The Illegal Immigration Arguments

By:  thomas-craig  •  4 months ago  •  111 comments

The Illegal Immigration Arguments

We have heard the majority of arguments in the DACA and so-called immigration debate.  The Left calls anyone who supports a wall on our southern border or opposes DACA to be "racist" and anti-immigrant.  The Right says the wall is necessary to our defense and sovereignty and that DACA will just encourage illegal immigrants to come to the country even more than they are now.  But, let's ignore all that and get into what it is really about: Your home.

Whether you live in a tent, an apartment, a RV, a house, a gated community, a car, etc.; your country is your home.  Don't you want to protect it, and your possessions within your home?  That is why you lock your house, apartment, car, etc. when you leave it, right?  So, why would you remove the locks on your doors and windows, open them all the time, and then hand your possessions over to someone that came into your home without permission?

You see that is the actual issue with the Illegal Immigration debate.  The Left wants YOU to open your home to anyone that desires to come into it and allow them to take whatever they want without your permission.  You see our home (country) needs to be locked (the wall, border defense, etc.) to prevent people (illegal immigrants) from coming in and stealing our possessions (welfare, jobs, health services, etc.) since they (illegal immigrants) do not have permission (visas) to be here and should be unable to access our possessions.

They don't put the argument that way, and sadly, neither does the Right.  Your home (country) is yours; not someone else's.  It is up to you to protect it and your possessions (money, things, family members, pets, etc.).  So, why should we vote for people, like the California Democrats, whom keep telling us to open our homes to everyone and hand over our possessions to them as well?

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
tomwcraig
1  tomwcraig    4 months ago

Deep down, you know this is the real issue.

 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  tomwcraig @1    4 months ago

The real problem with illegal immigration is those that jump the line and refuse to go through the process. I can understand that things may be intolerable in their home countries and they seek asylum here. However, particularly in border states, these border jumpers take up too many resources...many counties and cities can't afford the ongoing influx. And eventually, thanks to anchor babies and chain migration, the whole extended family shows up. This can't continue.

That said, I think they should put any current DACA young people on a fast track to citizenship.

 
 
1ofmany
1.1.1  1ofmany  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 months ago
That said, I think they should put any current DACA young people on a fast track to citizenship.

What will prevent future people from crossing the border illegally with another million children who will then claim that they should become citizens? And the million after that? This needs to stop so stop it now. 

 
 
pat wilson
1.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  1ofmany @1.1.1    4 months ago

The DACA rules are very specific. Stop scaring yourself.

 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 months ago
That said, I think they should put any current DACA young people on a fast track to citizenship

Only if very specific criteria are met.  For example a full 6 years in the military or other viable public service.  Failing that, grant them a green card permanent resident status, nothing more.

 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.2    4 months ago

So, we only need to concern ourselves with the 700,000 or 800,000 that have come forward?  Thanks for the information.  I guess we can kick all the others out as soon as we find them....  kind of like what other countries do.

 
 
pat wilson
1.1.5  pat wilson  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.4    4 months ago

If they don't qualify for DACA status, yes.

Why is this so hard for you ?

 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  1ofmany @1.1.1    4 months ago

I believe they shut the DACA program down, and I was referring only to the current people affected.

 
 
1ofmany
1.1.7  1ofmany  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.6    4 months ago
I believe they shut the DACA program down, and I was referring only to the current people affected.

My point is that there will always be “current” people affected as long as we have weak border enforcement and sanctuary cities. The next Democratic president will simply restart the program using the same reasoning as before i.e. the children are not at fault. 

 
 
1ofmany
1.1.8  1ofmany  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.2    4 months ago
The DACA rules are very specific. Stop scaring yourself.

The reason for having DACA is eternal and the problem will only grow as long as we have loons promoting open borders and sanctuary cities. I’d be less concerned if they could all stay at your house. 

 
 
sixpick
1.1.9  sixpick  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 months ago
That said, I think they should put any current DACA young people on a fast track to citizenship.

Only after the wall is built and we are assured we will not have to go through this again and then there should be stipulations beyond that.

 
 
sixpick
1.1.10  sixpick  replied to  1ofmany @1.1.7    4 months ago

If the Democrats knew every one of these illegal aliens or DACA recipients would be voting Republican they wouldn't give them the time of day.

 
 
pat wilson
1.2  pat wilson  replied to  tomwcraig @1    4 months ago

Fear and loathing, yes.

 
 
tomwcraig
1.2.1  tomwcraig  replied to  pat wilson @1.2    4 months ago

No, it's not fear and loathing; otherwise it would be directed at all immigrants instead of just those breaking the law.

 
 
sixpick
1.2.2  sixpick  replied to  pat wilson @1.2    4 months ago
Fear and loathing, yes.

