Trump's immigration ban sends shockwaves

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jan 31, 2008
2,764
3,359
113
44
It absolutely does. State vs the people is happening right now. Its been simmering for years, but Trump has tipped the cauldron over.
What does an observation such as the part I bolded imply? Has it been getting better or worse over the years? If it was Hillary or Cruz who became president would it have gotten better or worse from what it was? Do you now see the wasted effort in this discussion?

I hate the fact that I enter these discussion just to point to this fact but the underlying observation derived here should result in neither of you talking about Brother Obama this or Businessman Trump that and instead focused on looking at how or if the masses can ever be sovereign.

We should instead be talking about by whom history is being written.
We may not have the extra-sensory powers to know who is in control or what their end-game is, that is, until we look at who benefits the most and how our state of living is transitioning.

Trump and Obama and Hillary the Lizard are all pawns. The endgame is the same. Stop justifying even a semblance of normality or sanity in the other.
 
Blah Blah everyone talks about how Trump is bad.
yet we would be slaves to China this year...
under the TTP..

but hey he only undid what evil Clinton and Obama did in secret for 10 years!

It's not like he brought freedom back to America or anything!
Let's only pick out his tiny mistakes.. instead of being thankful!

I for one am glad my the cheese in my cheese burger is from America.
Made and bought in American, and puts the American worker first! ha ha ah aha haaaaaaaaaa
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
F @fuck y and @206 I have zero fear of refugees, I don't consider Muslims bad people at all. I don't think they have bad intentions. I recognize if I was in their position I would be trying to get away from the shit too. I don't think its a good idea to bring them here to live off tax dollars. Thats just my opinion men

I can tell you for certain that if the USA was a war torn shit hole Id rather flee to Canada and get a job than China to live off the gov, or live in a safe part of the country(maybe Florida), I think I'd have a better chance for success in a culture I was more used to.
Why are you worried about tax dollars? Do you think that's going to have a huge impact on your life? A few pennies at best would go to help them. I'd be far more concerned with all of the bullshit significant portions of your taxes are already going to, or not going to at all, versus helping out some refugees. Again, refugees in our countries historically have all gone on to become productive members of society, it's absolutely no different here. You think they would come here and become happy living off food stamps for generations? Yeah right, no one wants to live like that (poor), they will adapt and become workers of this country. White people and black people who are not refugees are the ones eating up tax dollars, but even then it doesn't really affect any of our paychecks, it's a small number. The big chunks of your check is going to the military machine and other bullshit people should be outraged about. No idea why people think helping some refugees is going to put a dent into their paychecks, that's absolutely not the case.
 
May 22, 2006
1,365
2,349
113
42
I'm worried about tax dollars because I get smoked for an ungodly amount every year. I think the money can be better spent on fixing problems we already have, like homeless vets, homelessness in general, drug treatement facilities, clean water for Flint..U kno the drill... The homelessness and drug problems we have here should be addressed first. I also stand on my opinion that a refugee is better off in his or her own country in a safe zone than on the other side of the planet. Look how fucked up their conditions are in Paris.


[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek1ENuEyWHE[/ame]
 
Apr 25, 2002
6,229
2,453
113

i dont see too much wrong with that. i just read through it but didn't get too much out of it other than a liberal based paper/website giving it's liberal take on what's going to happen, not showing much facts. alot of fear mongering tho.

i did see this:
"In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, popularly known as “welfare reform.” The law severely restricted all immigrant access to social assistance; those who are in the country illegally are barred from almost any federal program designed for the poor. Legal immigrants must live in the United States for a minimum of five years to become eligible for a limited set of social aid programs, and access to Social Security assistance is rarely granted."

not sure why there were no protests. that seems racist and shows a lack of human decency. that's how they say it, right?


i also saw this:
“The unlawful employment of aliens has had a devastating impact on the wages and jobs of American workers, especially low-skilled, teenage, and African American and Hispanic workers,”

if that's true, then what's wrong with that? i want black and mexican americans to come up as communities. did Cesar Chavez's immigration views differ from a modern 25 year old white female from California with a typical California political lean?
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
I'm worried about tax dollars because I get smoked for an ungodly amount every year.
Again, how my do you think you would be paying personally? Truth is you wouldn't even know or see a difference.


