National Emergency

[ServiceSoon]

I don't think any US citizen have a legitimate concern for the wellbeing or future of US citizens. Heck, mathematically there is a chance getting rid of illegal immigrants could raise their chances of US citizens being the victims of violent crime.

Do you agree that the individual citizens choose how the government interacts with them? If the citizens are altered then the government will soon change with them.

I'd like to see the math proving that getting rid of illegal immigrants could raise their chances of US citizens being victims of violent crime.

Agreed. However, in this case of Trump's wall, it is racist and bigoted. It's all about keeping the brown people out.

Nice try, but such deception and trickery doesn't really work in this forum.

How did you come to that certainty with such conviction?

I can work with that

If we are forced to 'give back' all lands to the original inhabitants then humans are one of the lowest species on the totem-pole.

Like the Canadian-American border.. oh hang on - Trump's not trying to keep brown people from crossing that border... my bad

There are around 100 times more apprehensions of illegal immigrants along the southern border than with the Canadian border. That may have something to do with it.

Yeah, an example of a meaning for something that doesn't exist.

My proposed second definition of open borders doesn't exist? I may be mistaken in my understanding. I thought that pure socialist and libertarians believed that the state (any level of government) doesn't have a right to control the flow of people?

Maybe Bob would be willing to define open borders since he supports it.

No

The definition that Trump is using is -

"3. A policy in which the party neither cares about people entering the country illegally, nor wants to do anything about it"​

He says this is the Democrat policy - he is a pants-on-fire liar. The Dems want no such thing; what they want is an immigration policy that is fair to everyone, and border security that is sophisticated, and up to date for the 21st century, not some dumb, worthless medieval wall that is no more than a vanity project for Dear Leader.

You're using quite a bit of derogatory language. I'm not here to defend Trump.

When Obama was talking about a crisis at the border he was talking about a crisis where people were in physical and emotional distress.

When Trump talks about a crisis at the border, he is talking about too many brown people being allowed to enter the country

I have already acknowledged that the justification Obama used to declare a crisis at the border was different than the justification that Trump used to declare a crisis at the order; yet we're having difficulty agreeing that there is a crisis at the border. That, is mind boggling.

What are you, a supporter of "Manifest Destiny"? That is a complete misrepresentation of what actually happened and why it happened.

In the early 1820s, the Mexican government actually encouraged American emigration into Texas in order to strengthen the economy of the territory and to increase their income from taxes. As large numbers of Americans came to live in Texas, they attempted to create their own power base. The key issue that lead to all the trouble was that those Americas came mostly from nearby southern states, and of course, they wanted to introduce slavery into a Mexico, a country where slavery was illegal (and that tells us all a bit about which of the two countries was more civilized). The result of this is that Santa Anna tried to become dictator of Texas, and after a number of different groups tried to claim government status, fighting broke out. Americans were hammered and decided to give up, but General Sam Houston kept a small force of troops together and launched a counter-offensive and defeated the Mexican Army. They took Santa Anna prisoner, and forced him to sign documents giving Texas independence.

The Americans still living in Texas were hoping to be annexed by the USA but President Jackson and most northerners were against it as they did not want to annex a new slave territory and thereby increase the Southern votes in Congress.

Texas was a wild and lawless expanse in the 1820's, hence the hiring of experiencedfrontiersmen as lawmen by Land Agent Stephen Austin - those frontiersmen later formally becoming known as Texas Rangers. To even suggest the idea that Mexicans coming to the USA could in any way repeat the Texas scenario is complete and utter hogwash; it tells me that you have little, if any, understanding about this history (as evidenced by your anecdotal tale of learning for the first time about it in a slide show).

Wow! This is a lot. I can't see how your additional details delegitimizes my claim that uncontrolled immigration into a territory does NOT impact the government and ultimate destiny of that territory. EDIT: Mexico encouraged US emigration and then outlawed it. Can you explain why Mexi can officials had a sudden change in immigration policy? You will most certainly say it was to stop US citizens from importing slaves. Do you have any other thoughts? Are there resources on the web that espouse any other justifications (I found many unrelated to slavery).

