The Big Lawsuit

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

By the time you get that totalitarian, the only difference between Communist and Fascist is the particular lies included in the 'official state mythology.'

People laughed at the joke that the East Germans were 'Nazis without the charm" because there was some definite aptness to it.

I drove through East Germany on the Helmstedt - Berlin Autobahn and spent some time in East Berlin. The closest thing that remains on the planet today is North Korea.

[VanishingPoi]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Well...maybe this...maybe that...maybe Who TF knows?



Selective enforcement! Selective enforcement!
Benghazi! Benghazi!
IRS! IRS!
NSA! NSA!
Kenya! Kenya!
Bill Ayers! Bill Ayers!
Rev. Wright! Rev. Wright!

PPPPPPPFFFFFFFfffffftttttt........

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Simply mumbling the constant refrain of "seal the border" is all the worthless, know-nothing GOP has. They sure don't have a clue. BTW, despite these fortifications, some East Germans still escaped. Also, our border with Mexico is over 8 times as long as the Inner-German border was.

Originally Posted by VanishingPoi

Law enforcement on a 2,000 mile border through all kinds of terrain? Who gonna pay for it with what taxes (whose taxes)?

OK, fine. However, I'm not hearing any solutions from the know-nothing, asinine Democrats. What IS the Dem solution to controlling the border? If I'm reading your two posts correctly, it sounds like you guys are defeated on this issue already. Its too big of a problem for the Dems, so we just let 'em in, build make-shift barrios and mini - Manzanars to house these folks, and just allow this "humanitarian crisis" to continue to multiply?

All I'm hearing / reading on this issue in this forum is criticism of the GOP and criticism of other forum member's posts. I'm not hearing any concrete solutions suggested from forum members or their favorite political party. So let's hear it: how would you address this? And yes, VP, part of Obama's emergency appropriation request includes funding, ostensibly, for additional border security.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

OK, fine. However, I'm not hearing any solutions from the know-nothing, asinine Democrats.

Know-nothings? Even when we have just demonstrated that we know a bunch more about fortified borders than you do?

The short answer is you don't WANT to 'seal the border' against refugee children. You take them in, you take care of them, you repatriate them as appropriate (after due process) in an orderly way.

And you consider what made this, at the source, and what can be done, but that's going to involve fixing other countries, which first isn't easy, and second is sort of unpopular, esp. with conservatives....

Think about it this way. What if there some kid at the top of a 20' fence, climbing over, just straddling the top. There is a squad of armed border patrol agents present. What do you want them to do?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

OK, fine. However, I'm not hearing any solutions from the know-nothing, asinine Democrats. What IS the Dem solution to controlling the border? If I'm reading your two posts correctly, it sounds like you guys are defeated on this issue already. Its too big of a problem for the Dems, so we just let 'em in, build make-shift barrios and mini - Manzanars to house these folks, and just allow this "humanitarian crisis" to continue to multiply?

All I'm hearing / reading on this issue in this forum is criticism of the GOP and criticism of other forum member's posts. I'm not hearing any concrete solutions suggested from forum members or their favorite political party. So let's hear it: how would you address this? And yes, VP, part of Obama's emergency appropriation request includes funding, ostensibly, for additional border security.

Remove the border.

There, now you have one.

Or, perhaps the Republicans will shut up about it, if we agree to lift child labor laws and the minimum wage and let them put the kiddies to work in sweatshops? Just think of all the money your favorite CorpoFascist uber-Capitalists can save, Mike. Maybe we'll finally have our first multi-trillionaire? Wouldn't that be precious?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Tell me,

How do you find away out of this that isn't contrary to what we've been preaching to the rest of the world?

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

OK, fine. However, I'm not hearing any solutions from the know-nothing, asinine Democrats. What IS the Dem solution to controlling the border? If I'm reading your two posts correctly, it sounds like you guys are defeated on this issue already. Its too big of a problem for the Dems, so we just let 'em in, build make-shift barrios and mini - Manzanars to house these folks, and just allow this "humanitarian crisis" to continue to multiply?....

