Will There Be Another American Revolution?

[mandrill]

I have debated this point about the impact of climate change on Central America with Franky.before.
People can make points with heart-rending, emotional appeals. I am simply cynical of the emphasis on climate change. In the political context because that's really the point of this part of the forum, there is not enough support in the U.S. for taking in more Central American refugees. There is a lot of support for aid missions to help with food insecurity. Anyone involved with church groups know there is a lot of private aid in the region. However if you are a journalist or activist who supports Central American immigration to the U.S. (and many do), the climate change argument would appeal to you.
Another factor for Guatemalan emigration to the U.S. is the network effect. We have had a steady increase in Guatemalan emigration for forty years. Many Guatemalans likely know immigrants in the U.S.

Whether global warming / climate change contributes to the deterioration of conditions in Central America is beside the point. The folks there clearly have a hard time of it.

I suspect that most refugee claimants from that area do not meet the legal test for a successful refugee claim, as this has to be based on "persecution" in your home country and not just living in an awful place where your kids starve to death. But I believe the developed world falls down badly in how it treats those in less favoured parts of the world - be it Iraq, Syria or Central America.

There should be immigration quotas from these countries to take some of the burden. But we both know that this will never happen and the real reason is racism.

 

[danmand]

Whether global warming / climate change contributes to the deterioration of conditions in Central America is beside the point. The folks there clearly have a hard time of it.

I suspect that most refugee claimants from that area do not meet the legal test for a successful refugee claim, as this has to be based on "persecution" in your home country and not just living in an awful place where your kids starve to death. But I believe the developed world falls down badly in how it treats those in less favoured parts of the world - be it Iraq, Syria or Central America.

There should be immigration quotas from these countries to take some of the burden. But we both know that this will never happen and the real reason is racism.

Don't forget the Monroe doctrine, that says "No progress will be allowed in South and Central America"

 

[Frankfooter]

I have debated this point about the impact of climate change on Central America with Franky.before.

People can make points with heart-rending, emotional appeals. I am simply cynical of the emphasis on climate change. In the political context because that's really the point of this part of the forum, there is not enough support in the U.S. for taking in more Central American refugees. There is a lot of support for aid missions to help with food insecurity. Anyone involved with church groups know there is a lot of private aid in the region. However if you are a journalist or activist who supports Central American immigration to the U.S. (and many do), the climate change argument would appeal to you.

Another factor for Guatemalan emigration to the U.S. is the network effect. We have had a steady increase in Guatemalan emigration for forty years. Many Guatemalans likely know immigrants in the U.S.

The news report said 30% of the immigrants that hit the US souther border were climate refugees from Guatemala.
That's not 'heart rending, emotional appeals', that's just the news.

You sound a bit like this guy.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1455243036795998212

 

[NotADcotor]

Don't forget the Monroe doctrine, that says "No progress will be allowed in South and Central America"

No it doesn't.
Is this you spouting off on something you know nothing about or do you adjust your view of reality to fit in with your preconceived notions. I hope you are not just making up shit for the sake of argument.

 

[mandrill]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1455531081151701000

 

[mandrill]

No it doesn't.
Is this you spouting off on something you know nothing about or do you adjust your view of reality to fit in with your preconceived notions. I hope you are not just making up shit for the sake of argument.

He's exaggerating to make a point. He doesn't actually think that is what the Monroe Doctrine actually says.

 

[NotADcotor]

He's exaggerating to make a point. He doesn't actually think that is what the Monroe Doctrine actually says.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

 

[WyattEarp]

That's not trying to redefine the meaning of "illegal" though. And if it's being done by a city, that also doesn't sound like it's being done by the "Far Left" - although I'm sure that's how Fox News calls them.

Here's the definition of Sanctuary Cities in Wiki. It appears simply to be a refusal cooperate with ICE because the cities think this leads to greater municipal benefits.

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This was funny eight years ago when Leno told this joke. It was funny because people knew there was an effort to change the language of "illegal immigration". If every immigrant in the U.S. that is here without proper authorization is simply called "undocumented", there ceases to be "illegal immigration". Many Democrats started using the phrase "undocumented immigrants" a few years ago.

I grew up in a sanctuary city and even the meaning of that has changed. A few decades back, it meant that those illegal immigrants living in a city peacefully would not be sought out by local police. It meant those who were in need of municipal assistance, those who were victims or witnesses to a crime could depend on the police, fire departments, etc. without jeopardy. Today it's different. If you commit felonies in the U.S. you can also count on that sanctuary. There doesn't seem to be any conditions for staying here.

 

[WyattEarp]

Every time I call you out on something, you can't answer me.

I found this to be a peculiar and somewhat aggressive form of rhetoric. I initially didn't know how to respond. If you have a specific question, I will always try to answer it. If you are saying you are always right and I have no response, okay that's just an opinion. Most of what shows up on the political threads is one person's opinion versus another person's opinion. Even if someone reads something and posts it here, that is very often a media-sourced opinion.

 

[WyattEarp]

Whoa, whoa.
I don't like Butler1000 much, but comparing him to Greenwald seems below the belt.
You could pick someone less awful who is in that "I am left but I think the real enemy is always the Democrats" group.

Yes, it might appear on the surface that Greenwald finds the Democrats are always the enemy. I think if you drill down just a few centimetres you will find he actually hates the U.S. intelligence community. Since almost all cable news is bifurcated along partisan lines, CNN and MSNBC don't have much use for a guy who criticized the intelligence agencies and the media during the Russian narrative.

Greenwald was on Fox News last night discussing the U.S. military and intelligence manipulation in Afghanistan over the years. That's when I hear Butler1000.

