|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 25, 2019 0:58:29 GMT
"Who will work the fields, clean our house, and do the other shit jobs we don't want to do if we don't have a permanent underclass of easily exploitable brown people illegally brought into the country from the third world?"
Democrats 1859-2019
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Aug 27, 2019 2:03:14 GMT
Hmmm. Doesn't Trump exploit those same people at his resorts and hotels?
Republicans always pound their chest about one thing, then quietly do the the exact same thing they were thumping their chest about.
Nice try but when the head Republican hires illegals and has done so for years, your little post falls flat.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 27, 2019 2:34:58 GMT
Hmmm. Doesn't Trump exploit those same people at his resorts and hotels?
Republicans always pound their chest about one thing, then quietly do the the exact same thing they were thumping their chest about.
Nice try but when the head Republican hires illegals and has done so for years, your little post falls flat.
Do you want another 5 1/2 years? The Democrats doing exactly what they did in 2016 is how you get Trump in 2020. And then, because LOL Dems, another shitty Repub in 2024. Unless the Dems learn to not be shittier than the Repubs. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 27, 2019 12:52:10 GMT
Hmmm. Doesn't Trump exploit those same people at his resorts and hotels?
Republicans always pound their chest about one thing, then quietly do the the exact same thing they were thumping their chest about.
Nice try but when the head Republican hires illegals and has done so for years, your little post falls flat.
You can't see the difference between, "We don't want them here and are trying to stop them from coming, but might as well use the ones that are here already." and "Let's actively get them here so we can exploit them!"? |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Aug 28, 2019 15:50:03 GMT
Hmmm. Doesn't Trump exploit those same people at his resorts and hotels?
Republicans always pound their chest about one thing, then quietly do the the exact same thing they were thumping their chest about.
Nice try but when the head Republican hires illegals and has done so for years, your little post falls flat.
You can't see the difference between, "We don't want them here and are trying to stop them from coming, but might as well use the ones that are here already." and "Let's actively get them here so we can exploit them!"? Seems many businesses that hire them are in the latter category to me. Most times all they get is a small fine. Sometimes they might get closed down, but often they just reform the company with a different name and continue doing the same thing. And most of the people coming through the border lately have been refugees fleeing places that are fucked up, and much of the fucking of those countries has been a result of our policies. Further, as refugees, it doesn't actually matter where or how they have crossed the border, they aren't breaking the law by doing so. |
|
ulrik
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by ulrik on Aug 29, 2019 22:08:48 GMT
Exploitative business wants illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. With the cooperation of the government they only risk a tiny fine, while they can use the threat of ICE to keep their slaves, err, employees in line.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 30, 2019 15:31:55 GMT
You can't see the difference between, "We don't want them here and are trying to stop them from coming, but might as well use the ones that are here already." and "Let's actively get them here so we can exploit them!"? Seems many businesses that hire them are in the latter category to me. Most times all they get is a small fine. Sometimes they might get closed down, but often they just reform the company with a different name and continue doing the same thing. And most of the people coming through the border lately have been refugees fleeing places that are fucked up, and much of the fucking of those countries has been a result of our policies. Further, as refugees, it doesn't actually matter where or how they have crossed the border, they aren't breaking the law by doing so. Nah. Hiring those that come here is the same as picking up a $20 bill that you find on the ground. Actively bringing them over to exploit them is the same as going out and robbing someone of $20. There's a world of difference. As far as refugees go, only a small percentage of those claiming refugee status qualify as refugees. The rest are as illegal as fuck. If you think most coming across are refugees, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Aug 30, 2019 20:12:43 GMT
Seems many businesses that hire them are in the latter category to me. Most times all they get is a small fine. Sometimes they might get closed down, but often they just reform the company with a different name and continue doing the same thing. And most of the people coming through the border lately have been refugees fleeing places that are fucked up, and much of the fucking of those countries has been a result of our policies. Further, as refugees, it doesn't actually matter where or how they have crossed the border, they aren't breaking the law by doing so. Nah. Hiring those that come here is the same as picking up a $20 bill that you find on the ground. Actively bringing them over to exploit them is the same as going out and robbing someone of $20. There's a world of difference. As far as refugees go, only a small percentage of those claiming refugee status qualify as refugees. The rest are as illegal as fuck. If you think most coming across are refugees, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Depends on what you mean by refugees. If you use 45's definition, you're right. But that's an invalid definition. Most of the people coming across have a legitimate reason to be afraid of going back. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 30, 2019 21:01:13 GMT
