Tuesday, January 8, 2019
7 comments:
-
Marshal Art said...
-
By Dan's own admission here, those who lawfully sought asylum were taken care of. Don't see the issue, or how this admission mitigates anything put forth about whole border wall issue.
What's more, regardless of how many made it passed the first phase of the process, that's no guarantee that they'll be granted asylum. For those who have a true and legitimate reason, I hope they do. But if denied, it doesn't mean that legitimate claims were no matter how Dan insists that all claims must be believed. It simply doesn't work that way, nor is there any intelligent reason he can give that it should be so. -
January 8, 2019 at 3:03 PM
-
Marshal Art said...
-
feo's comments demonstrate his willful disregard for reality. The numbers, even those used by Chris Wallace, ignore one important fact: they only represent what we know, not what we don't. That is, people who sneak in aren't always caught...they don't register anywhere so that we can have an accurate count...and even if the numbers are sound, they don't mitigate the need for a physical barrier that confounds those that would choose to enter anywhere that is NOT a legitimate port of entry. Those who patrol the border insist we need that physical barrier. THEY are the only experts who matter on that point, because THEY are the ones tasked with preventing illegals from crossing anywhere they want to. THEY are the ones getting shot at by drug runners and human traffickers. THEY are the ones who know.
-
January 8, 2019 at 3:08 PM
-
Craig said...
-
I made the very point of your first comment at Dan’s.
Ultimately the value of a physical barrier is not in excluding, but in regulating. I fully support a barrier along the border, with ample crossing points to allow for efficient processing of those who want to enter.
But, apparently that’s evil. -
January 8, 2019 at 3:39 PM
-
Craig said...
-
"Illegal Immigration is wrong, plain and simple. Until the American people are convinced we will stop future flows of illegal immigration, we will make no progress."
"We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented and unchecked."
“I voted numerous times… to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think you have to control your borders." -
January 8, 2019 at 5:46 PM
-
Marshal Art said...
-
Those concerned about gov't workers not getting their paychecks (they'll get all they're owed when the shutdown ends---that doesn't happen in the private sector, so forgive me if I'm only so concerned), should simply contact Pelosi and Schumer and tell them to stop holding American hostage. They can approve funding for the wall that Trump and Border Patrol insists is necessary and effective for the purpose intended...a position they all supported until Trump came on the political scene.
-
January 9, 2019 at 6:35 PM
-
Marshal Art said...
-
The false priest just responded to this by suggesting I don't care about at all about the public sector employees. But if he actually cared, he'd contact the Dems that are holding up their pay and tell them to get on board with the president who is trying to fulfill a campaign promise...a proposal they fully supported until Trump agreed to see it come to fruition.
And by the way, given that public sector employees are typically paid better for comparable jobs in the private sector, why don't they have an emergency fund ready to handle shutdowns, given they are not uncommon regardless of who sits in the big chair? There's been a couple dozen shut downs over the last forty/fifty years. Do they really believe they won't happen again? They all get back pay anyway, which could go back into their emergency fund. I guess feo just likes to attack those who expose his intellectual deficiencies so easily! -
January 10, 2019 at 12:03 PM
-
Marshal Art said...
-
And on it goes as Dan continues to make fascistic demands of those whose arguments he cannot counter. After responding to his demand that I speak with immigrants so as to demonstrate to him that I'm not in his words, "speaking from a place of ignorance", my life history with my many relationships with immigrants and refugees is not enough. Now, it must be more specific. It must be "starving Mexicans and Guatamalans", and no Romanian training for months to make a dangerous and lengthy swim to freedom is good enough. No Jew who did time in a nazi concentration camp, or who fled from nazis during that same time, is good enough.
The truth is he is a coward and like his sock puppet feo, too arrogant and condescending to presume that any but his own personal experiences could possibly be true. You see, I must put myself into HIS world, while he has no obligation to consider a damned thing from MY perspective. If I don't give up all I know to submit to his words, I'm "speaking from a position of ignorance". Christian my ass. He's a fake. -
January 10, 2019 at 5:02 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The answer, again, is that it is wrong to “stop people from seeking safety”. Calling it “evil” (or my comments “hateful”), simply diminishes actual “evil” and “hateful”.
Of course, I’m not (nor is anyone else) suggesting that people be “stopped” from seeking safety. Further, no one is suggesting that “race” is the primary factor in this debate.
The problem you have is that you can’t prove the premises underlying your position, so you’ve decided that you just won’t and instead will attack me.
And yet, there is no wall.
Explain that, please. Using fact based evidence.
_____
Regarding race, was the poll tax or citizenship question entry to vote in the South explicitly racist? No. Was slavery explicitly racist? No. Marshall claims the slavery cannot even be found in the Constitution, so, to him - and perhaps yourself - the Constitution isn't explicitly racist.
But, as Chris Wallace hammered Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Fox: Sanders: “We know that roughly nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally..." Wallace: "Wait wait, ’cause I know the statistic,” he said. “I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come or where they’re captured? Airports... The state department says there hasn’t been any terrorists found coming across the southern border from Mexico."
_____
One more question: do you think the Republicans would have nominated a candidate with an illegal immigrant wife from a Latin American country?
"Let me tell you one thing,” President Trump said. “She has got it so documented, so she's going to have a little news conference over the next couple of weeks.” That was August 2016, when questions about Melania Trump's immigration history first cropped up. It has now been 28 months, and that news conference has not happened.