I am sorry to hear that an exhibit at the Gateway Arch National Park has promulgated so much disinformation about Texas history. I hope ServiceSoon is misremembering, influenced perhaps by his desire to distort Texas history in support of his own beliefs concerning current events.


This Texan-by-birth thanks smartcooky for correcting ServiceSoon.

(Texas history is sordid enough; we needn't invent.)

By the way, Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón was the sort of strongman the current POTUS likes to emulate. From that Wikipedia article:


The Wikipedia articles linked in that excerpt will correct ServiceSoon's mistakes.


I hope the slide show he saw was not put together by the National Park Service, or did not get so much wrong as he did.

The first slide said "Should settlement of land justify a nations ownership?" A few slides later "US Immigrans soon outnumbered Mexicans in the Mexican State of Texas." No failure in memory. Is your claim really that US Immigrants outnumbering Mexicans played no role in the switch of ownership of this parcel of land? Sure, there were other factors. To completely disregard the allegiance, customs, ideas, and ambitions of the inhabitants would be an example of unjustified disassociation.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"Trump is obviously gonna lose. Lookit his support numbers" was the Dem's entire strategy in 2016 as well.

That strategy would have worked, and did work. However, it didn't overcome the cheating by the Russians and GOP. What strategy works to counter outright cheating?

 

[thaiboxerken]

How did you come to that certainty with such conviction?

By listening to the idiot president's words.

 

[thaiboxerken]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/49053bb07f12a993.jpg[/qimg]

Who is telling America that, exactly?

The strawmen of libtards that Trump cultists have built.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'd like to see the math proving that getting rid of illegal immigrants could raise their chances of US citizens being victims of violent crime.

I didn't say "math proving". I said Mathematically there is a chance.

As best our knowledge, illegal immigrants commit violent crime at a lower rate than citizens.

Suppose two populations of 100 each, X and Y.
Population X will commit 1 violent crime
Population Y will commit 2 violent crimes

Together, of the population of 200, each individual has a chance of being a victim of 3/200=0.015

If you remove population X, The odds for the remaining population are 2/100=0.02.

Now, it isn't accurate to assume the violence is random across the entire population. I also simplify things by having people able to victimize themselves. But it is important to have the basics before moving on to more complicated models.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The wall is unpopular. Trump's views were soundly rejected in the presidential election. That was before he failed to secure Mexican funding. Democrats running on no wall platform crushed the republicans in the house and senate. There isn't a world in which democrats need to come to the table and the polling proved that.

Also, trump's people popularity went up after caving on the shutdown. The democrats did him a favor.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That was exactly how he wanted that to play out.

The Dems refused to come to the table and settle this in a bi-partisan fashion, and were unwilling to do something as terrible as secure the border, to stop the shutdown.

They were forced to tell America that they weren't willing to protect the border, in exchange for reopening the government.

Trump frames it as he would shut down the government to protect Americans, and the Dems will shut down the government to protect illegal immigrant criminals.

This is pure alt-reality bull crap. Not that Trump frames everything in his dishonest propaganda. But that you are essentially saying you believe all the nonsense, not that the Democrats aren't effectively countering it.

There was no 'table' to come to. In the end the bill was quite balanced, it wasn't all GOP, that doesn't mean it wasn't balanced.

The Democrats have been saying loudly and repeatedly they are all for border security, they don't believe the wall is how to get it. And the evidence supports their POV.

Nothing would make Trump tell the truth. If it wasn't this it would just be something else. The idea the Democrats should bow down to this guy the way Trump supporters do is ludicrous.

Pelosi handled it well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/49053bb07f12a993.jpg[/qimg]

Who is telling America that, exactly?