]Depends on what you mean by refugees. ref·u·gee /ˌrefyo͝oˈjē/ noun - a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. I will also accept 'a displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and who cannot return home safely' as well as 'asylum seeker'. Note, these definitions do not include "seeks a better economic opportunity". Like, shit, if they are legit coming from Venezuela, that's one thing, but Mexico is still plenty prosperous. They can easily stop there and get decent capitalistic jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Aug 30, 2019 22:28:48 GMT
]Depends on what you mean by refugees. ref·u·gee /ˌrefyo͝oˈjē/ noun - a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. I will also accept 'a displaced person who has been forced to cross national boundaries and who cannot return home safely' as well as 'asylum seeker'. Note, these definitions do not include "seeks a better economic opportunity". Like, shit, if they are legit coming from Venezuela, that's one thing, but Mexico is still plenty prosperous. They can easily stop there and get decent capitalistic jobs. Are you asserting Venezuelan refugees [fleeing persecution] should go to Mexico instead of the U.S. simply because it is closer to Venezuela? |
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Aug 30, 2019 23:02:11 GMT
Lulz. No stats. No facts. Just feelings and opinions. Thus racism creeps in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 30, 2019 23:26:30 GMT
Nah. Hiring those that come here is the same as picking up a $20 bill that you find on the ground. Actively bringing them over to exploit them is the same as going out and robbing someone of $20. There's a world of difference. As far as refugees go, only a small percentage of those claiming refugee status qualify as refugees. The rest are as illegal as fuck. If you think most coming across are refugees, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Depends on what you mean by refugees. If you use 45's definition, you're right. But that's an invalid definition. Most of the people coming across have a legitimate reason to be afraid of going back. His definition is THE definition. It's what Obama used to turn away most refugees as well. It's not enough to be afraid to go back. The law specifies which reasons for being afraid are legitimate, and which don't help you. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 31, 2019 1:51:55 GMT
Are you asserting Venezuelan refugees [fleeing persecution] should go to Mexico instead of the U.S. simply because it is closer to Venezuela? That and then they aren't fighting me for the scraps of shitty low-end jobs, but my equivalent in Mexico. Fuck that guy, he lives in a third world country!  Also... are they still fleeing persecution once they're in Mexico? Why should we allow them in when Mexico is like, right there and on the way? And they not only speak the language, but there are already tons of Venezuelans in Mexico because of Chavez! |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Sept 3, 2019 16:49:39 GMT
Depends on what you mean by refugees. If you use 45's definition, you're right. But that's an invalid definition. Most of the people coming across have a legitimate reason to be afraid of going back. His definition is THE definition. It's what Obama used to turn away most refugees as well. It's not enough to be afraid to go back. The law specifies which reasons for being afraid are legitimate, and which don't help you. Actually, it's not a valid definition. Federal judges have halted some of the attempts that he has used to expand the definition. Running from gangs that are as much in control as the government is one of them, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Sept 3, 2019 21:52:13 GMT
His definition is THE definition. It's what Obama used to turn away most refugees as well. It's not enough to be afraid to go back. The law specifies which reasons for being afraid are legitimate, and which don't help you. Actually, it's not a valid definition. Federal judges have halted some of the attempts that he has used to expand the definition. Running from gangs that are as much in control as the government is one of them, for example. I'm curious now. What's the correct definition, and have those judges recently ruled and the decisions are on appeal or are the decisions final? Because this sounds like "we got some judge to issue a questionable national injunction" rather than a solid fact. The term "refugee" doesn't have much to do with gang violence but usually war displacing peoples. Asylum sounds more like what you're talking about, and gang violence is not an accepted reason to grant asylum. Persecution based on race/creed/religion/etc is. Being in a bad neighborhood isn't. And that's an international definition and we've used it for decades. It's only now, when there's political hay to be made, that the democrats suddenly care about asylum seekers. |
|
