No one commented on the Texas 5 armies battle.
Will it start? Will it not? Is it a hoax?
Here we get vibes of a small civil war.
Printable View
No one commented on the Texas 5 armies battle.
Will it start? Will it not? Is it a hoax?
Here we get vibes of a small civil war.
I guess I ought to figure out what you are talking about, but not for a few days, yet. I'm off helping out my father, and am a bit out of touch. Still, I think I've heard just enough from one place or another to think nothing of it. This is an election year. Posturing and posing is the name of the game in the US, and will be for several more months.
If the Attorney General for Texas is involved (which he might be), then there are other layers to the situation. That guy is pretty corrupt. He only managed to avoid being removed from office because some of his party decided that their political future was better if they didn't remove him. In that way, he's kind of like Netanyahu in that he is clinging to power to avoid facing his deeds in court.
I agree. In a similar vein there are some of the more crackpot Republicans calling for cessations, national divorces etc but it feels like it's performative rather than a genuine agenda.Quote:
I do not think its a precursor to civil war. More like a pissing match.
It feels like societal division is now a campaign promise but I don't think it really has any more weight than... well... any other campaign promise.
Never heard of it. Tried Google and got nothing.Quote:
No one commented on the Texas 5 armies battle
There always seems to be a few. The problem is, the few get a lot of press. I can see how people in other countries would get a very skewed view of what's happening here.Quote:
In a similar vein there are some of the more crackpot Republicans calling for cessations, national divorces etc but it feels like it's performative rather than a genuine agenda.
That's because it's not really a thing ... other than a reference to the last Hobbit movie "Battle of the 5 Armies" ... the implication here is that we're going to get into a battle involving 5 armies over this border thing in Texas...Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
-tg
That sound about right. It's just I've haven't seen term "Texas 5 armies".Quote:
Short story is that Texas is beefing up security at the border. At one point, some people drowned in the Rio Grande trying to cross into the United States and the Texas National Guard refused border patrol from accessing the area. After that made its way up the chain, the supreme court made a temporary ruling that essentially ended in a cease and desist order being sent to the Texas AG, Ken Paxton.
At this time, as far as I'm aware, Paxton is refusing to abide by the cease and desist order and there have been calls for militias to go help the Texas National Guard. Not sure who is making these "calls" or what "help" would mean, but more or less that's the story here.
There's some convoy headed to Texas to hold protests. The "Take Our Border Back" convoy. That's what happens when you got 330million people and a big portion has to much free time on there hands. lol
What I'm disappointed about is the fact that Dem's and Rep's were very close to jointly taking action but Trump told the Rep's not to for political reasons so nothing will be getting better any time soon.
The Battle of 5 Armies is from the Hobbit. Sapator just used it because of the messy argument going on in Texas.
One fun cessation issue is that a group in eastern OR wants to split off and join with Idaho. Wiser heads point out that Idaho is one of the poorest states in the nation, whereas OR is not. The amount of assistance received by those eastern OR counties would drop dramatically if the change were to be made. Their schools would become destitute, as would a bunch of their people.
Wiser heads don't always prevail in these things, though they likely will here.
That's funny. I've seen the movie but would never have thought that's what he was referring to. lolQuote:
The Battle of 5 Armies is from the Hobbit. Sapator just used it because of the messy argument going on in Texas.
Your translating skills are impressive.
I'm not sure how accurate the picture we're getting over here is but some of the measures do seem needlessly cruel. E.g. putting razor wire under the surface of the Rio Grande so that people would swim into it. If that's accurate it's pretty sick.Quote:
Texas is beefing up security at the border. At one point, some people drowned in the Rio Grande trying to cross into the United States
Honestly, we're no better lately.
I see the need for a nation to police it's borders but I do think that:-
1. All countries have a moral responsibility to provide adequate legal routes for genuine refugees - I don't believe either the US or the UK is currently doing that but rather puts inaccessible routes in place to act as a smokescreen.
2. Policing a border should not put vulnerable people at risk of death.
here is a good resume :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...-border-biden/
We need a certain amount of migration. We SHOULD be pretty much welcoming anybody who gets an advanced degree to stay beyond graduation, but we need all other skill levels as well. Immigrants are far more entrepreneurial than native born citizens. They start more businesses, on average, and employ more people (of course, since if the first is true, the second pretty much HAS to be).
I don't think that's an accident. The first several waves of migrants out of any location are those who are more willing to up-stakes in hopes of a better life. Loads of people in the US will fall into poverty rather than move, and those are not the migrants. Virtually all of my maternal extended family live within 50 miles of where they were born. None of them are lacking in education or opportunity, but they have had to make employment choices based on that reluctance to leave. The migrant population is self-selecting for those who are willing to take a chance in hopes of a better life. That's what we WANT in this country. Sure, there will be some dead wood. There always is, but there is less dead wood in that group than in any comparable group.
