And I agree with that basic idea that government shouldn't be the arbiter of Truth (deliberate capitalization), in that it leads down BAD roads fast, but at the same time, that's why libel/slander laws exist, and those are generally seen as OK, though then you get into things like S.L.A.P.P lawsuits which are horrific abuses of such.
Except libel/slander are about objectively proving that a statement is ether true or not. It doesn't do so on it's own, but after a lengthy proceeding in which both sides provide their evidence to their views. I believe a judge has final say, but to fly in the face of logic at that point would simply give grounds for an appeal. This is different than the proposed law, which would have let the government make summery judgements on it's own.
The solution was for the 30,000 members of the Iraqi guard to defend their new way of life against the 800-1000 Jihadists that are trying to take it away. We gave them weapons and training... yet at the first sign of trouble, ALL OF THEM dropped their weapons and burned their uniforms. Why the hell should we fight for them if they aren't even going to TRY?
Nuke the entire area from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
The policy hasn't created the tide, the gangs and violence in their home countries have. An L.A. Times reporter documented this in 2002 (later turned into a best-selling book) and won a pulitzer prize for her reporting.
It went from 6000 a year in 2011 to 10,000 a year to 60,000 this year. That's a great deal after 2002. Border patrols are desperately squawking that they're completely inundated by IA children now and don't have the manpower to actually patrol.
My point was that you've prematurely pinpointed a cause. Perhaps we are contributing to gang violence by deporting those with a criminal record to central american countries (page 7.) Even if we are not a major contributing factor, homicide rates have risen in select central american countries since 2002 (page 50).
Or the Coyotes are doing a DDoS attack on the Border Patrol.
Then why are they going all the way to the US border instead of stopping in mexico?
Could be something to that, too, I suppose. I remember the cuban "peasant bombs" of the 90s, coming across on rafts to florida. Maybe it's not the Coyotes, maybe it's someone else who wants the border patrol overwhelmed and ineffective while they do their thing in, say, Arizona.
Some probably are. There were refugees coming to the U.S. before rules were relaxed, albeit fewer (when violence was less prevalent). Why didn't they stop in Mexico? The U.S. has long had a reputation as a place for economic success, as well as safety and freedom.
I can as well. I can also imagine how the actions of America's government could lead to a 10-fold increase of this event.
While we're at it, I'd also like to wistfully pine for a branch that actually enforces said legislation. We could call it an executive branch.
I agree, I have a feeling that a lot of what we see happening, whether terrorism or the influx of people trying to get across the border is due to many of the actions we have been a part of in other countries both militarily and economically. At least I wouldn't be surprised to find that out.
Well, we all have to want something.
It's 2000 km from the Guatemala border with mexico to the Mexico/Texas border. That's a hell of a long way to go if their primary impetus is merely to escape violence in their home country.
When you are desperate enough it's not really. I often think far to many Americans don't really realize that many of these folks aren't just moochers trying to steal from us or form gangs. These are, all to often, people in truly desperate situations. When you are willing to risk your life for a chance at freedom and security it's not usually just so you can get a sweet job washing dishes at TGI Fridays.[DOUBLEPOST=1403038270,1403038169][/DOUBLEPOST]In the end it really says something about America, something very good. I mean, once upon a time this phrase, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" really meant something to the world.
That was true in 2002 as well. The distance hasn't changed.
And yet they send 30 billion dollars back "home" every year. I'll be a lot more sympathetic once we have both physical and economic walls built to ensure security and prevent economic leakage, and actually start deporting criminals again (which includes those who cross illegally). But I do agree we need to make the legal immigration process more streamlined for those without criminal records.
It seems it went out of style along with personal responsibility, limited government and free market capitalism. Those words were written before there was even such a thing as federal entitlements.[DOUBLEPOST=1403038803,1403038743][/DOUBLEPOST]
But the number of people doing it has. By ten fold in the last 4 years.
Right, which is what the discussion is about. You can't say it is too far to come, because it has always been that far, and people have always made the trip. What you are positing is that it is mainly a policy enforcement change to blame, but I am calling you out on the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. Other things have changed as well, and I suspect you're going to see enough turmoil in the next year or two that those central american countries in question, like Guatemala, are going to destabilize enough that collapse is coming. We are seeing the effects of a sinking ship here, not of a powerful magnet.
Tell me more.
No, I mean tell me more about the imminent collapse of central america. This is genuinely news to me.
Well yes but they are sending money back to their families so they don't starve and die, which is a terribly Un-american thing to do.
And clogging our health care, paying no taxes, flooding the labor market with cheap illegal labor... But yeah, let's go with the appeal to emotion.
I'm grading papers so I don't have much time to find links. Wikipedia (I know, I know) paints a bleak picture for Guatemala: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Guatemala and el Salvador has a pretty poor portrait of perceptions of corruption in their government at Transparency International. The S&P did give them a stable credit rating last year, though (no link) of B- and BB-, which aren't great, but as I said, stable.[DOUBLEPOST=1403043003,1403042946][/DOUBLEPOST]
Well, "they're taking your stuff!" is kind of a similar appeal.
We're broke, so we don't have the means to be the world's rich charity uncle any more... but you know, I'd be willing to put that on the back burner for a decade or two if we can start off by addressing the horrifying security concerns of the border, and the deportation of illegals who actually commit criminal acts once here.
Well, when you get a free minute I'd appreciate a synopsis in your own words, not even really needing links.
Oh man, if you want to go down the road of what we should or shouldn't be spending money on, boy I bet we can find a few thing in the federal government that could allow for better border security and taking care of people. But that would require both being willing to cut shit that makes other people rich and cut other shit that keeps people in power so I guess we both get to continue dreaming.
Well, tell you what, you tell me if you figure out how to get budgets cut, and I'll tell you if I do. Because I'm right there with you on that needing to happen.
Where I start to get burned out on "taking care of people," even beyond usual Libertarian standards, is when it's people in foreign countries who take that support for granted. Every time we talk about immigration reform or border security, Mexico, for example, screams bloody murder like we just announced our intentions to do nuclear testing in Jalisco - despite the fact that they themselves have incredibly draconian immigration/border security. Every natural disaster that happens anywhere in the world, a tear-streaked peasant will invariably find a TV camera into which to wail "Where is America? Help us!" It's practically a given that any humanitarian crisis in the world will see us send an aircraft carrier to assist... and then of course when we have a security concern with something happening abroad we're told to stop our meddling.
