On 8/5/2022 6:17 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 8/5/2022 12:19 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 8/5/2022 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <Y0aHK.628281$J0r9.249848@fx11.iad>,
>>>   moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/5/2022 12:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 8:04:10 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 9:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 2:57:53 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 3:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 9:06:22 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 11:44 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 12:50 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to DHS disclosures to the federal court hearing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case Biden v. Texas, the Biden Administration has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> released 1,049,532 illegals into the country since Old Joe was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaugurated. That's more people than the population of Joe's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> home state of Delaware.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that doesn't even include the 'got-aways'-- the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegals who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed to cross over, evade the Border Patrol, and disappear
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the countryside. DHS estimates that number to be an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 700,000 to one million illegals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it's rrraaaaciiissst to talk about Democrats intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to change the demographics of the nation and dilute the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> votes of the current citizenry, even as they've intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opened the border for an entire state's worth of illegal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aliens
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the promise of no end in sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And the solution you recommend is?
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I know we're supposed to hate everything Trump but this
>>>>>>>>>>> shit
>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't happening under his policies.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why is the United States the only country in the world that's
>>>>>>>>>>> racist
>>>>>>>>>>> if it controls its own borders?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Somehow, I think charges of charges of racism aren't the big
>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>> The hypocrisy of DC Democrats in decrying the fact that *they*
>>>>>>>>> are now
>>>>>>>>> being asked to deal with a tiny fraction of the crushing burden
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> Texas and Arizona have been forced to shoulder for years (and
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> they apparently think those states should *still* be dealing
>>>>>>>>> with so
>>>>>>>>> they won't have to) just leaves me speechless.
>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/gop-governors-created-a-migrant-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> crisis-in-washington
>>>>>>>>> "The Border Has Come to D.C.": GOP Governor Have Successfully
>>>>>>>>> Created a
>>>>>>>>> Migrant Crisis in Washington
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has been a "somewhat herculean effort," Nadeau tells me, but an
>>>>>>>>> unsustainable one. "This is a crisis," the councilmember says. "We
>>>>>>>>> are a sanctuary city. We welcome folks. But certainly we are not
>>>>>>>>> prepared for this. This is going to strain our system."
>>>>>>>>> [Well, no shit. But it's okay to 'strain the systems' of Texas and
>>>>>>>>> Arizona, amirite? You've virtue-signaled to everyone that you're a
>>>>>>>>> sanctuary city and now you have to walk your talk. Boo-hoo.]
>>>>>>>>> Bowser echoed the latter sentiment last Thursday as she called for
>>>>>>>>> the National Guard to be activated; she said the city had
>>>>>>>>> reached its
>>>>>>>>> "tipping point", but while Nadeau and groups on the ground have
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> calling for action by Bowser and the federal government for three
>>>>>>>>> months now, they say military response echoes the hardline
>>>>>>>>> Abbott and
>>>>>>>>> Ducey policies that moved the border crisis to the Capitol.
>>>>>>>>> ["They should have just kept that border crisis down south where
>>>>>>>>> all the hicks and rubes live and just suffered through it for
>>>>>>>>> the good
>>>>>>>>> of the Agenda. How dare they send it here and dump it in our
>>>>>>>>> laps? I
>>>>>>>>> mean sure, we created the problem, but we shouldn't have to
>>>>>>>>> deal with
>>>>>>>>> it. That's what the little people in flyover states are for."]
>>>>>>>>> "It's really disappointing to see the mayor engaging in basically
>>>>>>>>> the same xenophobic, invasionist rhetoric" as Abbott, Fischer
>>>>>>>>> says.
>>>>>>>>> [moviePig was dubious that the very notion of America
>>>>>>>>> controlling its
>>>>>>>>> own borders is painted as racist by the leftist intelligentsia...
>>>>>>>>> well, right there's Exhibit Number One above.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is xenoophobia racism? Who knew?
>>>>>>> Everything is racism. Haven't you been keeping up?
>>>>>>> I just heard on the news today that California's historic
>>>>>>> Proposition 13,
>>>>>>> which has kept the government from raising people's property taxes
>>>>>>> through the roof for close to 40 years now has just been declared
>>>>>>> racist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By whom? Anybody who's anybody?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it's a bunch of leftist academics and activists who call
>>>>> themselves
>>>>> the Opportunity Institute. Do they count?
>>>>
>>>> No. Nor does anyone who'd call themselves the "Opportunity Institute".
>>>
>>> So what criteria does one have to meet to be "anybody"?
>>
>> Well, e.g., Robert Reich was mentioned in another post as a member of
>> this organization.  I suppose I'd consider his direct support serious.
>
>
> Hey thanks for giving me credit for finding out pertinent information.
> Appreciate it.

Actually, I didn't remember who'd said it. Nor was I offering it as
fact, just as a relevant example of somebody who'd be somebody.

On 8/5/2022 9:43 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 18:52:34 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-08-05 6:35 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:32:01 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/5/2022 9:53 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <tcjbpe$d13v$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/5/2022 6:56 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If illegals can’t work here or find a place to live, they’ll leave.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're proposing an official change in America's self-image, from
>>>>>>>> a welcomer of freedom-yearning huddled masses, to an
>>>>>>>> I've-got-mine-you-get-yours gated community with attack dogs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A later bit of propaganda added to the Statue of Liberty, but the fact
>>>>>>> is that almost all nations outside the West have very strict immigration
>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mexico for instance, requires potential immigrants to prove that they
>>>>>>> have sufficient income or savings/pensions (something like $100K)
>>>>>>> before they’ll even look at your application.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One can debate the necessity of that shift in stance but not, afaics,
>>>>>>>> the fact of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no "necessity" to flood the West with bazillions of dirt poor,
>>>>>>> poorly educated, frequently criminally prone, 3rd world peasants, what’s
>>>>>>> necessary is that they get their shit together in their _home nations_
>>>>>>> instead of sponging off the West.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how do they get their shit together in their home country when they
>>>>>> have very little money, no say in who their dictator is, and no voting
>>>>>> rights?
>>>>>
>>>>> And none of that entitles the entire population to move here.
>>>>>
>>>> They're really not.
>>>
>>> Most of them would be happy to stay in their home country if they
>>> could do so safely. Plus America countries would be happy to move more
>>> industries down there if the situation there improved. Sadly between
>>> criminal organizations and corruption throughout the government that
>>> doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.
>>>
>>> Though I did hear one interesting solution to the drug problem that
>>> Sweden is doing. They legalized heroin but not in the sense you would
>>> think. Instead they made it free for anyone but you can only get it
>>> from a doctor. What they found was that many of the dealers were
>>> hooked on the drug and sold it to keep up their supply, but with it
>>> being free they didn't need to sell the drug any more and so the
>>> supply of heroin is drying up because fewer people are selling it, and
>>> anyone else can get it for free.
>>>
>> That's an interesting approach. But what is happening to the existing
>> addicts? I assume they're staying addicted, right? That means the
>> government is essentially killing its own citizens by helping them
>> indulge in their vices.
>
> Sorry, I got the country wrong as it was Switzerland and not Sweden.
> As for the current addicts, yes they will stay addicted unless they
> seek treatment to get off the drug. The good news is the number of new
> users is dropping under the new system.
>
>
> Here's the article:
> https://www.npr.org/2016/02/15/466491812/narconomics-how-the-drug-cartels-operate-like-wal-mart-and-mcdonalds

Much of the attraction of illegal drugs is the risk and ritual (or so
I'm told). Making them free sort of bleaches the sinful mystique.

On 8/5/2022 6:46 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 17:32:58 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/5/2022 3:35 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:32:01 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/5/2022 9:53 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <tcjbpe$d13v$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/5/2022 6:56 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If illegals can’t work here or find a place to live, they’ll leave.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're proposing an official change in America's self-image, from
>>>>>>>> a welcomer of freedom-yearning huddled masses, to an
>>>>>>>> I've-got-mine-you-get-yours gated community with attack dogs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A later bit of propaganda added to the Statue of Liberty, but the fact
>>>>>>> is that almost all nations outside the West have very strict immigration
>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mexico for instance, requires potential immigrants to prove that they
>>>>>>> have sufficient income or savings/pensions (something like $100K)
>>>>>>> before they’ll even look at your application.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One can debate the necessity of that shift in stance but not, afaics,
>>>>>>>> the fact of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no "necessity" to flood the West with bazillions of dirt poor,
>>>>>>> poorly educated, frequently criminally prone, 3rd world peasants, what’s
>>>>>>> necessary is that they get their shit together in their _home nations_
>>>>>>> instead of sponging off the West.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how do they get their shit together in their home country when they
>>>>>> have very little money, no say in who their dictator is, and no voting
>>>>>> rights?
>>>>>
>>>>> And none of that entitles the entire population to move here.
>>>>>
>>>> They're really not.
>>>
>>> Most of them would be happy to stay in their home country if they
>>> could do so safely. Plus America countries would be happy to move more
>>> industries down there if the situation there improved. Sadly between
>>> criminal organizations and corruption throughout the government that
>>> doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.
>>>
>>> Though I did hear one interesting solution to the drug problem that
>>> Sweden is doing. They legalized heroin but not in the sense you would
>>> think. Instead they made it free for anyone but you can only get it
>>> from a doctor. What they found was that many of the dealers were
>>> hooked on the drug and sold it to keep up their supply, but with it
>>> being free they didn't need to sell the drug any more and so the
>>> supply of heroin is drying up because fewer people are selling it, and
>>> anyone else can get it for free.
>>
>> Doesn't Portugal have a system like that? It's an interesting solution.
>
> No idea. Just a quick Goggle search turned up this article which seems
> to say that they just decriminalized drug use so it's different from
> Switzerland's approach (I had the country wrong.)
> https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7
>
I was sure I read a few years ago that Portugal had provided heroin to
addicts, administered by health professionals. It could have been Spain
though. But the number of addicts dropped quite a bit.

