bbgc

Does not justify any nation doing nothing about illegal immigrants flooding their society.

Where's your evidence of illegal immigrants "flooding society"? A handful of those illegal immigrant do more for this country and its economy than its actual lawmakers and politicians.

Quote from bbgc

And you are blinded by individual virtue signaling that you ignore the impact of infiltrators.

Kindly, poin out this "impact" that's so widespread that we need to expel millions of people without even considering their position. I'll be waiting.

Quote from Kataphract

I apologize; I let my frustration wander loose in my reply, and you, by far, are not the target of most of my ire.

I don't want to be sucked into this topic, on AKP, which I visit to take a break from serious stuff. So did not read your response in full.

Just a point on culture.. there will never be 100% cultural assimilation, and should not be, for that is the true diversity (not of race, gender etc.) however some cultures are outright intransigent, don't fit at all with others on crucial matters of law and civic cooperation. Liberal democracies have not figured a healthy way to handle them, instead are turning a blind eye and accusing their citizens instead. That is also a cause for the recent backlash against the global left-liberals.

Anyway I will stop here.. I come to AKP for Kpop fights.. but got tempted into this topic.

Quote from crystalblues

I am not really virtue signaling, that implies I have a false savior complex and do not actually believe in the morals I preach.

I am a mixed person with family members who had to go through the screwed up system, and I also have experienced more abuse and crime at the hands of white straight men in this country than I have ever at the hands of another minority. So I have a much different viewpoint on the whole thing.

I responded to the accusation of blind hate with an accusation of virtue signaling.

I discount personal experiences in such topics, be it mine or others. I am not a Straight White Man, but has been treated well by them, that is as irrelevant as your individual experience.

Quote from CaraFIMIE

A lot of times, the threat of persecution is CAUSED by political instability.

Most countries have political instability because people can't just help being selfish.

Where's your evidence of illegal immigrants "flooding society"? A handful of those illegal immigrant do more for this country and its economy than its actual lawmakers and politicians.

Kindly, poin out this "impact" that's so widespread that we need to expel millions of people without even considering their position. I'll be waiting.

If you need to shown evidence and pointed out, then your ignorance is willful and nothing is going to remove it.

For example, statistics on number of immigrants are mere clicks away and you call it 'Handful' - your hands should be larger than the oceans then

Why should waste my time then.

Bye

I encourage ALL who post in this thread, no matter which side of the conflict that has erupted on this thread to chew through your political beliefs from a first principles basis.

I did not engage with some of the rest of the comments due to clear pitfalls that can be leveraged to mire this entire conversation into a overly angry and fancy argument on semantics. I applaud bbgc with their restraint and patience in response despite my verbose disagreement with a bulk of their views. Edit: this does not apply to all their posts in this thread.

Similarly I applaud CaraFIMIE and crystalblues For well thought out responses that do not engage personal emotion as a main vehicle for their messages. I congratulate you for responsible debate practices in casual debate. Edit: this applies to all their posts on this thread up to this post.

I refuse to elaborate on this post.

Quote from bbgc

If you need to shown evidence and pointed out, then your ignorance is willful and nothing is going to remove it.

For example, statistics on number of immigrants are mere clicks away and you call it 'Handful' - your hands should be larger than the oceans then

Why should waste my time then.

Bye

Display More

I need SPECIFIC evidence pointed out regarding the "impact of infiltrators" because you're really starting to seem like the bunch who assume that illegal immigrants are the sole contributors to the rise in crime rates.

Your attempt to twist my words is comical because that only proves my point, lmao.

You're right, I shouldn't call it "handful." A LOT of those illegal immigrants do more for this country than its appointed lawmakers. That's likely a FACT.

And I'm sorry but if you're trying to make a point then at least have the guts to provide YOUR OWN evidence that supports it. I need you to show me SPECIFIC evidence that implies your claim about illegal immigrants "flooding our society" because it seems that it was said with a negative connotation.

A LOT of those illegal immigrants come to the US to escape persecution caused by political instability in their home country. A LOT of those illegal immigrants come to the US because they are displaced.

According to the UNITED STATES COMMISSION on INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, as of May 2022, "The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that close to 27 million of those displaced are considered refugees. Two-thirds of these refugees are from five countries, which include three countries with systematic, ongoing, and egregious persecution of various religious communities: Afghanistan, Burma, and Syria. An additional 4.1 million of these 82 million individuals fled persecution and are seeking asylum."

"During 2022, the number of individuals displaced continues to soar, particularly with the increasing numbers

of individuals fleeing conflict in Ukraine."

Read more about it here

Keep in mind displacement can be due to various reasons, including conflict, violence, persecution, human rights abuses, and disasters, among others.

I'm not saying immigrants should be allowed to come and go as they please, I'm saying the process of immigration should be regulated with efficiency because expelling immigrants without even bothering to find out why they came to be in the US, to begin with, is counter-productive. It is a basic human right to seek asylum and expelling people without reason is inhumane.

If the problem was truly the "illegal" part then the US could most definitely take steps to make the immigration process much more efficient but NO. It is naive to believe that Trump's crusade does not come from a place of deep prejudice against anyone who isn't white.

Quote from crystalblues

TW: SA/ Child Marriage

I will again have to disagree on this. I have the unfortunate "privilege" of being able to give a view point from the perspective that conservatives see as the "only acceptable reason for an abortion". I was 16 and forcibly impregnated via SA by a classmate at the technical college I attended who was years older than me, prior to that the same classmate had broken my wrist on campus and the law and the school did nothing. They proceeded to even put me on an "action plan" and blame me for the incidents. Before any clothes comments may get mentioned by anyone, I was wearing a Korn T-Shirt and a pair of baggy and cozy tracksuit pants. My school then also tried to help him and his family forcibly marry me to him, even going as far as to try to tell my biological mother and my foster parents that it was "my best option in life "and that I should be happy someone from a wealthy family chose me. The next 6 months after that were filled with me trying to run and having to go to numerous states before having any semblance of stability, and even then I was homeless. I was finally able to get through to my biological mother in June of 2014 that because the state this happened in still had laws allowing men to admit their wives to mental hospitals, they were planning on doing that with me and only bringing me out long enough to "breed" me and then send me back. Which was about 5 months into my trying to get away, she then packed up my younger siblings and ran to Missouri. She was still physically abusive but it was better than being married off to a predator.

Even when I was told by a medical professional that my son was going to not live to see two years old and would be lucky if he made it that far. When I asked if I really had to have the baby, I was laughed at and told that since I was minor and he was an adult, they would want to reach out to him prior to assisting me. Which is VERY common in the US healthcare world here even before Roe V Wade was overturned. I was turned away every avenue to prevent me from going through further pain, and due to my son having a failing heart, if I had decided to try to put him up for adoption after he was born, I was told that I could not even consider it when I asked. Why ? Because dying kids are not considered as viable for adoption. I was literally failed at every turn. So no it is not as simple as that, abortions are not easily accessible for everyone and more often then not they are very hard for people to get even in cases of extreme duress.

Child marriages are still legal in over half the 50 states here, in Maryland and a few other states it can happen as young as 13 years old. There are no protections for the children in these scenarios, if someone can convince the parent to sign a permission slip for marriage the child is fucked.

I am glad you have the ability to not have to experience any of the things that others have like this or any of the issues that minority ethnicities do, it is a fantastic privilege, but you also need to have the empathy to see that the things you seem to think are what is happening here are not the case. It is actually much darker and much worse for the most part. People outside the US especially seem to think here is some sort of utopia and it is the furthest from it.

Display More

I'm really sorry that you had to go through that.