Common sense I'm sure you use when you go to sleep at night in your home.

 
 
Bob Nelson
2  Bob Nelson    4 months ago
Your home (country) is yours; not someone else's.

So... You wish to return everything to Native Americans?

 
 
XDm9mm
2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    4 months ago

Bob....   this is the 21st Century.  Come to grips with that and acknowledge that what happened 5, 6 or 7 hundred years ago is immaterial to the current situation.

 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1    4 months ago

Unless I'm mistaken, the last massacres of Native Americans were less than 150 years ago. Not exactly ancient history.

It looks to me like you're cherry-picking a start date that says "us okay, them bad".

 
 
Raven Wing
2.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1    4 months ago
Come to grips with that and acknowledge that what happened 5, 6 or 7 hundred years ago is immaterial to the current situation.

Not true at all. Before you make asinine statements like that, you should do our homework, then you would not look like such a dunce trying so hard to look like Google.

 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Raven Wing @2.1.2    4 months ago

Before the Europeans arrived, these noble Native Americans were killing each other and stealing their lands, horses, weapons, and women.

 
 
321steve
2.1.4  321steve  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.3    4 months ago
Before the Europeans arrived, these noble Native Americans were killing each other and stealing their lands, horses, weapons, and women.

Yes but it was their lands, their horses, their weapons, and their women to steal. I dont see where the Europeans did them any favors. Considering the Europeans did the same only much worse. 

I'd say they were actually better off before the europeans arrived. At least they had their lands, horses, weapons, and women to steal.

 
 
321steve
2.1.5  321steve  replied to  321steve @2.1.4    4 months ago
At least they had their lands, horses, weapons, and women to steal.

They also had their lives and their freedom. 

 
 
zuksam
2.1.6  zuksam  replied to  321steve @2.1.4    4 months ago

Europeans brought the horse to America the Natives had none before that.

 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.3    4 months ago
Before the Europeans arrived, these noble Native Americans were killing each other and stealing their lands, horses, weapons, and women.

No.

They were occasionally stealing each other's weapons and women.

Horses weren't there yet (or weren't there anymore, depending on how you look at the animals' extinction in the Americas).

And very importantly, they were not stealing each other's land. They did not have any notion of private ownership of land. Land was a common good, like air. Like water once was, before it was privatized...

Europeans brought many diseases... private ownership of land was probably the worst of all.

Property is theft!  - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

 
 
321steve
2.1.8  321steve  replied to  zuksam @2.1.6    4 months ago
Europeans brought the horse to America

In 1493, on Columbus’ second voyage to the Americas, Spanish horses, representing E. caballus, were brought back to North America, first in the Virgin Islands, and, in 1519, they were reintroduced on the continent, in modern-day Mexico, from where they radiated throughout the American Great Plains, after escape from their owners or by pilfering.

Europeans arrived in North America in the 1600s, they discovered that Native American tribes already occupied the land. Between the 1630s and the War of Independence, white settlers gradually pushed the Native Americans, whom they called "Indians," westward.

https://awionline.org/content/wild-horses-native-north-american-wildlife

http://www.bing.com/search?q=when+did+europeans+invade+north+america&FORM=AWRE

....................................................................................

My bad.... Reworded:

I'd say they were actually better off before the europeans who dominated them arrived. At least before that they had their lands, horses, weapons, and women to steal.

 
 
Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III
2.2  Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    4 months ago

You made the perfect case for the other side - guard fiercely what you have before anybody just takes it. Thanks Bob.

 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Farnsworth Horatio Clapstonestacker III @2.2    4 months ago

Oh, indeed! Most of history is Might Makes Right!

 
 
tomwcraig
2.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    4 months ago

I am a Native American as I was born here.  My ancestors may have come here from Europe, but I don't know of anyone in my family that was born overseas.  Now, if you want to argue about whether we should give land back to American Indians, many states are doing just that and allowing them to build casinos on that land even if it goes against state law.

 
 
pat wilson
2.3.1  pat wilson  replied to  tomwcraig @2.3    4 months ago

I am a Native American as I was born here.

If you are born in the US and grow up there, you are a native American, with a lowercase n. Other, less confusing terms for this are native of the US, United States native, etc.

If your ancestors in 1450 AD lived on any of the territory that comprises the current lower 48 states, then you are a Native American, capital N.

Canada prefers the term First Nations. Inuits, Aleuts, other Alaska Natives, native Hawaiians, Samoans, etc. are considered distinct from Native Americans.

