On Political Correctness

[JesseWZ]

Brihard I'm not inclined nor wish to dedicate the time to go through your lengthy posts point by point.  Frankly I have other things to do.  Having said that, I do enjoy reading these forums for all of the different opinions and perspectives, including yours Brihard.  On occasion I drop my two cents in as well.  I try not to insult anyone or infer they are idiots simply because they haven't sufficiently responded to my post.  Truthfully, for me, your post was TLDR - so I skimmed it.  Maybe that means I don't have sufficient mental stamina to spar with you about this, or I just don't care that much.  My point is all of a sudden something that is in law and has been going on for years is all Trumps fault and this is a huge disaster.  Well, it's not really.  This is just dirty politics.  There is no honesty left anymore.   

I will just drop this link here as well for another perspective on this topic:   

https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/06/19/really-2/

You can't have it both ways. Either input your two cents and defend it as Brihard has done, or be content to simply read the various opinions and perspectives. Dropping in tid-bits of opinion, getting called on them, and then refusing to debate the counterclaim is TROLLING. Brihards posts are hardly lengthy - this is a nuanced issue which he articulated very well... it's not rocket surgery. If you don't feel like doing the work of defending your argument, or even reading the follow on discussion, don't bother posting.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Folks, a reminder: Every user on this forum is encouraged to post in the manner they’re most comfortable with as long as it doesn’t contravene Army.ca policies/guidelines in any fashion. At no point is it mandatory for users to respond to/debate/defend posts—their own, or other’s. They are free to disengage at any point.

“Trolling is making a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.” Google

Choosing not to debate any and all arguments in singular or multiple posts is not trolling. That being said, as this is a thread prone to passionate responses, let’s be cognizant of that in order to allow the discussion to continue.

Staff

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You can't have it both ways. Either input your two cents and defend it as Brihard has done, or be content to simply read the various opinions and perspectives. Dropping in tid-bits of opinion, getting called on them, and then refusing to debate the counterclaim is TROLLING. Brihards posts are hardly lengthy - this is a nuanced issue which he articulated very well... it's not rocket surgery. If you don't feel like doing the work of defending your argument, or even reading the follow on discussion, don't bother posting.

Point to that in the rules. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether you like it or not. Nobody here, is required to spend time and research, arguing against others. Maybe it's an opinion formed from the CBC, they're honest and trustworthy right? Nobody is required, likewise, to satisfy any questions or queries you may have. Just because you post an opinion doesn't mean you have to spend hours defending it against all comers. Now, if a person feels no need to respond to certain questions, you have a choice. Accept it or ask for clarification. If you get an answer, the poster wishes to confer with you, if they don't respond, they don't want to or are required to. Or maybe you are on ignore and they didn't see your question. It's good form to defend your opinion, but it's not required.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Certainly they do have that option, and that is part of the tactic of fear being used here. 'Cross illegally, we'll take your kids from you by force and you won't know if you'll get them back'. If America has become comfortable with doing things that way, that's frightening to me. The brutal approach can be effective, but at what cost?

From a pragmatic (and fairly heartless) perspective it seems to me like an effective way to combat illegal immigration. If you don't want to be seperated from your kids don't try and sneak in the country. That kids are allegedly suffering abuse is perhaps an even stronger motivation to not risk it.

Not saying I agree with the practice mind you.

Aside from the usual Americans who are outraged over anything and everything Trump does, and even some of his supports who may oppose this practice, there's probably a lot of Americans who don't really care if children from Mexico illegally entering the US are detained for a month and change without their parents.
Considering my first point some might even approve.


As for PC language it's a great example of the political right being guilty of the same language/behavior they accuse the left of. Cage is a cage don't mince words.

 

[Remius]

Looks like the President has decided to reverse his own policy on separating families.  A day after he said his hands were tied. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-separation-policy-criticism-1.4713950

Politics aside this is a good move.

