Answering a friend's questions

This list was posted on Facebook by a friend of mine, whom I will not name, because I don't want to embarrass them. The questions are from their post. The answers are my own. If they embarrass me, then so be it.  The words in bold, italicized type are from their post.  The answers are my own.

~

Copied in part...You call this great? I don’t.

Do you support separating families at the border.....put them into concentration camps? They are applying for asylum.....what he is doing is against international law. You do realize that?

- Okay, let's take this a bite at a time:

- If these same people were caught burglarizing homes, or stealing cars, or killing people, or committing any other crime, they would be separated from their children. People who are in holding awaiting trial for crimes they are accused of get separated from their children. Like it or not, entering this country illegally is a crime. It's a crime in every nation in the world. Just out of curiosity, why don't you find out what the penalty is for entering Mexico, or Guatemala, or China, or Luxembourg for that matter, illegally.

There is an alternative, though. Make it not illegal. It's a matter of passing a law, which would require electing representatives committed to doing just that. What you are asking the government to do, essentially, is let there not be a border. If crossing the border brings no penalty, then you don't have one. If you're cool with that, talk about that and not some bull**** thing about whether or not lawbreakers get treated like lawbreakers.

In the interest of having access to the necessary information to make an intelligent choice, I've done a little research into immigration laws in the countries I flippantly listed above. Here's the link to a website called Mexperience, and the page that discusses immigration to Mexico. https://www.mexperience.com/mexico-immigration-guide-published/ On the page is a link to the 2019 immigration guide, provided to them by the government of Mexico. It doesn't discuss any penalties for illegal immigration, and I've had difficulty finding this information. Plus, here's a link to a pretty comprehensive Wikipedia article on immigration to Mexico. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Mexico Answers.yahoo came up with a penalty of two to five years in prison for illegally entering the country, but I haven't been able to verify the sources.

No luck finding information on penalties for illegally crossing borders into Guatemala. Here's a link to an article on immigration to Guatemala: https://legalbeagle.com/5465314-guatemala-immigration-requirements.html I don't know what the political leaning of legalbeagle is, or if they have one.

Here's a piece from the South China Morning Post on illegal immigration into China: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1272959/under-chinas-new-immigration-law-harsher-fines-illegal-foreigners Apparently, there are harsh penalties. The article dates from 2013.

The most I can found about illegal immigration into Luxembourg are news articles complaining about how many there are, and how it should be stopped. I'll leave it up to you to find them. Trust me, it's not difficult. And, I've seen nothing about whether or not your children are taken away in any of these countries if you bring them in illegally. I would guess that whatever would happen would happen no matter what crime you committed there.

Btw, here's an interesting piece from factcheck.org: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/ I don't know what their political leaning is. They are funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which also does a lot with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, so I suspect if there is a leaning, it is liberal/progressive.

- Concentration camps? Do you even know what one of those is? From the reports I've seen, even the ones put out by MSNBC, NPR, NYT, etc, they don't even really count as prisons, much less concentration camps. Comparing them with Auschwitz, Buchenwald, etc is ridiculous.

- Are they all applying for asylum?  All of them? How do you know? What's your source? And, what happens to them while they're waiting? Maybe you didn't know this, but there's a legal process to applying for asylum. They've committed a crime. (See above)

- International law? Which international law? Would you please quote it? We are not subject to international law. We are, in this instance, subject to the laws of the United States. International law does not apply to someone who burglarized a house, or steals a car, or murders someone, or speeds on the interstate. And the United States has borders. Did you know it's illegal to cross a nation's borders without proper authorization? Any nation? (See above)

Do you support him because he likes to grab women by the pussy?

- Now, let me think about that a minute. Do I support Donald Trump . . . BECAUSE he likes to grab women by the pussy? Uh . . . no. Although, I must say, it's not why I DIDN'T support Bill Clinton. I don't consider Bill Clinton a good president because I think his policies proved to be severely flawed. (That is, when he bothered to have policies. The worst thing about Clinton was, he didn't really do much. The best thing about him was, he didn't really do much. Which, after Reagan/Bush41, was a good thing. Still, it would have been nice to see some good and necessary things done.) Same with Teddy Kennedy, and many other misogynist politicians, Democrat and Republican. I think what you're asking is, would I hire Donald Trump as a babysitter for my daughters? No.