Unfortunately, almost all media commentators are now entertainers to some degree and they move into a space where they find a consistent audience.

 

[mandrill]

This was funny eight years ago when Leno told this joke. It was funny because people knew there was an effort to change the language of "illegal immigration". If every immigrant in the U.S. that is here without proper authorization is simply called "undocumented", there ceases to be "illegal immigration". Many Democrats started using the phrase "undocumented immigrants" a few years ago.

I grew up in a sanctuary city and even the meaning of that has changed. A few decades back, it meant that those illegal immigrants living in a city peacefully would not be sought out by local police. It meant those who were in need of municipal assistance, those who were victims or witnesses to a crime could depend on the police, fire departments, etc. without jeopardy. Today it's different. If you commit felonies in the U.S. you can also count on that sanctuary. There doesn't seem to be any conditions for staying here.

So your theory is that because a few people change the term to "undocumented" from "illegal", that changes the "culture"?

Undocumented means the same thing as illegal. This is part of your continual campaign to portray the Dems as undermining law and order. And it's based on nothing but your own spin.

 

[mandrill]

I found this to be a peculiar and somewhat aggressive form of rhetoric. I initially didn't know how to respond. If you have a specific question, I will always try to answer it. If you are saying you are always right and I have no response, okay that's just an opinion. Most of what shows up on the political threads is one person's opinion versus another person's opinion. Even if someone reads something and posts it here, that is very often a media-sourced opinion.

Oh, please. You get back what you give out. You strut around these threads extolling yourself as "TERB's intellectual presence" and obsessively kicking around Frankie. Then when you're taken down and put in your place, it's a "peculiar and aggressive form of rhetoric" on the part of he who does that.

Your gamesmanship never ceases. You always start off with a large overclaim about how awful the Dems are. You're confronted and you smokescreen and retreat. It happens time and again.

 

[Frankfooter]

I found this to be a peculiar and somewhat aggressive form of rhetoric. I initially didn't know how to respond. If you have a specific question, I will always try to answer it. If you are saying you are always right and I have no response, okay that's just an opinion. Most of what shows up on the political threads is one person's opinion versus another person's opinion. Even if someone reads something and posts it here, that is very often a media-sourced opinion.

But sometimes its reality vs opinion.

And as they say, everyone has a right to their own opinions but not their own facts.

 

[jcpro]

Yes, it might appear on the surface that Greenwald finds the Democrats are always the enemy. I think if you drill down just a few centimetres you will find he actually hates the U.S. intelligence community. Since almost all cable news is bifurcated along partisan lines, CNN and MSNBC don't have much use for a guy who criticized the intelligence agencies and the media during the Russian narrative.

Greenwald was on Fox News last night discussing the U.S. military and intelligence manipulation in Afghanistan over the years. That's when I hear Butler1000.

Unfortunately, almost all media commentators are now entertainers to some degree and they move into a space where they find a consistent audience.

Lol! They loved Greenwald in the past. It's when he stepped out of (party) line, he became the devil.

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, it might appear on the surface that Greenwald finds the Democrats are always the enemy. I think if you drill down just a few centimetres you will find he actually hates the U.S. intelligence community.

That fig leaf has mostly floated away at this point. It was a plausible defense of Glem 10-20 years ago, but it doesn't hold up much anymore.
He does, absolutely hate the "deep state" and "the establishment" and "the intelligence community" but only because they aren't the people he wants in charge.
(Which, to be clear, has not always fallen along party lines even if he has strong partisan preferences.)

Greenwald was on Fox News last night discussing the U.S. military and intelligence manipulation in Afghanistan over the years. That's when I hear Butler1000.

I do think Butler1000 falls in a similar ideological space, although he seems a bit more honest than Glem and I have been surprised how he has engaged with the budget discussions over BBB.

I'm just saying that Greenwald is a personally vile human being, I don't think it is fair to compare the two directly when there is probably someone else in that political space who would work just as well.

 

[WyattEarp]

Undocumented means the same thing as illegal.

Sorry, no. Undocumented implies a temporary status. Illegal is something permanent.

Wordsmithing is where much of the legal and political morass begins.

 

[WyattEarp]

Oh, please. You get back what you give out. You strut around these threads extolling yourself as "TERB's intellectual presence" and obsessively kicking around Frankie. Then when you're taken down and put in your place, it's a "peculiar and aggressive form of rhetoric" on the part of he who does that.

Your gamesmanship never ceases. You always start off with a large overclaim about how awful the Dems are. You're confronted and you smokescreen and retreat. It happens time and again.

Are you asking me a question? Or are you just exercising more histrionics? I just want to make sure I answer you.

 

[mandrill]

Are you asking me a question? Or are you just exercising more histrionics? I just want to make sure I answer you.

Well, why would it be a question. There are no question marks.

I'm just making some observations.

 

[mandrill]

Sorry, no. Undocumented implies a temporary status. Illegal is something permanent.

Wordsmithing is where much of the legal and political morass begins.

In YOUR head, it certainly does.

So this is where it all ends up? Your initial post about the Dems undermining US immigration law? That some of them use a different word?

And THAT'S a question, since you seem to have difficulty with the concepts of "question" vs "statement".

 

[WyattEarp]

In YOUR head, it certainly does.

So this is where it all ends up? Your initial post about the Dems undermining US immigration law? That some of them use a different word?

And THAT'S a question, since you seem to have difficulty with the concepts of "question" vs "statement".

I believe I said the Democrats create a different perception of their commitment to border enforcement than Republicans. Language and the choice of words has always been apart of politics. I say they are redefining illegal immigration and demonstrate their use of different language. You say it all means the same things. Fine, I disagree.