On 8/5/2022 9:19 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/5/2022 6:17 PM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 8/5/2022 12:19 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 8/5/2022 1:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <Y0aHK.628281$J0r9.249848@fx11.iad>,
>>>>   moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/5/2022 12:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 8:04:10 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 9:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 2:57:53 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 3:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 9:06:22 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 11:44 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 12:50 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to DHS disclosures to the federal court hearing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case Biden v. Texas, the Biden Administration has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released 1,049,532 illegals into the country since Old Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaugurated. That's more people than the population of Joe's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> home state of Delaware.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that doesn't even include the 'got-aways'-- the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegals who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> managed to cross over, evade the Border Patrol, and disappear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the countryside. DHS estimates that number to be an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 700,000 to one million illegals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it's rrraaaaciiissst to talk about Democrats
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to change the demographics of the nation and dilute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> votes of the current citizenry, even as they've intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opened the border for an entire state's worth of illegal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aliens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the promise of no end in sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the solution you recommend is?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I know we're supposed to hate everything Trump but
>>>>>>>>>>>> this shit
>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't happening under his policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is the United States the only country in the world
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's racist
>>>>>>>>>>>> if it controls its own borders?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Somehow, I think charges of charges of racism aren't the big
>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>> The hypocrisy of DC Democrats in decrying the fact that *they*
>>>>>>>>>> are now
>>>>>>>>>> being asked to deal with a tiny fraction of the crushing
>>>>>>>>>> burden that
>>>>>>>>>> Texas and Arizona have been forced to shoulder for years (and
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>> they apparently think those states should *still* be dealing
>>>>>>>>>> with so
>>>>>>>>>> they won't have to) just leaves me speechless.
>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/gop-governors-created-a-migrant-
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> crisis-in-washington
>>>>>>>>>> "The Border Has Come to D.C.": GOP Governor Have Successfully
>>>>>>>>>> Created a
>>>>>>>>>> Migrant Crisis in Washington
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It has been a "somewhat herculean effort," Nadeau tells me,
>>>>>>>>>> but an
>>>>>>>>>> unsustainable one. "This is a crisis," the councilmember says.
>>>>>>>>>> "We
>>>>>>>>>> are a sanctuary city. We welcome folks. But certainly we are not
>>>>>>>>>> prepared for this. This is going to strain our system."
>>>>>>>>>> [Well, no shit. But it's okay to 'strain the systems' of Texas
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> Arizona, amirite? You've virtue-signaled to everyone that
>>>>>>>>>> you're a
>>>>>>>>>> sanctuary city and now you have to walk your talk. Boo-hoo.]
>>>>>>>>>> Bowser echoed the latter sentiment last Thursday as she called
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> the National Guard to be activated; she said the city had
>>>>>>>>>> reached its
>>>>>>>>>> "tipping point", but while Nadeau and groups on the ground
>>>>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>>>>> calling for action by Bowser and the federal government for three
>>>>>>>>>> months now, they say military response echoes the hardline
>>>>>>>>>> Abbott and
>>>>>>>>>> Ducey policies that moved the border crisis to the Capitol.
>>>>>>>>>> ["They should have just kept that border crisis down south where
>>>>>>>>>> all the hicks and rubes live and just suffered through it for
>>>>>>>>>> the good
>>>>>>>>>> of the Agenda. How dare they send it here and dump it in our
>>>>>>>>>> laps? I
>>>>>>>>>> mean sure, we created the problem, but we shouldn't have to
>>>>>>>>>> deal with
>>>>>>>>>> it. That's what the little people in flyover states are for."]
>>>>>>>>>> "It's really disappointing to see the mayor engaging in basically
>>>>>>>>>> the same xenophobic, invasionist rhetoric" as Abbott, Fischer
>>>>>>>>>> says.
>>>>>>>>>> [moviePig was dubious that the very notion of America
>>>>>>>>>> controlling its
>>>>>>>>>> own borders is painted as racist by the leftist intelligentsia...
>>>>>>>>>> well, right there's Exhibit Number One above.]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is xenoophobia racism? Who knew?
>>>>>>>> Everything is racism. Haven't you been keeping up?
>>>>>>>> I just heard on the news today that California's historic
>>>>>>>> Proposition 13,
>>>>>>>> which has kept the government from raising people's property taxes
>>>>>>>> through the roof for close to 40 years now has just been
>>>>>>>> declared racist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By whom? Anybody who's anybody?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, it's a bunch of leftist academics and activists who call
>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>> the Opportunity Institute. Do they count?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Nor does anyone who'd call themselves the "Opportunity Institute".
>>>>
>>>> So what criteria does one have to meet to be "anybody"?
>>>
>>> Well, e.g., Robert Reich was mentioned in another post as a member of
>>> this organization.  I suppose I'd consider his direct support serious.
>>
>>
>> Hey thanks for giving me credit for finding out pertinent information.
>> Appreciate it.
>
> Actually, I didn't remember who'd said it.  Nor was I offering it as
> fact, just as a relevant example of somebody who'd be somebody.

On 8/5/2022 9:28 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/5/2022 9:43 PM, shawn wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 18:52:34 -0400, Rhino
>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-08-05 6:35 PM, shawn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:32:01 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/5/2022 9:53 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <tcjbpe$d13v$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/5/2022 6:56 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If illegals can’t work here or find a place to live,
>>>>>>>>>> they’ll leave.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're proposing an official change in America's self-image, from
>>>>>>>>> a welcomer of freedom-yearning huddled masses, to an
>>>>>>>>> I've-got-mine-you-get-yours gated community with attack dogs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A later bit of propaganda added to the Statue of Liberty, but
>>>>>>>> the fact
>>>>>>>> is that almost all nations outside the West have very strict
>>>>>>>> immigration
>>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mexico for instance, requires potential immigrants to prove that
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> have sufficient income or savings/pensions (something like $100K)
>>>>>>>> before they’ll even look at your application.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One can debate the necessity of that shift in stance but not,
>>>>>>>>> afaics,
>>>>>>>>> the fact of it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no "necessity" to flood the West with bazillions of
>>>>>>>> dirt poor,
>>>>>>>> poorly educated, frequently criminally prone, 3rd world
>>>>>>>> peasants, what’s
>>>>>>>> necessary is that they get their shit together in their _home
>>>>>>>> nations_
>>>>>>>> instead of sponging off the West.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And how do they get their shit together in their home country
>>>>>>> when they
>>>>>>> have very little money, no say in who their dictator is, and no
>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>> rights?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And none of that entitles the entire population to move here.
>>>>>>
>>>>> They're really not.
>>>>
>>>> Most of them would be happy to stay in their home country if they
>>>> could do so safely. Plus America countries would be happy to move more
>>>> industries down there if the situation there improved. Sadly between
>>>> criminal organizations and corruption throughout the government that
>>>> doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.
>>>>
>>>> Though I did hear one interesting solution to the drug problem that
>>>> Sweden is doing. They legalized heroin but not in the sense you would
>>>> think. Instead they made it free for anyone but you can only get it
>>>> from a doctor. What they found was that many of the dealers were
>>>> hooked on the drug and sold it to keep up their supply, but with it
>>>> being free they didn't need to sell the drug any more and so the
>>>> supply of heroin is drying up because fewer people are selling it, and
>>>> anyone else can get it for free.
>>>>
>>> That's an interesting approach. But what is happening to the existing
>>> addicts? I assume they're staying addicted, right? That means the
>>> government is essentially killing its own citizens by helping them
>>> indulge in their vices.
>>
>> Sorry, I got the country wrong as it was Switzerland and not Sweden.
>> As for the current addicts, yes they will stay addicted unless they
>> seek treatment to get off the drug. The good news is the number of new
>> users is dropping under the new system.
>>
>>
>> Here's the article:
>> https://www.npr.org/2016/02/15/466491812/narconomics-how-the-drug-cartels-operate-like-wal-mart-and-mcdonalds
>>
>
> Much of the attraction of illegal drugs is the risk and ritual (or so
> I'm told).  Making them free sort of bleaches the sinful mystique.
>

I would posit that with "illegal drugs" next to nicotine opioids are one
of the most physically addicting group of substances there is.

