TRUMP AHEAD?

[accelafine]

Why do so many Mexicans want to go to the US anyway? It's not as if their lives are that great when they get there. What's wrong with Mexico? I know a Mexican man. He's a scientist. Got his education in Mexico. Well educated. Had a nice life in Mexico. Now Mexico is minus one scientist.
No one ever talks about the impact mass immigration from a limited number of countries has on the country of origin. A lot of doctors and surgeons here are from India, Iran, Pakistan etc. That means that those countries now have fewer doctors and surgeons who have studied and earned their degrees in their own countries.

[Age]

Well, that's quite the dynamic exchange, isn’t it? And it strikes at the heart of one of the most fundamental tensions in immigration debates—not just who gets to define "good" and "bad" immigration but the moral, historical, and practical implications of those definitions.

So, let’s start with a bit of perspective. Immigration, throughout history, has been a two-sided coin. On one side, it’s the lifeblood of cultural exchange, innovation, and human progress.

And, if 'we' are to take 'immigration' to also include the migrating of people from one clan, tribe, or even family over into another clan, tribe, or even family, then 'immigration' was necessary to stop in-breeding. Migrating from, to, and/or back and forth between one group and 'another group' was, and still is, just a natural part of life, and living.

Learning from different cultures, groups, tribes, and even individual different people is how human beings and humanity Truly 'progress'. Following one or a few select cultures, groups, tribes, or even individual people, only, is how human beings and humanity gets, and got, caught up bickering, fighting, warring, and murdering.

As can be VERY CLEARLY witnessed and seen in the days when this was, and is, being written.

Think of the incredible enrichment—economically, culturally, intellectually—that immigration has brought to so many societies. But flip that coin over, and you find the struggles: the fears of cultural displacement, economic competition, and even identity crises. Both sides of the coin are real, and both are human.

Now, Walker makes a point that resonates in many circles: the idea of "good immigration" versus "bad immigration."

LOL The DIFFERENCE between 'good' versus 'bad' in regards to absolutely ANY thing is OBVIOUS. ALWAYS 'good' is BETTER than 'bad'. But, getting you adult human beings to just 'come together' to just 'work out' what is ACTUALLY 'good' and 'bad' is ANY situation has been HARD ENOUGH, so imagine how HARD it has been just trying to get adult human beings to 'come together', peacefully, to just 'discuss' what is 'good' and 'bad', or 'Right' and 'Wrong', in ALL situations, or in Life, Itself.

But let’s unpack that. The concept of "good immigration," as defined by the receiving country, often aligns with its economic needs, cultural preferences, or political climate.

Once again what 'we' can clearly see here is just how narrow a perspective and how small field of a view these people had, here.

For instance, countries may welcome highly skilled workers, seeing them as immediate contributors to their economy. Yet, they might hesitate—or outright resist—when it comes to accepting people fleeing violence or poverty, even though their need is just as real, if not more so. Why? Because their presence might be perceived as a burden rather than a benefit.

Obviously. How narrowed and closed some of you adults were, back when this was being written, was BLINDING OBVIOUSLY COMMON.

And then there’s Age’s point, which flips the script entirely: What about the moral reckoning of history? Many countries defining "good immigration" today were themselves built on the back of migration—sometimes voluntary,

I wonder if any ACTUAL examples of 'voluntary' could be, and would be, provided, here.

sometimes forced—and often at great cost to the people and lands they colonized or displaced. Is there an "inner knowing," as Age suggests, that creates this defensive stance toward newcomers? Maybe. Maybe it’s the weight of historical guilt or the deep-seated fear of retribution. Or maybe it’s just the primal human resistance to change, wrapped up in layers of policy and rhetoric.

But there is NO 'primal human resistance to change', AT ALL. In fact the VERY OPPOSITE is VERY True. EVERY human being INSTINCTIVELY KNOWS there is NO stopping CHANGE. From birth young children NEVER resist CHANGE. Again, there is NO 'primal human resistance to CHANGE'. Some of you older human beings, however, may 'look at' and 'see' things differently, here.

