Quote :

"Yes, the United States will undoubtedly "react differently" (somewhat) to incidents close to the homeland, but we also continually respond to refugee crises around the world--we have a well-documented history of this."

What we do in the rest of the world is great but it doesn't matter a whole fucking lot when it comes to Mexico.

Obviously the outcome remains to be seen, and may never come about, but my worry is that we'll meet refugees at the border with machine guns rather than functioning camps.

Quote :

"our country has always been smart enough to side with my take on the situation instead of trying to welcome the failures of other countries as you would suggest."

Really? We take in thousands of refugees every year, many from places that are way, way more fucked up than Mexico could ever dream of being.

Quote :

"Leave it some leftist douchebag to think he understands what everyone else is incapable of understanding."

You've got me all wrong, man. I don't think I understand what everyone else is incapable of understanding. I think I understand something that you are incapable of understanding, probably because you are stupid.

Quote :

"How conservative can you expect a person to be when he refers to himself as "TWW's Che"?"

I totally meant that in a very real, political sense. It was definitely not created to represent my opposition to the website's new owners a while back, and I scoff at any implication that it may have been intended ironically.

8/31/2010 4:30:53 PM

Che ... used ironically!?!?!?

O__________________O

8/31/2010 4:55:51 PM

Quote :

"Really? We take in thousands of refugees every year, many from places that are way, way more fucked up than Mexico could ever dream of being."

We turn them away by the millions though. If we didn't, all of Nicaragua would have ended up here in the eighties.

[Edited on August 31, 2010 at 5:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2010 5:47:52 PM

Quote :

"Obviously the outcome remains to be seen, and may never come about, but my worry is that we'll meet refugees at the border with machine guns rather than functioning camps."

GrumpyGOP

They're already there, man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S13oY2nMft8

8/31/2010 6:18:04 PM

You said this:

Quote :

"if you can't handle shit in your own country, don't think for a moment that we want you coming into our country and fucking that up too."

I pointed out that we do, indeed, want people coming to our country who can't handle the shit in their home country. Everything you say after that is irrelevant unless you can prove me wrong, which you can't. Now you've shifted to, "don't think for a moment that we want everyone coming into our country," which I won't dispute. It is -- and I feel that, with you, I have to belabor the point -- not what I originally disagreed with.

---

Hooksaw, I have no clue what you're driving at.

I talk about refugees, you show me a video about drug traffickers.

I talk about the US meeting refugees with machine guns, you show me drug traffickers with machine guns.

See, this is why you need to do more than just post links, because when that's all you do you don't make any goddamn sense.

9/1/2010 4:03:13 AM

^ Well, some of those may be Mexican citizens that want to live out their lives in Mexico. Others want to leave Mexico but aren't entering the United States on a legal path to citizenship--and some are entering with automatic weapons.

What would you call them?

refugee

Quote :

"a person who flees for refuge or safety, esp. to a foreign country, as in time of political upheaval, war, etc."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refugee

And if you're going to try to "educate" me concerning the definition of "refugee" or attack my posting style further, I'll be happy to just end this exchange now. You want open borders anyway, which is madness and every rational person knows it.

9/1/2010 4:19:14 AM

What? Seriously, what?

People who voluntarily participate in drug trafficking are drug traffickers and nothing else but. Anyone who crosses the border bearing arms is a violent criminal and should be treated as such.

Anyone who is compelled under arms to cross the border is a hostage and should not be punished for it.

None of the people I've described just now are refugees, by the definition you yourself have put forward. In this thread I have spoken about a heretofore largely hypothetical population of Mexican nationals seeking rescue from violence in their home country.

Nothing of what you said explains why you responded with that video to my suggestion of Americans meeting refugees with machine guns.

You have misrepresented my position on immigration, which is one in favor of free admittance to any noncriminal immigrant, and you have tossed it away as "madness" out of hand as though you were the final arbiter of all sanity.