I think the money can be better spent on fixing problems we already have, like homeless vets, homelessness in general, drug treatement facilities, clean water for Flint..U kno the drill... The homelessness and drug problems we have here should be addressed first. I also stand on my opinion that a refugee is better off in his or her own country in a safe zone than on the other side of the planet. Look how fucked up their conditions are in Paris.
There is always going to be shit we need to spend taxes on, shit we need that hasn't been fixed in years, Flint is a perfect example. That will not change, we'll always have problems. But still, not taking in some refugees isn't going to fix our problems. We aren't being asked to either take in refugees or fix our own problems, this isn't a choice where we can only do one and not the other. That's why that argument is severely flawed and flat out wrong.

When Cambodian refugees came to America, do you think everything was peachy in the US? Fuck no, we had tons of problems during that time period. There were very few Cambodian Americans pre-1975. After '75 and the genocide, well over a hundred thousand Cambodians came to the united states, of which 149,000 entered the country as refugees. 75-79 was not a great economic period in this country; we had a long laundry list of problems. Still we took them in because not only were we responsible for creating the shit storm in South East Asia thanks to the Vietnam war, but because it was the right thing to do and we could handle it. Likewise, we are responsible for the clusterfuck in Syria and beyond, we caused that shit. If there is no invasion of Iraq based on a lie, WMDs, which we know 100℅ for fact was a blatant lie by the Bush administration, ISIS does not exist. ISIS only came to be as a direct result of our bullshit war in Iraq.

These people are human beings, they have suffered unimaginable horrors that you nor I can't even begin to fathom. We can still do strict screening and not just let anyone in, no one is saying we take every person who wants to come since that's never the case anyway (except for Cuba, we took their criminals for political reasons). All I'm saying is we can take some of the burden - not the bulk, not the majority but some. We have the resources, we have the ability and it wouldn't cost the average American tons of their tax dollars as you imply.


From the YouTube video description:
-uncontrolled illegal mass immigration
-The migrants have since resettled there, the area looks like before - thousands of Africans live in tents and sleep on mattresses in the middle of the street as of October 16th.
-Tens of thousands of homeless Illegal immigrants, undocumented or waiting for a decision of their asylum application
Etc etc

This isn't what I'm talking about and that would not happen here since the US has a process for immigration and refugees, a process that some European countries do not have or seriously lacked nor were they prepared and in many cases left refugees with absolutely nothing, no place to stay, no food, no water, a complete mess. Some European countries have handled it much better and no surprise, those countries who provided basic fucking shit like food, water and shelter aren't having those kinds of problems. All of those European countries are far smaller than the US, some of them with incredibly small populations compared to the US where a huge immigration will be felt and very noticeable. The US can absorb tens of thousands of people spread across the country and you would hardly notice. Places like LA where the population is bigger than we European countries! Places that have "little Iran", place like Glendale which is all Armenians, etc. It's very easy for a huge country like ours to absorb refugees, since it's not like we would suddenly put 25,000 refugees in ome single spot.

When waves of refugees come to America and go through the process, many of them are sent to locations chosen by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement and spread out. They are not dumped into the center of a major city and say "good luck assholes!" Again there is a process, there is basic stuff provided as they go through the process (shelter, food, water, etc.) until they are ready.

With that said the process can and should be better. Using Cambodia again as example, while Cambodians can be found in all 50 states and many are successful, it hasn't been easy, not by a long shot. Many are poor, many have joined street gangs among many other problems. This is not uncommon for new immigrants in America, same was true for the Irish and Italians for example who had very difficult times that first generations. The difference here though is Cambodians were escaping genocide. Thousands of pregnant woman, a significant portion witnessed their husbands and children executed before their own eyes, they watched their mothers and sisters raped and killed, they watched their toddlers throats slit. They came here to escape and were given very little and suddenly they were single mothers learning how to be the bread winner. it is they who have had to struggle the hardest to keep themselves and their children alive and support their family on their own with very little to no education, many from farm lands and so many of them suffered from PTSD with no help received to deal with the symptoms. Despite myriad difficulties, Cambodians in the United States are resilient, hard working and loving people. It's hard to imagine what they went through just to get here, none of us lived through a genocide fortunately, none of us had entire families, entire cities we were from wiped off the planet.