You are a native European if you were born and grew up in Europe.

https://www.quora.com/If-I-am-born-in-America-am-I-Native-American

 
 
XDm9mm
2.3.2  XDm9mm  replied to  pat wilson @2.3.1    4 months ago

I'm simply a NATIVE AMERICAN CITIZEN...   born and raised here, and what "quora" tries to claim is immaterial.  Further, I don't care what Canada has to say.  Let them deal with the issue in Canada and not the United States.

 
 
pat wilson
2.3.3  pat wilson  replied to  XDm9mm @2.3.2    4 months ago

Not interested in personal edification ? Got it.

 
 
Kavika
2.3.4  Kavika   replied to  tomwcraig @2.3    4 months ago
Now, if you want to argue about whether we should give land back to American Indians, many states are doing just that and allowing them to build casinos on that land even if it goes against state law.

Please name the states and the land that has been ''given'' back to natives...States have no say in whether a casino can be built or not. All Indian land in held in trust by the US Government as they are considered sovereign nations.

As a side note the states receive millions of dollars from those casinos. They are called compacts between the states and the tribes. 

 
 
Raven Wing
2.3.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @2.3.4    4 months ago

"Please name the states and the land that has been ''given'' back to natives...States have no say in whether a casino can be built or not. All Indian land in held in trust by the US Government as they are considered sovereign nations."

LOL!!!!!   Another Google wannabe. Too bad they didn't do some research before making that very totally erroneous statement. 

 
 
tomwcraig
2.3.6  tomwcraig  replied to  Raven Wing @2.3.5    4 months ago

Actually, I had learned about this several years ago while still living in Pennsylvania.  They were planning on allowing a tribe to open a casino somewhere in Eastern PA.  I forget the name of the tribe and the exact location, this was not long after another tribe in New England was allowed to open a casino on repatriated land.

 
 
tomwcraig
2.3.7  tomwcraig  replied to  pat wilson @2.3.1    4 months ago

Actually, for the longest time, I thought I was part Native American; because according to my great-grandfather, whom died in 1980, he was born on an Indian reservation in Montana around 1900.  I was later told he did not have any Native American blood.

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.3.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  XDm9mm @2.3.2    4 months ago

I don't think Canada cares about what you call yourself.  The point made by Pat was that Canada uses a term "First Nations" that cannot be confused with or interchanged with for distinguishing between Europeans who came to America and their descendants, and those whose ancestors were in America for a thousand years or more. REAL native persons who are native to the land now known as the USA usually refer to themselves as members of a tribe.

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    4 months ago

That would be a endless debate with no clear cut answer. Theoretically, the only ones that could really claim the land would be those people that crossed the Bering Land Bridge those so many thousands of years ago from Asia. In the ensuing centuries, every single tribe in this country in turn took the land from another tribe, so what Native Americans would you suggest giving the land back to? The original inhabitants have long since turned to dust. I mean no offense those of Native American heritage here. I myself am part Apache on my mother's side and Cherokee on my paternal grandmother's side. Simply offering another point of view.

 
 
Bob Nelson
2.4.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.4    4 months ago

I agree. It's hopeless to find "to whom it should belong today".

My point is that we should recognize that "we own" the land because "we stole" the land.

Therefore, when we stand fast on the land and yell, "No more immigrants!" we have no moral standing whatsoever. It is a matter of greed and guns.

 
 
Done
2.5  Done  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    4 months ago

 Native Americans are all dead there is nobody to return anything to,  but if it makes you feel better I’m a native American and you can return everything you have to me.  

 
 
321steve
2.5.1  321steve  replied to  Done @2.5    4 months ago
I’m a native American and you can return everything you have to me.

LOL ... Well aren't you just so helpful. 

 
 
Raven Wing
2.5.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Done @2.5    4 months ago
Native Americans are all dead there is nobody to return anything to,

Since you are a Native American, walk on to the Reservation for your Tribe and tell them that they don't exist anymore. I am sure they would be happy to educate you with a bit knowledge on that premise.

 
 
Done
2.5.3  Done  replied to  Raven Wing @2.5.2    4 months ago

 Well every time I go to the graveyard I never get an answer

 
 
sixpick
2.6  sixpick  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    4 months ago
So... You wish to return everything to Native Americans?

That's not going to happen and you know it, so why make such a ridiculous comment? 

 
 
Bob Nelson
2.6.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  sixpick @2.6    4 months ago
... why make such a ridiculous comment?

To underscore that you're OK with theft when you profit from it, but not OK when someone else does.

That's just human nature. Humans are often greedy.

 
 
XDm9mm
3  XDm9mm    4 months ago

I see we're back to the restart bullshit on this site.

Perrie, get a viable company to host PLEASE.

 
 
XDm9mm
3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  XDm9mm @3    4 months ago

Thanks...  it's better than before.

