Unanswered questions, Clear the slate for 2024

@no1marauder said
The best way to reduce illegal immigration while still receiving the economic benefits of immigration would be to streamline the asylum process and make it easier for migrants to get permanent asylum. This is what Biden has partially proposed by asking for funding to add hundreds of more administrative judges and support staff. Republicans, naturally, refuse to support su ...[text shortened]... describing them as "not peaceful" because they are unemployed and thus need assistance is deranged.

Rave on, dream on. The Pollyanna showing itself in Marauder.
Please stop saying ‘seekin asylum’ Mr liberal, with your heart on your sleeve?Please?
Everyone, Marauder knows asylum is only available to, for lack of a better word, persecuted people. If a woman applies, saying that her husband beats her every day in Mexico, she would be sent back to Mexico. That is not persecution. That is, until weakling Biden was put in charge.
Are you following me here?
And, Marauder has the answer. Ha, his is, simply, we will all (including noncitizens) be the same at the end of the day.

@averagejoe1 said
Rave on, dream on. The Pollyanna showing itself in Marauder.
Please stop saying ‘seekin asylum’ Mr liberal, with your heart on your sleeve?Please?
Everyone, Marauder knows asylum is only available to, for lack of a better word, persecuted people. If a woman applies, saying that her husband beats her every day in Mexico, she would be sent back to Mexico. That is ...[text shortened]... nswer. Ha, his is, simply, we will all (including noncitizens) be the same at the end of the day.

That's why we should make it easier, not harder, to legally immigrate. I quoted David Bier in the other thread:

"all immigration is presumptively illegal unless immigrants prove that they fall within a few narrow exceptions based on U.S. sponsorship or selection, and most exceptions have hard numerical limits.2"

"Prior to the 1920s, the legal framework was reversed: nearly all immigration was
presumptively legal unless the government found that an immigrant fell within a category specifically barred.3"

That's where we should start given the undoubted economic benefits of immigration already spelled out. And jeez, make it easier for them to get a job like they want.

@no1marauder said
That's why we should make it easier, not harder, to legally immigrate. I quoted David Bier in the other thread:

"all immigration is presumptively illegal unless immigrants prove that they fall within a few narrow exceptions based on U.S. sponsorship or selection, and most exceptions have hard numerical limits.2"

"Prior to the 1920s, the legal framework was reversed: ...[text shortened]... s of immigration already spelled out. And jeez, make it easier for them to get a job like they want.

I’m sorry, may we back up a few steps. You are writing all this dreamworld, all this stuff, in the face of 300,000 people a month walking right into our country. Will you sort of tie in everything you’ve said to this fact which is right in the front of you. There is no way I can follow what you were talking about while I watch the news with all of these Healthy people, who do not qualify for asylum, waltzing right into our country. You are really dancing around that issue.

@averagejoe1 said
I’m sorry, may we back up a few steps. You are writing all this dreamworld, all this stuff, in the face of 300,000 people a month walking right into our country. Will you sort of tie in everything you’ve said to this fact which is right in the front of you. There is no way I can follow what you were talking about while I watch the news with all of these Healthy people, wh ...[text shortened]... o not qualify for asylum, waltzing right into our country. You are really dancing around that issue.

How do you know who does or doesn't qualify for asylum even under the restrictive laws we have now?

Answer" You don't. Plus you don't even seem to know that those apprehended at the border can still apply for asylum.

Don't you think you should try to get some of the facts before just blathering out right propaganda you are told?

EDIT: And so what even if "300,000 people a month" walked right into our country? That would amount over a year to only about 1% of our present population and, as I have already shown, many times in our history we have allowed immigration at well over such a level. Plus we're removing about 200,000 a month anyway.

@no1marauder said
How do you know who does or doesn't qualify for asylum even under the restrictive laws we have now?

Answer" You don't. Plus you don't even seem to know that those apprehended at the border can still apply for asylum.

Don't you think you should try to get some of the facts before just blathering out right propaganda you are told?

EDIT: And so what even if "300,000 ...[text shortened]... ave allowed immigration at well over such a level. Plus we're removing about 200,000 a month anyway.

Marauder dances the polka.
How do we know who qualifies???? We don't know anything. How do we know that the Yeminite does not have instructions to set us all on fire? Jesus. You are a piece of work, really. How do we know. Unbelievable.

And then you wrap it up by pontificating how many people should be allowed to immigrate!!! Can you name the states, 7 of them, whose populations add up to the number of illegals that have poured in here over the last 3 years???????????????????//. Six Million plus. Iowa has 3.3 million people, for instance, down to WY at 535000.
Everyone follow the omnipotent Marauder as he blesses this invasion.

@no1marauder said
How do you know who does or doesn't qualify for asylum even under the restrictive laws we have now?

Answer" You don't.

Because seeking asylum is about what you're leaving rather than what you're going to. If the asylum seeker has passed through three other countries on their way to the US, UK or Aus, then - no longer seeking asylum, they're looking for the handouts. In a controversial move Australia diverted asylum seekers another island, when some asylum seekers realised 'this ain't Australia' they opted to go back. And the asylum seeker boat tours took a big hit in business.

@wajoma said
Because seeking asylum is about what you're leaving rather than what you're going to. If the asylum seeker has passed through three other countries on their way to the US, UK or Aus, then - no longer seeking asylum, they're looking for the handouts. In a controversial move Australia diverted asylum seekers another island, when some asylum seekers realised 'this ain't Australia' they opted to go back. And the asylum seeker boat tours took a big hit in business.

