Weird Time for Christians

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Christmas is not THE Christian Holiday 

Oh, I guess that makes leaving people on a doorstep in freezing weather totally the thing Christ would want you to do then.

 

Way to deflect to the least important part of the discussion.

[Archy1221]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Oh, I guess that makes leaving people on a doorstep in freezing weather totally the thing Christ would want you to do then.

 

Way to deflect to the least important part of the discussion.

It’s not a deflection.   Poster was trying to make some virtue signaling point using Christianity and pretty much got it wrong  
 

BTW…..those people had shelters on the ready and were expecting them.   Kinda better than on the streets in a different city 

[Guy Chamberlin]

20 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s not a deflection.   Poster was trying to make some virtue signaling point using Christianity and pretty much got it wrong  
 

BTW…..those people had shelters on the ready and were expecting them.   Kinda better than on the streets in a different city 

 

Shelters were ready and people were expecting them because Washington D.C. and other northern libtard cities actually have been accepting the duty of housing and processing immigrants from the Southern border. 

 

While several busloads went to their proper destination in coordination with aid workers waiting to assist on a frigid cold Christmas eve, three of the busses were mysteriously diverted to the Vice-Presidential residence and families were dumped on the street. When the D.C. NGO's got wind of what was happening, they rushed over to the Naval Observatory and took the immigrants to the proper shelter. 

 

Happy ending.

 

Except for the part where the prick you're defending pulled a total anti-Christ move on Christmas.  

 

 

[Lorewarn]

Not Captain Pedantic once again steering us off course.

 

Glad to see the cruelty and performative political stunt + performative religious piety are not lost on most.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

Not Captain Pedantic once again steering us off course.

 

Glad to see the cruelty and performative political stunt + performative religious piety are not lost on most.

I’m pretty sure you are the poster that gets VERY VERY specific with word choices and correcting people.  Most Christians would understand Christmas isn’t THE Christian holiday at the same time most people understand a shelter in the NE is much better than the streets of El Paso.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

6 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m pretty sure you are the poster that gets VERY VERY specific with word choices and correcting people.  Most Christians would understand Christmas isn’t THE Christian holiday at the same time most people understand a shelter in the NE is much better than the streets of El Paso.  

 

Just stop. Nobody is talking about the s#!t you're trying to hide behind. 

[Archy1221]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Just stop. Nobody is talking about the s#!t you're trying to hide behind. 

Probably because none of you want to talk about the real story.  none of you want to talk about the tens of thousands of migrants on the streets because their isn’t a place for them and shipping them to other states is what’s good for them.  You also don’t want to talk about the reason behind so many homeless migrants and Democrats unwillingness to have a proper functioning border.   
 

Don’t read if you don’t want to and certainly no one makes you respond.  But if your gonna, let’s talk the whole story and end the virtue signaling so we can have an honest conversation. 

[Lorewarn]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Probably because none of you want to talk about the real story.  none of you want to talk about the tens of thousands of migrants on the streets because their isn’t a place for them and shipping them to other states is what’s good for them.  You also don’t want to talk about the reason behind so many homeless migrants and Democrats unwillingness to have a proper functioning border.   
 

Don’t read if you don’t want to and certainly no one makes you respond.  But if your gonna, let’s talk the whole story and end the virtue signaling so we can have an honest conversation. 

 

 

Completely ignoring your last half dozen or so posts in this thread trying to make points about things that are distinctly not the real or whole story, the last time I tried to have an honest conversation with you specifically regarding immigration, I had three posts in a row offering perspective and answers to questions that you seemingly weren't interested in and never responded to . 

 

 

Quote

On 10/23/2021 at 10:20 PM, Archy1221 said:

That’s quite the dipsy do there.  I think most people want continued immigration.  And the smart ones want to seal up the border at the same time.  You see, it’s actually possible to do both things at the same time.  It’s not an either or proposition. 

 

 

There's a very compelling argument that sealing up the border has actually made things much worse. 

 

A few decades ago most people illegally crossing the border only did so seasonally for work, and then headed back home. Clinton's IIRIRA bill, designed to cut down on illegal immigration, ballooned the problem and backfired horribly. There were a lot of parts to it, but the 3 and 10 year bars (if you'd lived here undocumented 6 months or more, you had to leave and be barred for 3 years before applying for lawful citizenship, if for more than 1 year, same thing but barred for 10 years). This even applied retroactively to people married to US citizens, people with work visas, sponsored by family, etc. 

 

The idea was the punishments would be so severe to deter people doing it, but as we see all the time, punishment is not a deterrent, and it instead just incentivized people to stay undocumented. Undocumented people were about 50% likely to return back to Mexico before 1996, and now there's a nearly 0% statistical likelihood of them leaving. Number of undocumented immigrants has also more than doubled since then.

 

 

No response.

 

 

 

Quote

On 10/24/2021 at 4:42 PM, Archy1221 said:

Sure, but until Trump, the security part was hardly addressed.  How do we know this??  Because of the yearly inflow of mass illegal immigration.   

 

There's no documented correlation or causation between rate of illegal immigration and how much or how little we have addressed security. 

 

Our government has done a lot to address security. Operation Hold the Line, Operation Gatekeeper, anti smuggling units, BORSTAR, the BSI, formation of ICE, the DHS, etc. All within the last 30 years. Not to mention Border Security spending has gone from $263 million to $5 billion since 1990.

 

 

No response.

 

 

 

Quote

On 10/24/2021 at 8:51 PM, Archy1221 said:

What’s the long term solution to border security that actually helps the problem? 