 
 
charger 383
4  charger 383    4 months ago

Overpopulation is the root cause 

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 months ago
The Left wants YOU to open your home to anyone that desires to come into it and allow them to take whatever they want without your permission. 

Then the left needs to be prepared to take in the illegals.  Why not use THEIR homes to house illegals and keep them fed and attend to their every need until ICE finishes up coordination of transportation.

 
 
321steve
5.1  321steve  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5    4 months ago
Then the left needs to be prepared to take in the illegals.  Why not use THEIR homes to house illegals and keep them fed and attend to their every need until ICE finishes up coordination of transportation.

I doubt many of them would agree to that any more than many anti-abortion conservatives would agree to house, cloth, feed, school and attend to every need until they are able to care for themselves for every now aborted child either.

Asking or expecting people to go to the extreme for their beliefs seems kind of unrealistic to me. I know I hold many believes and will fight hard for some of them but I learned long ago to pick my battles as wisely as I could. Going to exsteam for any one belief is beyond my usual MO.

but, to each their own, it's called freedom ! 

 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.1  tomwcraig  replied to  321steve @5.1    4 months ago

321steve,

You're not getting it.  The Left are the ones on the extreme essentially telling everyone that they need to accept these illegal immigrants and allow them free reign to everything we have earned.  At the same time, these very same proponents are living in gated communities with bodyguards, top of the line security systems, etc.  They don't care about anyone else's possessions except their own and won't realize what they are proposing until it is too late and they cannot put the cows back into the barn as they would have burned it with their stupidity.

 
 
321steve
5.1.2  321steve  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.1    4 months ago
You're not getting it.

O I get it. I see that both sides push their well meaning agendas with little regard for the other side. Both sides claim superiority and ignore their own faults. 

And as far as proponents for illegal immigration living in gated communities I'd suggest looking at business owners hiding themselves and their possessions behind those gates in more cases than the people out protesting for better treatment for illegals.

 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  321steve @5.1    4 months ago
Asking or expecting people to go to the extreme for their beliefs seems kind of unrealistic to me

I'm not asking them to do any more than what they are demanding.  They demand that we all accept illegals and provide for them.  I'm merely calling them out.    

 
 
321steve
5.1.4  321steve  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.3    4 months ago
They demand that we all accept illegals and provide for them.  I'm merely calling them out.

and I was merely pointing out both sides do this shit. Bitch about what they want and dont want and refuse to step up as the solution. 

pro-illegals wont take care of illegals any more that pro-abortionists will step up and take care of the babies they want to save.

I see NO difference and called out both sides for their hypocrisy. 

 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.5  tomwcraig  replied to  321steve @5.1.4    4 months ago

Most anti-abortionists, like myself, would love to see every aborted baby adopted instead of aborted.  The problem with that is the rules and laws in each state that govern adoptions.  Where I live, you have to go through training and meet minimum income standards along with housing standards before you can even become a foster parent let alone adopt.

 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.6  tomwcraig  replied to  321steve @5.1.2    4 months ago

The irony with your statement about protests for illegals is that very few people are actually out there protesting for better treatment of illegals.  It is the politicians that are pushing for better treatment of illegals and giving them more rights than what an American Citizen has.  Just look at the laws passed in California regarding illegals.

 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.5    4 months ago
Most anti-abortionists, like myself, would love to see every aborted baby adopted instead of aborted. The problem with that is the rules and laws in each state that govern adoptions. Where I live, you have to go through training and meet minimum income standards along with housing standards before you can even become a foster parent let alone adopt.

Those rules are intended to ensure a good start for the child, and that's surely to be desired. Raising kids takes money. If you want all ZEFs brought to term, you must accept that there's a big budget.

I have a question. Something like ten times as many babies (fertilized eggs) die from non-implantation as from abortions. I see nothing in the "Save the Babies" movement calling for programs to save this far greater number. Why not? Are these babies less valuable for some reason?

 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.8  tomwcraig  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.7    4 months ago

So, you want every woman to be implanted with cameras and sensors in their womb as well as institutionalized while they are having sex to prevent a natural occurrence from actually occurring?

 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.8    4 months ago
So, you want...

What?

I don't want anything. I asked a question. There are ten times as many dead babies due to non-implantation as to abortion... but apparently the "Save the Babies" folks don't care.

That isn't logical. If you're upset about dead babies, then you should be ten times more upset about non-implantation than about abortion.

If you are more upset about abortion... then the topic isn't really dead babies. It's something else, and you're just using the dead babies as camouflage for your true purpose.

 
 
1ofmany
5.1.10  1ofmany  replied to  321steve @5.1    4 months ago
I doubt many of them would agree to that any more than many anti-abortion conservatives would agree to house, cloth, feed, school and attend to every need until they are able to care for themselves for every now aborted child either.

