webdiplomacy.net

the quoting feature on the site bugs me, but I'll adapt later

leon1122 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:54 pm

Most DACA recipients are from Mexico. Last time I checked, Mexico isn’t a war zone. Being pro-diversity does not benefit the lives of illegal immigrants in any way, and letting people work for next to nothing in horrid, dangerous conditions does not respect human dignity.

This is exactly why you give them a path to citizenship you brain-dead dipshit.

The reality is that we need a seasonal visa system.

No, this is why you send them back and end the free trade deals that caused this situation in the first place.

Lol. Free trade deals caused children to be brought here. Mmmmkay. I guess that makes sense in conservative world.

In reality, without free trade deals, a lot of jobs in Mexico would go *poof!* which would mean that the people doing those jobs would have to emigrate to the US in order to do them.

If you want to end illegal immigration, the US would need to give a lot of assistance to help the Mexican economy grow very quickly, including free trade deals. Gotta love folks who hold diametrically opposed policy ideas!

Ogion wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:12 am

If you want to end illegal immigration, the US would need to give a lot of assistance to help the Mexican economy grow very quickly, including free trade deals. Gotta love folks who hold diametrically opposed policy ideas!

Or you could build a wall on the border and enforce existing illegal immigration statutes.

Ogion wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:12 am

Lol. Free trade deals caused children to be brought here. Mmmmkay. I guess that makes sense in conservative world.

This is actually a pretty left-wing idea that I learned about at my left-wing university from a leftist professor, so I'm surprises you disagree with it.

Mexico used to have a highly protectionist economy that subsidized agriculture, allowing farmers to stay employed on their own farms in Mexico. When NAFTA came around, the Mexican government ended those subsidies in favor of cheap food from the US. Mexican farmers could no longer make a living and in turn moved (illegally and with their children) to the US. These are pretty basic facts, not some sort of conservative otherworldly stuff.

ND continues to fear this thread.

Sad!

Trump continues to golf.

Jeff Kuta wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:49 am

Trump continues to golf.

I never understood this criticism. If a person who believes (rightly or wrongly) that they are a target of surveillance by those who wish them harm, then there are many worse places to conduct important conversations than in a giant open field that they (or their family) designed, owns, and maintains. It is certainly more secure than a meeting room that was controlled by a political enemy for eight years (or perhaps as long as twenty-four years, if you consider the Bush family his political enemies), and which could easily be bugged. Given the high amount of internal information which had been illegally leaked to the press, "golf trips" with important officials and businessmen actually seems like a very intelligent idea. The real question should be the nature of the discussions held there, not on the frequencies of the trips themselves.

Trump is a liar and hypocrite. That’s the golf criticism.

Jeff Kuta wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:58 pm

Trump is a liar and hypocrite. That’s the golf criticism.

I don't follow...

He's a hypocrite because he repeatedly attacked Obama for taking too many holidays and yet he spends half his time golfing.

As much as I accept the hypocrisy comment, as anti Trump arguments go it seems pretty weak.

Sometimes I think it must be a variation of the dead cat strategy. There are so many avenues to attack Trump that he deliberately invents additional targets that are far less damaging yet his enemies find irresistible. Regular trips to the golf course and an increasingly ridiculous haircut would fit the bill perfectly

I guess the thing that makes the argument so conservative is how unhinged from the facts it is. Yes subsistence ah has been in decline, but the agricultural sector has had a big boost in exports to the US from when the US dropped its protectionist policies. Also there has been a big jump on FDi, which means people leaving rural areas head first to cities for jobs and only head north of those aren’t available

A wall might work if we want to become east Germany. Otherwise, it won’t do a damn thing except be expensive and destructive.

If you really want to address illegal immigration start throwing the owners of companies that hire undocumented people in prison for long jail terms. Throw the CEO and board of Tyson Foods in jail for ten years and you’d change the economy overnight.

leon1122 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:23 pm

Quite frankly, the arguments for keeping illegal immigrants are the exact same ones Democrats made for keeping slavery in place back in the day. Slaves were also a supposedly indisposable “massive labor force”, but we got by just fine without them. We should not be tolerating the massive violation of human rights and human dignity that is illegal immigrant labor, especially farm labor, just because it might increase the GDP. It’s an abomination.

Surprised that I agree *almost* totally with a Leon's paragraph.

What's the difference? To the slaves you offered them an alternative: "be paid for your work". To the immigrants the only thing you offer is: "go back to the place where you'll be paid ten times less, more violence and worse life quality in general". So I'm afraid they just won't. And if you think the solution is persecution and wall, only thing you'll manage to do is to worsen their human dignity.

Hey Leon! Are you south or north of the wall by the way?

We need to start building walls along our borders.

SEA WALLS.

Jeff Kuta wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:38 pm

We need to start building walls along our borders.

SEA WALLS.

?

Every time I dip into this thread I end up confused :p

Climate change is a thing. Coasts are in trouble.