What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The migrant caravan (2 Viewers)

timschochet

Footballguy
Latest reporting is that the Mexican police attempted to stop them with tear gas, but 50 or so broke through.  Trump is mentioning them every few minutes, blaming Democrats and threatening to shut down our southern border.  Kelly and Bolton got into a screaming match over these people.

This is a tragedy. These people are destitute, and they are coming here with nothing but the shirts on their backs. They're not criminals, they don't threaten us in any way. IMO, it is unamerican for us to turn our backs on them. What is it this country stands for anyhow?

Sorry to be so emotional but this makes me sick. 

 
Latest reporting is that the Mexican police attempted to stop them with tear gas, but 50 or so broke through.  Trump is mentioning them every few minutes, blaming Democrats and threatening to shut down our southern border.  Kelly and Bolton got into a screaming match over these people.

This is a tragedy. These people are destitute, and they are coming here with nothing but the shirts on their backs. They're not criminals, they don't threaten us in any way. IMO, it is unamerican for us to turn our backs on them. What is it this country stands for anyhow?

Sorry to be so emotional but this makes me sick. 
It's very sad to see so many desperate people.

 
Maybe we shouldn't have used their countries as geopolitical pawns this type of stuff would happen less. How many dictators did we prop up in those countries just because we couldn't stand seeing a left wing government blossom there?

 
Latest reporting is that the Mexican police attempted to stop them with tear gas, but 50 or so broke through.  Trump is mentioning them every few minutes, blaming Democrats and threatening to shut down our southern border.  Kelly and Bolton got into a screaming match over these people.

This is a tragedy. These people are destitute, and they are coming here with nothing but the shirts on their backs. They're not criminals, they don't threaten us in any way. IMO, it is unamerican for us to turn our backs on them. What is it this country stands for anyhow?

Sorry to be so emotional but this makes me sick. 
Money is what this country stands for. 

 
That’s OK; I’m the one who wrote that I was emotional. And in my language I was. But I don’t think I am in my politics, at least on this issue. I believe that rationally it is in our best interest to reverse our current policy and give these folks asylum. 
They have made it to Mexico from Guatemala .  Will Mexico grant them asylum?

 
Latest reporting is that the Mexican police attempted to stop them with tear gas, but 50 or so broke through.  Trump is mentioning them every few minutes, blaming Democrats and threatening to shut down our southern border.  Kelly and Bolton got into a screaming match over these people.

This is a tragedy. These people are destitute, and they are coming here with nothing but the shirts on their backs. They're not criminals, they don't threaten us in any way. IMO, it is unamerican for us to turn our backs on them. What is it this country stands for anyhow?

Sorry to be so emotional but this makes me sick. 
If I recall correctly, your immigration position is similar to this:  After appropriately vetting, we should let anyone into the country who wants to come and legally allow them to work.  I've considered this position but when I read stories like this, it makes me assume that the numbers who would come after having such a policy (literally millions?) would be so massive and overwhelming that it's just not feasible.

 
If I recall correctly, your immigration position is similar to this:  After appropriately vetting, we should let anyone into the country who wants to come and legally allow them to work.  I've considered this position but when I read stories like this, it makes me assume that the numbers who would come after having such a policy (literally millions?) would be so massive and overwhelming that it's just not feasible.
How is it that immigration (legal and illegal) wasn't massive and overwhelming previously?

 
If I recall correctly, your immigration position is similar to this:  After appropriately vetting, we should let anyone into the country who wants to come and legally allow them to work.  I've considered this position but when I read stories like this, it makes me assume that the numbers who would come after having such a policy (literally millions?) would be so massive and overwhelming that it's just not feasible.
Who is going to fill these millions upon millions of new jobs being created if we don't allow immigrants in?

 
How is it that immigration (legal and illegal) wasn't massive and overwhelming previously?
I don't have all the answers and would be interested in others thoughts.

My initial stab at answering your question:

If you referring to 100 plus years ago we didn't have much of a social safety net, we had the need for a lots of unskilled labor, and we had a frontier. More recently,  we haven't let everyone in that wants to come.  And, of course, the fact that it's illegal to try certainly deters people.

 
If I recall correctly, your immigration position is similar to this:  After appropriately vetting, we should let anyone into the country who wants to come and legally allow them to work.  I've considered this position but when I read stories like this, it makes me assume that the numbers who would come after having such a policy (literally millions?) would be so massive and overwhelming that it's just not feasible.
You can be opposed to my overall position and still be willing to help these particular people; I hope you are. 

 
I dont like that these people are getting hurt, but it is not our obligation to take them in.  The Mexican government needs to help these people, not ours. We have our own problems, our own people who have nothing. 
I would never argue that we are obligated to help these people (other than morally.) It is something that we should do. We don’t owe them help; we owe ourselves and our ancestors and the people that helped my ancestors come here. 