Rhino wrote:

> On 2022-08-05 9:12 AM, Nyssa wrote:
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 8:04:10 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/4/2022 9:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 2:57:53 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 3:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 9:06:22 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 11:44 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 12:50 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to DHS disclosures to the
>>>>>>>>>>> federal court hearing the
>>>>>>>>>>> case Biden
>>>>>>>>>>> v. Texas, the Biden Administration has
>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally released 1,049,532 illegals
>>>>>>>>>>> into the country since Old Joe was
>>>>>>>>>>> inaugurated. That's more
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> than the population of Joe's home state of
>>>>>>>>>>> Delaware.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And that doesn't even include the
>>>>>>>>>>> 'got-aways'-- the illegals who
>>>>>>>>>>> managed to
>>>>>>>>>>> cross over, evade the Border Patrol, and
>>>>>>>>>>> disappear into the countryside. DHS
>>>>>>>>>>> estimates that number to be an additional
>>>>>>>>>>> 700,000 to one million illegals.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But it's rrraaaaciiissst to talk about
>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats intentionally trying to change
>>>>>>>>>>> the demographics of the nation and dilute
>>>>>>>>>>> the votes of the
>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>> citizenry, even as they've intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>> opened the border for an entire state's
>>>>>>>>>>> worth of illegal aliens with the promise
>>>>>>>>>>> of no end in sight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the solution you recommend is?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I know we're supposed to hate
>>>>>>>>> everything Trump but this shit
>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>> happening under his policies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is the United States the only country in
>>>>>>>>> the world that's
>>>>>>>>> racist if it
>>>>>>>>> controls its own borders?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Somehow, I think charges of charges of racism
>>>>>>>> aren't the big issue here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The hypocrisy of DC Democrats in decrying the
>>>>>>> fact that *they* are now
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> asked to deal with a tiny fraction of the
>>>>>>> crushing burden that Texas and Arizona have been
>>>>>>> forced to shoulder for years (and which they
>>>>>>> apparently think those states should *still* be
>>>>>>> dealing with so they won't have to)
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> leaves me speechless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/gop-governors-created-a-
>> migrant-crisis-in-washington
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Border Has Come to D.C.": GOP Governor Have
>>>>>>> Successfully Created a Migrant Crisis in
>>>>>>> Washington
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been a "somewhat herculean effort,"
>>>>>>> Nadeau tells me, but an unsustainable one. "This
>>>>>>> is a crisis," the councilmember says. "We are a
>>>>>>> sanctuary city. We welcome folks. But certainly
>>>>>>> we are not prepared for
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>> This is going to strain our system."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Well, no shit. But it's okay to 'strain the
>>>>>>> [systems' of Texas and
>>>>>>> Arizona,
>>>>>>> amirite? You've virtue-signaled to everyone that
>>>>>>> you're a sanctuary
>>>>>>> city and
>>>>>>> now you have to walk your talk. Boo-hoo.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bowser echoed the latter sentiment last Thursday
>>>>>>> as she called for the National Guard to be
>>>>>>> activated; she said the city had reached its
>>>>>>> "tipping point", but while Nadeau and groups on
>>>>>>> the ground have been calling for
>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>> by Bowser and the federal government for three
>>>>>>> months now, they say
>>>>>>> military
>>>>>>> response echoes the hardline Abbott and Ducey
>>>>>>> policies that moved the
>>>>>>> border
>>>>>>> crisis to the Capitol.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ["They should have just kept that border crisis
>>>>>>> [down south where all the
>>>>>>> hicks
>>>>>>> and rubes live and just suffered through it for
>>>>>>> the good of the Agenda.
>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>> dare they send it here and dump it in our laps?
>>>>>>> I mean sure, we created
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> problem, but we shouldn't have to deal with it.
>>>>>>> That's what the little
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> in flyover states are for."]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "It's really disappointing to see the mayor
>>>>>>> engaging in basically the same xenophobic,
>>>>>>> invasionist rhetoric" as Abbott, Fischer says.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [moviePig was dubious that the very notion of
>>>>>>> [America controlling its own
>>>>>>> borders is painted as racist by the leftist
>>>>>>> intelligentsia... well, right there's Exhibit
>>>>>>> Number One above.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is xenoophobia racism? Who knew?
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything is racism. Haven't you been keeping up?
>>>>>
>>>>> I just heard on the news today that California's
>>>>> historic Proposition 13, which has kept the
>>>>> government from raising people's property taxes
>>>>> through
>>>>> the
>>>>> roof for close to 40 years now has just been
>>>>> declared racist.
>>>>
>>>> By whom? Anybody who's anybody?
>>>
>>> Well, it's a bunch of leftist academics and activists
>>> who call themselves the Opportunity Institute. Do they
>>> count?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f70367e4b0974cf2b82009/t/62b34bd3
>> 19072b7c70d02020/1655917530375/OI%2BReport%2BProp%2B13%2BFinal.pdf
>>>
>>> It always seemed to me that the worst victims of an
>>> out-of-control government raising property taxes
>>> sky-high would be the disadvantaged, the marginalized,
>>> and the bipocks. The rich might not like being gouged,
>>> but they could pay the high taxes. They wouldn't be
>>> forced out of their homes over it. The poor and the
>>> bipocks are the ones who could lose everything and had
>>> the most to gain from Prop 13's protections.
>>>
>>> But in an era where literally everything is racist,
>>> apparently a law that protects bipocks from losing their
>>> homes is somehow racist as well.
>>>
>>>
>> Okay, I probably need to get out more, but can someone
>> please explain to me what a "bipock" is supposed to be?
>>
> I think he's giving you an alternate spelling of BIPOC,
> which is something-something-People-Of-Colour. I want to
> say that the "B" stands for "Black" and the "I" for
> Indigenous but blacks are already "people of colour" - as
> are indigenous people - so that seems redundant. But given
> the "progressive" obsession with virtue-signalling, I'm
> willing to believe they put blacks first just to emphasize
> that they were forgetting them and perhaps the same for
> indigenous people.
>
> I just looked it up and it turns out I'm right:
>
> ========================================================================
> The acronym BIPOC, referring to "black, indigenous, (and)
> people of color", first appeared around 2013.[22] By June
> 2020, it was, according to Sandra E. Garcia, "ubiquitous
> in some corners of Twitter and Instagram",[23] as racial
> justice awareness grew in the United States in the wake of
> the murder of George Floyd. The term aims to emphasize the
> historic oppression of black and indigenous people, which
> is argued to be superlative and distinctive in U.S.
> history at the collective level.[24] The BIPOC Project
> promotes the term in order "to highlight the unique
> relationship to whiteness that Indigenous and Black
> (African Americans) people have, which shapes the
> experiences of and relationship to white supremacy for all
> people of color within a U.S. context."[25]
>
> [source:
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color#BIPOC]
> ========================================================================
>
>> Nyssa, who wonders why alleged academics are using "pop"
>> or slang terms in a public statement if they want to be
>> understood and taken seriously
>>
> Because they want to seem "hip" "cool" "with it" or
> whatever the current equivalent is?
>
Thanks for the translation and explanation.

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>Maybe we can combine the millions of asylum lawyers needed with the
>>>millions of social workers needed who are to replace the cops and the
>>>millions of therapists who are needed to wean our children off psycho
>>>medications?...

>>You really cannot understand the good of processing claims on a timely
>>basis, within a month, making a decision to parole the claimant into the
>>country or send him back?

>Can you really not understand that Biden has allowed over 1,000,000
>illegals into the nation in just the last two years, let alone all the
>illegals that have been flooding in before that and we simply cannot
>afford to give them all asylum lawyers at tax payer expense (and that's
>assuming there are millions of asylum lawyers to be had).

Oh, ok. This is America so I believe in due process and the right to be
represented by counsel, even with regard to immigration law. I am aware
that immigration law isn't administered by trial courts but has its own
administrative law system.

Of course it would be expensive. But unless we do something about asylum
claimants we aren't going to reverse the backlog.

There is no where to hold them. Process them quickly. Admit the handful
that have legitimate asylum claims and send the rest back.

>Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that vast majority of illegals are
>coming here for purely economic reasons and not because they're being
>tortured in Latin American gulags by evil dictators, as they have been
>coached to say by anti-Western, anti-American and anti-White Leftists,
>acting as Useful Idiots for Wall Street corporate globalists.

I haven't ignored anything. That's your reading comprehension problem
kicking in. I've so stated throughout this discussion. I am well aware
that even the ones with legitimate fears have no easy way to advocate
for asylum.

Really? You believe nearly none of them have been systematically abused by
their own governments given massive institutionalized corruption? That
still doesn't necessarily mean they meet the definition of asylum but
that doesn't mean that they are lying.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>Not to be pedantic, Adam, but you consistently spell "asylum"
>incorrectly, which I find surprising since you're a good speller. Or is
>that a subtle dig at the asylum system?

I am not a good speller. When did I ever claim to be? Sometimes I catch
spelling mistakes but I miss quite a few of them.