We can do better than that though. We can and should provide more for people escaping genocide. And again that is what we're dealing with, genocide. We've taken in a small number, just .004℅. A bit over 10,000 Syrians. Thst is very little. Again, we took in close to 200,000 Cambodians (150,000 were refugees) and that is very similar as I've explained.

It's difficult for me to understand the concept of turning a blind eye to something has horrific as that. Where is the compassion, where is the humanity? This shouldn't be about right vs left, liberal or conservative this should be about basic humanity. To know that kids, 5 year olds, 4 year olds, who've had to watch their mothers raped and murdered in front of them, their father's executed, thousands of them, and to just say ah fuck it, let someone else deal with them their Muslims after all...I don't know man, that just feels incredibly inhumane.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
i dont see too much wrong with that. i just read through it but didn't get too much out of it other than a liberal based paper/website giving it's liberal take on what's going to happen, not showing much facts. alot of fear mongering tho.

i did see this:
"In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, popularly known as “welfare reform.” The law severely restricted all immigrant access to social assistance; those who are in the country illegally are barred from almost any federal program designed for the poor. Legal immigrants must live in the United States for a minimum of five years to become eligible for a limited set of social aid programs, and access to Social Security assistance is rarely granted."

not sure why there were no protests. that seems racist and shows a lack of human decency. that's how they say it, right?


i also saw this:
“The unlawful employment of aliens has had a devastating impact on the wages and jobs of American workers, especially low-skilled, teenage, and African American and Hispanic workers,”

if that's true, then what's wrong with that? i want black and mexican americans to come up as communities. did Cesar Chavez's immigration views differ from a modern 25 year old white female from California with a typical California political lean?
Hmm if you're asking these questions and read the article it seems you're suffering from good old fashioned selective reading. From the same article:

"The draft order provides no evidence to support the claim that immigrant households are more likely to use welfare benefits, and there is no consensus among experts about immigration’s impact on such benefits or on U.S. jobs."

"Long-standing U.S. law already makes it difficult for noncitizens to receive most forms of public assistance, which limits how many immigrants receive such taxpayer-funded help. For more than 100 years, the country has had a provision that allows federal officials to bar immigrants who, based on a specific formula, seem likely to need public assistance after arrival. That test is known as the “public charge” law, which allows federal immigration authorities to deport immigrants who become dependent on social programs; they also can prevent legal immigrants applying for green cards from obtaining them for the same reasons. "

"“This time he’s aiming at U.S. citizen kids who have an undocumented parent, and depending how broad the reach of his order, he could deport kids who have received reduced lunches in school."

"Nor have studies shown immigrants to be a greater drain on federal benefits relative to U.S. citizens, he said: “When you compare poor immigrants to poor natives, poor immigrants are less likely to use welfare, and when they do, the dollar value of the benefits they use is lower.”

"That is partly because under existing federal law, new permanent residents, or green-card holders, are unable to qualify for welfare and other public benefits during their first five years of residency. Immigrants who entered the United States illegally also are unable to obtain federal welfare benefits."
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2002
6,229
2,453
113
Hmm if you're asking these questions and read the article it seems you're suffering from good old fashioned selective reading. From the same article:

"The draft order provides no evidence to support the claim that immigrant households are more likely to use welfare benefits, and there is no consensus among experts about immigration’s impact on such benefits or on U.S. jobs."

"Long-standing U.S. law already makes it difficult for noncitizens to receive most forms of public assistance, which limits how many immigrants receive such taxpayer-funded help. For more than 100 years, the country has had a provision that allows federal officials to bar immigrants who, based on a specific formula, seem likely to need public assistance after arrival. That test is known as the “public charge” law, which allows federal immigration authorities to deport immigrants who become dependent on social programs; they also can prevent legal immigrants applying for green cards from obtaining them for the same reasons. "

"“This time he’s aiming at U.S. citizen kids who have an undocumented parent, and depending how broad the reach of his order, he could deport kids who have received reduced lunches in school."

