General Politics Three: But what is left/right?
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
- Status
It requires a plan first. It also requires congress to work out a compromise which one side refuses to do. The GOP wants disorder and a breakdown of the existing systems to feed their political agenda.
Even that term itself is super loaded and political.
Disconnect?
Seems right to me.
A 2024 Vulnerability (Published 2024)
The Democrats are out of step with public opinion when it comes to immigration.
I think Australia uses their military to make sure illegal immigrants/asylum seekers simply never reach their border?
Operation Sovereign Borders - Wikipedia
Other countries also use force to control their borders.
Last edited:
Cannot be overstated how messed up this is. It's deeply shameful that the rest of the developed world is now becoming Australianised in the field of brutalising and demonising refugees.
I don't think a single country on Earth has open borders with the whole world? 
worldpopulationreview.com
**Edit**
Bah, not a good example. The map has no data hardly.
Countries with Open Borders 2025
Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.
**Edit**
Bah, not a good example. The map has no data hardly.
Yes, undocumented is a better term but for some calling them illegal can can add to the case for keeping them out.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Well, solving or improving the issue aside, there are actually laws that Congress has passed on the books that are going mostly unenforced. This is due current enforcement and due to decades of negligence on funding, decades of negligence of updating statues, and the blame for this situation definitely falls on both parties even AS MANY OF THE ACTUAL PERSON-PLAYERS REMAIN THE SAME despite PARTIES FLOPPING SIDES. So, past me actually calling Trump's supporters mentally deficient, you'll need to forgive me if I continue to extend that sentiment beyond its stated scope.
Yup
There are lots of ways, but most of the time lethal means are used it is to keep people in not out.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Of course. Do you think I draw numbers from my behind ?
69 % don't want to use immigration to compensate for lower natality. Notice that even the very left is still about 40 % opposed to it.
70 % approves that the immigration law has been voted (the said immigration law that is described as "extremely harsh" we spoke before in the thread). 43 % find that the law is "balanced", 37 % that it "doesn't go far enough" and 19 % that "it goes too far" (mapping the approximation I made, though I said one sixth rather that one fifth, mea culpa !). So let's face it, this supposedly "overly harsh" law is supported or found too lenient by a staggering 80 % of the population. 80 %, let that sink in.
Maybe because it also didn't stop anything about immigration, which actually steadily increased :
But sure, evidence is against me (while I'm the only one actually providing it
).No, it's just BS. Immigrating to a country is a legal process. Ignoring this process and entering is exactly and strictly illegal. It's literally trespassing, and the manipulation is precisely trying to use another word to pretend or imply that what is being done is actually legal when it's not.
It is legal under international law to enter a country by any means at ones disposal and claim asylum. Laws and physical measures to prevent that are on much shakier legal ground than the individuals right to claim asylum.
It is not literally trespassing, for one trespass is a civil wrong.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Asylum seekers are a special category, illegal immigration doesn't include legitimate refugees. You're just doing the exact same thing I described, trying to obfuscate clear-cut case of illegal actions by pretending something different and less objectionable is done.
Also, asylum seekers are not supposed to cross a bunch of countries before reaching their preferred one, they are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive to.
I do not know the details, either here really but certainly not in France, but the problem is generally presented as people seeking asylum with the media implication being that many are not legitimate refugees but economic migrants. These international laws apply to them, and these are the people who are being criminalised by new laws in the UK.
There is no provision in international asylum law that requires people to seem asylum in the first safe country they enter. It has been very common historically for people to have not done so.
You need to focus the graph to less than the past 60 years to work out the impact of policy. But I'm used to this, as a typical right-wing sleight of hand here in the UK (as evidenced by UKIP rhetoric) is to try and compare the 1940s, 50s or 60s (the "good old days") to the past 20 years or so. As in, they frequently do this.
Immigration will increase for a number of reasons. You'll notice emigration was also steadily increasing across the same period.
Providing a contextless screenshot with no supporting links, while providing right-wing misinformation about asylum seekers, is not evidence of much of anything.But sure, evidence is against me (while I'm the only one actually providing it
But I do appreciate you showing that the net migration was consistently low
That, and the various post-brexit paperwork deadlines.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Me : "not dealing with the problem of immigration leads to increased votes for the far-right"
Counter-argument : "lots of laws made to make immigration harder, yet the far right is still strong, so you're wrong ! And you provide no evidence !"
Me : Provides evidences that immigration hasn't been reduced, hence the counter-argument doesn't actually counter anything.
You can BS or move goalpost or try to go on tangent to drown the issue all you want, the facts are still here. Not that facts (nor democractic process) seem to be of the slightest importance compared to ideological purity, but that's been the problem to begin with so no surprise here. I'm sure ignoring the reasons why the far-right rise will stop the far-right from rising.
Counter-argument : "lots of laws made to make immigration harder, yet the far right is still strong, so you're wrong ! And you provide no evidence !"
Me : Provides evidences that immigration hasn't been reduced, hence the counter-argument doesn't actually counter anything.
You can BS or move goalpost or try to go on tangent to drown the issue all you want, the facts are still here. Not that facts (nor democractic process) seem to be of the slightest importance compared to ideological purity, but that's been the problem to begin with so no surprise here. I'm sure ignoring the reasons why the far-right rise will stop the far-right from rising.
Yes, there is a number of economic migrants trying to pass as refugees. Pretty sure that it also count as illegal. I don't really see your point here, nor how it disprove anything.
There is a EU law that requires refugees to register in the first EU country they reach, though.
- Status