Now, human beings will NEVER resist CHANGE if 'the change' is seen to be of some benefit to and/or for them. However, EVERY human being will RESIST CHANGE, if 'the change' is seen as being detrimental to and/or for them.

But here’s the kicker: framing immigration in binary terms—good or bad, desirable or undesirable—misses the larger story. Immigration is a process, not a product. It’s shaped by the needs and actions of individuals and nations alike. Refugees, for example, flee conditions no one would choose to endure. Asylum seekers pursue safety and dignity. Economic migrants chase opportunities that could transform not just their lives but those of their families for generations. These aren’t abstractions; they’re human realities.

So, the real question isn’t whether immigration is good or bad. The question is: How do we balance the legitimate interests of receiving countries with the equally legitimate aspirations of those seeking to enter?

While ANY of you human beings BELIEVE that you own a country, as in the saying, 'my country' or 'our country', and/or BELIEVE that you have some 'right', over others, to some parcel of land, or country, then the 'balancing act', here, will always be lopsided.

And can we do it in a way that honors our shared humanity, rather than just drawing lines on a map and building walls in our minds?

you human beings will NEVER 'balance back to' what is NATURALLY Right, and Good, in Life, while you keep persisting with your separation lines on maps and conceptual separation of human beings.

That’s the challenge, isn’t it?

Learning how to get you older human beings, in the days when this is being written, to just STOP BELIEVING and ASSUMING things to be true AND to just START TO LISTEN, and HEAR, is the only REAL challenge, here.

And it’s not one we can solve by shouting past each other. It’s going to take empathy, hard conversations, and a willingness to look at history—not just as a record of the past, but as a guide to building a more just and equitable future.

So, ONCE MORE, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one, here, would like to have A Truly Honest, Open, and Peaceful DISCUSSION, then I am more than willing, ready, and wanting to.

[Age]

There is good immigration, and there is bad immigration.

What Walker means is his ancestors were good immigrants and we should be thankful for them, but brown people are bad immigrants and they deserve to be kicked out. Walker is no fool. He just has no fear of looking like one.

Not to speak for Walker, but...

Good immigration is folks of any color comin' here legally with the intent to be American.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This coming from the one who could be considered the MOST BLIND, and DEAF, here.

Bad immigration is folks of any color comin' here illegally with no intention to be American.

WHY do so many people, from one particular parcel of land on earth, in the days when this is being written, 'see' human beings as 'different colors'?

WHY is it SO IMPORTANT to these human beings to even mention a particular 'color', when regarding human beings "themselves"?

[Age]

It's hilarious the way wokies always expose themselves as the real racists. They are OBSESSED with race and skin colour and are ALWAYS the first to bring it up Clueless transparent twats.

If this one was not SO CLOSED, then I would ask it if being OBSESSED with, and by, human beings being of SEPARATE and/or DIFFERENT 'sects', religious or not, is perfectly acceptable and okay though, right?

This one is doing, here, EXACTLY what it is VERY CRITICAL of others doing, here. This one is just being another 'SEPARATIST', as 'the others' ARE.

[Age]

Well stinkymick, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Find a safe and loving home for this little girl who was found alone after crossing the unsecured US border. I mean, you lot have the monopoly on compassion and empathy don't you? Jesus fucking christ. TWO YEARS OLD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0QrMZZLDCo

I would say EARTH would be a safe and loving home for that, and EVERY other, child. That is; if you adult human beings were NOT SO SELFISH, GREEDY, BLIND, and STUPID.

There is A safe and loving HOME. And, it did NOT take long, AT ALL, TO FIND.

Also, what can be VERY CLEARLY seen and noted, here, was, and is, just how SIMPLY and EASILY these adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, could be, and WERE, manipulated, TRICKED, and FOOLED.

[Age]

That’s all covered by the third branch of the trinity, namely:

Good immigration is defined by the targeted country.

- Different countries want different types of immigrants. Some countries want either the brainiacs and those accomplished in their fields (Israel).
- Some countries want various engineers, particularly the civil ones, for rebuilding (Europe* after The Big One, Gaza, Ukraine, etc. etc.)
- Countries from Bizarro World want illegal indigents, criminals, gangsters, etc., even when that’s against the country’s legally-decided, immigration policy (USA USA).

