Is what's happening in Sweden a coming attraction in the U.S.?

[para bellum]

What they will get is a 3rd world society of haves and have-nots

Yep and that is always an acceptable outcome for the haves. LA, San Fran, Portland, Seattle...

The extreme example is the Oligarch's fleet. That includes the tech oligarchs like Bezos whose new yacht is so large they have to dismantle a historical bridge in Rotterdam just to get the damn thing out...

That's another thing I have been wondering about wrt this war. I don't think kleptocrats stop being kleptocrats just because there is a war on. Putin has to be under tremendous pressure by now.

 

[TheParser]

Let's tell it as it is (gently, of course).

The future of the United States of America has already been decided.

For various reasons, Caucasian Americans just ain't having many babies.

African Americans. Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans are still getting it on.

So by the end of this century, most Americans will be non-Caucasians.

And some woke Dems predict that at that time, the United States will become a paradise.

*****

Regarding Europe, some observers say that economic opportunities in sub-Sahara Africa are so bad that nothing can stop young African men from emigrating to Europe. One "expert" has predicted that someday in the far future maybe up to 25% of Europeans will have African ancestry.

France is now having a debate. Some French people feel that it is wrong to let in so many people of an Arab background. Others feel that it is no problem. General de Gaulle was seriously concerned about the matter. He commented that some day maybe many cities in France might have Arab names.

*****

Bottom line: Non-Caucasian people want to live in (currently) Caucasian-majority nations.

Nothing can really stop this movement.

 

[ESay]

If we addressed it in an intelligent way, it would remove it as a political wedge issue, and neither party really wants that- so it becomes part of the culture war and there it will stay

The key question is what this intelligent way is. How to stop thousands of illegals to attempt to cross the border? Do you think that a wall can do that?

 

[ESay]

That's another thing I have been wondering about wrt this war. I don't think kleptocrats stop being kleptocrats just because there is a war on. Putin has to be under tremendous pressure by now

What do you mean by Putin being under pressure in this context?

 

[para bellum]

The key question is what this intelligent way is. How to stop thousands of illegals to attempt to cross the border? Do you think that a wall can do that?

A wall is a force multiplier. It forces the other guy to go over, under, or around. It slows down and directs the flow, improving the chance to intercept contraband (whether human or otherwise). Walls work.

The intelligent way does not necessarily require a wall to be successful- it requires an orderly way to admit people for whatever duration is needed, to identify who they are, to set logical quotas that do not adversely impact one part of the population without some sort of means to deal with the impact.

It should be biased towards people who are self-sufficient and can contribute to the economy in a positive way, while still recognizing refugees and other unfortunates, and offer them a way to improve their own station.

It shouldn't be a static thing. When the economy is strong you can increase the rate of immigration, when it's weak you should try to moderate it.

 

[para bellum]

What do you mean by Putin being under pressure in this context?

Just the the Russian elites can't be very happy. I know Putin is well buffered, but when all your buddies' yachts are seized at the same time, and mansions mysteriously catch fire, and oligarchs go on murder-suicide rampages, or get tossed in a Moscow prison, and their companies are prohibited from commerce with most of the world...

It has to be a little tense even for Putin I imagine.

Maybe not. I hear a lot of folks here that think everything is going accordingly to plan, so there's that...

 

[ESay]

A wall is a force multiplier. It forces the other guy to go over, under, or around. It slows down and directs the flow, improving the chance to intercept contraband (whether human or otherwise). Walls work.

The intelligent way does not necessarily require a wall to be successful- it requires an orderly way to admit people for whatever duration is needed, to identify who they are, to set logical quotas that do not adversely impact one part of the population without some sort of means to deal with the impact.

It should be biased towards people who are self-sufficient and can contribute to the economy in a positive way, while still recognizing refugees and other unfortunates, and offer them a way to improve their own station.

It shouldn't be a static thing. When the economy is strong you can increase the rate of immigration, when it's weak you should try to moderate it.