Do you support him because he makes fun of the disabled?

- Oh, there's another good one. Y'know, I was going to vote for Hillary, but then Trump made fun of a disabled guy, and that convinced me to vote for him instead. C'mon, now!! I suppose there are people who voted for Hillary specifically because she DIDN'T make fun of a disabled person. At least, not in public. Of course, it would be all right for her to make fun of a disabled person IF they disagreed with her. Then, it would be all right. But since it was Trump, it doesn't matter what his policies are, or if they improved the country and made people's lives better. He said something you find distasteful. And you know what? I did, too. But I also know why he said it; because the guy was cutting him down. He didn't send the FBI to take him in, he just gave back in kind. Didn't take away his job, didn't put him in jail, didn't have a couple of Arkansas state troopers shoot him, he said words.

Do you support him because he has increased our national debt by 4 trillion dollars making us financially insolvent?

-Ooo! Check your figures. How much did Barack Obama's administration increase the national debt? I'll leave it up to you to find out the answer to that one. If the country is insolvent, it's because the previous administration brought us to the brink of insolvency. Or does that not count, because your preferred news sources said that the money was spent on good stuff? Y'see, that's what happens when you only get your news from one side. You find yourself repeating lies.

And when you double-check the figures, please send me the links.  You will note at the bottom of the picture on the right, its sources are listed.

Do you support him because he is a racist?

- Another good one. Let me make one thing clear; I don't care if he's a racist. Let me repeat that; I do not care what his personal feelings about people's race is. Are. Whatever. What I care about is, what are his policies going to do? I don't actually know if he's a racist. And, news flash, you don't either! If you go by his policies, black, Hispanic, and Asian unemployment in this country are at historic lows. 

Do you know what that means? It means, those people, those demographic groups, have more jobs. Maybe I'm wildly off the beam here, but I think the biggest problem facing these demographic groups is, they're poor. Doesn't having a job kinda help that?

I think it's funny, any time I watch a sporting event, I see the same ads. Did you know the state of New York – one of the bluest, most liberal states in the country - publicly promises a tax break for businesses that are willing to move there? They've been running those ads for years. Why do you think they do that?

No matter what liberal/democratic/socialist politicians say, they all know that lowering taxes stimulates the economy. Reagan proved it. And before you think about how altruistic they are, remember that the stock market stayed strong during the Obama administration, in spite of the economy slowly turning to part-time jobs and the “gig economy.” Manufacturing was draining away, but Wall Street was booming. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. >wink<

In a nutshell, if Trump is a racist, he's a stupid one. His policies seem to be helping the very people he's accused of hating. And these accusations didn't start until he was elected President. So, I don't care if he's a racist, any more than I care about his hair or the color of his socks. What I care about is what he does in the office of the Presidency. I hope he's not a racist, but I've seen no conclusive evidence that he is. And Don Lemon's opinion doesn't count as conclusive evidence.

By the way, not sure where this appropriate to include, but the Center for Responsive Politics puts out a publication called the Blue Pages. It's a directory of companies, rated by their politics and practices (quoting the cover). Basically, it tells you who the listed companies donate to, so far as politics and political causes. Interesting to just thumb through it.

Do you support him because he has taken all the ecological restrictions away destroying the earth for future generations?

- Careful. All the ecological restrictions? All of them? Or are you talking about the Paris Climate Accords? Have you read them? Here's the link, so that you can:

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

And that's the actual UN Framework Convention on Climate Change website, not some conservative blog. If you're going to talk about something, you should know what you're talking about. And, this link (found in the opening paragraphs) compares the Paris agreement with the Kyoto Protocol:

https://unfccc.int/resource/bigpicture/#content-the-paris-agreemen

The two main arguments I've heard against both of these agreements are:

1) they are agreements. They have no teeth. It's just the governments of the signatory countries saying that they want these things to happen, but there are no consequences if they fail. I would be curious to know how many of the 192 signatories to the Kyoto Protocol actually met the stated goals.