I get your point but others used it to jump the track. There is no comparison between illegal aliens and abortion. Illegal aliens are here because they knowingly and deliberately snuck into the country. Babies are here as the result of a natural biological act. Deporting illegal aliens is simply a means of enforcing the law like removing a trespasser or burglar from your property. A baby is not here unlawfully and the person who wants to kill it for convenience is the same person who willingly opened her legs to create it. If her children were walking around the house and she wanted to kill them, I shouldn’t be given the ridiculous choice of either letting her kill her own children or raising them myself. 

 
 
321steve
5.1.11  321steve  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.5    4 months ago
The problem with that is the rules and laws in each state that govern adoptions.

Good reasoning perhaps then part of the solution lies with amending the adoption laws. 

 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.12  tomwcraig  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.9    4 months ago

You are asking people to do something to stop a natural process rather than the artificial process of abortion.  Non-implantation is the egg just passing through the womb rather than actively ending the life of a fetus.  The only way to stop non-implantation is to do what I stated: implant cameras nd sensors in the womb and keep women that are having sex in an institution for round-the-clock monitoring.  Do we think they are any less human? No.  But, we know nature is far more powerful than man ever could be.

 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.12    4 months ago
Non-implantation is the egg just passing through the womb rather than actively ending the life of a fetus.

No.

The egg has been fertilized. It is a baby in the same measure that an aborted fetus is a baby.

So if you really care about dead babies, then you must be horrified by all those non-implantated dead babies. It shouldn't matter how they died. You should be demonstrating in every state capital and in Washington to get research programs started to learn how to stop the hecatomb. This should be your absolute priority, since there are so many dead babies.

The fact that anti-abortion faction dismisses ten times more dead babies than abortion causes... tells me that in reality, your purpose has nothing to do with dead babies. You want to stop abortion... for some other reason.

Why?

 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.14  tomwcraig  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.13    4 months ago

Thank you for your false "Gotchya!" moment.  I call it false, because you are trying to place a natural phenomenon into a false outrage category.  We cannot be outraged for non-implantation as it is NATURALLY OCCURRING not artificially occurring like abortion.

 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.14    4 months ago

Please explain to me why it matters that the babies are dead by "natural phenomenon"? Cancer is a natural phenomenon.

Regardless of "how", those babies are dead. And quite clearly, you don't care.

So either you know that ZEFs aren't actually babies, or you don't care about dead babies. In either case, your movement is profoundly hypocritical.

 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.16  tomwcraig  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.15    4 months ago

Read the Bible and you might understand why it matters.  The fact YOU are so cavalier about this says more about you and your conscience than mine.  Besides, I've been through cancer, so don't use that to back your false outrage.

 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.16    4 months ago

The Bible does not mention abortion.

The modern notion of "soul" did not exist in Jesus's day.

Don't invoke the Bible when you don't know it.

 
 
Tessylo
5.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.8    4 months ago
'So, you want every woman to be implanted with cameras and sensors in their womb as well as institutionalized while they are having sex to prevent a natural occurrence from actually occurring?'

crazyWTF?

 
 
Tessylo
5.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.12    4 months ago
'Non-implantation is the egg just passing through the womb rather than actively ending the life of a fetus.'

There is no way to end 'the life of a fetus' because a 'fetus' is not 'a life'.  It has the potential to become life.  What nonsense you blather.  

 
 
Tessylo
5.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.12    4 months ago
'The only way to stop non-implantation is to do what I stated: implant cameras nd sensors in the womb and keep women that are having sex in an institution for round-the-clock monitoring.'

How did you dream of this ridiculous nonsense?

 
 
JBB
5.1.21  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.18    4 months ago

If all of the good Christian woman, including the LDS, who ever made the wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy were to be raptured up to heaven on Saturday night church pews across America would be half empty on Sunday morning. Trying to have an honest conversation with radical forced birthers is difficult but when you throw in cultish fundie paternalistic radicalism it is impossible. We, humanity, know a lot about demand for termination services and that is what it is all about, demand. Since the times of ancient Egypt and Rome a certain percentage of women have made the difficult decision to terminate pregnancies. The demand for termination services, abortions, is mostly created by women already having more children than they can provide for though there are many other good reasons including for the woman's mental, physical  and yes, financial health. To illustrate this point, the abortion rate is about twice what it is in the US in mostly catholic nations like Mexico and Czechoslovakia where abortions are mostly illegal. Three things are proven to dramatically reduce demand for terminations.

Stop demand for terminations by:

1. Providing early comprehensive sex education for all boys and girls prior to puberty.

2. Providing easy access to all forms of birth control for all sexually active persons.

3. Providing easy access to women's health services such as provided by Planned Parenthood.

Oddly, those most opposed to choice are also most opposed to things proven to obliterate demand.

 
 
JBB
5.1.22  JBB  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.5    4 months ago
Most anti-abortionists

Making terminations illegal or hard to get does NOTHING to decrease the demand for abortions...

 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.23  tomwcraig  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.20    4 months ago

I guess you really didn't bother to try to comprehend the conversation.

 
 
arkpdx
5.1.24  arkpdx  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.23    4 months ago

You really don't expect her to  start "doing something new at this point do you? 

 
 
Tessylo
5.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @5.1.23    4 months ago
'I guess you really didn't bother to try to comprehend the conversation.'

What's to comprehend out of those whack-job scenarios?

 
 
arkpdx
5.1.26  arkpdx  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.1.17    4 months ago
The Bible does not mention abortion.

Yes it does!  You know!  The part where it says "Thou shall not kill" .

 
 
JBB
5.1.27  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.26    4 months ago
Yes it does!

Um, "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness!"

 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.28  Bob Nelson  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.26    4 months ago
The Bible does not mention abortion.
Yes it does! You know! The part where it says "Thou shall not kill" .

That's pure semantics. I'm not interested. Have a great life...

 
 
arkpdx
5.1.29  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @5.1.27    4 months ago

\nd that is relevant how? 

 
 
1ofmany
6  1ofmany    4 months ago

Resources everywhere have always been limited and people defended their resources by enforcing some kind of border. Even the Native Americans had boundaries between tribes and they fought to maintain them. If you crossed a boundary uninvited, then you were subject to being killed not deported. Killing trespassers tended to reduce the likelihood that anybody else would do the same thing. 

 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  1ofmany @6    4 months ago

Let's be very clear, here, 1st...

There were boundaries between tribes. Between distinct areas of collective ownership of land. Within the tribal boundaries, the land was common property.

Oh, such a quandary, 1st! Your ancestors were... socialists...  confused

 
 
1ofmany
6.1.1  1ofmany  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1    4 months ago

There were boundaries between tribes. Between distinct areas of collectiveownership of land. Within the tribal boundaries, the land was commonproperty.

Indians didn’t have a concept that land could be individually owned and neither did some Europeans at one point in time. But whether land could or couldn’t be individually owned within a boundary has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that each tribe had boundaries, like everybody else, and protected them by keeping others out.

 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  1ofmany @6.1.1    4 months ago
Indians didn’t have a concept that land could be individually owned...

Ummm...

That's exactly what I said.

 
 
1ofmany
6.1.3  1ofmany  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1.2    4 months ago
That's exactly what I said.

You thought my statement raised a quandary when, as I explained, there’s no quandary at all. If you now see no quandary, then we agree. 

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7  Buzz of the Orient    4 months ago

It really doesn't matter that much to me, but for the good of the citizens of the USA, I hope your government, no matter which party governs, will never make the same tragic error that the EU and many of its constituent countries have made. At least a couple of those countries are fighting back against the problems that the EU is imposing upon them, but others are throwing people in jail for even talking about the problems. 

Unfortunately, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal govenment are already in the process of destroying my country.

 
 
Thrawn 31
7.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    4 months ago

I am sure your country will be just fine.

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1    4 months ago

Well, I guess your assurance is all Canada needs to make it survive. /s

 
 
Tessylo
7.2  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    4 months ago
'Unfortunately, Justin Trudeau and his Liberal govenment are already in the process of destroying my country.'  crying
Your country?  Don't you live in China with your very young wife?  What nonsense.  
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
7.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tessylo @7.2    4 months ago

"...your very young wife"

Can't get over that age disparity thing, eh?  I wonder why it troubles you so much....let me guess.

I will never give up my Canadian citizenship and passport, yet will never become a Chinese citizen, but as a permitted resident I will remain the rest of my life here.  At least I feel a lot safer here than I would be in America (and more unfortunately now Canada), and as well I live a much more comfortable life on my limited income than I could possibly live there. 

 
 
Tessylo
7.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7.2.1    4 months ago

It doesn't trouble me - I won't say what I want to say because it got me suspended before - she appears young enough to be your daughter - but good for you dude.  

 
 
Thrawn 31
8  Thrawn 31    4 months ago
You see that is the actual issue with the Illegal Immigration debate.  The Left wants YOU to open your home to anyone that desires to come into it and allow them to take whatever they want without your permission. 

That is not the issue for me at all. For me the issue is this, Americans aren't having enough kids. We are reproducing below the limit for a stable population. Immigration is the ONLY reason we have a growing population, and yes illegal immigration is a part of that. We need more workers to pay for everything and keep the country running. Gotta get them from somewhere.

 
 
charger 383
8.1  charger 383  replied to  Thrawn 31 @8    4 months ago

our population needs to drop to where we are not overcrowded.

 
 
Thrawn 31
8.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  charger 383 @8.1    4 months ago

Meh, there is still plenty of space, resources are another matter however. IMO we need to get off this planet and start spreading out among the stars. All the eggs in one basket kinda thing. 

 
 
Bob Nelson
8.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  charger 383 @8.1    4 months ago
our population needs to drop to where we are not overcrowded

The planet can support the current population without great strain. Or rather... it could do so... if wealth were not so unequally distributed.

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @8.1.2    4 months ago

There isn't much concern that people will go hungry as long as Israel is supported, so that it can CONTINUE to find ways to feed an overpopulation:

https://www.israel21c.org/the-top-12-ways-israel-feeds-the-world/

 
 
freepress
9  freepress    4 months ago

The number one argument that no one presents and that when presented the right ignores is this:

1. Every southern border state for the last 50 years or more have predominantly voted Republican. 

2. The situation at those borders from Reagan in California, to G. Bush in Texas to Jeb Bush in Florida and all the Republicans at the state level did nothing for years, and years and years and years. 

3. In fact all of these state governors and even with Reagan and Bush achieving the Presidency, none of them ever actually addressed the immigration issue in a comprehensive way. 

4. Take also into account that Reagan, both Bushes and a host of local and state Republicans in those border states approved some kind of AMNESTY policy.

5. Republican voters fail to look back at how their votes for Republicans allowed this, local and state Republican politicians were happy to glad hand their campaign donors in border states turning a blind eye to cheap labor for their wealthy patrons.

6. No one in any of those border states ever questioned border policy until Republican politicians that allowed it to go on for far too long ended up with a problem. 

7. In fact even with George Bush having 9/11 on his watch and had the support immediately afterward with a solid opportunity to address the borders and immigration, he took a hard pass with Republican voter support, Republican voters not only did not kick up a fuss about immigration, but supported Bush in everything he did giving him a rubber stamp on everything.

8. The immigration issue was not a big issue until a Democrat was elected, then it became major talking points on all the right wing media like Fox "the most powerful name in news" and every right wing pundit and talking head riling up the base with nothing but blame for the "left".

9. The "left" did not control the state and local governments of border states for the last 50 years or more. Republicans did. Why aren't any of the right wing media pointing out the facts about this?

10. The number of immigrants was a trickle with Republicans in border states turning a blind eye until it became a flood. The situation did not happen overnight the day a Democrat was elected President.

11. Even today, no one that voted for Trump as a Republican bats an eye as Trump repeatedly asks for more immigration work visas for all of his properties in America. It has made news headlines everytime it happens but Fox never prominently airs these facts.

 

 
 
Texan1211
9.1  Texan1211  replied to  freepress @9    4 months ago

Why do some believe that we don't already have immigration laws? What is wrong with enforcing those laws?

Seems like it is Democrats whining about "reform".

 
 
Bob Nelson
9.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  freepress @9    4 months ago

Interesting recap.

One might almost imagine that the Republicans who have so clearly controlled the border didn't really want to stop the flow of cheap labor immigrants.

 
 
tomwcraig
9.3  tomwcraig  replied to  freepress @9    4 months ago

Well, most of your points are invalid as states do not have the authority to have any sort of immigration policy.  The only reason it became an issue after a Democrat became President was because 1) he created an Executive Order (DACA) which set aside a large swath of immigration law, and 2) Sanctuary states and sanctuary cities started becoming a major issue as they are violating the Constitution with their actions by exercising an authority specifically granted to the Federal government.

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
9.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  freepress @9    4 months ago

While I agree with some of your points, there are others that the left and the right just do not choose to open their eyes to. First off, I live in a small town in the SE corner of Cochise County in Arizona. In fact, I live a whopping six blocks from the AZ/Mexico border fence. I can literally look out my front door and see the border. I hear many liberals talk about the plight of illegal immigrants and I am not insensitive to that. But many people citing those plights do not live anywhere near the AZ/Mexican border like I and others do. While citing that the illegal immigrants are the victims, you just never seem to hear about the victims on this side of the border. I am talking about the citizens and legal residents that reside on this side of the line in the rural areas. The invasion of illegals is a constant drain on the livelihood of farmers and ranchers who have their homes regularly broken into, their fences cut, and their pets and livestock slaughtered for food by drug and human smugglers. Also do not forget the mountains of trash left behind by illegal immigrants as they pass though the farmer's and rancher's properties on their way to points of the compass East, West, and North. Said property owners are left to deal with these things. I had my house broken into twice in the last 5 years, once while my wife and I were home! Prior to that my wife never allowed a firearm in the house. After that, she said "Go buy a gun and do whatever you have to do to protect our house and our grandchildren!" I am a responsible gun owner who keeps his firearms locked up in a heavy duty gun sake with a biometric locking device and trigger locks on all but one pistol which is my ready weapon available for an emergency. I will defend my house and it's occupants within the laws that allow me to do so.

