I’ve been trying to get Dan to explain the concepts he’s trying to communicate with the terms he’s using. I genuinely want to understand what he’s advocating and the way he sees things working out in real life.
For example he’s advocated “stopping” people who advocate violence from entering the country, but won’t explain how he would identify those people or how he’d “stop” them.
Additionally, he’s using terms like “free movement” and others which (I suspect) describe something specific to him, but isn’t willing to expand on the meanings or limits to what he’s advocating.
It’s now devolved into Dan, refusing to answer questions, and deleting comments.
I guess nothing is sacred when it comes to protecting the narrative that US immigration policy is evil and must be abolished. It’s certainly clear, that he’s willing to exploit the tragic accidental death of a young man in Mexico to advance his narrative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Since he's basically deleting every comment I post because he's unable to overcome how it destroys his tap-dancing defense of inanity, I would like to comment on a point here...if you don't mind.
Dan just cited a report referring to how a Jeff "Sessions’ ruling overturned a 2016 decision by the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals that said an abused woman from El Salvador was eligible for asylum." I will be using info from a Denver Post article (which is taken from the Washington Post).
Dan wets himself over this report as evidence of the cruelty and evil of the immoral, God-hating Trump administration (end sacrcasm). But as always, he either isn't reading the articles he posts or from which he draws his info, or is too stupid to fully understand what they are actually saying. Here, what Dan chooses to omit, if he read it at all, is that Sessions "said it will help reduce the growing backlog of 700,000 court cases, more than triple the number in 2009."
And important point for which Dan shows no interest or care is the following:
"The Trump administration has accused migrants of exploiting the asylum system to gain entry to the United States, aware that the immigration courts are so backlogged that their cases could take years to complete."
Certainly Dan would insist that Trump has no evidence that such things happen, because to Dan, no one seeking entry into these United States of America ever lie because they are all as angels from heaven. But the reality is that many have indeed taken advantage of our systems, policies and laws and by the time we catch up on the backlogs, the cheats have established lives that then allow the chuckle-headed like Dan to whine that we're terrorizing contributing members of society. The hypocritical irony here is that considering how Dan runs his blog ("my blog, my rules"), he has no problem with foreigners ignoring the laws of the land...because of course if an alien claims oppression, surely the alien was oppressed...it's hateful to doubt him and evil to seek confirmation.
But Sessions is so vile and evil, that he added this:
"The attorney general’s ruling said it is still possible that crime victims could win asylum in the United States, but they would have to pass a tougher test in the courts, including showing that their home government is unable or unwilling to protect them, and that they cannot safely relocate to another part of their own country."
and this:
"Hours before he issued Monday’s decision, Sessions told immigration judges that it will be their “duty to carry out this ruling.” He has also ordered them to complete 700 cases a year, imposing a quota system for the first time."
Did you get that last part, Dan, you hater? Sessions is expecting that the courts get through the backlog of cases at a rate that can be monitored and adjusted, ensuring those who need asylum get it, and those who are playing us, won't. Nothing whatsoever evil and cruel about the ruling, despite how badly Dan needs something more for which he can express his hatred and grace-free character.
But Art, it’s clearly evil to take the ability of someone to be safe and protected by their home country into account when deciding these things.
If Dan does really read the entirety of the articles he posts, he must have such a high degree of tunnel vision or bias that he only sees what he thinks helps make his point. Then he ignores the rest.
A few positive suggestions.
1. As we work to control our border, add additional controlled crossing points that will allow those crossing on foot to avail themselves of entry points without having to add significant distance to their journey.
2. Engage in public/private/ONG partnerships that will provide safe havens in countries where a high degree of danger exists.
3. Implement a targeted effort to improve living conditions in countries with high numbers of people who want to immigrate.
4. Implement a more accurate/faster screening system.
5. Eliminate quotas based on country of origin.
6. Work with other countries to facilitate spreading out immigration.
7. Base immigration policy on evaluation of individual situations, rather than broad group based policy.
8. Establish a four pronged system to effectively deal with different types of immigrants. 1. Highly skilled immigrants, 2. Refugees, 3. Lower skilled immigrants, 4. Criminals/terrorists.
9. Stop any policies that protect or give sanctuary to those immigrants who have committed crimes in this country.
10. Establish an immigration status that will allow a level of legal integration into society, but that defers the possibility of citizenship out for an extended period of time.
11. Anyone who lies about their status, age, or any material fact that would give them an advantage to immigrate, will be permanently blocked from access to the US.
I could be wrong, but I’m thinking this represents at least 10 more positive suggestions than Dan has come up with.
Maybe nine if you count his vague and undetailed claim to want to “stop” people he deems undesirable.
Wanted to keep this here for posterity, just in case it gets deleted.
I know you’ve said you’re not interested in many things, but proof of this statement seems like a reasonable request.
“Blaming a group for the actions of a few is morally monstrous and rationally inept.“
I’m unaware of any comments in this thread that have done this, please correct me.
It seems as though acknowledging and screening for criminals, terrorists and others who are attempting to gain entry for less than positive purpose of this, is simply reasonable and prudent. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any way to screen out the bad guys,, without screening everyone.
I was hoping you’d share some details about how you would do it, unfortunately that seems to be unlikely.
Well, this last comment pretty much sums up Dan's position. He just wants what he wants, without suggesting or imagining how it might actually be implemented (not to mention what to implement) or whether or not it actually can be. He's just so cock-sure that what we have now is evil simply because so many who are here without having gone through the proper steps might be sent back...as if we're to ignore their unauthorized means of entry altogether. If Dan can't see the incredible problems and dangers with this mindset, then clearly the delusion and irrationality is all his. To him, all one need do is to claim hardship and there is then no legitimate justification for scrutiny. Just let 'em in! It's as if Dan himself is the only American that will bear the burden.
Yet none of Dan's vague representations are factual. They are anecdotal based on the words of a few aliens with whom he's had some vague connection...as if they are representations of all illegals.
What's more, I think he's far more concerned with demonizing the right-wing and posturing his leftism as the moral seat of goodness and kindness...damn the consequences.
You’ll note that Dan was clear that we should “stop” certain people from entering the country, but entirely silent about how he’d accomplish that feat.
Is it possible that he realizes that the only way to accomplish that is to screen people? Is it also possible that he realizes that the only to screen people is to control where they enter the country? Is it possible that he realizes that the screening process may require that some people might be inconvenienced, possibly even temporarily detained while the screening is taking place?
Ultimately I think he realizes that the only way to “stop” people you want to “stop”, looks much like what he rails against and doesn’t want to say so publicly.
Whoops
Exactly. It's emblematic of his position and his M.O. in "defending" it...or arguing against what he thinks he's opposing. I say "what he THINKS he's opposing" because it's quite clear he has no idea of what the policies are, why they were put in place and how they're pretty much doing what he thinks isn't being done.
Post a Comment