2) they seem to have more to do with giving governments control over businesses, than restoring the environment. The “essential elements” section of the first page talk about “appropriate financial flows,” among other things. There's also a link to the complete text of the agreement, on the right side of the opening page of the link above. And if you can't find it, let me know. I downloaded the PDF file, and can send it to you.

Also, here's an article about the mixed success of the Kyoto protocols: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/ New Scientist is a British magazine, published since 1956. I have been unable to find any discussion on their political leanings, which means they may not have any.

I have argued for years that the whole climate change debate isn't about climate change. It's about division. Riddle me this, Batman; what is the alleged cause of climate change? I can answer that in one word: Pollution. Too much foreign matter and chemical compounds in our air, water, etc. When you break it down to that basic fact – if, in fact, climate change is even real – then it's easy to sell.

Try this experiment sometime, if you have the courage; go to some person's house that has a swimming pool. Now, urinate in it. The pretty blue water is very likely to turn a pretty green, slowly spreading to the whole pool. Then, somebody kicks your ass or runs you off, but that's a side effect.

This simple experiment PROVES that one person can negatively affect an ecosystem.

There are other examples. I remember seeing two pictures in a magazine – I think it was Newsweek, or maybe Time, in the late '80's – that showed two images of Los Angeles from about five miles off shore. One was taken in 1962, and all you could see was the tops of a few buildings. The rest of the city was blanketed in a gray haze, although it was a sunny day with a blue sky framing the top of the photo. The second one was, I believe, from 1988. There was still a gray haze, but you could clearly see the city, and it was a similarly bright, sunny day. That tells me that we've actually made progress, even if no one on the left is willing to admit it.

The other pictures were of the shore in Antarctica. One showed a shoreline of snow and ice. The other, a wide patch of green grass. These pictures as well were supposedly taken some 30 or more years apart. Now, the publisher of these pictures didn't happen to mention what seasons they were each taken in, but the message is clear.

But the cure is simple, and almost universally agreed upon: Pollution is bad. If you find anyone that disagrees with that simple statement, “pollution is bad,” let me know and we can go together to pee in their pool. Whether it's changing the climate or not is irrelevant, isn't it? The swimming pool experiment proves that pollution is bad, whether or not the temperature of the pool goes up.

So why isn't pollution the issue, instead of climate change?

Because climate change is something that we DON'T agree on. And look how much money changes hands, and how much power, keeping both sides spun up! If you believe in climate change and I don't, but we both agree that pollution is bad, then we can both agree on a solution. Argument over. Then, what would Rachael Maddow and Sean Hannity scream about?

But when you ask about “all ecological restrictions,” you're suggesting that we're back to using freon, leaded gasoline, asbestos, and many other things that we've stopped using decades ago. I haven't seen anything about Trump demanding a return to freon, etc.

Do you support the lack of respect he has for officials that do not agree with him?

- Yes, actually, I do. I don't respect them, so it comforts me that he doesn't either. Most of them are left over from previous administrations anyway, dating back to probably Nixon in some cases.

Here's a pop quiz for you; do you know where most bills presented to Congress are written? If your answer is, the offices of Congressmen and Senators, I'm sorry, thanks for playing, and don't forget your copy of the home game. The correct answer is, K Street in Washington. Where a lot of lobbyists offices are located. So, which officials are we really referring to, here? The official officials, or the unofficial officials they work for?

Did you support all those federal employees he used as pawns to try and get approval from Congress for his wall?

- I think his biggest campaign promise was the wall. It got him elected, so those who voted for him expect him to come through. And to do that, he's going to have to twist appendages. When Ronald Reagan left office, he warned that there was already a crisis because of illegal immigration. At the time, 1988, the estimate most popular was that there was possibly 3 million illegal immigrants in this country. The figure being thrown around for the last decade is 11 million, so it's hopelessly out of date. A Yale study (linked above; the FactCheck article) says it's probably twice that many.

Democrats AND Republicans have been lying ever since about fixing that problem. And they continue to get away with their lies. It's a problem, they all know it, and they lie when they say they're going to fix it.