 
 
Bob Nelson
9.4.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.4    4 months ago
The invasion of illegals is a constant drain on the livelihood of farmers and ranchers who have their homes regularly broken into, their fences cut, and their pets and livestock slaughtered for food by drug and human smugglers.

It seems to me that this argument can be turned around.

If those immigrants didn't have to sneak in - if they could enter openly and legally at any border crossing - there would be no motive for what you describe here.

The very real nuisances you describe aren't due to immigration, but to its being illegal.

--

For part of the year, I live in Calais - the French side of the heaviest ferry traffic in Europe, going across the English Channel to Dover. For over a decade, our city has had thousands of migrants - over ten thousand at one point - living rough and trying to find a way to get over to the UK. These people are not intentionally destructive... but there are a lot of them.

Much of the city is now behind barbed wire, for protection. You can imagine the trash problem...

These people come from what someone once called "shithole countries". They want better, and will take any risk to get there. There's a death or two every month, falling off trucks or whatever.

They make a mess of Calais because their real objective is thwarted. If they were allowed across, they would be no problem at all.

Well... yes, in a way. The day after the news broke, "Passage is open to Dover!"... they wouldn't be a few thousand. They would be hundreds of thousands.

That is the real problem. As long as paradise is near to shithole counties, there will be migration...

 
 
tomwcraig
9.4.2  tomwcraig  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.4.1    4 months ago

There are legal pathways to immigration, and they are there to protect the sovereignty of the country and the rights of the country's actual citizens.  If you allow anyone to come to your country without them needing to be documented; you might as well kiss your country and its laws goodbye as they would be replaced by the illegal immigrants ideas for laws.  Just reference the discussion above about Native Americans to see exactly what happens when there are no limits to immigration.  And, yes, that was a time where there were no limits because the Americas did not have any singular government to make deals with the English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese regarding immigration.

 
 
Bob Nelson
9.4.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @9.4.2    4 months ago
There are legal pathways to immigration...

... which are in fact used to limit immigration to a trickle, insufficient to absorb the number that will come, legally or not.

Look... I'm not saying there's any simple answer to this mess... but what we're doing now is inhuman and ineffective, both. Doubling down won't make it better.

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
9.4.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.4.1    4 months ago

Your turning the argument around seems to imply that the citizens and legal residents should just suck it up and bear the expense of the damages to their properties and livelihoods for the sake of appeasing the illegals entering areas where they are breaking the laws doing so? Sorry that does not fly in my neck of the woods nor does it gel with the way I was raised. I was not raised to play the lemming and let things just roll over me and push me around.

 
 
Bob Nelson
9.4.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.4.4    4 months ago

... seems to imply...

No.

 
 
tomwcraig
9.4.6  tomwcraig  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.4.5    4 months ago

Bob,

Do you lock your doors and windows to your home?  Do you lock your car?

 
 
Bob Nelson
9.4.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @9.4.6    4 months ago

Yes.

In both Calais and Yuma...

 
 
tomwcraig
9.4.8  tomwcraig  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.4.7    4 months ago

So, you are not willing to accept what you are preaching.  By telling everyone to just accept the damages, while locking your car and home; you are refusing to accept the same situation for yourself.  That is true hypocrisy.

 
 
arkpdx
9.4.9  arkpdx  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.4.3    4 months ago
... which are in fact used to limit immigration to a trickle,

Feeling no shit. That is what immigration laws are for, to limit and control who and how many immigrants are allowed in .

insufficient to absorb the number thatwillcome, legally or not.

And your solution is to just let anyone and everyone to enter with no contols or restrictions? 

 
 
Bob Nelson
9.4.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  tomwcraig @9.4.8    4 months ago
By telling everyone to just accept the damages...

Nope. Didn't say that. Why do you folks always have to make shit up?

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
9.4.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  tomwcraig @9.4.8    4 months ago

Bingo!

 
 
Done
9.5  Done  replied to  freepress @9    4 months ago

Some elements of that narrative are correct but misinterpretation of others and the conclusion derived only result in a half truth, thus invalidating itself.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

WallyW
arkpdx
Ronin2
Ozzwald
Dismayed Patriot
Save Me Jebus
ArkansasHermit-too
Tacos!
Skrekk
livefreeordie


Galen Marvin Ross
XDm9mm
Texan1211
GaJenn78


53 visitors