As far as our own people, it’s not an either-or question. This isn’t a lifeboat. 

 
You can be opposed to my overall position and still be willing to help these particular people; I hope you are. 
My heart goes out to lots of people who desperately want to come here and want to be Americans.  Central Americans, Syrians, Africans, etc.  If we could help them all out, that would be wonderful.  I don't think that's feasible.  

 
My heart goes out to lots of people who desperately want to come here and want to be Americans.  Central Americans, Syrians, Africans, etc.  If we could help them all out, that would be wonderful.  I don't think that's feasible.  
Is it feasible to help these people? 

 
Oh, these people all have jobs lined up and housing that they are paying for? I didn't know that. :lmao:
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I certainly don’t think it’s something to laugh about. 

Giving these people asylum won’t cost very much money, if anything. You know what would cost money? Trump’s threat of sending troops to shut down the border. 

Think about that for a second. Sending troops to stop desperate people from coming here. 

 
But they wanted into Mexico and made it. That is why I asked if Mexico is granting them asylum.
I think they wanted into Mexico as a means to come here. But if they want to stay in Mexico great. If I were Mexican I would welcome them. 

But I’m an American, so I can tell you what I think this country should do not Mexico. In addition, we have a long and proud heritage on this particular issue to uphold; Mexico does not. 

 
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I certainly don’t think it’s something to laugh about. 

Giving these people asylum won’t cost very much money, if anything. You know what would cost money? Trump’s threat of sending troops to shut down the border. 

Think about that for a second. Sending troops to stop desperate people from coming here. 
Then write the check, post it here and put your $ where your mouth is.

 
Iod001: the organization which has helped refugees the best, IMO, is the American Civil Liberties Union. I’ve already given them $200 this year, but if you’re willing to contribute I will match you dollar for dollar. 

 
I think they wanted into Mexico as a means to come here. But if they want to stay in Mexico great. If I were Mexican I would welcome them. 

But I’m an American, so I can tell you what I think this country should do not Mexico. In addition, we have a long and proud heritage on this particular issue to uphold; Mexico does not. 
How do you know they even want to come here.  They wanted out of Guatemala and made it to Mexico.

 
I don't have all the answers and would be interested in others thoughts.

My initial stab at answering your question:

If you referring to 100 plus years ago we didn't have much of a social safety net, we had the need for a lots of unskilled labor, and we had a frontier. More recently,  we haven't let everyone in that wants to come.  And, of course, the fact that it's illegal to try certainly deters people.
Let's make it easier then.   In the last 25 years, was the immigration massive and overwhelming?

 
I would never argue that we are obligated to help these people (other than morally.) It is something that we should do. We don’t owe them help; we owe ourselves and our ancestors and the people that helped my ancestors come here. 

As far as our own people, it’s not an either-or question. This isn’t a lifeboat. 
It may not be either or, but ideally we help every single American who has nothing before beginning to help Mexicans.  And that is an impossible task, so all focus should be on helping Americans in those situations and no other burdens on the system should be allowed in. 

If we build the wall these sad situations like people getting tear gassed wont be necessary.    

 
We don't now, and that's not what Tim is advocating.   So what's the problem?
You seem to be picking a fight with me.  I'm just answering your questions.

I believe I stated Tim's immigration position correctly above.  He is for allowing anyone in that wants to come here assuming they pass vetting.  If I'm wrong, I'd be interested in reading a clarification. 

The problem is if we assume we can't feasibly let everyone in that wants to come (my position), we have to make hard choices on who we want to let in and who we don't.  My concern is if we allow these 4,000 people in, what about the next wave?  And the next?  And Syrians in refugee camps.  And the people who have legally waited in line.  Etc., etc.

 
You seem to be picking a fight with me.  I'm just answering your questions.

I believe I stated Tim's immigration position correctly above.  He is for allowing anyone in that wants to come here assuming they pass vetting.  If I'm wrong, I'd be interested in reading a clarification. 

The problem is if we assume we can't feasibly let everyone in that wants to come (my position), we have to make hard choices on who we want to let in and who we don't.  My concern is if we allow these 4,000 people in, what about the next wave?  And the next?  And Syrians in refugee camps.  And the people who have legally waited in line.  Etc., etc.
That's why we shouldn't let them in at all.  Easiest decision for all.  Years of amnesty has given the USA the image that anyone can come here and succeed or take advantage like its that easy.  If we can reverse this image, they wont waste their time desperately trying to cross the border.  They can turn to their own government for assistance.   

Also, what about refugees from Flint, Michigan or other places in our own country with awful conditions.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top