Again, controlling the border isn't the issue. It's a red herring for simple-minded xenophobes (no wonder the 'Baggers have bought into it). First, it's impossible. Secondly, whatever we do at the border, short of building the equivalent of the Inner-German border fortifications, will not impede starving, desperate people from coming here. It's what they get when they get here that's the issue, not the speed bump at the border. Furthermore, even with an Inner-German-border-like fence, we still have an obligation to accept refugees at our shores. We need to get rid of the economic incentives that bring them here. Employers still want cheap, compliant labor and until it becomes cost-prohibitive (in terms of fines or imprisonment), employers will continue to hire undocumented workers.

With regard to those seeking asylum due to persecution in their homeland, we can't revoke this right to asylum if we wish to adhere to our obligations under the relevant UN Convention and be considered a civilized nation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." Moreover, the UN Convention on the Rights of Refugees states that no member nation "shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion."

We have an obligation to adjudicate why it is that folks show up on our shores or at our border. If it's strictly economic, we can send them back. If the reasons are as described under the UN Convention, we cannot (and should not). If the economic incentives didn't exist, many of those now showing up at the border wouldn't have started the trip to begin with.

Solution - We need a system that effectively prevents employers from hiring undocumented workers (good luck getting lawmakers to actually do this with the pressures from the food, construction, landscaping and hospitality industries). For those that still show up at our borders or on our shores, we need to be able to quickly and effectively adjudicate if they are indeed refugees under the UN definition. The trouble is that too many Americans buy into the silly notion put forth by conservative politicians (and the right-wing echo chamber) that all we need to do is "seal the border." All they're doing is providing cover to employers who are creating the demand (and the incentive) for people to cross our borders.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Know-nothings? Even when we have just demonstrated that we know a bunch more about fortified borders than you do?

The short answer is you don't WANT to 'seal the border' against refugee children. You take them in, you take care of them, you repatriate them as appropriate (after due process) in an orderly way.

And you consider what made this, at the source, and what can be done, but that's going to involve fixing other countries, which first isn't easy, and second is sort of unpopular, esp. with conservatives....

Think about it this way. What if there some kid at the top of a 20' fence, climbing over, just straddling the top. There is a squad of armed border patrol agents present. What do you want them to do?

Questions:

This is the 3rd or 4th time I'll say this: it's not just about the kids. I've already stated in an earlier post that I'm in favor of the bolded statement above. The challenge is separating the wheat from the chaff. Illegal immigration, not just of refugee children, is on the rise overall according to the folks at Pew. So, yes, the challenge remains controlling the border so that illegal immigration is reduced. Agree or disagree?

One way to reduce it is also policy. I can't agree with a policy that tells folks who make it into the country, and who can successfully hide out for five years, clear a policy hurdle and can remain. It creates a magnet for illegal immigration. Agree or disagree?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Questions:

This is the 3rd or 4th time I'll say this: it's not just about the kids. I've already stated in an earlier post that I'm in favor of the bolded statement above. The challenge is separating the wheat from the chaff. Illegal immigration, not just of refugee children, is on the rise overall according to the folks at Pew. So, yes, the challenge remains controlling the border so that illegal immigration is reduced. Agree or disagree?

Again, the "controlling the border" is a red herring you've bought into. It's about removing the incentives of those seeking to come here for economic reasons. OTOH, we cannot (and should not) stop refugees showing up to avoid persecution.

Think about it. Our border with Canada is 5,500 mile long, well over twice as long as our border with Mexico. Why aren't folks pouring over that (largely unprotected) border? Because they're no economic incentive for Canadians to come here, nor ongoing persecution in Canada.

I suppose you think we should tell the Turks and Jordanians to stop accepting refugees from Syria and to return them to Syria to face barrel bombs, eh?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Again, the "controlling the border" is a red herring you've bought into. It's about removing the incentives of those seeking to come here for economic reasons. OTOH, we cannot (and should not) stop refugees showing up to avoid persecution.

Think about it. Our border with Canada is 5,500 mile long, well over twice as long as our border with Mexico. Why aren't folks pouring over that (largely unprotected) border? Because they're no economic incentive for Canadians to come here, nor ongoing persecution in Canada.

And there are places along that border where I can bring in the whole Barnum and Bailey Circus and not see a single guard.

Actually considering things here it may be the Canadians seeing an inflow of Americans.