Death toll at the border

[turtlespeed 212]

5 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

The other part of the solution is to address what's going on in their countries of origin, and work to make life better in those places so people don't feel the need to risk their (and their kids') lives to migrate to the U.S. 

How would you do that?

It has been shown to be unwise to just give money.

 

And occupation and restructuring is pretty inefficient, if it is effective at all.

Edited May 23, 2019 by turtlespeed

[TriGirl 268]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

How would you do that?

It has been shown to be unwise to just give money.

There are more ways to work with another government than just to give money.

Edited May 23, 2019 by TriGirl

[turtlespeed 212]

5 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

There are more ways to work with another government than just to give money.

Suggestions?

[TriGirl 268]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

Suggestions?

Fine.

-- Discover (yes, that is a long process) reasons why law enforcement is ineffective in said country. Identify bits that can be improved by training, SOPs, gear/vehicles, etc (just some examples) and develop programs and agreements to implement said assistance.

-- Look at the economic processes in that country to determine (again, simplified statement) ways to revitalize the economy. (better/more economic opportunities reduce the choice to go to organized crime)

-- Discover what limitations that county may have to access to affordable, healthy food (usually multiple limitations/issues contribute to this problem), and suggest ways to mitigate those limitations.

-- Repeat for basic education, including vocational education in food management and basic health care.

 

Need more? 

[turtlespeed 212]

11 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

Fine.

-- Discover (yes, that is a long process) reasons why law enforcement is ineffective in said country. Identify bits that can be improved by training, SOPs, gear/vehicles, etc (just some examples) and develop programs and agreements to implement said assistance.

-- Look at the economic processes in that country to determine (again, simplified statement) ways to revitalize the economy. (better/more economic opportunities reduce the choice to go to organized crime)

-- Discover what limitations that county may have to access to affordable, healthy food (usually multiple limitations/issues contribute to this problem), and suggest ways to mitigate those limitations.

-- Repeat for basic education, including vocational education in food management and basic health care.

 

Need more? 

No.

I mean . . . that all sounds good.

Its as realistic as the NGD though.

 

As I imagine what would need to be done to achieve, even a small amount of what you are proposing, it would take an occupation.

The law enforcement in those countries is corrupt.  You can try - but I don't think you will get far uncorrupting them.

The same goes for the political structure there.

You are basically going to need to go in and revamp the entire country.

 

I, for one, definitely oppose one world government.

I don't believe that the US has any responsibility to police the world.

We should let that fall directly on the UN, and its police force.

Its time we held them accountable for being what they say they are.

[jakee 1,254]

6 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't believe that the US has any responsibility to police the world.

We should let that fall directly on the UN, and its police force.

Its time we held them accountable for being what they say they are.

Um, right. What, or who, do you think the UN is?

[turtlespeed 212]

5 minutes ago, jakee said:

Um, right. What, or who, do you think the UN is?

Well - it should be the other countries in the world  - and us.

Lets divide the responsibility up by population.

 

Excluding all non citizens, of course.

Edited May 23, 2019 by turtlespeed

[billvon 2,399]

8 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

As I imagine what would need to be done to achieve, even a small amount of what you are proposing, it would take an occupation.

Tostan, Doctors without Borders, Unicef, the Peace Corps, Global Partnership for Education and BOMA all do what was described above - start healthcare programs, educate local doctors, provide education for children, dig wells and start small businesses.  They have all been pretty successful for their scale (small.)  They didn't need any occupations.

Quote

We should let that fall directly on the UN, and its police force.  Its time we held them accountable for being what they say they are.

Great.  If we want to hold them accountable, we might want to pay what we owe them first.

[turtlespeed 212]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

Tostan, Doctors without Borders, Unicef, the Peace Corps, Global Partnership for Education and BOMA all do what was described above - start healthcare programs, educate local doctors, provide education for children, dig wells and start small businesses.  They have all been pretty successful for their scale (small.)  They didn't need any occupations.

Great.  If we want to hold them accountable, we might want to pay what we owe them first.