So then it comes down to numbers. A million immigrants to the US is nothing for a population of 330 million, especially if those immigrants are motivated to work, as they are. Of course, if you throw wide the gates, the numbers will likely soar in short order. We might be able to absorb one million per year, but perhaps not 10 million per year. A completely open system is no better an idea than a completely closed system.
The issue that I see is that it is very hard for asylum seekers to get permission to seek employment. They want to work, the jobs exist, let them contribute to the economy while the paperwork is processing.
Yeah, no one knows the right "number". I'm against just closing the border but I certainly don't know the "right number".
Living in an agricultural area of CA I'm very use to people being migrants. Never saw it as a problem. There was always talk about the problem of illegal immigrants but there was just as much talk about our abuse of them. But something does seem different now, I don't remember large masses gathering at the border seeking asylum. I don't know what has changed to cause that, I saw one documentary that sort of blamed it on the drug cartels. It's a mess and our response seems to be how best can we use this problem for political gains.
There are a variety of factors, too. Migrants used to be primarily Mexican workers seeking work. That would usually mean single men. These days, a very large percentage of the migrants are Venezuelans fleeing an imploding state. Other groups are from other dangerously violent countries, and then there are the "other" categories. My understanding is that, in the last year, somewhere around 45,000 immigrants showed up on the southern border from both China and Russia. The Russian migrants make sense, as it's people fleeing the conscription. Those folks seem likely to be higher skilled people. The Chinese are a bit weird, though a bunch of them are fleeing the increasingly stringent rules in Hong Kong. Those might be higher educated (lots of students were protesters), but they are seeking political asylum, and seem likely to get it.
It's a really good question.Quote:
I go back and forth on this position because on one hand I do recognize the need for a country to police its borders but on the other hand are you really going to arrest someone for non-violently walking from one place to another as long as they don't trespass on someone's personal property?
I have one friend who's fond of pointing out that the very concept of passports, visas etc doesn't imbue you with the right to move around, that right is (or should be) inalienable. A passport actually represents a restriction of your natural rights. It's kinda the ultra libertarian view and I take his point but it involves dismissing the concept of nationhood, which I'm not sure is valid. My take is that being a citizen of a nation incurs some responsibilities and confers some corresponding privileges. Even if you don't recognise nations this effect is effectually created by being governed by a particular body. An immigrant will have lived under the same effect but conferred by a different body and, to come under the auspice of your body is a privilege that should be in the remit of your body to extend. So for that reason I do believe that a government should be allowed to select it's immigration policy.
...but...
for the reasons Shaggy gave I'm a strong believer that immigration is a REALLY good thing for a nation and it's very foolish to limit it. Statistically immigrants typically commit less crime, utilise public services at a lower level and contribute more to an economy than born citizens. Further they tend not to be in the country when they're non-productive as they tend to arrive when they're young adults and tend to go home before they reach retirement. Far from being a drain, they're an absolute boon to a country.
And then there's the unintended consequences of trying to shut immigration down. As DD posted "The result of seeing more asylum seekers as opposed to work visas is because the policy differences. It’s easier today to be allowed in as an asylum seeker than it is to be let in on work visas. When the policy inevitably changes again you’ll see asylum seekers decrease and another group increase." So it's really an artificial choice anyway and limiting it just incurs undesired and avoidable costs.
I will say that the negative impacts of immigration (need for housing and social services, cultural uncertainty etc.) tend to be immediate while the positive impacts (higher tax takes, employment in public services, cultural enrichment etc.) have a lag so I can understand why a nation wouldn't want to just blow the doors completely open but a general trend toward higher levels of immigration is a good thing as I see it.
Or as I'm fond of saying to my mildly xenophobic dad, those foreign dole bludgers you're worried about have travelled across continents to sign on to our welfare system. They're a far more motivated class of dole bludger than out home grown dole bludgers. They're the dole bludgers we want.Quote:
The migrant population is self-selecting for those who are willing to take a chance in hopes of a better life.
Well, that's not setting the bar very high. lolQuote:
I’m not saying it’s right per se, just that it’s better than what our current politicians on both sides want to do.
Because the Rep's basically want to do NOTHING till after the election because they feel the immigration problem benefits them. To be honest I not sure what the Dem's want to do but it doesn't matter, the Rep's control the House.
There's also a belief among Republicans that immigrants will vote Democratic. Of course, that's only once naturalized. The thing about this is that it isn't necessarily true unless the Republicans make it true. When you get political refugees, such as those from Venezuela, Russia, and China, they may be more inclined to vote Republican if they are allowed to, just as Cuban refugees tend to. If Republicans would see that, they group that sees all immigration as adding votes to the Democrats, would probably dry up. Instead, they should be a bit more nuanced in their views.
On the other hand, a certain amount of their views are really just papering over a deeper belief.
This about sums up this supposed "5 Armies". https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news...172018391.html
Got to hand it to the press, first they sell you the news about this big threat from "God's Army" and then they sell you the news it was never a threat. :rolleyes: