Politics 2020 - the gift that keeps giving

[Pidesco]

33 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

@Gromnir we would hope you would understand that the limited nature of dialogue would prevent us from explaining what should be obvious. We are not deranged and we do not hate,  but we are not politically correct. Indians now enjoy the benefit of being in a culture that lift ups the downtrodden whilst being unaware to the fact that they could have as easily been the losing side. Really, y'all whiteys should be easier on yourselves. An Indian ruled future might have not been so great, Red Cloud realized this as he threw hostilities away in favor of politics.

Gromnir, also chooses to ignore the clear war triumphs of the Plains Tribes against settlers throughout the majority of the Indian wars. The fact that Indians enslaved settlers, raped and pillaged them is undeniable. But current politics dictate that we should be forgetful of the past wrongs while acknowledging our faults, instead of coming together  over our shared history.

Also, why you bringing up the jews? I understand that you were/are a a lawyer and misrepresenting your opponents view is your bread and butter.  You do not know us and know not if we have grown beyond anonymous statements that we have made in the past. But I understand, you're competitive per your profession and slander its just a means to an end.
It is one of the reasons why I don't trust lawyers and why the rule of law is so messed up, people like you keep arguing to win instead of doing what would benefit the populace.
 

Are you disavowing your earlier statements regarding the holocaust?

[Hurlshort]

To add more fuel to the US Government fire:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/8800-migrant-children-have-been-expelled-under-pandemic-border-policy-per-court-documents/

We are definitely the bad guys here. They are children. It shouldn't matter where they come from, who the parents were, what their citizenship status is, etc. We should be taking care of them to the best of our ability. 

[redneckdevil]

Regarding the native Americans, I doubt a lot of the “pc” culture would be as warming and compassionate towards them if they remembered that MOST of the native Americans fought for the confederacy in the civil war.  Living near Cherokee, I saw a lot of old timers with rebel flags.  While every where else, the civil war was ALL about slaves, whereas down in the south it was always more of a “libertarian” movement in against big govt/business.   “The south is gonna rise again” was not a prophecy but a warning that no matter how big ya got, u **** with us, we will **** u right back.  The native Americans joined the cause because the big govt/business took away their lands so that the railroads go to help with the second industrial revolution of turning people into wage slaves for peanuts on the assembly line compared to agriculture work in the south.   So for minorities, the war was about slavery, to the white man the war was an economic war fighting the industrial revolution, and to the native Americans it was a war to fight against the genocidal govt and retake their land and powers.
also the native Americans also owned slaves as well so they weren’t “good” people as well compared to today’s standards.

So TLDR, the confederacy were “hero’s/comrades” to the native Americans for standing/fighting/dying along side them.   So the next time u see a confederate flag and most likely correct in thinking loser in life and history, then ur also calling the native Americans that as well

remember everything isn’t JUST or MAINLY about race, winners write the history.

 

[Amentep]

As I recall the Delaware, Pamunkee, Lumbee, Iroquois, Powhaten, Pequot, Ottawa, Seneca, Huron Oneida, Potawatomi and Ojibwa fought on the Union side. The Cherokee (western and Carolinian), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, and Catawba fought on the Confederate side. I think the Creek ended up fighting on both sides.  Wasn't it the Oklahoma Creek who sided with the Union? The Lakota, Arpaho, Cheyenne and others were still fighting the US out west when the civil war started if memory serves me, and not really considered to have taken a side.

At any rate, while you can argue the civil war was a libertarian movement against 'big government' (big business is, IMO not supportable, as the whole continuation of slavery was necessary for the economy as it was established, and therefore supported the southern wealthy), you'll never escape that what 'big government' was doing that the south objected to was freeing the slaves.  It will always come back to slavery and protecting the money interests of the wealthy southern families that had invested in the plantation system and that needed to feed the cotton gin in volume to be sustained.

[redneckdevil]

28 minutes ago, Amentep said:

As I recall the Delaware, Pamunkee, Lumbee, Iroquois, Powhaten, Pequot, Ottawa, Seneca, Huron Oneida, Potawatomi and Ojibwa fought on the Union side. The Cherokee (western and Carolinian), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, and Catawba fought on the Confederate side. I think the Creek ended up fighting on both sides.  Wasn't it the Oklahoma Creek who sided with the Union? The Lakota, Arpaho, Cheyenne and others were still fighting the US out west when the civil war started if memory serves me, and not really considered to have taken a side.

At any rate, while you can argue the civil war was a libertarian movement against 'big government' (big business is, IMO not supportable, as the whole continuation of slavery was necessary for the economy as it was established, and therefore supported the southern wealthy), you'll never escape that what 'big government' was doing that the south objected to was freeing the slaves.  It will always come back to slavery and protecting the money interests of the wealthy southern families that had invested in the plantation system and the invention of the cotton gin.

Outta 29000 native Americans that fought in the civil war, less than a thousand fought for the North because of the trail of tears and also because the North were racist against them and turned a lot away, hence also why certain tribes switched sides. 
The problem of hyping up the south slave is that the federal govt right before the civil war showed that only 3-5% of the whole country owned slaves.  You are right that it was the “1%” as we call today that owned them while most did not bc of affordability hence big families for the MOST of the plantation work.

 BUT the North did the same only with a new wrapper and new game, because the factories that were owned hired people for long hours and paid low low wages to barely survive.   The South did the treatment with minorities while the North was woke and instead placed all colors into a slave wage state.  Why I say it was economical is that people were more outraged and rightly scared of the difference in class levels between the working man and the rich than about slaves because most people didn’t own them. 

[redneckdevil]

Can anyone explain with the protesting of the police that Biden/Harris is the Democratic nominees?  Harris has the history of keeping the jails full for the slave labor and for trying to expand convictions to parents to fill up prisons for more slave labor?   Biden is straight up old school and not even a progressive type?  
 

how did the Democratic Party give us **** choices when we coulda had the MATH dude or the old socialist?  Still woulda been **** but those are more in the flavor that the public is going for.  
also didn’t they learn with Hillary that forcing who THEY want instead of what the PEOPLE want is what’s gonna get trump re-elected?

[Amentep]

1 hour ago, redneckdevil said:

Outta 29000 native Americans that fought in the civil war, less than a thousand fought for the North because of the trail of tears and also because the North were racist against them and turned a lot away, hence also why certain tribes switched sides. 
The problem of hyping up the south slave is that the federal govt right before the civil war showed that only 3-5% of the whole country owned slaves.  You are right that it was the “1%” as we call today that owned them while most did not bc of affordability hence big families for the MOST of the plantation work.

 BUT the North did the same only with a new wrapper and new game, because the factories that were owned hired people for long hours and paid low low wages to barely survive.   The South did the treatment with minorities while the North was woke and instead placed all colors into a slave wage state.  Why I say it was economical is that people were more outraged and rightly scared of the difference in class levels between the working man and the rich than about slaves because most people didn’t own them. 

IIRC it was about 3,000 that fought for the north (and lost about 10%), but were primarily the northern tribes that had been working well in the northern states.  So yes, the vast majority who picked a side, sided with the south.  Note the the reasons they did were complex and differed between groups.  The Choctow, for example, sided with the south because  their laws allowed slave ownership, and their agent who they liked was a southern sympathizer. Combine that with the US government having more or less ignored them and their issues for years and its easy to see why they'd side with the south.

The western Cherokee siding with the south was a bit weird - yes it was the US government who sent them west, but it was to open up the southern states for southern plantation owning whites, so I'd imagine if everyone else around them weren't supporting the south so that they would have to fight in their homes constantly, they may have chosen  differently.

The big difference in the industrial revolution 'wage slave' and the slaves of the south is that - as far as I know - the factory owner didn't have a legal right to kill you, to break up your family or to chase you down if you left and drag you back to work for them (albeit some of what they were allowed to do could kill you and/or break up your family; I don't recall them being able to drag you back to work except when prison labor got used).

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, redneckdevil said:

how did the Democratic Party give us **** choices when we coulda had the MATH dude or the old socialist?  Still woulda been **** but those are more in the flavor that the public is going for.  
also didn’t they learn with Hillary that forcing who THEY want instead of what the PEOPLE want is what’s gonna get trump re-elected?

As someone who flew to another state to knock on doors and talk to strangers about a candidate who is *not* Joe Biden, I have to admit that I don't understand these sentences.

While the party clearly puts its collective thumb on the scale for some candidates and snubs others, that is not the same thing as having a chosen mouthpiece conspiratorially installed. The candidates themselves often have long-running relationships with media types and other levers of influence that exist independently of the party.

To be clear, I'm not rushing to the defense of the DNC. Nor am I arguing that the system, as it exists now, is good and awesome.