On 8/6/2022 5:53 AM, Nyssa wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
>
>> On 2022-08-05 9:12 AM, Nyssa wrote:
>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 8:04:10 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/4/2022 9:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 2:57:53 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 3:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 9:06:22 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 11:44 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 12:50 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to DHS disclosures to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> federal court hearing the
>>>>>>>>>>>> case Biden
>>>>>>>>>>>> v. Texas, the Biden Administration has
>>>>>>>>>>>> intentionally released 1,049,532 illegals
>>>>>>>>>>>> into the country since Old Joe was
>>>>>>>>>>>> inaugurated. That's more
>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> than the population of Joe's home state of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Delaware.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And that doesn't even include the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'got-aways'-- the illegals who
>>>>>>>>>>>> managed to
>>>>>>>>>>>> cross over, evade the Border Patrol, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> disappear into the countryside. DHS
>>>>>>>>>>>> estimates that number to be an additional
>>>>>>>>>>>> 700,000 to one million illegals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it's rrraaaaciiissst to talk about
>>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats intentionally trying to change
>>>>>>>>>>>> the demographics of the nation and dilute
>>>>>>>>>>>> the votes of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>> citizenry, even as they've intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>> opened the border for an entire state's
>>>>>>>>>>>> worth of illegal aliens with the promise
>>>>>>>>>>>> of no end in sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the solution you recommend is?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, I know we're supposed to hate
>>>>>>>>>> everything Trump but this shit
>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>> happening under his policies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why is the United States the only country in
>>>>>>>>>> the world that's
>>>>>>>>>> racist if it
>>>>>>>>>> controls its own borders?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Somehow, I think charges of charges of racism
>>>>>>>>> aren't the big issue here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The hypocrisy of DC Democrats in decrying the
>>>>>>>> fact that *they* are now
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> asked to deal with a tiny fraction of the
>>>>>>>> crushing burden that Texas and Arizona have been
>>>>>>>> forced to shoulder for years (and which they
>>>>>>>> apparently think those states should *still* be
>>>>>>>> dealing with so they won't have to)
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> leaves me speechless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/gop-governors-created-a-
>>> migrant-crisis-in-washington
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The Border Has Come to D.C.": GOP Governor Have
>>>>>>>> Successfully Created a Migrant Crisis in
>>>>>>>> Washington
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has been a "somewhat herculean effort,"
>>>>>>>> Nadeau tells me, but an unsustainable one. "This
>>>>>>>> is a crisis," the councilmember says. "We are a
>>>>>>>> sanctuary city. We welcome folks. But certainly
>>>>>>>> we are not prepared for
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>> This is going to strain our system."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Well, no shit. But it's okay to 'strain the
>>>>>>>> [systems' of Texas and
>>>>>>>> Arizona,
>>>>>>>> amirite? You've virtue-signaled to everyone that
>>>>>>>> you're a sanctuary
>>>>>>>> city and
>>>>>>>> now you have to walk your talk. Boo-hoo.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bowser echoed the latter sentiment last Thursday
>>>>>>>> as she called for the National Guard to be
>>>>>>>> activated; she said the city had reached its
>>>>>>>> "tipping point", but while Nadeau and groups on
>>>>>>>> the ground have been calling for
>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>>> by Bowser and the federal government for three
>>>>>>>> months now, they say
>>>>>>>> military
>>>>>>>> response echoes the hardline Abbott and Ducey
>>>>>>>> policies that moved the
>>>>>>>> border
>>>>>>>> crisis to the Capitol.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ["They should have just kept that border crisis
>>>>>>>> [down south where all the
>>>>>>>> hicks
>>>>>>>> and rubes live and just suffered through it for
>>>>>>>> the good of the Agenda.
>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>> dare they send it here and dump it in our laps?
>>>>>>>> I mean sure, we created
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> problem, but we shouldn't have to deal with it.
>>>>>>>> That's what the little
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> in flyover states are for."]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "It's really disappointing to see the mayor
>>>>>>>> engaging in basically the same xenophobic,
>>>>>>>> invasionist rhetoric" as Abbott, Fischer says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [moviePig was dubious that the very notion of
>>>>>>>> [America controlling its own
>>>>>>>> borders is painted as racist by the leftist
>>>>>>>> intelligentsia... well, right there's Exhibit
>>>>>>>> Number One above.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is xenoophobia racism? Who knew?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything is racism. Haven't you been keeping up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just heard on the news today that California's
>>>>>> historic Proposition 13, which has kept the
>>>>>> government from raising people's property taxes
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> roof for close to 40 years now has just been
>>>>>> declared racist.
>>>>>
>>>>> By whom? Anybody who's anybody?
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's a bunch of leftist academics and activists
>>>> who call themselves the Opportunity Institute. Do they
>>>> count?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f70367e4b0974cf2b82009/t/62b34bd3
>>> 19072b7c70d02020/1655917530375/OI%2BReport%2BProp%2B13%2BFinal.pdf
>>>>
>>>> It always seemed to me that the worst victims of an
>>>> out-of-control government raising property taxes
>>>> sky-high would be the disadvantaged, the marginalized,
>>>> and the bipocks. The rich might not like being gouged,
>>>> but they could pay the high taxes. They wouldn't be
>>>> forced out of their homes over it. The poor and the
>>>> bipocks are the ones who could lose everything and had
>>>> the most to gain from Prop 13's protections.
>>>>
>>>> But in an era where literally everything is racist,
>>>> apparently a law that protects bipocks from losing their
>>>> homes is somehow racist as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Okay, I probably need to get out more, but can someone
>>> please explain to me what a "bipock" is supposed to be?
>>>
>> I think he's giving you an alternate spelling of BIPOC,
>> which is something-something-People-Of-Colour. I want to
>> say that the "B" stands for "Black" and the "I" for
>> Indigenous but blacks are already "people of colour" - as
>> are indigenous people - so that seems redundant. But given
>> the "progressive" obsession with virtue-signalling, I'm
>> willing to believe they put blacks first just to emphasize
>> that they were forgetting them and perhaps the same for
>> indigenous people.
>>
>> I just looked it up and it turns out I'm right:
>>
>> ========================================================================
>> The acronym BIPOC, referring to "black, indigenous, (and)
>> people of color", first appeared around 2013.[22] By June
>> 2020, it was, according to Sandra E. Garcia, "ubiquitous
>> in some corners of Twitter and Instagram",[23] as racial
>> justice awareness grew in the United States in the wake of
>> the murder of George Floyd. The term aims to emphasize the
>> historic oppression of black and indigenous people, which
>> is argued to be superlative and distinctive in U.S.
>> history at the collective level.[24] The BIPOC Project
>> promotes the term in order "to highlight the unique
>> relationship to whiteness that Indigenous and Black
>> (African Americans) people have, which shapes the
>> experiences of and relationship to white supremacy for all
>> people of color within a U.S. context."[25]
>>
>> [source:
>> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color#BIPOC]
>> ========================================================================
>>
>>> Nyssa, who wonders why alleged academics are using "pop"
>>> or slang terms in a public statement if they want to be
>>> understood and taken seriously
>>>
>> Because they want to seem "hip" "cool" "with it" or
>> whatever the current equivalent is?
>>
> Thanks for the translation and explanation.
>
> It used to be writers, especially academic ones, would
> try to write for clarity. I guess that's gone away like
> the dodo bird along with academic freedom and freedom
> of speech and thought.

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>The system became unsustainable when pro-mass migration types set up
>>>training programs in foreign countries to teach migrants how to game that
>>>system and are literally bussing hordes of illegals to the U.S. border.

>>That's a lie. There were very long backlogs long before tons of people
>>were sent to claim assylum speciously.

>Long backlogs ONLY MADE WORSE by the Left training illegals to all claim
>they're asylum seeking refugees, when in fact they're coming here simply
>to cash in on the generous social welfare system the U.S. (and Europe) has,

An asylum seeker isn't a refugee. Again, that's an entirely different
definition. Refugees don't immigrate, and they return home after the crisis
has ended.

Our welfare isn't all that generous despite the fortune we spend on it.

I favor a more open immigration system. That doesn't mean I want the
process of seeking and being granted asylum abused. At no point did I
state that. I am well aware that asylum claims are difficult to sustain.
The status shouldn't be granted to the ones who cannot make a good case
for asylum.

I don't want asylum seekers on welfare. That's outrageous. Give them a
bit of cash for a month and get them to a community where they can be
helped. Do not dump them in Texas without help.

The Reagan-era immigration laws were outrageous. I remember the jobs I
had in the mid '80s when they took effect. Suddenly, everybody had to
prove he wasn't an immigrant even though no one was an immigrant. The
only job I had around that time in which I worked with foreigners
was moonlighting as a noncareer postal clerk. There was someone from
Korea who was quite a good guy, who went back, and quite a number of
people from the Phillipines.

It was absurd to place the burden on the employer to check a newly hired
alien worker's immigration status and to incidentally check the
immigration status of everyone who is obviously a natural born citizen.

Instead, this is what the process should be for an employer who hires an
alien who isn't a green card holder.

Positively identify newly hired workers with a fingerprint check. Assign
legitimate Social Security numbers that can be verified with a
fingerprint check to newly hired alien workers. Make the employer
responsible for running the fingerprints without verifying immigration
status.

The asylum seekers get legitimate SSNs and there is no reason to ever
add them to a payroll with SSN fraud.

Give illegal aliens legitimate SSNs with fingerprinting and give them
secure documents including drivers' licenses. No more SSN fraud.

>I can imagine it sucks living in Guatemala and such, I sure wouldn't want
>to live there and would also try to GTFO but that doesn't mean that the
>West should take in all the world's poor people, as it will only lead to the
>West becoming a poor shithole just like Guatemala and such.

Oddly, America took in immigrants from all the shithole countries in
Europe and became the world's most prosperous country. Immigrants
prosper in America because America will always be the land of
opportunity.

>>>Pay for it, gringo.

>>I think it is worth paying for, yes, including lawyers for the claimants.

>Then cut them a check, don't try and rope me into your suicide pact.

You've taken a completely contradictory position, Ed, because you always
make these huge pronouncements and don't think things through.

Great. We agree that the asylum system is outrageous and no one with an
asylum claim should be in America indefinitely with a pending decision
on asylum that takes years to obtain. I suggested, instead, processing
claims very very quickly and the use of lawyers to represent claimants
as that helps to make the process fair and speed up claims handling.

I get that you are against what Biden has done but you failed to offer a
solution.

>>That these treaty obligations may have been valid in the past doesn't mean
>>they are valid forever without any regard to conditions in the U.S. today,
>>where plenty of legal American citizens need help.

>>Don't be an idiot. Treaties are valid until a nation withdraws or violates
>>it. Laws to enforce treaties are valid until repealed.

>So you agree with my statement.

Of course you were wrong. You just want treaties and the laws enforcing
those treaties ignored instead of going through a formal process of
withdrawing from the treaty then repealing the laws.

Even though asylum was about people in a position comparable to the Jews
of Europe escaping the Nazis before WWII, there are still people today
who have legitimate asylum claims to make. There are more shithole
countries out there than ever. There is no reason to withdraw from the
treaty.

Fabricated asylum claimants should be sent back without hesitation.
Hell, they can be charged with crimes.

There is a huge grey area in between and those people should be treated
with consideration and due process and get lawyers and timely resolution
of their asylum claims.

On 2022-08-06 9:42 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> Not to be pedantic, Adam, but you consistently spell "asylum"
>> incorrectly, which I find surprising since you're a good speller. Or is
>> that a subtle dig at the asylum system?
>
> I am not a good speller. When did I ever claim to be?