Which makes me wonder; why? Why don't they just fix it? Why aren't they jumping at the chance to finally secure our borders for really real? To me, the wall makes sense. They actually do work. If you don't believe it, ask the residents of East Berlin. Or the Palestinian territories, where incursions by terrorists into Israel have been cut almost to nothing. The much-touted “high-tech virtual wall” disappears the second its funding is cut. It would be great to have that to supplement a real, physical wall, but the real, physical wall would be just as expensive to take down as it will be to build. And even its physical existence would be a major deterrent to illegal immigration. Not all immigration, btw, just illegal. Trump did, after all, also promise a big, beautiful door.

So . . . why, if most of the country wants a real, actual border, and all the politicians know it, and keep promising to do it . . . why don't they?

I'm just guessing here, but it might be because their patrons don't want it. Maybe, just maybe, they like having an army of available workers who have no legal standing and can't do things like demand minimum wage or decent conditions. Have you ever done any research on how illegal immigrants live? I read a piece a few years ago about Latino illegals living in Chicago and working for Ty, the company that produces Beanie Babies among other things. Squalid living conditions, ridiculous hours, poor pay and working conditions. And their only choice is to not work, and therefore not make any money, because they have no legal recourse. I did save the link to the article, but the last time I clicked it, the article didn't exist any more. How convenient. It was from the Yahoo news feed; I forget the original source.

So, just how compassionate is it to let these “asylum seekers” in to roam free? Again, it comes down to law. If anybody can come in, and have legal status, then do we actually have a border? If that's cool, then say so. Completely open borders. Advocate that, and I'll believe that you actually mean what you say, and that you've thought that far about it. No passports, no background checks required, you get here, you're a citizen, period. Even if I disagree, at least I could respect someone who advocates for that and honestly believes it's right for everyone. And if there's actually anything between borders and no borders, would you please explain it to me?

Do you support his lies.....daily lies? Is that the character you like to see in a president. You wouldn't tolerate it in a friend....why would you tolerate it in a president?

- I don't respect anybody's lies. I don't respect Mitch McConnell's, or Barack Obama's, or John McCain's, or Jean Shaheen's, or anybody's. But I think it's funny for somebody who probably liked President Bill Clinton to be so huffy about character.

And, I do tolerate it in friends. If I know they're lying, I shine it on in order to maintain my friendship. I try not to lie myself, especially to my friends. I've even told truths that harmed friendships. So, I have repeatedly, continually, put up with lies from politicians, because I honestly care more about how they do their jobs. And I do my best to keep track of when they lie, and about what, so I can parse who to vote for next time around.

I don't honestly think that Donald Trump lies a tenth as much as he gets credit for. I've looked through the ever-growing lists published on line about how many lies he's told, and most of them are horse pucky. Some have turned out to be true. Some of them are strictly up for interpretation, like regarding whether or not you believe in climate change.

And a lot of what he says is just to keep the pot stirred. The more people over-react and go ballistic, the more they show themselves for the tools they are. In my experience, most people have an active bull**** meter, and when somebody is spouting mindless hyperbole, it puts them in a bad light. 

Unless, of course, you've emotionally invested yourself in their point of view. So, when somebody keeps coming back with; “I know you are, but what am I” and getting rabid foam-at-the-mouth responses, I know which one looks like an idiot.

Give me a reason to support any decision or statement he has made and I will give you 10 reasons why that is not sound judgement.

- First of all, I would be skeptical of anyone who didn't have the “judgment” to even consider trusting their spell-check. (Btw, I copied the questions directly from your FB post, and you obviously didn't catch the mistake.)

10 reasons? Is that you, or just the K-Street cubical mouse that put out the original list? Okay, I would like to hear your 10 reasons why I shouldn't support each of the following:

- Tax and regulation cuts that stimulate the economy,

- Secure borders,

- Challenging deep-seated corruption in our government,

- Naming judges who respect the Constitution,

- Demanding real solutions to real problems, instead of offering promises they don't intend to keep.

I've said this in another blog post, but maybe you missed it. I believe that there are certain things that everybody wants: Peace, prosperity, equality, security, and freedom. In as equal measures as possible. I've watched the deterioration of this country for more than six decades now, while people I put my trust in lied through their teeth about fixing it. If I see somebody who understands what those five things actually are, and has a track record of getting things done, they've got my vote.