Pssst, he thinks Trump is describing facts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are not wrong. But the Democratic Party has to realize that calling a significant portion of the voters derogatory names will result in some of the independent minority turning against them, even if those independents are not meant to be included in that group. I think the Dems have to field a candidate who is running for the presidency, instead of against Trump.

If it wasn't a basket of deplorables it would have been something else, there is no way to avoid the GOP's targeting of some single thing and turning it into a mantra. It's how they campaign.

In retrospect, it looks like the Democrats blundered. In reality, it would have been something else if not that gaffe.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The proof is easy when you remember that illegal migrants are more often the victims of crimes than the perpetrators.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No idea what the "right wingers" think, but for me the issue with drugs is not the actual drug taking usually, it is all the crime associated with it like getting your house broken into by a junky who needs his next fix, or the collateral damage from stray bullets from drug related gang shootings etc etc.

I don't think people generally care if someone gets wasted in the privacy of their own home.

So you don't mind the thousands of deaths then?

 

[Norman Alexander]

Also, trump's people popularity went up after caving on the shutdown. The democrats did him a favor.

No, Trump did himself a favour by caving. He lives for popularity poll approval. Although the numbers went from "ginormously stupid frickin' idiot" back up to "incompetent frickin' idiot".

 

[BadBoy]

So you don't mind the thousands of deaths then?

was that a question or an assertion?

 

[Elvis666]

If it wasn't a basket of deplorables it would have been something else, there is no way to avoid the GOP's targeting of some single thing and turning it into a mantra. It's how they campaign.

In retrospect, it looks like the Democrats blundered. In reality, it would have been something else if not that gaffe.

True, but if the Democrats could put a moratorium on throwing softballs to the GOP, if the rhetoric were toned down, the voters who are independent would be less likely to react negatively.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So you don't mind the thousands of deaths then?

No more or less so then the thousands of people who die from other of their own personal choices.

I don't think the police should kick my neighbor's door in and force him to stop eating red meat and instead have a salad either. That's not logically or morally equivalent to "not minding thousands of deaths from heart disease."

 

[BobTheCoward]

True, but if the Democrats could put a moratorium on throwing softballs to the GOP, if the rhetoric were toned down, the voters who are independent would be less likely to react negatively.

And by "less likely to react negatively" you mean somehow getting more than the 2 million more votes than Trump?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Following a quotation of my one post in this thread, ServiceSoon wrote:

The first slide said "Should settlement of land justify a nations ownership?" A few slides later "US Immigrans soon outnumbered Mexicans in the Mexican State of Texas."

That much is accurate, if "soon" is taken to mean several years and "the Mexican State of Texas" is taken to be one of the political units in which US immigrants outnumbered other citizens of Mexico. (In the state of Coahuila y Tejas, comprised of three districts (not states) including one that more or less coincided with the parts of modern Texas then claimed by Mexico, English-speaking settlers were a minority.)

No failure in memory. Is your claim really that US Immigrants outnumbering Mexicans played no role in the switch of ownership of this parcel of land?

Not at all. Those who bother to check will find I wrote nothing that could be construed as such a claim.

Sure, there were other factors. To completely disregard the allegiance, customs, ideas, and ambitions of the inhabitants would be an example of unjustified disassociation.

True.

Nonetheless, you attributed two serious errors to the slide show you saw in St Louis, in addition to omitting a rather important fact that's highly relevant here: Years after Mexico had declared its independence from Spain, but shortly before that independence had been achieved, Moses Austin negotiated a land grant with the Spanish governor of Mexico that called for a settlement of 300 immigrant families. Moses Austin died soon thereafter, and the settlement was accomplished by his son, Stephen F Austin, during the years after Mexico had achieved its independence. Austin and his settlers maintained generally good relations with the government of newly independent Mexico, which of course included Texas at that time, leading to more immigration of English-speaking settlers into Texas. Conflicts eventually arose, including a conflict over the settlers' importation of slaves, leading Austin to support Santa Anna's rise to power. Mexico eventually feared the United States might attempt to annex Texas; in 1832 the English-speaking settlers of Texas held a convention designed to reaffirm their loyalty to Mexico while requesting reforms such as a return to less restrictive immigration policy and a greater degree of influence within, or some degree of independence from, Coahuila y Tejas (which included Mexican Texas).