This one could NOT come across MORE NARROW, here.

And, if it was any MORE NARROWER, here, then it would be JUST CLOSED.

[Walker]

It's a coin flip of a view whether or not all that falls within the first or second branch.

Here are some Border Guards from an old country. President Trump might be interested (shades of Altamont).
These law abiding, mission oriented guards would serve as a strong deterrent to illegal invasions of unknown forces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM8dCGIm6yc

[henry quirk]

Yes, I can see how that's worrisome for someone who...

a) Illegally procured naturalization;
b) Concealed or willfully misrepresented a material fact during naturalization proceedings to obtain citizenship;
c) Became a member of or affiliated with a subversive group;
d) Procured citizenship through military service and has since been discharged under other than honorable conditions; or
e) Procured citizenship through a parent or spouse who has since been denaturalized.

...or...

Knowingly procured or attempted to procure naturalization in an unlawful manner

Only c and e seem sketchy to me.

I think I wanna see RED MAN DEFIANT's actual plan...you have a link to it?

[Age]

It's a coin flip of a view whether or not all that falls within the first or second branch.

Here are some Border Guards from an old country. President Trump might be interested (shades of Altamont).
These law abiding, mission oriented guards would serve as a strong deterrent to illegal invasions of unknown forces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM8dCGIm6yc

Well this one just PROVED, ABSOLUTELY, that it is ABSOLUTELY CLOSED, here.

[Walker]

Meaningless smoke doesn't carry any fire of meaning in your limited response, and at your age no less.

Wrathful guardians are a primal guardian of a country's spirit in countries that even now, at this time in the history of the world, are influenced by pagan animism.

[Age]

Meaningless smoke doesn't carry any fire of meaning in your limited response, and at your age no less.

Wrathful guardians are a primal guardian of a country's spirit in countries that even now, at this time in the history of the world, are influenced by pagan animism.

LOL This one has, AGAIN, completely and utterly FORGOT, due to its ABSOLUTE NARROWERNESS and CLOSEDNESS, that 'the country' that it is living in 'currently', when this is being written, was TAKEN OVER and DESTROYED BY 'illegal aliens', which, OBVIOUSLY, it is just another one of the DESCENTS OF.

The True SPIRIT of 'that and EVERY country' IS A PRIMAL GUARDIAN, and WHO, by the way, IS ACTUALLY SHOWING the True AND Right WAY, and putting you ALL BACK on the Right TRACK, HERE-NOW.

[mickthinks]

Good immigration is folks of any color comin' here legally with the intent to be American.

Bad immigration is folks of any color comin' here illegally with no intention to be American.

This is bullshit. And given it’s Henry, I’m going to say it’s disingenuous bullshit. There are a number of glaring conceptual holes in it, for instance:-

What’s with the legally/illegally? Did Henry intend to create confusion over those immigrants who come with the intent to be American illegally? Or is he of the opinion that the intent to be American is enough in itself to confer legal status? That seems unlikely.

Do you think Henry hasn’t really thought it through?

[henry quirk]

I don't see anything confusing or contradictory about this...

Good immigration is folks of any color comin' here legally with the intent to be American.

Bad immigration is folks of any color comin' here illegally with no intention to be American.

Mebbe you're overthinkin' it.

'nuff said.

[accelafine]

You can become a US citizen if you are there illegally? Strange. One would think that if someone was intending to become a citizen of a country then they would at least apply for a visa for that country. You have to wonder why someone wouldn't. Could there be a reason why they might be refused one?
A country with no borders isn't a country.
You also have to wonder why a person who lives in Germany would be so obsessed with wanting the US to have open borders
How many of those abandoned children has this German from Augsburg sponsored and found homes for? I'm assuming it's a lot. Bless him...

[mickthinks]

Is it impossible to enter the US illegally with the intent to be an American in your view, Henry? Say why.

Mebbe you're overthinkin' it.
Mebbe you’re underthinking it. Or mebbe you’re deliberately obfuscating it?