I've been following Madeline Sumption on Twitter for a while. I think she has a political motivation and I don't consider the Migration Observatory to be a valid source. Sorry.
2,376 karma · joined April 7, 2013
Seems like a very nice argument when isolated away from reality. Reality of mass immigration from Muslim countries into the UK has been a lot more people in the UK support Sharia law and want to ban homosexuality.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-musl...
I like libertarians, but there are some feedback loops that prevent me from universally embracing libertarianism.
Also, the author describes this right to immigrate from the context of "normal" immigrants. What is normal and who gets to define it? Seems like a fluid definition that evolves as a function of past immigration. For example, parts of Sharia law might fit in OK (usury, for example) with Western values, so maybe we let that slide for a bit. Then, after a few decades and more norming of other aspects, all these other social values become part of a voting block and get pushed into action. I don't see great examples of government in the middle East, so why would I want to normalize those social values and evolve my government to suit?
I don't consider myself anti-Islam (just anti fundamentalists, including Judeo-Christian sects) and I know a ton of secular Muslims with my values (most don't want open door immigration either!).
In thirty years of traveling to Europe to visit family, I just don't look at how they've managed immigration with a lot of enthusiasm. Nor do I want to replicate those policies here.
I hate the Alt Right and the Ctrl Left pretty equally.
As for "overwhelmingly", you make it sound like we're living in Mexico but have the indecency of calling it the US. As for the current state of population, LA is around 50% Latino at most. That isn't illegal immigrants. Those aren't people that identify as Mexicans in America. Those are Americans. Some even voted for Trump.
All territory was formerly part of someone else's territory. Borders move and people along with them. I feel no moral burden to accommodate previous inhabitants, nor would I expect any if the table was turned. That said, if states truly moved to nullify federal law based on a tenable legal position, I'd listen. However, they'd have to make such an argument, as opposed to a philosophical one (like yours, which I don't agree with).
As for your "understanding" of the origin of sanctuary cities, you've been reading fake news.
I do, however, think sanctuary cities (which are so fuzzily defined legally...) create an incentive for illegal immigration. It sends a message that one need only get through the border to make it permanent. My family immigrated legally. They should too.
If states choose not to enforce federal law, I think they need to clearly establish a legal position as to why.
So, you support states rights? Tell me why abortion is a federal issue then?
The lunacy is bipartisan.
Personally, I am ambivalent (and technically I am a Californian).
Pathetic.
Large orgs always have stories like this. Management and accountability are hard to scale and the problem is as true for the private sector as it is for public.
Customs is a straw man for the argument at large, but nevertheless the statement works: I prefer small government because I've seen the collassal fuckups they are capable of at scale.
(My favorite government entity is the USGS)
@fictioncircle: no reply available, so I'll address your question here: no, we should not ban large business. We should provide basic structure to support competition. Since government is not something we can frame competitively (we can't pick which government to use once one is established without substantial "frictions"), we should just keep them small and out of the way.
Dude, seriously: customs needs no help to suck more at their job. This shit has always happened.
As an American with Australian family, they always tell me how much easier dealing with the G is here when they visit and drive their massive rented RV around.
For a foreign scholar performing a substantial lecture (like teaching a course), a J-1 visa is required. For a simple conference presentation, you should absolutely be able to get by on a B visa. Some new guy got confused. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Before Trump took office, customs was a pain in the ass for _citizens_ of this country. It will continue to be a pain in the ass for a long, long time.
I don't want to be a jerk, but you are wrong to a phenomenal degree.
Really hard to prove attribution. The assumption that the election was won because everyone who didnt vote like you was "manipulated" is insulting. We're all just getting more entrenched.
As for shell accounts, tinfoil hat is all I'm hearing. Prove it. There is more substance in DNC leaked emails than any of this left conspiracy nonsense.
Edit: wtf is fraud laundering?
This is nothing new. This is the Obama data machine/Civis/270/etc etc (who didn't Eric Schmidt fund after 2012?), AFL-CIO/Catalist, the party databases... This is the basic strategy today regardless of side. Whatever business layer Cambridge Analytica has on top of that data is not novel.
The "conspiracy" to manipulate is truly bipartisan now.