What I am saying is that maybe the reason the reason they "didn't learn" is because they never did (or even had the capacity to do) the thing that some people think they did (or do). Maybe Clinton and Biden are what we get when people with decades of political/campaign experience run against people with a lot less.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Achilles
typos

[redneckdevil]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

IIRC it was about 3,000 that fought for the north (and lost about 10%), but were primarily the northern tribes that had been working well in the northern states.  So yes, the vast majority who picked a side, sided with the south.  Note the the reasons they did were complex and differed between groups.  The Choctow, for example, sided with the south because  their laws allowed slave ownership, and their agent who they liked was a southern sympathizer. Combine that with the US government having more or less ignored them and their issues for years and its easy to see why they'd side with the south.

The western Cherokee siding with the south was a bit weird - yes it was the US government who sent them west, but it was to open up the southern states for southern plantation owning whites, so I'd imagine if everyone else around them weren't supporting the south so that they would have to fight in their homes constantly, they may have chosen  differently.

The big difference in the industrial revolution 'wage slave' and the slaves of the south is that - as far as I know - the factory owner didn't have a legal right to kill you, to break up your family or to chase you down if you left and drag you back to work for them (albeit some of what they were allowed to do could kill you and/or break up your family; I don't recall them being able to drag you back to work except when prison labor got used).

You are correct it was complex reasons but a good chunk of why the natives mainly chose the south was part the main fed govt who forced the trail of tears and part that the souther states had treaties signed that gave the tribes more land, sovereignty of their own nation and so forth.  The south was in a position to give them back a good bit of what they had lost if they won. Look at what the north did to the tribes of those that helped them, it wasn’t to far from what they did to the ones that sided with the south.

i agree the south was able to dispicable things to slaves since they were viewed as property and not citizens, but then  again look at how the north treated the Chinese with the railroads.  It was the same perception as in able to kill/maim/separate from families and did the same with the natives as well.  

North and South treated anyone who wasn’t white as non citizens and less than human.  Both sides were dispicable and caused untold travesty BUT because the North won, history dumbed down for the public is that South was the bad guys because of slavery and the North was the good guys as anti slavery when the North was doing just as horrible ****.  That’s my main point with this conversation is that both sides were horrible.  Hell Lincoln didn’t even care to free the slaves, it was a political move that he would have gladly abandoned if it didn’t drum up the support he was wanting.  
 

I complain constantly about the spin in the news when our history we are taught in public schools is basically spin to motivate us to a certain view point just like our news does.  

[redneckdevil]

1 hour ago, Achilles said:

As someone who flew to another state to knock on doors and talk to strangers about a candidate who is *not* Joe Biden, I have to admit that I don't understand these sentences.

While the party clearly puts its collective thumb on the scale for some candidates and snubs others, that is not the same thing as having a chosen mouthpiece conspiratorially installed. The candidates themselves often have long-running relationships with media types and other levers of influence that exist independently of the party.

To be clear, I'm not rushing to the defense of the DNC. Nor am I arguing that the system, as it exists now, is good and awesome.

What I am saying is that maybe the reason the reason they "didn't learn" is because they never did (or even had the capacity to do) the thing that some people think they did (or do). Maybe Clinton and Biden are what we get when people with decades of political/campaign experience run against people with a lot less.

With last election, the DNC did prop up Hillary over Bernie and sabotaged and even forced him out.  They installed Hillary as the mouth piece.  The emails that were leaked showed that and why I think the dems lost a lot of support last election. 
Pure speculation but seeing how Bernie was running strong and then stepped down for “united front” to win against trump seems like yet again, the DNC propping up who they want.  Seems to fishy to me.  Like how no one from the Republican Party is running against Trump.
 

 

[Amentep]

1 hour ago, redneckdevil said:

You are correct it was complex reasons but a good chunk of why the natives mainly chose the south was part the main fed govt who forced the trail of tears and part that the souther states had treaties signed that gave the tribes more land, sovereignty of their own nation and so forth.  The south was in a position to give them back a good bit of what they had lost if they won. Look at what the north did to the tribes of those that helped them, it wasn’t to far from what they did to the ones that sided with the south.

i agree the south was able to dispicable things to slaves since they were viewed as property and not citizens, but then  again look at how the north treated the Chinese with the railroads.  It was the same perception as in able to kill/maim/separate from families and did the same with the natives as well.  

North and South treated anyone who wasn’t white as non citizens and less than human.  Both sides were dispicable and caused untold travesty BUT because the North won, history dumbed down for the public is that South was the bad guys because of slavery and the North was the good guys as anti slavery when the North was doing just as horrible ****.  That’s my main point with this conversation is that both sides were horrible.  Hell Lincoln didn’t even care to free the slaves, it was a political move that he would have gladly abandoned if it didn’t drum up the support he was wanting.  
 

I complain constantly about the spin in the news when our history we are taught in public schools is basically spin to motivate us to a certain view point just like our news does.  

I think often times people want to make things simple and in so doing give a false impression because rarely is anything simple.  Simplicity glosses over the years of racial tension around the country caused the ill treatment we have inflicted on ourselves based on race.  Sure there were lynchings and mob violence in the south, and it was more prevalent there.  Certainly the Jim Crow laws were unique (but exist, primarily, because the North kind of gave up on 'fixing' the south), but you can find examples of gerrymandering to disenfranchise or violence  in the north.  For a Rosewood in Florida, you get a Greenwood district in Tulsa. For a race riot in Atlanta (1909) you get one in Chicago (1919); for one in Watts (in 1965) you get one in Newark (1967).  Maybe history in public schools is better now but back in my day, a lot of this wasn't ever touched on (and no mention of the Asian immigration restrictions via quotas or what was really going on with native peoples for the most part, although perhaps some sort of ambivalence about Custer had begun to creep in). The Japanese internment camps were seen as bad, but were presented as I recall as a bit of an anomaly and not part of an interconnected picture about fears of Asians in the west.

That said, I seriously doubt the South would have honored any promises made to the native peoples anymore than the North/US generally did.  There was too much money being poured into the plantation system for them to give plantation lands back to native peoples, and too much money in mining in the mountains.  

Lincoln I think from what I've read mostly wanted to preserve the union.  I don't think he was a fan of slavery, IIRC, but he'd have kept it if he'd been able to keep the union together.  He didn't really have a lot of chance though, having spoken out against the spread of slavery he saw as inherent in the Kansas-Nebraska act while a Representative, South Carolina succeeded before he took office.

[Guest]

Quote

With last election, the DNC did prop up Hillary over Bernie and sabotaged and even forced him out.  They installed Hillary as the mouth piece.  The emails that were leaked showed that and why I think the dems lost a lot of support last election. 

This is the "thumb on the scale" I referenced in my previous post. The DNC supported the candidate who had a long history of involvement with the party, including fundraising for and the endorsement of down-ticket candidates. By contrast, the other candidate was only tacitly affiliated with the party and turned up his nose at the question of whether or not he would help to fundraise or offer endorsements for down-ticket candidates. You and I probably share the same strong opinion as to what role money (and by extension fundraising) plays in politics. However, it's very difficult for me to look at the DNC's behavior on that one and see evidence of wrong-doing. The tribe was favoring one of their own at the expense of someone who was going out of their way to promote their status an outsider (but still expected the tribe to fall in-line behind him). I honestly don't know what Bernie thought was going to happen on that one, which brings me to the next part...

Quote

Pure speculation but seeing how Bernie was running strong and then stepped down for “united front” to win against trump seems like yet again, the DNC propping up who they want.  Seems to fishy to me.  

Bernie eventually ran out of runway. It happens to every candidate who fails to secure a nomination. For some it happens right away, but for the 2nd place person, it happens later. Faced with two choices, he seems to have come to the conclusion that beating Donald Trump was more important to him than passing a purity test. Again, this is something that feels pretty standard in politics. No need for a conspiracy.

Quote

Like how no one from the Republican Party is running against Trump.

Bill Weld, Joe Walsh, and Mark Sanford all ran unsuccessful GOP presidential nomination campaigns that died months ago. I don't blame you for not knowing that; almost no one does (I had to look up their names, because I couldn't remember any of them)

It's not uncommon for an incumbent president to run unopposed. Especially if they are popular. Which is to say, there would be nothing fishy about it, even if it were true. The fact that three people thought they had a chance speaks to how they perceived Trump's low national approval rating.

Edited September 15, 2020 by Achilles
clarifying language

[Darkpriest]

8 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

To add more fuel to the US Government fire:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/8800-migrant-children-have-been-expelled-under-pandemic-border-policy-per-court-documents/

We are definitely the bad guys here. They are children. It shouldn't matter where they come from, who the parents were, what their citizenship status is, etc. We should be taking care of them to the best of our ability. 

I do not understand this notion: "they are children, they are women, etc." 

I understand the idea of helping and being a hospitable host for someone, who was forcefully relocated due to a war or natural disaster, but the focus is here on the temporality of the state. It should be a limited time. 

Same like I am happy to shelter someone whose home got burnt down, but I will want them to leave as soon as they can get on their own, unless they would bring me so much value, that I would lose something of value, if they left. 

 

Countries have limited 'resources'. You already have social issues and poverty issues. Why take more people to an economy and country, which has so much of other issues already? Why take in people, where vast majority will classify into simple menial task workers or criminals? (because they will not get sufficient education, and they will also not assimilate well to the host country culture) 

Why do such things, where more and more automation happens in economy? Do you want these people to live in squalor? Just so you can feel morally better in your own mind? 

If you care so much, sell everything you own and finance other people's futures. If you won't do that, then it seems their lives are not so invaluable to you. 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

I do not understand this notion: "they are children, they are women, etc." 

I understand the idea of helping and being a hospitable host for someone, who was forcefully relocated due to a war or natural disaster, but the focus is here on the temporality of the state. It should be a limited time. 

Same like I am happy to shelter someone whose home got burnt down, but I will want them to leave as soon as they can get on their own, unless they would bring me so much value, that I would lose something of value, if they left. 

Countries have limited 'resources'. You already have social issues and poverty issues. Why take more people to an economy and country, which has so much of other issues already? Why take in people, where vast majority will classify into simple menial task workers or criminals? (because they will not get sufficient education, and they will also not assimilate well to the host country culture) 

Why do such things, where more and more automation happens in economy? Do you want these people to live in squalor? Just so you can feel morally better in your own mind? 

If you care so much, sell everything you own and finance other people's futures. If you won't do that, then it seems their lives are not so invaluable to you. 

For the optimal reading experience, pretend this post was written 400 years ago by a native american

[Hurlshort]

8 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

*excuses*

Immigration is a net positive on the economy. Children of immigrants show tremendous upward mobility. Your entire premise is flawed. https://www.nap.edu/read/23550/chapter/13#424

Sure, it is the morally right thing to do to take care of these children. It is also the economically smart choice. You are buying into a politically driven narrative here. What exactly are our limited resources? They won't assimilate! They will become criminals! These are stupid conservative talking points that mean nothing. 

Also, automation? We can't take in these kids because robots are taking their potential jobs? What kind of logic is that? Why don't we just offer them decent educational opportunities? Here's the thing, that isn't a new idea. We've done it before and it has been successful, but for some reason we have to keep arguing it because politicians need their conservative talking points.

So yeah, immigration is good. I already spend my life in education trying to help people reach a better future. I'd gladly take on a couple immigrant children if I thought it would solve the problem, but that would just be a drop in the bucket. We need systematic changes and policies that treat immigration as the economic boon that it really is. 

[Malcador]

Surprised the US hasn't decided to draft the kids into the military, indoctrinate them like some Janissaries

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Immigration is a net positive on the economy. Children of immigrants show tremendous upward mobility.

I, a natural born citizen of the US, have two business degrees and 0 businesses. The woman who cuts my hair escaped the fall of Saigon as a child and owns 2 businesses.

It's a matter of fact that "immigrants" (and their children) are significantly more entrepreneurial than "natives"

[Amentep]

Iirc, the US would have a negative population growth if not for immigration. 

[Orogun01]

15 hours ago, Pidesco said:

Are you disavowing your earlier statements regarding the holocaust?

Not really, it led to research and that led to different conclusions depending on the camp. Some deaths have been wrongfully attributed to the Germans to cover for the British retaliatory air raids on German villages that were being used as POW camps. Those numbers also were added.
Like every facet of history it is more complex than the thought we give it, I still stand this is a heavily politicized period. Not everyone that doubts the official story is a denier, there obviously were concentration camps but there's also a lot of other events that clearly didn't happen as the post war reporting said it did.
I doubt that the allies would run the story about how they bombed the supply lines that kept the camps fed and starvation was due to a tactical choice to cut off German regiments. It also didn't help that the military objectives were the complete annihilation of the German Nazi Party and the conquest of Germany. Had there been terms of surrender, there would be less casualties in the war and in the camps.
Honestly I think people mistake my curiosity with a moral stance.

[Orogun01]

1 hour ago, Achilles said:

I, a natural born citizen of the US, have two business degrees and 0 businesses. The woman who cuts my hair escaped the fall of Saigon as a child and owns 2 businesses.

It's a matter of fact that "immigrants" (and their children) are significantly more entrepreneurial than "natives"

I think it has to do with higher education in this country and learned helplessness. It is hard to take risk when you're saddled with a massive bill that you can't get rid off. Immigrants that didn't go to college probably have more financial leeway as they can take more risks.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

20 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

...Well, how about you keep an open mind and see entertain an opposing view. Things aren't as clear cut as the common opinions make it out to be.  If you dismiss  a statement because of a source then you're the guy that denied that the sky was blue because a Nazi said so. Argue the points not the sources.

I've entertained the view and found it to be stupid. Between the attempts to excuse and deny genocide, the crying over whites being unfairly treated, and trying to redpill about the jews commies subverting this is stale **** I've seen a hundred times. You guys need to get new material instead of making inforgraphs and merchant edits.

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

I do not understand this notion: "they are children, they are women, etc." 

I understand the idea of helping and being a hospitable host for someone, who was forcefully relocated due to a war or natural disaster, but the focus is here on the temporality of the state. It should be a limited time. 

Same like I am happy to shelter someone whose home got burnt down, but I will want them to leave as soon as they can get on their own, unless they would bring me so much value, that I would lose something of value, if they left. 

 

Countries have limited 'resources'. You already have social issues and poverty issues. Why take more people to an economy and country, which has so much of other issues already? Why take in people, where vast majority will classify into simple menial task workers or criminals? (because they will not get sufficient education, and they will also not assimilate well to the host country culture) 

Why do such things, where more and more automation happens in economy? Do you want these people to live in squalor? Just so you can feel morally better in your own mind? 

If you care so much, sell everything you own and finance other people's futures. If you won't do that, then it seems their lives are not so invaluable to you. 

All countries have limited resources and this is an absolutely valid concern around unrestricted immigration or the expectation we see in many countries who are beset by illegal immigration and that includes places like US, EU, Australia and South Africa 

What I dont understand about Hurlshots article is how parents can send there kids to any country unaccompanied, who do they expect is going to take care of them when they arrive without proper papers at any border?

In South Africa our laws and court rulings have taken the concept of " accepting illegal immigrants " to the point where its egregious and has become a real strain on our weak economy and limited resources where we cant deliver services to citizens and people who immigrate legally

For example, in SA this applies

• You cannot deny public healthcare to any illegal immigrant
• You cannot deny public schooling to any children of illegal immigrants 
• If you have illegal immigrants living illegally in any property you may own you need to somehow provide them with alternative accommodation if you want to evict them....think about that one? How is it  logical and reasonable to be expected to provide accommodation for people who arrive illegally within your country?

Our current laws actually encourage illegal immigration 

Now there are vast differences between SA and the USA when it comes to resources and general wealth but the risk remains the same and the idea or view that any country " must accept illegal " immigrants is a slippery slope and can lead to real social or economic challengers that citizens and legal immigrants now have to contend with and its not acceptable

 

 

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Achilles said:

I, a natural born citizen of the US, have two business degrees and 0 businesses. The woman who cuts my hair escaped the fall of Saigon as a child and owns 2 businesses.

It's a matter of fact that "immigrants" (and their children) are significantly more entrepreneurial than "natives"

Legal immigration makes sense as most countries require certain skills that immigrants can hep address , no one should object to that  but arriving at any border or immigrating without papers is not sustainable and cannot be just accepted 

[Skarpen]

6 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

I'd gladly take on a couple immigrant children if I thought it would solve the problem, but that would just be a drop in the bucket.

I would help, but it wouldn't change anything. Said a guy living in a fancy Californian neighbourhood with hundreds of thousands $ earnings. Let the average Joe handle the burden of my benevolence. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Legal immigration makes sense as most countries require certain skills that immigrants can hep address , no one should object to that  but arriving at any border or immigrating without papers is not sustainable and cannot be just accepted 

1. I can see how this might be a valid argument somewhere other than the United States. We are a nation of immigrants and the country founded on principles that we claimed were universal.
2. Our legal process is a joke that makes it well-nigh impossible for the vast majority of people who want to come here, leaving desperate people to make desperate choices.
3. We don't even consistently honor the parts of the legal process that aren't a joke (i.e. should be straightforward)

I agree that legal immigration is ideal, for lots of reasons. We should do a lot more to make it easy.