I still have the comment on my email. What you literally said was,
"I agree that no wall will stop people from seeking safety. It might help regulate how people seek safety, but it won't stop people who seek safety."
In other words,you literally did not answer the question. Do you understand that reality?
In reality, I did answer the question by saying that it’s not about stopping, it’s about regulating.
But, I have to compliment you. You actually provided actual evidence to support your claim. You should do that more often.
Of course, Craig will ignore me. It hurts his pride to have to answer to someone who uses facts rather than merely naming their - somewhere - existence
Another fact. We do not have open borders. Haven't had since the 1880s. What we have, like most other countries, are controlled borders. What we will never have, which Marshall and Craig seem to want, are closed borders where there is a fence around everything.
BTW, even Bernie Sanders is against open borders. Get your facts right, Craig before you enter a mature conversation.
This focus on the "wall" from both sides is simplistic and more of a diversion than anything. If the conversation is simply going to focus on one part of a multifaceted bigger picture, it's probably not worth having.
Unfortunately "walls" work. If these sorts of barriers didn't work, they wouldn't be everywhere. They aren't the be all and end all, but as one part of a larger strategy, they work.
If Trump was even reasonably aware, he'd stop talking about the wall and expand the discussion. If the left was serious about anything but blocking Trump, we would have seen something more comprehensive by now.
One additional problem that both sides have is focusing on one relatively small slice of the reasons why people cross the border in violation of US law. Some focus on only those who cross for bad reasons and try to project on the rest. Some focus on the "refugees" and try to project their feelings across a broad spectrum.
In all honesty, this problem has been kicked down the road by multiple administrations and congresses. As long as the debate is more about bashing Trump than about making progress, it's simply a colossal waste of time.
Chris Wallace: "Wait wait, ’cause I know the statistic,” he said. “I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come or where they’re captured? Airports.
It’s not that I didn’t answer, as much as my disagreeing with your premise.
No, it's LITERALLY that you didn't answer the question that was asked. It was an easy question that any moral rational person should be able to answer. It establishes a basic human rights and justice principle as a starting point for this conversation.
Last time to answer directly and clearly, Craig...
1. Do you agree that you literally did not answer the question that was asked of you?
2. Do you agree that it is wrong/evil/immoral/atrocious to try to prevent people from seeking refuge from harm?
Simple questions. Answer both with the only right answer there is or I'll remove your comments as they are not being offered in good faith.
As to the "focus on the wall," the ONLY reason that Dems are focusing on the wall is because the idiot and perverted liar in charge keeps trying to build it and keeps repeating the lies that it's there to prevent terrorists and invading brown people from entering, playing upon racist tropes that his racist supporters (the KKK types) rally around and which his other followers keep defending, even though it is a racist trope he's offering.
By all means, END the attempts to "build a wall" and deal with the problems of WHY are there refugees and immigrants at the borders... the dire straits of people seeking refuge and a better life. Make entry easier, not more difficult, for people seeking refuge. If you want to fund something to make a difference, FULLY FUND the "legal" ports of entry so that there are plenty of people to process refugee claims in a prompt and timely manner, for instance. Work out the citizenship plans for DACA folk. Those are actually helpful actions that IF Trump supporters focused on THOSE sorts of things, THEN you wouldn't be participating in Trump's and the KKK types of folk's dog whistles and racist actions/plans.
A wall "works" to keep people out when one builds a secure wall all the way around whatever it is you're trying to protect.
A wall fails - and is wrong and evil - when it prevents people from seeking safety.
A wall fails if all you have to do is climb over it.
We are a nation of doors, not walls. Let us live up to our better ideals, not cave to racist fears.
One other requirement, Craig: Admit that this is a bullshit claim that you CAN NOT support with data (the suggestion that the refugee problem is only a "small slice" of the explanation of why people are crossing our borders) or provide data that shows it's factually not a large problem for many of those coming from Latin America (and other places, as well, but Trump's been focusing mainly on the brown people from the South).
"In that case, about 1,500 people started their journey in southern Mexico, but the caravan dwindled down to a few hundred by the time they reached the Mexican border with California in April. And according to federal data, most of them did exactly what they said they were going to do: presented themselves at U.S. ports of entry and applied for asylum.
According to data and congressional testimony from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials, 401 members of that caravan requested asylum at ports of entry, a legal right enshrined in U.S. law and international conventions the U.S. is party to.
Federal officials interviewed those asylum-seekers and found 374 of them, or 93 percent, passed the first test on the path toward asylum, where they must demonstrate that they have a “credible fear” of returning to their home country. That’s higher than the 76 percent approval rate that all asylum-seekers received in fiscal year 2018, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services data."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/23/migrant-caravan-how-many-sought-asylum/1741030002/
More facts and data for you to consider, Craig, before making other false or dubious claims...
https://www.wola.org/analysis/fact-sheet-united-states-immigration-central-american-asylum-seekers/
2. No, I don’t think trying to regulate immigration is “evil”. Again, I don’t agree with your premise. I agree that people have a legitimate right to seek safety, although it’s not an unlimited right. I agree that to preempt people from “seeking” a safer situation is wrong. I disagree with the term “evil”. It minimizes real evil, and it’s an attempt to smear people with s loaded emotional term simply because they disagree with you. I disagree with the term “evil” because you haven’t laid a foundation that allows for an objective standard of “evil”.
I understand your determination to resort to threats and intimidation in order to force me into agreeing with you. I suspect you’ll delete these comments regardless of how many times I answer you, unless I simply parrot your unfounded claims.
I get it, it’s an old tired game, but I get it.