You didn't. I've just always found you to be a good speller :-)

> Sometimes I catch
> spelling mistakes but I miss quite a few of them.

You and me both. I don't pay a lot of attention to the spell checker in
Thunderbird and don't proof read as much as I should before hitting Send
so sometimes when I look at a post, I find that I've written a
completely different form of a word than I meant to write and sometimes
a completely different word.

--
Rhino

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Fri, 5 Aug 2022 17:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>Refugee is someone displaced by weather or war. There is no question as
>>to who qualifies as a refugee but their situation isn't permanent. They
>>don't immigrate. They get sent back after the emergency has ended.

>In Canada it is common for refugees to gain citizenship - not saying I
>necessarily agree with that and I particularly DON'T agree with
>politicians who DON'T include the refugee quota with the immigration
>quota particularly those who DO go on the citizenship track.

Ok. Well, at some point Canada changed their status from refugee to
someone on the immigrant track who later becomes eligible to pursue
naturalization.

>That said we got a lot of Hungarians and Poles in 1980 and I know
>personally people who did come at that time.

Ok.

>The former engineering manager of our municipality (who now holds the
>same job in a nearby municipality) was one of the Hungarians who came
>that way - I asked him about his worst moment in his first year in
>Canada and he said it was the 6 week city bus strike shortly after his
>refugee status was approved since his new home was about 3-4 miles
>from the junior college that was hosting the English lessons and while
>that normal 10-15 minute bus ride suddenly became 2 hours each way.

>Being mid-winter he said it was very tough but he knew he couldn't
>possibly get the kind of junior engineer's job (which he was qualified
>for) without English and that he just had to get through it.

>Great guy and we were lucky to get him but no question many have been
>the sort that would game the bejeesuz out of the system to get what
>they weren't eligible and drag out deportation as long as possible.

Those are exactly the people a prosperous nation wants as an immigrant.

On 8/6/2022 10:24 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 8/6/2022 5:53 AM, Nyssa wrote:
>> Rhino wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-08-05 9:12 AM, Nyssa wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 4, 2022 at 8:04:10 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/4/2022 9:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>    On Aug 4, 2022 at 2:57:53 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>    <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>    On 8/4/2022 3:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>      On Aug 4, 2022 at 9:06:22 AM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>>>>      <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>      On 8/4/2022 11:44 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>        moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>        On 8/4/2022 12:50 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        According to DHS disclosures to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        federal court hearing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case  Biden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        v. Texas, the Biden Administration has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        intentionally released 1,049,532 illegals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        into the country since Old Joe was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        inaugurated. That's more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        than the population of Joe's home state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Delaware.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        And that doesn't even include the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        'got-aways'-- the illegals who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    managed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        cross over, evade the Border Patrol, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        disappear into the countryside. DHS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        estimates that number to be an additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        700,000 to one million illegals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        But it's rrraaaaciiissst to talk about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        Democrats intentionally trying to change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        the demographics of the nation and dilute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        the votes of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        citizenry, even as they've intentionally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        opened the border for an entire state's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        worth of illegal aliens with the promise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>        of no end in sight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>        And the solution you recommend is?
>>>>>>>>>>>        Well, I know we're supposed to hate
>>>>>>>>>>>        everything Trump but this shit
>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>        happening under his policies.
>>>>>>>>>>>        Why is the United States the only country in
>>>>>>>>>>>        the world that's
>>>>>>>>>>> racist if it
>>>>>>>>>>>        controls its own borders?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      Somehow, I think charges of charges of racism
>>>>>>>>>>      aren't the big issue here.
>>>>>>>>>      The hypocrisy of DC Democrats in decrying the
>>>>>>>>>      fact that *they* are now
>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>      asked to deal with a tiny fraction of the
>>>>>>>>>      crushing burden that Texas and Arizona have been
>>>>>>>>>      forced to shoulder for years (and which they
>>>>>>>>>      apparently think those states should *still* be
>>>>>>>>>      dealing with so they won't have to)
>>>>>>>>>    just
>>>>>>>>>      leaves me speechless.
>>>>>>>>>      ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/gop-governors-created-a-
>>>> migrant-crisis-in-washington
>>>>>>>>>      "The Border Has Come to D.C.": GOP Governor Have
>>>>>>>>>      Successfully Created a Migrant Crisis in
>>>>>>>>>      Washington
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      It has been a "somewhat herculean effort,"
>>>>>>>>>      Nadeau tells me, but an unsustainable one. "This
>>>>>>>>>      is a crisis," the councilmember says. "We are a
>>>>>>>>>      sanctuary city. We welcome folks. But certainly
>>>>>>>>>      we are not prepared for
>>>>>>>>>    this.
>>>>>>>>>      This is going to strain our system."
>>>>>>>>>      [Well, no shit. But it's okay to 'strain the
>>>>>>>>>      [systems' of Texas and
>>>>>>>>> Arizona,
>>>>>>>>>      amirite? You've virtue-signaled to everyone that
>>>>>>>>>      you're a sanctuary
>>>>>>>>> city and
>>>>>>>>>      now you have to walk your talk. Boo-hoo.]
>>>>>>>>>      Bowser echoed the latter sentiment last Thursday
>>>>>>>>>      as she called for the National Guard to be
>>>>>>>>>      activated; she said the city had reached its
>>>>>>>>>      "tipping point", but while Nadeau and groups on
>>>>>>>>>      the ground have been calling for
>>>>>>>>>    action
>>>>>>>>>      by Bowser and the federal government for three
>>>>>>>>>      months now, they say
>>>>>>>>> military
>>>>>>>>>      response echoes the hardline Abbott and Ducey
>>>>>>>>>      policies that moved the
>>>>>>>>> border
>>>>>>>>>      crisis to the Capitol.
>>>>>>>>>      ["They should have just kept that border crisis
>>>>>>>>>      [down south where all the
>>>>>>>>>    hicks
>>>>>>>>>      and rubes live and just suffered through it for
>>>>>>>>>      the good of the Agenda.
>>>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>>>>      dare they send it here and dump it in our laps?
>>>>>>>>>      I mean sure, we created
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>      problem, but we shouldn't have to deal with it.
>>>>>>>>>      That's what the little
>>>>>>>>>    people
>>>>>>>>>      in flyover states are for."]
>>>>>>>>>      "It's really disappointing to see the mayor
>>>>>>>>>      engaging in basically the same xenophobic,
>>>>>>>>>      invasionist rhetoric" as Abbott, Fischer says.
>>>>>>>>>      [moviePig was dubious that the very notion of
>>>>>>>>>      [America controlling its own
>>>>>>>>>      borders is painted as racist by the leftist
>>>>>>>>>      intelligentsia... well, right there's Exhibit
>>>>>>>>>      Number One above.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Is xenoophobia racism? Who knew?
>>>>>>>    Everything is racism. Haven't you been keeping up?
>>>>>>>    I just heard on the news today that California's
>>>>>>>    historic Proposition 13, which has kept the
>>>>>>>    government from raising people's property taxes
>>>>>>>    through
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>    roof for close to 40 years now has just been
>>>>>>>    declared racist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By whom? Anybody who's anybody?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it's a bunch of leftist academics and activists
>>>>> who call themselves the Opportunity Institute. Do they
>>>>> count?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f70367e4b0974cf2b82009/t/62b34bd3
>>
>>>> 19072b7c70d02020/1655917530375/OI%2BReport%2BProp%2B13%2BFinal.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> It always seemed to me that the worst victims of an
>>>>> out-of-control government raising property taxes
>>>>> sky-high would be the disadvantaged, the marginalized,
>>>>> and the bipocks. The rich might not like being gouged,
>>>>> but they could pay the high taxes. They wouldn't be
>>>>> forced out of their homes over it. The poor and the
>>>>> bipocks are the ones who could lose everything and had
>>>>> the most to gain from Prop 13's protections.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in an era where literally everything is racist,
>>>>> apparently a law that protects bipocks from losing their
>>>>> homes is somehow racist as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Okay, I probably need to get out more, but can someone
>>>> please explain to me what a "bipock" is supposed to be?
>>>>
>>> I think he's giving you an alternate spelling of BIPOC,
>>> which is something-something-People-Of-Colour. I want to
>>> say that the "B" stands for "Black" and the "I" for
>>> Indigenous but blacks are already "people of colour" - as
>>> are indigenous people - so that seems redundant. But given
>>> the "progressive" obsession with virtue-signalling, I'm
>>> willing to believe they put blacks first just to emphasize
>>> that they were forgetting them and perhaps the same for
>>> indigenous people.
>>>
>>> I just looked it up and it turns out I'm right:
>>>
>>> ========================================================================
>>> The acronym BIPOC, referring to "black, indigenous, (and)
>>> people of color", first appeared around 2013.[22] By June
>>> 2020, it was, according to Sandra E. Garcia, "ubiquitous
>>> in some corners of Twitter and Instagram",[23] as racial
>>> justice awareness grew in the United States in the wake of
>>> the murder of George Floyd. The term aims to emphasize the
>>> historic oppression of black and indigenous people, which
>>> is argued to be superlative and distinctive in U.S.
>>> history at the collective level.[24] The BIPOC Project
>>> promotes the term in order "to highlight the unique
>>> relationship to whiteness that Indigenous and Black
>>> (African Americans) people have, which shapes the
>>> experiences of and relationship to white supremacy for all
>>> people of color within a U.S. context."[25]
>>>
>>> [source:
>>> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color#BIPOC]
>>> ========================================================================
>>>
>>>> Nyssa, who wonders why alleged academics are using "pop"
>>>> or slang terms in a public statement if they want to be
>>>> understood and taken seriously
>>>>
>>> Because they want to seem "hip" "cool" "with it" or
>>> whatever the current equivalent is?
>>>
>> Thanks for the translation and explanation.
>>
>> It used to be writers, especially academic ones, would
>> try to write for clarity. I guess that's gone away like
>> the dodo bird along with academic freedom and freedom
>> of speech and thought.
>
> You gotta admit though that Black, Indigenous, People of Color is a
> mouthful.

