Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Apr 24 06:59:19 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / The invasion has violently begun
Paramount
Member
Fri Apr 12 14:15:18
Tha padlocks has been broken! Let da invasion BEGIN!

A group of around 350 Central American migrants "broke violently" into Mexico Friday, the country's immigration authorities said, as a new caravan of around 2,500 people arrived from Guatemala.

Mexico's National Migration Institute said some members of the caravan had attacked local police in the southern town of Metapa de Dominguez -- news sure to draw the attention of President Donald Trump as he continues his crackdown on undocumented migrants heading toward the US.

"Today at 3:30 am (0830 GMT) a group of approximately 350 people broke violently across the Mexican border from Guatemala," the National Migration Institute said in a statement.

"With an aggressive attitude, (the migrants) broke the padlock on the border gate and entered the country."

The caravan set out Wednesday from the city of San Pedro Sula in Honduras and has picked up Guatemalans and some Nicaraguans along the way.

The migrants are mostly fleeing poverty and brutal violence in their home countries.

"We can't live (in Honduras) anymore. We're heading for the border, for the United States," said Jorge, a young Honduran migrant who declined to give his last name.

http://afp...s-new-caravan-arrives/a/opK6Wm
Rugian
Member
Fri Apr 12 14:17:17
Meanwhile, the anti-Trump resistance in the federal judiciary has pretty much destroyed any and all border security measures that could keep these people out when they do arrive at our doorstep. Lovely.
Paramount
Member
Fri Apr 12 14:20:57
Isn’t Trump going to place these migrants in sanctuary cities across the US?
Paramount
Member
Fri Apr 12 14:28:02
”The migrants are mostly fleeing poverty and brutal violence in their home countries.”

Maybe the US can give them guns so they can defend themselves. Then they don’t need to flee.

There is a lot of poverty and violence in the US too. Yet, we don’t see Americans flee the country. It is because Americans have guns to defend themselves with.
jergul
large member
Fri Apr 12 14:57:20
Ruggy
You know you could get rid of a lot of immigrants + secure GOP victories federally by simply giving Mexico back the land it lost.

Think bigger!
jergul
large member
Fri Apr 12 15:05:48
Para
What you should know is that this is not an invasion, it is simply people using the right of return that is a mere 170 years old (as compared to say 2000 years that we know from other historical examples).

I am not saying this will work out immediately. but gaining a population balance similar to Israel-Palestine by 2045 is on course to happen.

It ultimately is a question of cutting losses literally by returning territory, or simply see demographic changes turn the United States into a New Mexico in all senses of the world.

This is why Ruggy is a bit grumpy, you see.
Rugian
Member
Fri Apr 12 15:20:51
Jergul,

Ignoring that you're trolling for a minute, your premise is incorrect on multiple counts. The draw of illegal immigrants to this country isn't tied to the Southwest and residents in areas that would be surrendered would still hold citizenship afterwards.
obaminated
Member
Fri Apr 12 15:54:52
kill them, kill them all.
jergul
large member
Fri Apr 12 15:59:06
Ruggy
Funny how often you mistake facts on the ground for trolling.

As to your objection - I think you will find that suitable legislation on former citizens can be passed if you desired (for example simply outlawing dual citizenship - a servant of two masters is a servant of none).

The data you are looking for is current hispanic populations by state btw. I think giving up the territories would push your minority status indefinitely into the future.
Rugian
Member
Fri Apr 12 16:10:07
Jergul,

While we're at it, why dont we just ship every illegal to the Moon and mandate that all white women between 12 and 39 give birth to one child a year? Those have about an equal chance of becoming law as your ideas.

My point about the Southwest would be that an illegal's ultimate destination is the United States, wherever it is. If the southern border is at Oregon, they'll go to Oregon. No one is interested in living in a California governed by Mexico (even though they could arguably do a better job with it than the regime currently in place there).

And just to put it on record, the goal of border security is to stop illegals, not Hispanics. A difficult distinction for a Nordic racist to grasp I admit.
jergul
large member
Fri Apr 12 16:19:00
Ruggy
That would be because of constitutional rights afforded people within Federal jurisdiction.

The ultimate destinations would be found by reviewing where Hispanics live. Free to move anywhere and where are they?

You would think that mass migration not erupting after Trump was elected disproves the idea that people are overly consider with the quality of their oligarchs. You should try to keep up.

Racists are generally the ones who use applaud measures that by design are racial profiling, but pray do tell when Trump wants to build a wall along the Canadian frontier (unless Canada beats him to it).

So yah, try not to deflect too much. It is unseemly.

Rugian
Member
Fri Apr 12 17:03:17
Jergul,

For someone who claims to be reporting the "facts on the ground," you sure seem to be getting some basic stuff wrong.

In virtually all cases the government is constitutionally barred from involuntarily stripping dual nationals of their citizenship (we're a really progressive country after all). Going that route would require exactly the same process as revoking rights to due process, namely either a constitutional amendment or enabling legislation that was subsequently upheld by the judiciary.

Approximately half (not an overwhelming majority as you've implied) of American Hispanics live in the Southwest. Which makes sense given that that area is the region closest to the major points of entry that belongs to the United States. If that region suddenly stops belonging to the United States, the current incentives to live there would disappear.

Whatever you think of Trump, you're not operating in the realm of reality if you think hes done anything to destroy the basic reasons why people sneak into this country. That's just ridiculous.

Canada has not been a major point of entry for an illegal population numbering in the tens of millions. Do try to keep up.

I'll accept that any border enforcement is automatically racist the day that Norway does. I'm not holding my breath over it though.
jergul
large member
Fri Apr 12 19:48:45
Ruggy
Lets just assume that if the US is willing to give up territory, then it would be willing to pass a constitutional ammendment that would lead to the desired loss of citizenships.

The US has held a very strong anti-dual citizenship stance for most of your nation's history after all. View it as returning to your roots.

Getting rid of half would indefinitely delay majority right marginalization (demographic).

The incentive to stay? Cannot Americans be State patriots while celebrating national unity in important days like cinqo-de-majo?

I can give you 1 trillion things next budget year alone that Trump is doing to remove the motive for immigration, but those reasons are not linked to patriotic or family feelings that people living in the US might have.

Most people enter the US entirely legally btw. They violate the conditions of their visit at a later point in time.

Selective application of border control aimed at limiting migration of people with certain racial profiles is racist.

A pointless wall is a case in point.

But I take it your view is that the US you know and love should fade with a wimper, not with a bang.

2045 is nigh :D.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Apr 12 20:20:36

"Selective application of border control aimed at limiting migration of people with certain racial profiles is racist.
"

And?


At least we have mainly mexicans, who at least work and are much better than sebs and that sort of scum.
Hrothgar
Member
Sat Apr 13 01:31:18
How much of these issues - of mass migration attempts across the 3rd world (Middle East/Central America) can be attributed at the root to the fact that a few thousand people control an insane amount of the world's wealth?

Migration attempts wouldn't happen nearly as much if all nations had a semi-healthy middle class.
Paramount
Member
Sat Apr 13 04:31:26
" it is simply people using the right of return that is a mere 170 years old (as compared to say 2000 years that we know from other historical examples).

I am not saying this will work out immediately. but gaining a population balance similar to Israel-Palestine by 2045 is on course to happen.

It ultimately is a question of cutting losses literally by returning territory, or simply see demographic changes turn the United States into a New Mexico in all senses of the world. "



I love it.
Rugian
Member
Sat Apr 13 11:20:51
jergul,

1. "Let's just assume that..." Hence my comment about the Moon and compulsory birthing. The political will for those is about the same as what you're proposing.

2. Define "indefinitely."

3. People come to the US for reasons that are well and generally known. They don't come to it out of any particular desire to settle the lands of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Nevada, and Utah specifically. If those states are no longer in the US, the incentives for living in those states disappear.

4. Federal budget deficits do not eliminate the overall attractiveness of the United States to Hondurans.

5. "Selective application" ROFL. It's prioritization based on severity of need. The United States is not being deluded by millions of Canadians seeking to escape Justin Trudeau's dashing good looks and cuckboy politics.

6. I do feel that immigration should be kept at limits that allow for effective assimilation and adoption of American political and cultural values. If the US was a 90% Hispanic country that acted as a world leader in defending freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the English language, I'd be perfectly happy with that.

7. Put up or shut up already. You're sitting on a trillion dollar oil fund; maybe instead of greedily hoarding that wealth for a future generation that's less and less likely to even be born, you use that money to take in a couple million central American migrants. Or does the prospect of arroz marinero replacing lutefisk replace your delicate sensibilities too much?
jergul
large member
Sat Apr 13 17:23:53
Ruggy
1. Well, if you would rather opt for minority status, then fair enough.

2. Not definable as decent demographic statistics beyond 2045 are outside of the scope of this thread.

3. The pull factors do not rely on federal integrity. Though you are seriously underestimating the push factors.

4. Keynes. Bloated deficits in good times undermine federal means to deal with recessions. How many hondurans came to the US in 1932?

5. We all know a wall is a waste of funds better spent more effectively. Most people who eventually become illegal do not cross over the Mexican border.

6. Why should English have a special status if population needs are best served with another language?

7. No. The Monroe doctrine is yours. You made your bed, now you can sleep in it. The UN assigns quota refugees. I think we are supposed to take 5k a year. More than good enough.

You seem a bit sad.
Rugian
Member
Sun Apr 14 10:01:07
jergul,

ROFL. Did you just seriously quote a fucking UN report to duck out of responsibility? That's so silly that it overshadows the rest of your points and undermines your credibility.

1. Your concession is noted.

2. According to whom? Some of us plan to be alive beyond 2045.

3. This point is only valid if one were to assume that Mexican California and Mexican Texas would have the same draw as they do currently. Which is incorrect.

4. Is that why illegal immigration stopped being a problem after the Great Recession?

5. Debatable and completely false, respectively.

6. Homogeneity of language is generally a sign of a stable country.

7. Again, fucking ROFL. Racist little shit.
jergul
large member
Mon Apr 15 05:33:06
Ruggy

0. Our formal responsibilities are for accept a certain number of UN quota refugees.

1. That would be your concession, not mine. Surreder monkey.

2. According to me. Good data is not available beyond 2045.

3. It is true if minority white status for the rest of remaining US is delayed indefinitely.

4. Undebatable, and true, respectively.

6. Lulz. No.

7. Monroe doctrine is yours. You made your bed, you sleep in it. We will take in our UN quota refugees of any colour or creed.

If you think it on the low side, then take it up with the UN.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share