To make this possible, the government should control the flow totally. All these quotas, regulations, procedures will mean nothing if the authorities can't impose their will on these people.

Okay, how much do you think the proposed wall would scale down the amount of the immigrants, if it were accomplished as proposed by the previous administration? Just your guess, without any verification.

 

[para bellum]

To make this possible, the government should control the flow totally. All these quotas, regulations, procedures will mean nothing if the authorities can't impose their will on these people.

The Constitution vests sole authority on immigration to the US Congress.

The authorities have the guns, they can and do impose their will, not just on immigrants.

Okay, how much do you think the proposed wall would scale down the amount of the immigrants, if it were accomplished as proposed by the previous administration? Just your guess, without any verification.

I'm not going to go there, but again- a wall is an object. It is not a policy. A wall (or lack of one) does not affect immigration policy. There is a great deal of trafficking in both drugs and humans at our southern border, and the wall is intended to help address that issue.

The CBP are the best ones to ask where and how much wall is needed in any particular sector, and it is always brought up in the hearings. You can find those hearings in the C-Span archive if you are so inclined.

Same with border apprehensions over time, the CBP publishes the numbers. But those numbers require a lot of analysis to extract meaningful information, because policy is the big driver, and the definition of "apprehensions" is fluid.

Understand that there is immigration and there is illegal immigration. I don't know any country where someone can just enter without checking in first- at least not one that I would want to visit.

Immigration is good. Illegal immigration is not good. That isn't a radical viewpoint- I'm pretty sure your authorities look at it the same way?

 

[ESay]

The Constitution vests sole authority on immigration to the US Congress.

The authorities have the guns, they can and do impose their will, not just on immigrants.

I'm not going to go there, but again- a wall is an object. It is not a policy. A wall (or lack of one) does not affect immigration policy. There is a great deal of trafficking in both drugs and humans at our southern border, and the wall is intended to help address that issue.

The CBP are the best ones to ask where and how much wall is needed in any particular sector, and it is always brought up in the hearings. You can find those hearings in the C-Span archive if you are so inclined.

Same with border apprehensions over time, the CBP publishes the numbers. But those numbers require a lot of analysis to extract meaningful information, because policy is the big driver, and the definition of "apprehensions" is fluid.

Understand that there is immigration and there is illegal immigration. I don't know any country where someone can just enter without checking in first- at least not one that I would want to visit.

Immigration is good. Illegal immigration is not good. That isn't a radical viewpoint- I'm pretty sure your authorities look at it the same way?

Yeah, 'my' authorities do. Though, what they think and do is hardly should be an example for anyone. I don't mean this specific issue but rather a wide range of their policy.

 

[monkrules]

Well if there borders we would've know about them, but there weren't.
Just because you came here first that you want to keep the whole cake to yourself, others will want a piece whether you like it or not. Humans will not stop migrating as they have been doing for 1000s of years because you don't like it.

You're a fucking idiot.

Groups of people have been taking, and trying to hold land, for as long as there have been people. What you and I think won't change that.

And when one group establishes a place of their own, it's natural for them to do what it takes to hang on to it. It makes sense that they would try to keep "unwanted" people out.

The strongest people took the land, established their country, and drew the borders.

What you think is moral or right doesn't mean shit to anyone else.

 

[Issa]

islam had its day, but that day is past

It will come back, beleive that.

 

[Issa]

You're a fucking idiot.

Groups of people have been taking, and trying to hold land, for as long as there have been people. What you and I think won't change that.

And when one group establishes a place of their own, it's natural for them to do what it takes to hang on to it. It makes sense that they would try to keep "unwanted" people out.

The strongest people took the land, established their country, and drew the borders.

What you think is moral or right doesn't mean shit to anyone else.

I agree !!! So one day Southern states will be majority latinks and they might join Mexico once again.

 

[Mac-7]

It will come back, beleive that.

Yes, the Bible says so

 

[monkrules]

I agree !!! So one day Southern states will be majority latinks and they might join Mexico once again.

That's just silly.

Go away. Please....