On 2022-08-06 10:25 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>
>>>> The system became unsustainable when pro-mass migration types set up
>>>> training programs in foreign countries to teach migrants how to game that
>>>> system and are literally bussing hordes of illegals to the U.S. border.
>
>>> That's a lie. There were very long backlogs long before tons of people
>>> were sent to claim assylum speciously.
>
>> Long backlogs ONLY MADE WORSE by the Left training illegals to all claim
>> they're asylum seeking refugees, when in fact they're coming here simply
>> to cash in on the generous social welfare system the U.S. (and Europe) has,
>
> An asylum seeker isn't a refugee. Again, that's an entirely different
> definition. Refugees don't immigrate, and they return home after the crisis
> has ended.
>
> Our welfare isn't all that generous despite the fortune we spend on it.
>
> I favor a more open immigration system. That doesn't mean I want the
> process of seeking and being granted asylum abused. At no point did I
> state that. I am well aware that asylum claims are difficult to sustain.
> The status shouldn't be granted to the ones who cannot make a good case
> for asylum.
>
> I don't want asylum seekers on welfare. That's outrageous. Give them a
> bit of cash for a month and get them to a community where they can be
> helped. Do not dump them in Texas without help.
>
> The Reagan-era immigration laws were outrageous. I remember the jobs I
> had in the mid '80s when they took effect. Suddenly, everybody had to
> prove he wasn't an immigrant even though no one was an immigrant. The
> only job I had around that time in which I worked with foreigners
> was moonlighting as a noncareer postal clerk. There was someone from
> Korea who was quite a good guy, who went back, and quite a number of
> people from the Phillipines.
>
> It was absurd to place the burden on the employer to check a newly hired
> alien worker's immigration status and to incidentally check the
> immigration status of everyone who is obviously a natural born citizen.
>
> Instead, this is what the process should be for an employer who hires an
> alien who isn't a green card holder.
>
> Positively identify newly hired workers with a fingerprint check. Assign
> legitimate Social Security numbers that can be verified with a
> fingerprint check to newly hired alien workers. Make the employer
> responsible for running the fingerprints without verifying immigration
> status.
>
> The asylum seekers get legitimate SSNs and there is no reason to ever
> add them to a payroll with SSN fraud.
>
> Give illegal aliens legitimate SSNs with fingerprinting and give them
> secure documents including drivers' licenses. No more SSN fraud.
>
>> I can imagine it sucks living in Guatemala and such, I sure wouldn't want
>> to live there and would also try to GTFO but that doesn't mean that the
>> West should take in all the world's poor people, as it will only lead to the
>> West becoming a poor shithole just like Guatemala and such.
>
> Oddly, America took in immigrants from all the shithole countries in
> Europe and became the world's most prosperous country. Immigrants
> prosper in America because America will always be the land of
> opportunity.
>
The difference is that the welfare system was negligible or non-existent
in those days so you either worked or starved. Literally. Nowadays, its
entirely possible to get by without working by combining welfare and
under-the-table jobs.

>>>> Pay for it, gringo.
>
>>> I think it is worth paying for, yes, including lawyers for the claimants.
>
>> Then cut them a check, don't try and rope me into your suicide pact.
>
> You've taken a completely contradictory position, Ed, because you always
> make these huge pronouncements and don't think things through.
>
> Great. We agree that the asylum system is outrageous and no one with an
> asylum claim should be in America indefinitely with a pending decision
> on asylum that takes years to obtain. I suggested, instead, processing
> claims very very quickly and the use of lawyers to represent claimants
> as that helps to make the process fair and speed up claims handling.
>
> I get that you are against what Biden has done but you failed to offer a
> solution.
>
>>> That these treaty obligations may have been valid in the past doesn't mean
>>> they are valid forever without any regard to conditions in the U.S. today,
>>> where plenty of legal American citizens need help.
>
>>> Don't be an idiot. Treaties are valid until a nation withdraws or violates
>>> it. Laws to enforce treaties are valid until repealed.
>
>> So you agree with my statement.
>
> Of course you were wrong. You just want treaties and the laws enforcing
> those treaties ignored instead of going through a formal process of
> withdrawing from the treaty then repealing the laws.
>
> Even though asylum was about people in a position comparable to the Jews
> of Europe escaping the Nazis before WWII, there are still people today
> who have legitimate asylum claims to make. There are more shithole
> countries out there than ever. There is no reason to withdraw from the
> treaty.
>
> Fabricated asylum claimants should be sent back without hesitation.
> Hell, they can be charged with crimes
>
Back in the 90s when I was in Toronto, there was a channel, CFMT, that
had a mix of foreign language programming and I'd sometimes put on one
of the south Asian programs to listen to Indian music. I like the way
sitars and tablas sound together and don't care that I don't understand
the lyrics. It wasn't unusual for those shows to have ads in English,
presumably because much of the audience was people who lived in Toronto
and already had some English. An advertiser who chose to do ads only in
one of the Indian languages, say Punjabi, wouldn't be comprehensible to
someone who only spoke Hindi or Bengali so English made sense. Anyway, a
lot of those ads were for immigration services and I distinctly remember
one of those immigration consultants explaining very clearly to
listeners that a refugee claimant arriving in Canada whose plane had
stopped in a third country on the way to Canada could be denied entry
and sent back to that third country if that third country was not
considered a bad country. For example, if they had flown from Delhi to
Toronto with a stop in Germany, they could be sent back to Germany.
(That law got adopted some years back to stop economic migrants from
"country shopping", i.e. just going from country to country until they
found one that suited them, all while claiming to be refugees.) The
consultant also pointed out that if you had no documents indicating a
stopover at a third country, Canada had no basis for saying you should
go back to the third country. I think he actually proposed that
travellers destroy their passports and tickets before landing in Canada
by flushing them down the toilet! At the very least, he hinted it so
strongly that anyone who wasn't a complete idiot would get it.

I don't know if that ad was even illegal, especially if he only hinted
that travel documents showing a stopover should be destroyed during the
flight rather than saying it outright but it was OBVIOUSLY designed to
help (probably) undeserving people sneak into the country. I was appalled.

> There is a huge grey area in between and those people should be treated
> with consideration and due process and get lawyers and timely resolution
> of their asylum claims.

--
Rhino

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>On 8/5/2022 9:54 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>And if America took in every person whose government was authoritarian,
>>>>>our population would be in the billions. How sustainable do you think
>>>>>that would be?

>>>>More people paying taxes.

>>>Sure, because the millions of illegals we have right now aren't a net
>>>loss for the government...

>>I disagree. If they are working and supporting themselves, they are
>>contributing to society. It's a net benefit.

>Except they're not. The Democrats keep doing studies here to prove that
>illegals are not a drain on California taxpayers and every time it
>proves that they are. They take more than they make.

Everything about California is STOOPID. It started long before
Proposition 13 but that had adverse consequences.

Prop 13 had the predictable but unintended consequences of making poverty
worse and made housing so much more costly than it needs to be. No. Prop
13 did not lower the cost of housing as its advocates claimed it would.

Did Proposition 13 get rid of ineffective and corrupt government
spending? Give me a break.

California has significant natural advantages over most of the rest of
the country. There should be no poverty for those who are willing and
able to work. You have poverty because your idiot government goes out of
its way to dissipate all of California's natural advantages.

We all remember how California had massive employment shifts in the
1970s because it lacked a diversified industrial base. California
relied too heavily on military-industrial jobs. Military spending just
sucks money out of the economy because the result isn't ordinary
consumer products and the military does the opposite of anything
economically useful. In the post Viet Nam War era, there was an effort to
stop the needless military/industrial spending and that exposed how
heavily California had relied on military.

Proposition 13 was from that era. It didn't lead California into a
prosper transition to industrial diversification.

Oh, California did a few things right. Silicon Valley was created around
certain universities. That's the difference between military spending
and industry that sells products into the marketplace.

And then lets discuss absolutely everything thats massively stupid about
how California deals with water. That's your biggest infrastructure problem.

And then lets discuss massive spending on subsidizing housing for middle
class and upper middle class so that they can live in forested areas
that are reguarly subject to wildfire.

You think the California economy was wrecked by immigrants?

Build the wall. The United States shall send all the STOOPID to
California. It's a one-way trip. We'll make it so the STOOPID cannot
escape.