In the following, I have highlighted your errors of commission:

Do you know the story of Mexican Texas? While I was visiting the Arch in St Louis they had a slide show that taught me all about it.

A couple hundred years ago, Mexico owned the territory known today as Texas. The Mexican government did not control immigration to this Mexican territory. When Mexico realized that they were loosing this territory to US citizens they enacted a law that forbid US immigrants, but it was too late. A war ensued and Mexico Texas because a US territory and was renamed to Texas (It would have been just as easy for the inhabitants living in this territory to have taken the peaceful route of voting their allegiance to the US. God Bless Democracy).

Following the Texas Revolution of 1836, Texas became the independent Republic of Texas; Texas has never been a US territory. Although a majority of Texans would probably have preferred for Texas to be annexed by the United States, that course was opposed by political leaders of the US because Texas would have become a slave-holding state and also because annexation would have led immediately to war with Mexico, as did result when Texas became part of the United States in 1845/1846.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

If it wasn't a basket of deplorables it would have been something else, there is no way to avoid the GOP's targeting of some single thing and turning it into a mantra. It's how they campaign.

In retrospect, it looks like the Democrats blundered. In reality, it would have been something else if not that gaffe.

It's also called gaslighting when mildly abrasive language draws contrived concern over civility from those who put up an endless stream of slander that goes all the way up to dehumanizing.

Or just hypocrisy.

 

[Lurch]

No idea what the "right wingers" think, but for me the issue with drugs is not the actual drug taking usually, it is all the crime associated with it like getting your house broken into by a junky who needs his next fix, or the collateral damage from stray bullets from drug related gang shootings etc etc.

I don't think people generally care if someone gets wasted in the privacy of their own home.

But the faux wailing and pearl clutching is about the deaths by drugs. Fentanyl is killing our addicts! Maybe it would be too crass to put the emphasis on the ancillary crime, like home break-ins.

As to collateral damage in drug gang shootouts, I wonder of what proportion of all gun deaths that comprises. Why, even including deaths of the perpetrating gang members, this might still be a not particularly large fraction?

In any event, sensible gun legislation, like that adopted in the rest of the civilized world, would even reduce drug gang shootings. But no. That precious but ambiguously worded Second Amendment is God's own word that all possess a killing tool requiring only to lift it and pull a trigger.

 

[BadBoy]

But the faux wailing and pearl clutching is about the deaths by drugs. Fentanyl is killing our addicts! Maybe it would be too crass to put the emphasis on the ancillary crime, like home break-ins.

As to collateral damage in drug gang shootouts, I wonder of what proportion of all gun deaths that comprises. Why, even including deaths of the perpetrating gang members, this might still be a not particularly large fraction?

In any event, sensible gun legislation, like that adopted in the rest of the civilized world, would even reduce drug gang shootings. But no. That precious but ambiguously worded Second Amendment is God's own word that all possess a killing tool requiring only to lift it and pull a trigger.

Fair enough, though in the UK and Australia generally I truly think people do not have that on their minds most of the time (apart from the very sad occasions when some healthy teen/young person collapases and dies from a bad pill at a festival)

They are more concerned with drug related robbery and having drugs pushed onto their children at school, or some meth crazed rampage. You don't tend to hear anything when a long term heroin addict dies from an overdoes in an alleyway.

Nearly 20% of all crime in the US is related to drugs from a quick google - that appears to be what impacts people the most. I just don't see any pearl clutching about the deaths by drugs - unless you are actually talking about innocent people being taken out by drug users - that does get attention.