 

 

Creating less incentive to cross or stay illegally and creating more incentive to be able to get access legally.

 

 

No response.

[Archy1221]

18 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

There's a very compelling argument that sealing up the border has actually made things much worse. 

 

A few decades ago most people illegally crossing the border only did so seasonally for work, and then headed back home. Clinton's IIRIRA bill, designed to cut down on illegal immigration, ballooned the problem and backfired horribly. There were a lot of parts to it, but the 3 and 10 year bars (if you'd lived here undocumented 6 months or more, you had to leave and be barred for 3 years before applying for lawful citizenship, if for more than 1 year, same thing but barred for 10 years). This even applied retroactively to people married to US citizens, people with work visas, sponsored by family, etc. 

 

The idea was the punishments would be so severe to deter people doing it, but as we see all the time, punishment is not a deterrent, and it instead just incentivized people to stay undocumented. Undocumented people were about 50% likely to return back to Mexico before 1996, and now there's a nearly 0% statistical likelihood of them leaving. Number of undocumented immigrants has also more than doubled since then.

I really can’t take any argument seriously that has a premise of more border security is a bad thing.   
 

if you want a response, here it is…..beef up border security so we know who is and who isn’t coming across.   It should be EXTREMELY hard to get into US undetected from Mexico to the point people can’t do it.   At the same time increase the legal number of seasonal immigrants and full time immigrants each year enticing them to come across ports of entry.   At the same time, modernize these ports of entry and the immigration judicial system so it works efficiently and processing doesn’t take years and years to complete.  
 

You are correct that border security is better than it was in the 70’s and than in the 40’s and ‘20’s.   That doesn’t address todays times though now does it?  The seasonal worker ebb and flow of an open border doesn’t address the triangle immigrants coming that do not plan on going back now does it.   No matter how you slice it, the country needs to know who is coming across our borders.  

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

I really can’t take any argument seriously that has a premise of more border security is a bad thing.   
 

if you want a response, here it is…..beef up border security so we know who is and who isn’t coming across.   It should be EXTREMELY hard to get into US undetected from Mexico to the point people can’t do it.   At the same time increase the legal number of seasonal immigrants and full time immigrants each year enticing them to come across ports of entry.   At the same time, modernize these ports of entry and the immigration judicial system so it works efficiently and processing doesn’t take years and years to complete.  
 

You are correct that border security is better than it was in the 70’s and than in the 40’s and ‘20’s.   That doesn’t address todays times though now does it?  The seasonal worker ebb and flow of an open border doesn’t address the triangle immigrants coming that do not plan on going back now does it.   No matter how you slice it, the country needs to know who is coming across our borders.  

It’s kind of strange that you think any regular posters here disagree with anything you just typed.

[Archy1221]

27 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

There's no documented correlation or causation between rate of illegal immigration and how much or how little we have addressed security. 

 

Our government has done a lot to address security. Operation Hold the Line, Operation Gatekeeper, anti smuggling units, BORSTAR, the BSI, formation of ICE, the DHS, etc. All within the last 30 years. Not to mention Border Security spending has gone from $263 million to $5 billion since 1990.

See my previous response.  
 

I will add that the failed catch and release policy of most previous administrations has been a complete failure and adds to immigration issues no matter what “security” portion looks like. 

29 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Creating less incentive to cross or stay illegally and creating more incentive to be able to get access legally.

At the same time we secure the border, I’m all for it.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Probably because none of you want to talk about the real story.  none of you want to talk about the tens of thousands of migrants on the streets because their isn’t a place for them and shipping them to other states is what’s good for them.  You also don’t want to talk about the reason behind so many homeless migrants and Democrats unwillingness to have a proper functioning border.   
 

 

 

Other than the posts that discuss exactly what you claim we're not discussing?

 

And all the direct and relevant questions you haven't answered? 

 

I mean, I guess we could refute any post that doesn't address the larger systemic issue. That kind of deep thinking would actually be a virtue. But you don't do that, either. 

 

If we walk through both immigration and U.S. homelessness on a macro scale, are you ready for the possibility that it can't all be blamed on Democrats? 

And would any of that mean this singular Christmas incident wasn't also a d!(k move by Greg Abbott? 

 

 

[Archy1221]

45 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

f we walk through both immigration and U.S. homelessness on a macro scale, are you ready for the possibility that it can't all be blamed on Democrats? 

Since I’ve already acknowledged this, why are you asking the question again?  R’s could very well meet some D demands on immigration in order to finish the much needed wall and implement Title 42 into codified law.   

[Guy Chamberlin]

17 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Since I’ve already acknowledged this, why are you asking the question again?  R’s could very well meet some D demands on immigration in order to finish the much needed wall and implement Title 42 into codified law.   

 

Could have sworn you said something somewhere about Democrat unwillingness to have a proper functioning border. 

 

The infamous wall has never submitted to a cost/benefit analysis, where by any business or policy metric it would likely fail miserably.

 

[Lorewarn]

You can build the wall 50 feet high, you could make the wall three layers deep, you could bury it 30 feet underground and you could make a moat with alligators and those desperate and opportunistic enough will still find ways in. 

 

Nobody is opposed to a sensible and diligent physical boundary...it's the primary focus on the physical barricade while simultaneously kicking the can down the road in regards to handling motivations/opportunities that continues to exacerbate the broken cycle of US immigration.

 

Neither party is presenting smart and holistic solutions to this, and both have plenty of guilt in terms of weaponizing the issue and using it to score cheap political points. It's weird and very lazy when people who clearly identify with one of the sides to spend their time pointing at the ways the other side isn't fixing anything while theirs is also not fixing anything.