"Nor have studies shown immigrants to be a greater drain on federal benefits relative to U.S. citizens, he said: “When you compare poor immigrants to poor natives, poor immigrants are less likely to use welfare, and when they do, the dollar value of the benefits they use is lower.”

"That is partly because under existing federal law, new permanent residents, or green-card holders, are unable to qualify for welfare and other public benefits during their first five years of residency. Immigrants who entered the United States illegally also are unable to obtain federal welfare benefits."

ok. so is my mind supposed to change? i already read what you claim i didnt read. and still... i dont see too much wrong with that. didn't get too much out of it other than a liberal based paper/website giving it's liberal take on what's going to happen, not showing much facts. alot of fear mongering tho.

im not talking about public assistance. your having that debate with someone else.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
ok. so is my mind supposed to change?
Shit I don't know man, YOU asked the question "what is wrong with that" and I provided reasons why some people might have a problem.

i already read what you claim i didnt read. and still... i dont see too much wrong with that. didn't get too much out of it other than a liberal based paper/website giving it's liberal take on what's going to happen, not showing much facts. alot of fear mongering tho.
Ah yes, blame the "liberal media" which in his case was a corporate news site.

There isn't much difference here when we're talking about corporate news outlets, whether it has a slight left slant or a slight right slant, makes no difference when they are owned by the same people. Fear mongering is stuff like breitbart news or infowars, talking about the baddies are going to kill you or whatever headlines they have. Not sure how you think it's fear mongering to disagree with Trumps immigration policy. Pretty straight forward stuff here.
 
Apr 25, 2002
6,229
2,453
113
Ah yes, blame the "liberal media" which in his case was a corporate news site.
the good ol' "the media isn't liberal and corporations are the devil."



There isn't much difference here when we're talking about corporate news outlets, whether it has a slight left slant or a slight right slant, makes no difference when they are owned by the same people. Fear mongering is stuff like breitbart news or infowars, talking about the baddies are going to kill you or whatever headlines they have. Not sure how you think it's fear mongering to disagree with Trumps immigration policy. Pretty straight forward stuff here.
isn't much difference, and "slight slant". so Fox News is "slightly" right? Infowars is "slightly" right? the liberal machine is doing a great job at marketing to you. so only right winged media fear mongers. by the magic of god, liberal media might be "slightly slanted to the left", if any slant at all, but it holds no weight since it's corporate owned. makes perfect sense.

my opinion about it being fear mongering has nothing to do with it disagreeing with Trump. im second generation chicano. first generation that didn't have to pick vegetables. i wouldn't expect you to see the fear mongering. its not in your blood. you dont see it as fear mongering cus it's not meant to scare "you", your just supposed to get outraged and spread the word.

nothing in that whole article was "straight forward", other than their info on what Bill Clinton did. everything else is speculation. they even said it has to go through processes and they dont even know if Trump would sign anything like they are speculating.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
the good ol' "the media isn't liberal and corporations are the devil."





isn't much difference, and "slight slant". so Fox News is "slightly" right? Infowars is "slightly" right? the liberal machine is doing a great job at marketing to you. so only right winged media fear mongers. by the magic of god, liberal media might be "slightly slanted to the left", if any slant at all, but it holds no weight since it's corporate owned. makes perfect sense.
Yes that's right - not much difference. The major news outlets are all owned by two or three major companies. They are all ran very similar and serve the same purpose. They are for profit and at the end of the day are about making as much money as possible, credibility or accuracy is not a major concern.

The other issue is that out of the major news outlets, there isn't a true "left". They are center-right or right. In the IS, anything left of far right is considered left, but that isn't leftist. Same with politicians - Obama for example is right of center. Hillary is FAR right. And so on. The only truly leftist politician that people have actually heard of is Bernie Sanders. For example the 2016 candidates:



Obama and prior:


There was a good book by Noam Chomsky called the Myth of the Liberal Media which still holds true today.