On 8/6/2022 6:39 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 8/5/2022 9:28 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 8/5/2022 9:43 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 18:52:34 -0400, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-08-05 6:35 PM, shawn wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:32:01 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/5/2022 9:53 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <tcjbpe$d13v$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2022 6:56 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If illegals can’t work here or find a place to live,
>>>>>>>>>>> they’ll leave.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're proposing an official change in America's self-image, from
>>>>>>>>>> a welcomer of freedom-yearning huddled masses, to an
>>>>>>>>>> I've-got-mine-you-get-yours gated community with attack dogs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A later bit of propaganda added to the Statue of Liberty, but
>>>>>>>>> the fact
>>>>>>>>> is that almost all nations outside the West have very strict
>>>>>>>>> immigration
>>>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mexico for instance, requires potential immigrants to prove
>>>>>>>>> that they
>>>>>>>>> have sufficient income or savings/pensions (something like $100K)
>>>>>>>>> before they’ll even look at your application.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One can debate the necessity of that shift in stance but not,
>>>>>>>>>> afaics,
>>>>>>>>>> the fact of it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no "necessity" to flood the West with bazillions of
>>>>>>>>> dirt poor,
>>>>>>>>> poorly educated, frequently criminally prone, 3rd world
>>>>>>>>> peasants, what’s
>>>>>>>>> necessary is that they get their shit together in their _home
>>>>>>>>> nations_
>>>>>>>>> instead of sponging off the West.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And how do they get their shit together in their home country
>>>>>>>> when they
>>>>>>>> have very little money, no say in who their dictator is, and no
>>>>>>>> voting
>>>>>>>> rights?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And none of that entitles the entire population to move here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're really not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of them would be happy to stay in their home country if they
>>>>> could do so safely. Plus America countries would be happy to move more
>>>>> industries down there if the situation there improved. Sadly between
>>>>> criminal organizations and corruption throughout the government that
>>>>> doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though I did hear one interesting solution to the drug problem that
>>>>> Sweden is doing. They legalized heroin but not in the sense you would
>>>>> think. Instead they made it free for anyone but you can only get it
>>>>> from a doctor. What they found was that many of the dealers were
>>>>> hooked on the drug and sold it to keep up their supply, but with it
>>>>> being free they didn't need to sell the drug any more and so the
>>>>> supply of heroin is drying up because fewer people are selling it, and
>>>>> anyone else can get it for free.
>>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting approach. But what is happening to the existing
>>>> addicts? I assume they're staying addicted, right? That means the
>>>> government is essentially killing its own citizens by helping them
>>>> indulge in their vices.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I got the country wrong as it was Switzerland and not Sweden.
>>> As for the current addicts, yes they will stay addicted unless they
>>> seek treatment to get off the drug. The good news is the number of new
>>> users is dropping under the new system.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's the article:
>>> https://www.npr.org/2016/02/15/466491812/narconomics-how-the-drug-cartels-operate-like-wal-mart-and-mcdonalds
>>>
>>
>> Much of the attraction of illegal drugs is the risk and ritual (or so
>> I'm told).  Making them free sort of bleaches the sinful mystique.
>>
> I would posit that with "illegal drugs" next to nicotine opioids are one
> of the most physically addicting group of substances there is.

Nicotine addiction may be especially pernicious because it's so subtle,
with withdrawal not nearly as intense as (what's reported) for harder
stuff. So, relapse is more seductive because it's less of a "big deal".

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>BTR1701

>>>Sure, because the millions of illegals we have right now aren't a net
>>>loss for the government...

>>I disagree. If they are working and supporting themselves, they are
>>contributing to society. It's a net benefit.

>I seriously doubt the net costs of mass 3rd world migration are in the
>positive column, the decrease in wages alone negates any possible
>benefits they might bring.

The economy expands with a bigger population. If the economy is failing
to expand with more people working, something that's happening right
now, it sure as hell isn't due to immigrants.

For the last year and a half, the biggest economic burden on families
has been the massive rise in housing costs. Then we got the fuel supply
shock due to too few refineries.

It's not immigration.

On 8/6/2022 7:56 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/5/2022 9:54 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>>>>> . . .
>
>>>>>> And if America took in every person whose government was authoritarian,
>>>>>> our population would be in the billions. How sustainable do you think
>>>>>> that would be?
>
>>>>> More people paying taxes.
>
>>>> Sure, because the millions of illegals we have right now aren't a net
>>>> loss for the government...
>
>>> I disagree. If they are working and supporting themselves, they are
>>> contributing to society. It's a net benefit.
>
>> Except they're not. The Democrats keep doing studies here to prove that
>> illegals are not a drain on California taxpayers and every time it
>> proves that they are. They take more than they make.
>
> Everything about California is STOOPID. It started long before
> Proposition 13 but that had adverse consequences.
>
> Prop 13 had the predictable but unintended consequences of making poverty
> worse and made housing so much more costly than it needs to be. No. Prop
> 13 did not lower the cost of housing as its advocates claimed it would.
>
> Did Proposition 13 get rid of ineffective and corrupt government
> spending? Give me a break.
>
> California has significant natural advantages over most of the rest of
> the country. There should be no poverty for those who are willing and
> able to work. You have poverty because your idiot government goes out of
> its way to dissipate all of California's natural advantages.
>
> We all remember how California had massive employment shifts in the
> 1970s because it lacked a diversified industrial base. California
> relied too heavily on military-industrial jobs. Military spending just
> sucks money out of the economy because the result isn't ordinary
> consumer products and the military does the opposite of anything
> economically useful. In the post Viet Nam War era, there was an effort to
> stop the needless military/industrial spending and that exposed how
> heavily California had relied on military.
>
> Proposition 13 was from that era. It didn't lead California into a
> prosper transition to industrial diversification.
>
> Oh, California did a few things right. Silicon Valley was created around
> certain universities. That's the difference between military spending
> and industry that sells products into the marketplace.
>
> And then lets discuss absolutely everything thats massively stupid about
> how California deals with water. That's your biggest infrastructure problem.
>
> And then lets discuss massive spending on subsidizing housing for middle
> class and upper middle class so that they can live in forested areas
> that are reguarly subject to wildfire.
>
> You think the California economy was wrecked by immigrants?
>
> Build the wall. The United States shall send all the STOOPID to
> California. It's a one-way trip. We'll make it so the STOOPID cannot
> escape.
>
There were many in the US who 'emigrated' to California during the 70s
and 80s because it already had a generous welfare system and the weather
was milder. They were not latino.

On 2022-08-05 9:43 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 18:52:34 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-08-05 6:35 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:32:01 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/5/2022 9:53 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <tcjbpe$d13v$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/5/2022 6:56 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If illegals can’t work here or find a place to live, they’ll leave.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're proposing an official change in America's self-image, from
>>>>>>>> a welcomer of freedom-yearning huddled masses, to an
>>>>>>>> I've-got-mine-you-get-yours gated community with attack dogs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A later bit of propaganda added to the Statue of Liberty, but the fact
>>>>>>> is that almost all nations outside the West have very strict immigration
>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mexico for instance, requires potential immigrants to prove that they
>>>>>>> have sufficient income or savings/pensions (something like $100K)
>>>>>>> before they’ll even look at your application.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One can debate the necessity of that shift in stance but not, afaics,
>>>>>>>> the fact of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no "necessity" to flood the West with bazillions of dirt poor,
>>>>>>> poorly educated, frequently criminally prone, 3rd world peasants, what’s
>>>>>>> necessary is that they get their shit together in their _home nations_
>>>>>>> instead of sponging off the West.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how do they get their shit together in their home country when they
>>>>>> have very little money, no say in who their dictator is, and no voting
>>>>>> rights?
>>>>>
>>>>> And none of that entitles the entire population to move here.
>>>>>
>>>> They're really not.
>>>
>>> Most of them would be happy to stay in their home country if they
>>> could do so safely. Plus America countries would be happy to move more
>>> industries down there if the situation there improved. Sadly between
>>> criminal organizations and corruption throughout the government that
>>> doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.
>>>
>>> Though I did hear one interesting solution to the drug problem that
>>> Sweden is doing. They legalized heroin but not in the sense you would
>>> think. Instead they made it free for anyone but you can only get it
>>> from a doctor. What they found was that many of the dealers were
>>> hooked on the drug and sold it to keep up their supply, but with it
>>> being free they didn't need to sell the drug any more and so the
>>> supply of heroin is drying up because fewer people are selling it, and
>>> anyone else can get it for free.
>>>
>> That's an interesting approach. But what is happening to the existing
>> addicts? I assume they're staying addicted, right? That means the
>> government is essentially killing its own citizens by helping them
>> indulge in their vices.
>
> Sorry, I got the country wrong as it was Switzerland and not Sweden.
> As for the current addicts, yes they will stay addicted unless they
> seek treatment to get off the drug. The good news is the number of new
> users is dropping under the new system.
>
>
> Here's the article:
> https://www.npr.org/2016/02/15/466491812/narconomics-how-the-drug-cartels-operate-like-wal-mart-and-mcdonalds
>
Ah, Switzerland. I've been to Switzerland twice - 1983 and 1991 - and on
the second trip, I got a bit of a look at their system first hand. I was
walking towards the train station in Bern when I noticed a gathering of
people in a park. I thought it might be some sort of festival or
something so I walked over to get a bit of a look. I was barely two
steps into the park when a guy accosted me saying "Rausch? Rausch?",
which I recognized as the German word for "Smoke" (as in smoking drugs);
at that same moment, a guy a few steps further beyond me went down on
one knee, wrapped a rubber tube around his arm, and started to move a
hypodermic needle toward his arm.

I realized immediately that this was some kind of drug-taking area and
got the heck out of there for fear of stepping on a needle and
inadvertently injecting myself with something nasty. There was a low
(less than waist-height) wall around that corner of the park so I went
back to the sidewalk and around the corner and watched activities within
the park for a few minutes. There were between 150 and 200 people in
that park, virtually all young, male and rather scruffy looking, which
stood out since Switzerland is a very prosperous place. They clearly had
no fear of the police and conducted themselves openly. I was hit with
the feeling that I was watching all these people committing suicide,
like people in Jonestown drinking the Koolaid.

I was staying at a B&B and the woman who operated it spoke decent
English so I asked her about what I had seen. She clearly did NOT
approve of it. She explained that this drug park had been set up across
the street from a paramedic station so the drug users could quickly get
help if they needed it and that the police wouldn't hassle them in the
park. 60 Minutes actually did a piece on this program, although their
report was set in Zurich if I remember correctly. This implies that it
was a national program since Bern and Zurich are in different cantons
(the Swiss equivalent to a state).