Sure thing.

I'm for it.

Edited May 23, 2019 by turtlespeed
But lets call in all our loans as well.

[billvon 2,399]

4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

But lets call in all our loans as well.

Sure, we could do that.  But no one will take us seriously unless we are willing to do the same.  Do you have a spare $22 trillion?

[turtlespeed 212]

17 hours ago, billvon said:

Sure, we could do that.  But no one will take us seriously unless we are willing to do the same.  Do you have a spare $22 trillion?

You say that like we - or anyone does.

Money isn't real anymore.

Edited May 24, 2019 by turtlespeed
Money isn't VERY real, anymore.

[turtlespeed 212]

19 hours ago, TriGirl said:

Fine.

-- Discover (yes, that is a long process) reasons why law enforcement is ineffective in said country. Identify bits that can be improved by training, SOPs, gear/vehicles, etc (just some examples) and develop programs and agreements to implement said assistance.

-- Look at the economic processes in that country to determine (again, simplified statement) ways to revitalize the economy. (better/more economic opportunities reduce the choice to go to organized crime)

-- Discover what limitations that county may have to access to affordable, healthy food (usually multiple limitations/issues contribute to this problem), and suggest ways to mitigate those limitations.

-- Repeat for basic education, including vocational education in food management and basic health care.

 

Need more? 

Here is more of what I was speaking to - 

Quoted from another thread - Tarrifs 

 

"Brazil's educational system has in large part been ruined by a focus on the Brazilian equivalent of charter schools, and "school choice." So the poor schools get minimal funding, and the students suffer. But no one really cares, because the people with power get more.

Just as the free-ish public universities are entirely merit-based, with an entrance exam. Sounds good, right? But that means that the richer students, who went to better schools, and can afford an exam tutor or exam preparation class will do better. The poorer students get to go to the (not free) private universities. Which they can't afford.

My family has extensive connections there.

Wendy P"

[BIGUN 1,053]

On 5/23/2019 at 3:19 PM, TriGirl said:

There are more ways to work with another government than just to give money.

There is a business model out there that if any leader in the Central and South American countries would use - it would solve both their problems and ours. It's not a quick fix, but a plan. One that we could work with them on. 

 

 

[billvon 2,399]

10 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

You say that like we - or anyone does.

Agreed.  We can't just "call in loans."  Without debt our economy collapses.

[yobnoc 142]

https://nyti.ms/2I4O3oW

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

https://nyti.ms/2I4O3oW

So let me get this straight.

In order to make it more difficult for a person to break the law - It was made more difficult for them to break the law.

 

There is a simple answer to this.  . . . Don't  . . . cross . . . the . . . border . . . illegally.

Has anyone thought that maybe the cause is the solution?

Cause and effect.

Don't cross - don't get lost in the desert -

 

I assume you still jump?

You take a risk every time you throw yourself out of an airplane - 

One where - you can do everything right and still end up dead.

No one MAKES you jump.  Hell - you have to pay for it.

If you make a jump and end up injured or dead - because you broke the rules - who's accountability is it? 

Would you blame the US government because of its rules in the FAR? 

 

What about BASE jumping?

Why isn't there a whole movement of people blaming governments around the world for BASE jumpers getting injured as they illegally BASE or Trespass?

 

No one MAKES anyone else cross the border.  No one MAKES anyone make the long trip - in unsanitary, unhealthy conditions.

Unless one is speaking about the parents of children that dont have any choice - and to that I say, if you endanger your child - you should suffer the same fate as the child, if harm comes to them by your risky behavior, negligent acts, and endangerment to those children.

 

What I see here is people justifying the "Lutz frame of mind"

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Of course the other way to look at it is: imagine how bad things need to be to take that level of risk

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Of course the other way to look at it is: imagine how bad things need to be to take that level of risk

Yup. Some folks seem to think these people have a choice.

[gowlerk 1,911]

10 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Yup. Some folks seem to think these people have a choice.