 

[Altair]

Looks like the President has decided to reverse his own policy on separating families.  A day after he said his hands were tied. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-separation-policy-criticism-1.4713950

Politics aside this is a good move.

I wasn't going to bother get worked up about this one.

The president was only going to stand up to public pressure for so long.

Good job on the media for keeping the pressure on though.

 

[Furniture]

Faster processing now may just mean that they are back in their home country even faster if they take the kids along for the ride. Might encourage people to stop illegally crossing, at least more than the previous policy of putting the family together somewhere in the USA and hoping they show up for a court date... 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Faster processing now may just mean that they are back in their home country even faster if they take the kids along for the ride. Might encourage people to stop illegally crossing, at least more than the previous policy of putting the family together somewhere in the USA and hoping they show up for a court date...

I think they used their children very effectively to get what they wanted. Terrorists do the same, of course.

We in the 'first world' have no idea, unfortunately, how easily we can be played like a fiddle by people who have nothing to lose.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Faster processing now may just mean that they are back in their home country even faster if they take the kids along for the ride.

Turnaround for first entry (misdemeanour) was typically already one day for those who didn't claim asylum (pleaded guilty, sentenced to time already served, sent home).  What they have to speed up are the processes for resolving asylum claims.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

>Faster processing now may just mean that they are back in their home country even faster if they take the kids along for the ride.

Turnaround for first entry (misdemeanour) was typically already one day for those who didn't claim asylum (pleaded guilty, sentenced to time already served, sent home).  What they have to speed up are the processes for resolving asylum claims.

Which becomes exceedingly difficult with the increasing NWO migrant caravans piling up on their borders. Just keep overloading the system until it breaks.

 

[Altair]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/first-step-to-helping-children-sent-to-new-york-find-them/ar-AAyXB7M

By Thursday, consular officials and others were shifting into crisis mode, beginning to search themselves for children as young as 9 months old who did not appear to have been carefully tracked by the federal authorities.

comforting.

 

[Altair]

I wasn't going to bother get worked up about this one.

The president was only going to stand up to public pressure for so long.

Good job on the media for keeping the pressure on though.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trump-administration-will-stop-prosecuting-migrant-parents-who-cross-the-border-illegally-with-children-official-says/ar-AAyYaHZ?li=BBnb7Kz

The U.S. Border Patrol will no longer refer migrant parents who cross into the United States illegally with children to federal courthouses to face criminal charges, a senior U.S. Customs and Border Protection official told The Washington Post on Thursday.

All of that for what in the end?

 

[daftandbarmy]

It's clear that the US has significant immigration challenges. Smug Canadians can look on and judge, but our immigration challenges are a fraction of theirs, and declining. It's not hard to understand why they want a wall when our wall is the 'Lower 48':

"The United States has been the top destination for international migrants since at least 1960, with one-fifth of the world's migrants living there as of 2017. Almost 19 percent of the 43.7 million immigrants in the United States in 2016 entered since 2010, 27 percent between 2000 and 2009, and the majority (55 percent) before 2000."

and

"In 2016, 1.49 million foreign-born individuals moved to the United States, a 7 percent increase from the 1.38 million coming in 2015. In contrast, Canadian arrivals dropped 19 percent: 38,400 in 2016, versus 47,300 in 2015."

and

"An estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United States as of January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011, according to the most recent estimates issued by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics."

and

"Mexico and Central America accounted for most unauthorized immigrants in the United States as of 2010-14, with MPI estimating about 7.9 million people in total (71 percent of the overall unauthorized population)."

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's OK though. Trudeau is attempting to close the gap, with the US, on the illegal immigration front. :rofl:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am loving the faux outrage about the shoe smuggling, seems suddenly, no one knows anyone that has smuggled everyday stuff across the border.

