• Please remember that Politics, Off Topic and Global Warming boards are for fairly serious discussion. I would like to see language used in those boards reflect that level of serious discussion. Sand Pit, Members. Improvements—go your hardest.

Pregnant Covidiot

greggerypeccary

Active member
I'm not talking about asylum seekers. I'm talking about illegal immigrants. You would be singing a different tune if there were 12 million of them in your country and more every day, simply walking in across an unprotected border.
I wouldn't be asking for a wall or a concentration camp.

That, I can assure you.
 

Squire

Active member
I'm not talking about asylum seekers. I'm talking about illegal immigrants. You would be singing a different tune if there were 12 million of them in your country and more every day, simply walking in across an unprotected border.
The American economy would crash if all the illegal and legal Mexican and Sout American immigrants were expelled.

They are doing the jobs American white extremists don't want to do.

The most economically rational thing to do with Seth Bullock's 12 million immigrants is to welcome them, find them a job and accommodation as soon as possible, and thank them for their economic contribution.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
The American economy would crash if all the illegal and legal Mexican and Sout American immigrants were expelled.

They are doing the jobs American white extremists don't want to do.
Donald Trump has been employing them for years.

Decades, in fact.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
If your neighbour's cat keeps jumping the fence and eating your cat's food, are you gonna spend time and energy building a higher fence, and then keep a constant lookout 24/7 to make sure it doesn't climb over?

Easier to take some food next door and make sure the cat's well fed. Simple.

Your neighbour's cat is no different to your cat - it's just hungry, that's all.

Surely you'd want your own cat to be fed by someone if you couldn't look after it anymore and it got hungry.

Cats are cats. They're all the same, no matter what side of the fence they're on.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
If your neighbour's cat keeps jumping the fence and eating your cat's food, are you gonna spend time and energy building a higher fence, and then keep a constant lookout 24/7 to make sure it doesn't climb over?

Easier to take some food next door and make sure the cat's well fed. Simple.

Your neighbour's cat is no different to your cat - it's just hungry, that's all.

Surely you'd want your own cat to be fed by someone if you couldn't look after it anymore and it got hungry.

Cats are cats. They're all the same, no matter what side of the fence they're on.
That's not a bad analogy, Greg. The problem is resources. What if to feed the neighbor's cat, you had to feed your cat less?

When we bring in millions of low-skill workers, more than we can use, we end up with a glut of workers, and that holds down wages for our own low-skill workers, and it fills the jobs they can do. So, we end up "feeding our cat less."
 

Auggie

Active member
No, by putting our rights into the Constitution, we make it impossible for a narrow, simple majority to take them away.

The China virus pandemic has shown that if we’re scared of something, how quickly individual rights are taken away when there is nothing to stop the government from doing it. It shows also how a cowed and frightened populace will sit by and not object.
As opposed to an unelected court of 9 people?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
As opposed to an unelected court of 9 people?
Those judges are more reliable than politicians. The justices are there for life. They don’t worry about elections, and they don’t care who the president is. The only loyalty they owe is to the Constitution.

No system is absolutely perfect, but I would rather have those justices and the Constitution guarding our rights than a bunch of politicians.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
Those judges are more reliable than politicians. The justices are there for life. They don’t worry about elections, and they don’t care who the president is. The only loyalty they owe is to the Constitution.
Jesus Christ :rolleyes:

I don't suppose you'd be interested in buying a bridge, would you?
 

Auggie

Active member
Those judges are more reliable than politicians. The justices are there for life. They don’t worry about elections, and they don’t care who the president is. The only loyalty they owe is to the Constitution.

No system is absolutely perfect, but I would rather have those justices and the Constitution guarding our rights than a bunch of politicians.
They're elected for life which means if they get it wrong then we have to wait until they die to get a replacement, which then depends on who's the President at the time. Also, judges aren't free from personal bias - many judges in America are politically inclined and make their decisions based on those inclinations.

Having politicians make decisions about our rights is that they are accountable to the people and can be voted out.

By the way, the Founding Fathers didn't envisage such a powerful judiciary - in fact, Thomas Jefferson spoke out against it when he saw it happening.
 
Top