I have tried to defend your present position in the forum but you must understand that posts like your last make it difficult for me. I must assume that it's late and you're not in your right mind.

9/1/2010 4:29:48 AM

You'd think repeated calls by multiple posters to stop posting links without any real explanation associated with them would be a little bit of a hint that you're doing it wrong. But that just can't be, everyone else must be doing it wrong. I suppose if I created an alternate reality for myself and then tried to force everyone else into it then I might have some troubles communicating with people.

Is it time to just give this guy his own "hooksaws links" thread to try and keep all the dumbness to one place?

9/1/2010 9:23:45 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN3124571720100831

9/1/2010 10:42:51 AM

Quote :

"I pointed out that we do, indeed, want people coming to our country who can't handle the shit in their home country. Everything you say after that is irrelevant unless you can prove me wrong, which you can't."

I provided an example of another country that went to shit in Central America, in which America went to great lengths to deny asylum to everyone they could. If you don't think anecdotal evidence is sufficient, then how about statistical evidence?

Refugee resettlement to the US, by region:


We set caps for the maximum number of refugees we'll allow in this country each year, and we make the limit for Central and South America lower than for any other geographical region. So no, we don't want people coming into our country that can't handle shit in their own country, especially if those people are from Mexico.

Of course, you never actually bothered to make a point that you disagreed with me on until the third time you responded. You just went straight into attacking my intelligence, even though you apparently don't know shit about how refugees are handled in this country.

9/6/2010 11:53:54 PM

Quote :

"We set caps for the maximum number of refugees we'll allow in this country each year, and we make the limit for Central and South America lower than for any other geographical region. "

You should probably read the Wikipedia page you grabbed that image from since it pretty clearly shows that in 2009 the cap for Europe/Central Asia was lower than the one from Latin America/Caribbean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

Furthermore to quote the original source of that image ( http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?ID=415 ):

Quote :

"Nationals of 10 countries accounted for 86 percent of all refugee arrivals in 2005. Altogether, nationals of the top 10 countries made up 85.9 percent of the 53,813 refugee arrivals in 2005 (see Table 1). These countries include Somalia, Laos, Cuba, Russia, Liberia, Ukraine, Sudan, Vietnam, Iran, and Ethiopia. Laos, Cuba, and Vietnam replaced three countries from the top-10 list in 2003: Serbia-Montenegro, Afghanistan, and Sierra Leone."

So the US does sort of have a history doing exactly what you say we don't do. Unless you're going to claim that Somalia had their shit straight in 2005 or Afghanistan in 2003.

9/7/2010 12:24:51 AM

Quote :

"We set caps for the maximum number of refugees we'll allow in this country each year, and we make the limit for Central and South America lower than for any other geographical region."

Ah, I see -- because we do a thing, it must be well thought out and just besides. And, of course, it's certain that our immigration policies are based on anything other than proximity.

I enjoy it immensely that you think our resettlement of Africans is based on on how well they run their home countries. Africa has worked out spectacularly well.

Quote :

"Of course, you never actually bothered to make a point that you disagreed with me on until the third time you responded."

Unless I'm missing something, which may be the case, you haven't posted in this thread for more than a year before I responded. I hope you will forgive me for not delving into the depths of Soap Box postings before I say anything. And, if you will not forgive me, I feel like I can make a pretty good case against you many months after the fact.

9/7/2010 3:02:47 AM

I posted a week ago, not a year ago. You quoted me twice without saying jack shit to negate my statement.

Quote :

"Unless you're going to claim that Somalia had their shit straight in 2005 or Afghanistan in 2003. "

We take refugees from those countries because they are people that tried to assist the US with covert operations and got discovered by the locals. There's a reason why your top ten list is all countries that the US has a dark past with. What we don't do is accept people just because they let their country fall apart without trying to fix it.

Quote :

"I enjoy it immensely that you think our resettlement of Africans is based on on how well they run their home countries. Africa has worked out spectacularly well."

We take rich and influential africans as refugees because they buy their way into the system.