Of course, people wanting to flee from oppression and poverty to gain a better life for themselves and their families are drawn to less oppressive, less poverty stricken countries. But there isn't a scintilla of evidence that what they are primarily interested in are the pathetic "handouts" even the most generous "welfare states" (and the US certainly isn't one of those) make available.

Your pathetic hatred and bias towards these people is pretty disgusting (your ignorance is expected).

@no1marauder said
Since they are not "peaceful people" can migrants who apply for some temporary benefits the democratically elected government has seen fit to make them eligible for be murdered on sight?

And, of course, that would logically apply to anyone in a country not just migrants.

Tell me again, who's the "thug"?

No they can't apply for the right to force the residents to pay for their healthcare, housing, education etc because that would be one of the conditions of entering the country in the first place, i.e. you're welcome here but you have to stand on your own two feet.

I'll tell you again who is the thug because you've already been told 523 times, the initiator of force and threats of force is the thug. And because you get someone to do that for you doesn't make you any less the thug. And let's face it No1, you don't have the balls to do it yourself, to come and knock at my door and demand I hand over half my working life, you keep hiding behind your anonymous keyboard.

@no1marauder said
Of course, people wanting to flee from oppression and poverty to gain a better life for themselves and their families are drawn to less oppressive, less poverty stricken countries. But there isn't a scintilla of evidence that what they are primarily interested in are the pathetic "handouts" even the most generous "welfare states" (and the US certainly isn't one of those) ...[text shortened]... our pathetic hatred and bias towards these people is pretty disgusting (your ignorance is expected).

I welcome them, I welcome peaceful people, I work in an industry (mechanical drafting) that comes under pressure because it can easily be outsourced via the internet (no borders), I don't cry about it, occasionally I have contact with these people and the offer is always there, "You want to learn? I want to help."

@wajoma said
No they can't apply for the right to force the residents to pay for their healthcare, housing, education etc because that would be one of the conditions for entering the country in the first place, i.e. you're welcome here but you have to stand on your own two feet.

I'll tell you again who is the thug because you've already been told 523 times, the initiator of force and th ...[text shortened]... my door and demand I hand over half my working life, you keep hiding behind your anonymous keyboard.

If you hate the political systems in your country, why not start your own? It is the People of your and my country who have decided on their social and economic systems and how to fund them. Your pretend outrage about "force" is hardly consistent with the fact that the entire concept of private property you revere was the biggest forcible taking of all time, depriving most of the human race of their inherent rights to natural resources to dole them out to a favored few. What you really hate is that the People in most countries no longer buy into such organized thuggery at least to nth degree that simple minded laissez faire capitalism requires.

Internet tough talk is the last defense of the weak, so your last sentence gets the LMFAO it deserves.

Maybe you missed it, but my country won't even allow those seeking asylum to apply for work authorizations for 150 days. So, your idea that they aren't "peaceful people" who, presumably thugs like yourself can attack with impunity in pretend "self-defense", is intellectually incoherent (as almost all your ideas are). The government actually prevents them from "standing on their own two feet".

@no1marauder said
Your pretend outrage about "force" is hardly consistent with the fact that the entire concept of private property you revere was the biggest forcible taking of all time, depriving most of the human race of their inherent rights to natural resources to dole them out to a favored few.

If no one owns it, it can't be 'taken', inevitably your argument against property rights comes around to be an argument for them.

@no1marauder said
Internet tough talk is the last defense of the weak, so your last sentence gets the LMFAO it deserves.

You're the anonymous tough talker No.1, all I did was present to you starkly what you'd rather not face.

You stake a claim on half my working life and then try to slink back anonymously into the crowd with 'the people' when challenged. When quite obviously that's not all people, and there's an easy way to test that, make tax voluntary, then we'd find out who 'the people' really are.

I presented to you the stark reality of your claim, it's not nice to look at who you really are is it.

@wajoma said
If no one owns it, it can't be 'taken', inevitably your argument against property rights comes around to be an argument for them.

I'm not surprised you are ignorant of the philosophical underpinnings of Natural Rights. From John Locke:

"God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And tho’ all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state:"

Two Treatises of Civil Government section 26
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/hollis-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed

Even if one desires to skip the "God" part, it is obvious that in the Natural State no man had any right to declare any piece of dirt he wasn't actually using for his and his family's subsistence as his "property" and thus exclude all other men from it. The whole concept of private property was theft from the Man's Natural Right to enjoy the resources on Nature and was done by force - by chiefs or kings or whatever the head robber called himself doling out land he didn't own to his henchmen and family and enforcing this "property right" at the point of whatever weapons were handy.

@no1marauder said
I'm not surprised you are ignorant of the philosophical underpinnings of Natural Rights. From John Locke:

"God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And tho’ all the fruits i ...[text shortened]... henchmen and family and enforcing this "property right" at the point of whatever weapons were handy.

Locke has some interesting ideas on child labour too, you going to be posting them.

BTW again you make the case for property rights making property owners safe from arbitrary robbers.

@wajoma said
Locke has some interesting ideas on child labour too, you going to be posting them.

BTW again you make the case for property rights making property owners safe from arbitrary robbers.

Private property is arbitrary robbery.

There is no case for it save for avoiding the societal disruption its immediate abolition would cause.