 

[FJAG]

It's clear that the US has significant immigration challenges. Smug Canadians can look on and judge, but our immigration challenges are a fraction of theirs, and declining. It's not hard to understand why they want a wall when our wall is the 'Lower 48':

"The United States has been the top destination for international migrants since at least 1960, with one-fifth of the world's migrants living there as of 2017. Almost 19 percent of the 43.7 million immigrants in the United States in 2016 entered since 2010, 27 percent between 2000 and 2009, and the majority (55 percent) before 2000."

and

"In 2016, 1.49 million foreign-born individuals moved to the United States, a 7 percent increase from the 1.38 million coming in 2015. In contrast, Canadian arrivals dropped 19 percent: 38,400 in 2016, versus 47,300 in 2015."

and

"An estimated 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants resided in the United States as of January 2012 compared to 11.5 million in January 2011, according to the most recent estimates issued by the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics."

and

"Mexico and Central America accounted for most unauthorized immigrants in the United States as of 2010-14, with MPI estimating about 7.9 million people in total (71 percent of the overall unauthorized population)."

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states

That's what happens when you have a honking big statue pointing out to the rest of the world with an inscription on it that says  "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".

In the first decade of the 19th Century, some 9 million people immigrated into the US when at the time the population of the whole country was 76 million compared to the 328 million today.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/snpim1.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_United_States_Census

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

The first article has an interesting quote in it which I think sums up the immigrant experience, then and now, very well:

An old Italian saying summed up the disillusionment felt by many: "I came to America because I heard the streets were paved with gold. When I got here, found out three things: First, the streets weren't paved with gold; second, they weren't paved at all: and third, I was expected to pave them."

:cheers:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Rachel Maddow - when you're trying to force yourself to cry but it's just not coming out
https://youtu.be/DKuIjT-k-C8


US Border patrol agent talking about the children-border issue. Some pretty shocking stuff there.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32103/must-watch-border-patrol-agent-sets-record-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

[a_majoor]

The US has been the top destination for immigrants because its social and economic system provides far more mobility than possible in much of the world. This was the driver of immigration up until it was shut down in the 1920's

The immigration act of 1965 reopened the door and a flood of people came in to take advantage of America's social mobility, but sadly a second and eventually much larger cohort of illegal immigrants have come in to essentially leech of American taxpayers (one article in Instapundit quoted a figure of $138 billion/year as the cost to the US taxpayer). It is this second cohort of illegals which is the root of the problem, and the fact that the Congress either refuses to carry out it's responsibilities to enforce existing laws (including the separation of parents and children) or write new laws is infuriating to the voters. That is one of the reasons you "get more Trump", and I suspect a lot of Representatives and Senators may discover they are actively targeted by voters seeking to unseat them (and possibly why a lot of people have been announcing their retirement) over this issue.

 

[Remius]

The US has been the top destination for immigrants because its social and economic system provides far more mobility than possible in much of the world. This was the driver of immigration up until it was shut down in the 1920's

The immigration act of 1965 reopened the door and a flood of people came in to take advantage of America's social mobility, but sadly a second and eventually much larger cohort of illegal immigrants have come in to essentially leech of American taxpayers (one article in Instapundit quoted a figure of $138 billion/year as the cost to the US taxpayer). It is this second cohort of illegals which is the root of the problem, and the fact that the Congress either refuses to carry out it's responsibilities to enforce existing laws (including the separation of parents and children) or write new laws is infuriating to the voters. That is one of the reasons you "get more Trump", and I suspect a lot of Representatives and Senators may discover they are actively targeted by voters seeking to unseat them (and possibly why a lot of people have been announcing their retirement) over this issue.

What gets forgotten at times though is the fact that the US economy has become dependant on those illegals.  Congress and the president can’t seem to deal with the immigration issue because they refuse to go after companies and employers that are employing this cheap labour source who fill jobs no one else wants.  People are coming for those jobs yet nothing or little is done to deal with that. 

 

[brihard]

I am loving the faux outrage about the shoe smuggling, seems suddenly, no one knows anyone that has smuggled everyday stuff across the border.

I think it’s more a matter of concern that the president of the world’s largest economy apparently can not grasp the difference between a customs duty and a trade tariff.