Watching this quasi-mass suicide was NOT a pleasant experience. While it
could be argued that this was less bad overall than making drug use
illegal again, it was still pretty bad. I've never understood
self-destructive behaviour like that in the first place but condoning
and almost encouraging it simply doesn't feel right to me.

Just my two cents worth on this topic.
--
Rhino

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>BTR1701

>>>And if America took in every person whose government was authoritarian,
>>>our population would be in the billions. How sustainable do you think
>>>that would be?

>>That describes mass immigration from shithole countries in Europe until
>>the 1920s, doesn't it?

>At a time when the U.S. could absorb those immigrants, people who happened
>to also be the same ethnicity and culture as the majority of Americans.

Bullshit

We started with Indians and some French but mostly English, Scots, and
Irish. Africans didn't immigrate; they were dragged here. Then we got lots
and lots of Germans. In the west, there have always been Mexicans but
then there were lots of Chinese imported for menial labor. By the end
of the 19th century, we were getting Bohemians and Slavs and Hungarians with
unpronounceable names from central and eastern Europe. When the Italians
and Greeks started coming, they had a darker skin complexion and were
treated like another race.

Oddly, America never had all that many immigrants from Spain, Portugal,
and France.

All these shithead uneducated impoverished immigrants from Europe were
all from shithole countries that had been at war with each other for
centuries. Mostly they behaved once they assimilated and didn't go to
war with each other. Norwegians and Swedes learned to live together
without fighting.

With each new wave of immigrants, America changed. The eocnomy got
bigger and America became more prosperous.

Why do so many believe that America is pathetic?

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>. . .

>Though I did hear one interesting solution to the drug problem that
>Sweden is doing. They legalized heroin but not in the sense you would
>think. Instead they made it free for anyone but you can only get it
>from a doctor. What they found was that many of the dealers were
>hooked on the drug and sold it to keep up their supply, but with it
>being free they didn't need to sell the drug any more and so the
>supply of heroin is drying up because fewer people are selling it, and
>anyone else can get it for free.

How the hell does a doctor prescribe opiates to an addict except as part
of a treatment program? That's real-world harm.

Let's not do that.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Fri, 5 Aug 2022 13:06:19 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

>>I agree that their circumstances may well justify seeking a better life
>>in another country, particularly when the chances of improving their own
>>country is negligible for the reasons you've stated. However, I don't
>>think that automatically confers a RIGHT for them to live in my country
>>or yours.

>Well no - a refugee isn't somebody who WANTS to seek a better life
>elsewhere, it's somebody whose LIFE is in danger if they stay where
>they were.

>If Mexico can't control their internal crime problems that's NOT
>America's fault - and personal danger due to crime is not something
>that makes a refugee at least not on a societal basis.

Sure we contribute to it. We buy the fucking drugs.

>That successive American politicians have not expelled non-refugee
>migrants (e.g. nearly all of them) it's a failure of will not a
>failure of policy.

On 2022-08-05 9:46 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 17:32:58 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/5/2022 3:35 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2022 10:32:01 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/5/2022 9:53 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <tcjbpe$d13v$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/5/2022 6:56 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> moviePig
>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If illegals can’t work here or find a place to live, they’ll leave.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're proposing an official change in America's self-image, from
>>>>>>>> a welcomer of freedom-yearning huddled masses, to an
>>>>>>>> I've-got-mine-you-get-yours gated community with attack dogs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A later bit of propaganda added to the Statue of Liberty, but the fact
>>>>>>> is that almost all nations outside the West have very strict immigration
>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mexico for instance, requires potential immigrants to prove that they
>>>>>>> have sufficient income or savings/pensions (something like $100K)
>>>>>>> before they’ll even look at your application.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One can debate the necessity of that shift in stance but not, afaics,
>>>>>>>> the fact of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no "necessity" to flood the West with bazillions of dirt poor,
>>>>>>> poorly educated, frequently criminally prone, 3rd world peasants, what’s
>>>>>>> necessary is that they get their shit together in their _home nations_
>>>>>>> instead of sponging off the West.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how do they get their shit together in their home country when they
>>>>>> have very little money, no say in who their dictator is, and no voting
>>>>>> rights?
>>>>>
>>>>> And none of that entitles the entire population to move here.
>>>>>
>>>> They're really not.
>>>
>>> Most of them would be happy to stay in their home country if they
>>> could do so safely. Plus America countries would be happy to move more
>>> industries down there if the situation there improved. Sadly between
>>> criminal organizations and corruption throughout the government that
>>> doesn't seem likely to change any time soon.
>>>
>>> Though I did hear one interesting solution to the drug problem that
>>> Sweden is doing. They legalized heroin but not in the sense you would
>>> think. Instead they made it free for anyone but you can only get it
>>> from a doctor. What they found was that many of the dealers were
>>> hooked on the drug and sold it to keep up their supply, but with it

>>> being free they didn't need to sell the drug any more and so the
>>> supply of heroin is drying up because fewer people are selling it, and
>>> anyone else can get it for free.
>>
>> Doesn't Portugal have a system like that? It's an interesting solution.
>
> No idea. Just a quick Goggle search turned up this article which seems
> to say that they just decriminalized drug use so it's different from
> Switzerland's approach (I had the country wrong.)
> https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7
You don't have to go to Europe to see initiatives like that. Apparently
Oregon legalized possession and use of ALL drugs, even heroin, in 2020,
although there are limits on the quantities you can possess so
trafficking is still illegal. I don't know how that's working out for
Oregon.

Trudeau legalized marijuana in all of Canada a few years back and his
friends in the NDP proposed legalizing ALL drugs during the last
election but the NDP didn't form a government so I haven't seen any
movement on that proposal. However, the NDP are in a sort of coalition
with the Liberals now so it's not inconceivable that they will pressure
the Liberals to adopting legalization of all drugs nationally.

Who would have thought that legalizing illicit drugs would draw more
voters than it repels? But that appears to be the way the elites in this
country want to go....

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On 2022-08-06 10:25 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>>>The system became unsustainable when pro-mass migration types set up
>>>>>training programs in foreign countries to teach migrants how to game that
>>>>>system and are literally bussing hordes of illegals to the U.S. border.

>>>>That's a lie. There were very long backlogs long before tons of people
>>>>were sent to claim assylum speciously.

>>>Long backlogs ONLY MADE WORSE by the Left training illegals to all claim
>>>they're asylum seeking refugees, when in fact they're coming here simply
>>>to cash in on the generous social welfare system the U.S. (and Europe) has,

>>An asylum seeker isn't a refugee. Again, that's an entirely different
>>definition. Refugees don't immigrate, and they return home after the crisis
>>has ended.

>>Our welfare isn't all that generous despite the fortune we spend on it.

>>I favor a more open immigration system. That doesn't mean I want the
>>process of seeking and being granted asylum abused. At no point did I
>>state that. I am well aware that asylum claims are difficult to sustain.
>>The status shouldn't be granted to the ones who cannot make a good case
>>for asylum.

>>I don't want asylum seekers on welfare. That's outrageous. Give them a
>>bit of cash for a month and get them to a community where they can be
>>helped. Do not dump them in Texas without help.

>>The Reagan-era immigration laws were outrageous. I remember the jobs I
>>had in the mid '80s when they took effect. Suddenly, everybody had to
>>prove he wasn't an immigrant even though no one was an immigrant. The
>>only job I had around that time in which I worked with foreigners
>>was moonlighting as a noncareer postal clerk. There was someone from
>>Korea who was quite a good guy, who went back, and quite a number of
>>people from the Phillipines.

>>It was absurd to place the burden on the employer to check a newly hired
>>alien worker's immigration status and to incidentally check the
>>immigration status of everyone who is obviously a natural born citizen.

>>Instead, this is what the process should be for an employer who hires an
>>alien who isn't a green card holder.

>>Positively identify newly hired workers with a fingerprint check. Assign
>>legitimate Social Security numbers that can be verified with a
>>fingerprint check to newly hired alien workers. Make the employer
>>responsible for running the fingerprints without verifying immigration
>>status.

>>The asylum seekers get legitimate SSNs and there is no reason to ever
>>add them to a payroll with SSN fraud.

>>Give illegal aliens legitimate SSNs with fingerprinting and give them
>>secure documents including drivers' licenses. No more SSN fraud.

>>>I can imagine it sucks living in Guatemala and such, I sure wouldn't want
>>>to live there and would also try to GTFO but that doesn't mean that the
>>>West should take in all the world's poor people, as it will only lead to the
>>>West becoming a poor shithole just like Guatemala and such.

>>Oddly, America took in immigrants from all the shithole countries in
>>Europe and became the world's most prosperous country. Immigrants
>>prosper in America because America will always be the land of
>>opportunity.

>The difference is that the welfare system was negligible or non-existent
>in those days so you either worked or starved. Literally. Nowadays, its
>entirely possible to get by without working by combining welfare and
>under-the-table jobs.

I keep saying I oppose our current welfare system.

I argue for a far more open immigration than we have but I find it
outrageous all the people who argue for open immigration and immediate
eligibility for social security programs. If an immigrant is placed on
welfare, that contradicts the same argument that an expanded population
means a larger economy.

>>. . .

>Back in the 90s when I was in Toronto, . . .

Interesting story. Thanks

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>There were many in the US who 'emigrated' to California during the 70s
>and 80s because it already had a generous welfare system and the weather
>was milder. They were not latino.

Good. Takes the burden off the rest of the country.

California wants to be the roach motel for all of America? Fine with me.
It seems that California isn't yet completely saturated with STOOPID.