9/7/2010 10:25:46 AM

So aside from all of these numerous, glaring exceptions, we don't take refugees from fucked up countries.

"We only take rich Africans" -- I'm sure my cab driver from Djibouti will be very surprised to hear that. Give me a fucking break.

Let's go back to the start, shall we? I said you don't understand how "refugee" works. See, you're not a refugee if you leave a content, stable, non-fucked up country. You're not seeking refuge from anything.

Your suggestion: That we only except refugees from countries that have their shit together. Even ignoring all of the exceptions that you try to explain away, that suggestion demonstrates a clear lack of understanding about what a refugee is.

Furthermore, good job on ignoring the part where Stein points out your cut-and-dry factual error regarding the region caps.

9/7/2010 4:12:52 PM

plenty of refugees leave perfectly functional countries. just because the country seems fucked up to you doesn't mean it's disfunctional. Russia is on the top ten list of countries we accept refugees from, and that is a perfectly functional place to live as long as you don't piss off the mob. Iran and Afghanistan are ok as long as you're a conservative Muslim and you don't make friends with the American government.

Furthermore, my point was that the majority of Americans don't want refugees from ANY country coming here. That statement is backed up by the polls. We didn't want Nicuaraguans in the eighties, we didn't want Bosnians in the 90s, and we don't want Haitians now. Just because we've accepted some over the years doesn't mean that people in this country agree with that action.

9/7/2010 6:19:30 PM

Your idea of "functional countries" includes Russia, Iran, and Afghanistan?

Just -- just so I'm clear, now -- you think Mexico is worse than Afghanistan?

9/8/2010 2:52:45 AM

Quote :

"We take refugees from those countries because they are people that tried to assist the US with covert operations and got discovered by the locals. There's a reason why your top ten list is all countries that the US has a dark past with."

Are these people not refugees? Because, if they are (*hint* they are), it completely negates your original assertion.

Quote :

"What we don't do is accept people just because they let their country fall apart without trying to fix it."

yeah, this is patently false. I mean your previous sentence references the top list of countries which we accept refugees from and Somalia is clearly on the list.

Quote :

"Russia is on the top ten list of countries we accept refugees from, and that is a perfectly functional place to live as long as you don't piss off the mob."

Clearly you havent spent any time in Russia. The southern russian provinces are hardly basking in the success (if you can call it that) of Moscow. And since the mob and the government are often one and the same, i suppose that you are partially right, although it is clearly by accident.

Quote :

" Iran and Afghanistan are ok as long as you're a conservative Muslim and you don't make friends with the American government."

wait, are you being serious? Do you know nothing about Afghanistan outside of what is televised about the current war?

Quote :

"we didn't want Bosnians in the 90s"

This is beginning to feel like a broken record, YOU ARE WRONG. As a country we didn't accept as many Bosnian refugees as many European countries did, but we did resettle tens of thousands. I know of quite a few here in the triangle, hell there was a Bosnian grocery store in Cary for a while.

9/8/2010 10:02:41 AM

Shit hole country keeping the hits coming:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/09/08/mexican.mayor.killed/index.html?hpt=T2

Quote :

"At least seven mayors in various Mexican states have been assassinated in 2010. "

9/9/2010 3:09:17 PM

since things are so violent in Mexico, and since Mexicans are building tunnels into the US and Mexican criminals are sometimes murdering or kidnapping Americans, can we start air strikes on Mexico already?

Why do we let them have these cities right beside the border that the cartel can use to build tunnels into the US, we should be leveling those cities with artillery to stop the violence.

7/30/2014 9:51:19 AM

I have a better idea for you. Since some of our cities are getting pretty crowded, lets just go down past the border and claim some territory. We'll put up some walls and some rocket installations, and every few years we'll expand our walls and get more people to move down with us.

In about 50 years, we should be able to maintain the best land the Mexico has to offer, while Mexico itself is still a soveriegn country. I'm sure Israel will back us on this venture.

7/30/2014 10:17:52 AM