The bottom line is there isn't any leftist news outlets in tje mainstream media. Center-right, yes.

my opinion about it being fear mongering has nothing to do with it disagreeing with Trump. im second generation chicano. first generation that didn't have to pick vegetables. i wouldn't expect you to see the fear mongering. its not in your blood. you dont see it as fear mongering cus it's not meant to scare "you", your just supposed to get outraged and spread the word.
So again you're saying disagreeing with Trumps immigration policy is fear mongering? That's a strange definition of the term.
 
Apr 25, 2002
6,229
2,453
113
Yes that's right - not much difference. The major news outlets are all owned by two or three major companies.
what company owns them? and which news outlets are owned by who? what you posted doesn't mean anything. at all. is that supposed to prove that the mainstream media is not liberal?



They are all ran very similar and serve the same purpose. They are for profit and at the end of the day are about making as much money as possible, credibility or accuracy is not a major concern.

The other issue is that out of the major news outlets, there isn't a true "left". They are center-right or right. In the IS, anything left of far right is considered left, but that isn't leftist. Same with politicians - Obama for example is right of center. Hillary is FAR right. And so on. The only truly leftist politician that people have actually heard of is Bernie Sanders. For example the 2016 candidates:



Obama and prior:


There was a good book by Noam Chomsky called the Myth of the Liberal Media which still holds true today.

The bottom line is there isn't any leftist news outlets in tje mainstream media. Center-right, yes.

stop it. lookin at what you posted as proof that the media aint liberal/left bias is like reading the bible and believing the book. your goin by what somebody doodled together. it doesnt mean it works in modern national politics with 2 parties, on an "everyday" basis. the media and Hollywood (all rich people and corporations) are bias. if you have a left/liberal bias then it only plays into 1 of 2 parties/ideologies. which party is the rich racist women haters? which party is for the people? you're wearing 3D x-ray night vision glasses and your looking at a black dot.




So again you're saying disagreeing with Trumps immigration policy is fear mongering? That's a strange definition of the term.
the article fear mongers like your doin. you're sayin it's Trumps policy, what's the policy? did he sign anything that the article is about? you can disagree with Trump's policy and not be a fear monger'er. but if your here spreading fear of mass deportations and broken families (like you are with the article), speculating what's going to happen, before anything of the sort is even signed, or really understood, or even written, then yes, that is fear mongering. you had it twisted prior.



There was a good book by Noam Chomsky called the Myth of the Liberal Media which still holds true today.
im not reading a book with that title. it was obvious where he was goin with it before i read this http://hope.journ.wwu.edu/tpilgrim/j190/mythlibmediavidsum.html
this is shit im sure they teach at liberal universities. it holds true, because you believe it? its political agenda, obvious from the title.
 
May 7, 2013
13,355
16,255
113
33°
www.hoescantstopme.biz
Yes that's right - not much difference. The major news outlets are all owned by two or three major companies. They are all ran very similar and serve the same purpose. They are for profit and at the end of the day are about making as much money as possible, credibility or accuracy is not a major concern.

The other issue is that out of the major news outlets, there isn't a true "left". They are center-right or right. In the IS, anything left of far right is considered left, but that isn't leftist. Same with politicians - Obama for example is right of center. Hillary is FAR right. And so on. The only truly leftist politician that people have actually heard of is Bernie Sanders. For example the 2016 candidates:



Obama and prior:


There was a good book by Noam Chomsky called the Myth of the Liberal Media which still holds true today.

The bottom line is there isn't any leftist news outlets in tje mainstream media. Center-right, yes.



So again you're saying disagreeing with Trumps immigration policy is fear mongering? That's a strange definition of the term.
Actually, these graphs are not accurate, although they are correct in the fact that the so-called left (i.e. Democratic Party) moved to the right decades ago.

Anyway, Hillary is actually less right (more left) than Obama. Based on voting records alone while in Senate, Obama was more left than 82% of the Senate, while Clinton was more left than 85%.

Also, for people to say Bill and Hillary have identical politics is a false assumption. Based on their public statements and fundraising bases, Bill was less to the left than Hillary, historically.


Anyway, at the end of the day it is semantics because all of these people are for the State (maybe we should insert whores to the banking cartel here), not the people.