Should they stay or be sent back?

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Hermskii

www.Hermskii.com
Apr 13, 2003
875
3
18
56
Houston
Hermskii.com
What do you think about the recent activity at the United State's southern border? Should the United States stop these folks from crossing into the USA? Should the United States let them in to stay? Should these border-crossers be sent home? Who should get to stay and under what conditions?
 

Al

Reaper
Jun 21, 2005
6,032
221
63
41
Philadelphia, PA
Stay. Just like our ancestors were allowed to stay (unless you're Native American).

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
 

ZenPirate

Living Legend (and moderator)
Nov 21, 2000
7,516
9
38
51
New York
Stay. Just like our ancestors were allowed to stay (unless you're Native American).

That they were sent all the way from home through Mexico to reach the States in hope of a life makes me think we should allow them to stay. Who among us could even imagine making that kind of journey, or sending our kids to make it alone? Those that say we cant afford it need to seriously look at how much money the government blows on insanely stupid things.
 

cryptophreak

unbalanced
Jul 2, 2011
1,011
62
48
National barriers are arbitrary, no matter how bold you make the lines on the map.

Being shot out of a vagina onto a random plot of earth does not grant you ownership of it.
 

JohnDoe641

Killer Fools Pro
Staff member
Nov 8, 2000
5,330
51
48
41
N.J.
www.zombo.com
National barriers are arbitrary, no matter how bold you make the lines on the map.

Being shot out of a vagina onto a random plot of earth does not grant you ownership of it.
Animals claim territory by pissing on trees and shrubs which tells others "this is my place". Instead of pissing on trees we use processed dead trees with ink to mark our boundaries.
 

gopostal

Active Member
Jan 19, 2006
848
47
28
Being shot out of a vagina onto a random plot of earth does not grant you ownership of it.
That's a rather gross oversimplification but I'd have to disagree completely.

Since the beginnings of society we have gathered into groups for protection and strength. Being borne into your group (mostly) automatically assumes you some level of ownership/citizenship/membership into said society. That can be a village, family, clan, tribe, or nation. It makes sense too, otherwise your group won't last past it's current generation.

Yeah, getting 'shot out' does infer you with ownership. It may not be a physical spot you can point to and build a house on but it does generally award you a 'home'.
 

cryptophreak

unbalanced
Jul 2, 2011
1,011
62
48
Humans have done lots of things in the past. Not all of those traditions should be carried forward.
 

gopostal

Active Member
Jan 19, 2006
848
47
28
To be fair it's one thing to be accepting and inclusive of immigrants but it's completely another to disallow conquering. Nations and societies get overtaken and to the victor goes the spoils. If you don't allow for that then the world becomes a place reduced to "firsties".

The problem with defaulting to "who was here first" is arbitrating that decision. By that line of reasoning the North American Indian also owns all of Canada and the entire South American continent. Oh wait, the Russians would like to claim the entirety of the Americas since they are senior. Ah hell, let's just give the world back to the Africans.

There's good logic behind saying it's proper for a conquering force to decide their own agenda in the new land. They earned it so unless they grow and prosper via trade, etc. they are likely going to be conquered in turn.

As for people emigrating into the USA my concern is that it will lead to a serious schism developing along sociological lines. We traveled to DisneyLand a few years back and from Sacramento south California is very much like North Mexico. Everyone speaks Spanish in the valley we ran into. I swear to you we stopped at a gas station (I-5, near Bakersfield) and the clerk said "Oh look, white people!" when we walked in. I immediately went red alert and the clerk saw that. "Oh no, come in! We just never see white people." I ended up chatting with him for 10 minutes or so and he was a really nice guy. That chat cemented in my mind though that immigration needs to be a trickle and not a flow, and that integration has to occur. France is doing it right, we could learn some lessons from them.
 

Vaskadar

It's time I look back from outer space
Feb 12, 2008
2,689
53
48
34
Fort Lauderdale, FL
France is doing it right, we could learn some lessons from them.

As much as we bash the French, there's a lot they've done right socially. Sociological therapy and psychology being one such example.

Instead of giving kids ritalin to 'treat' their ADD or ADHD, they've treated it with social therapy.

We've got a lot to learn from Norway and Sweden, too.
 

Balton

The Beast of Worship
Mar 6, 2001
13,428
118
63
39
Berlin
I say kick everyone back so we all can BBQ together in good ol' Africa with our great great ancestors the San :) .
 

Carbon

Altiloquent bloviator.
Mar 23, 2013
557
10
18
A question that has no definitive answer really. Law and morality are not always corollaries. Legally, they go back. Morally, they might stay, depending on perhaps a few variables, primarily a life-threatening situation from external forces if they return.

North Korean refugees arriving in the South is a good example of this kind of situation; the South lets them stay, knowing that upon return they will be killed or put into a labor camp in which they will most certainly die (also because they are essentially kin of the same blood and lineage, a strong moral obligation), where China just ships them back. China favors legality above morality and has a differing view on the value of individuals as humans with rights. The US has no such moral obligation to Mexico or Cuba, thus making it a legal question in their eyes, and that makes the answer simple. If it were Canadians coming down or Brits pouring over, I bet there would be a different attitude.

Hunger and poverty are not sound reasons to just go to another country without due process. There are systems in place for these scenarios, but they are typically reserved for a mass exodus, not individuals.

The "we all should go because the natives were here first" argument is a separate discussion altogether with its own set of unique and now bygone circumstances and has no part in this discussion.

Is this one of those threads where the question posed is heavy and dense requiring thoughtful answers or is it another one of those times where one will be ridiculed for thinking too much or posting a long answer? Seems bait-and-switchy to me, but it is a good topic.
 

gopostal

Active Member
Jan 19, 2006
848
47
28
I'll treat is as legit just like you and ignore the tard replies. We can have nice things here brother and discussions can be part of that.