They do have a choice, or choices. But none of them are good choices. So they decide from among the bad choices available to them. It's a gamble, a life and death gamble. Breaking US law is only a small factor for them in the decision. Getting up on your high horse about the morality of illegal border crossing is simply refusing to see the problem from both sides.

[turtlespeed 212]

15 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Of course the other way to look at it is: imagine how bad things need to be to take that level of risk

That sucks.  It does - and they have little to no fault in that.

That doesn't make hypocrisy OK.

 

It doesn't make it ok to incorrectly blame a government for enforcing its own laws.

 

Another way to look at it is this: 

If they would have stayed where they were:

Would they be lost in a desert?

Would they have to call 911?  

Would they have lived longer?

 

Again - no one MAKES anyone do that - In fact it is strongly discouraged.

So much in fact that the act is illegal.

 

Change the laws if you can.  Otherwise Blame the right people.

Hold the people that actually started the chain of events that directly led to the situations on this side of the border.

 

STOP CROSSING ILLEGALLY . . . 

 

 

[yobnoc 142]

58 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

So let me get this straight.

In order to make it more difficult for a person to break the law - It was made more difficult for them to break the law.

 

There is a simple answer to this.  . . . Don't  . . . cross . . . the . . . border . . . illegally.

Has anyone thought that maybe the cause is the solution?

Cause and effect.

Don't cross - don't get lost in the desert -

 

I assume you still jump?

You take a risk every time you throw yourself out of an airplane - 

One where - you can do everything right and still end up dead.

No one MAKES you jump.  Hell - you have to pay for it.

If you make a jump and end up injured or dead - because you broke the rules - who's accountability is it? 

Would you blame the US government because of its rules in the FAR? 

 

What about BASE jumping?

Why isn't there a whole movement of people blaming governments around the world for BASE jumpers getting injured as they illegally BASE or Trespass?

 

No one MAKES anyone else cross the border.  No one MAKES anyone make the long trip - in unsanitary, unhealthy conditions.

Unless one is speaking about the parents of children that dont have any choice - and to that I say, if you endanger your child - you should suffer the same fate as the child, if harm comes to them by your risky behavior, negligent acts, and endangerment to those children.

 

What I see here is people justifying the "Lutz frame of mind"

 

So...you agree that people should be prosecuted and potentially spend 20 years in prison for leaving safe drinking water in the desert? 

We are a nation of laws, yes.  But our laws are supposed to be without cruel intent.  If the efficacy of the law is measured in alien deaths, that's one problem.  But the problem of prosecuting someone for providing life-saving aid to another person is another problem.  I suppose you'd rather we not waste time reviving someone who has been shot by police during the commission of a crime?  Or taking a DUI crash suspect to the hospital?  And while we're at it, let's lock up paramedics who revive someone when they're on death's door due to a drug overdose.  After all: taking illicit drugs is illegal.

It's ok to admit you're wrong on this point. 

[turtlespeed 212]

7 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

So...you agree that people should be prosecuted and potentially spend 20 years in prison for leaving safe drinking water in the desert? 

I said no such thing.

BUT - if it is proven that the people that did such things are guilty in a court of law because it is illegal, right now, to do that, then, yes.

I support adjudicating it within the boundaries of the law.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. 

7 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

We are a nation of laws, yes.  But our laws are supposed to be without cruel intent.  If the efficacy of the law is measured in alien deaths, that's one problem.  But the problem of prosecuting someone for providing life-saving aid to another person is another problem.

I think you misunderstood.  Go back and re read what I wrote.  I never said anyone should be prosecuted for anything that wasn't illegal.

7 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

 I suppose you'd rather we not waste time reviving someone who has been shot by police during the commission of a crime?

You suppose wrong.

I wouldn't willingly spend my tax dollars to illegally cross into mexico to treat their crime victims though.

7 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

 Or taking a DUI crash suspect to the hospital? 

Nope - But the solution is to not drink and drive.  Just like it is to not cross the border illegally.

If you take the two illegal acts out of the equation - there is no accident and no need for rescue.

7 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

And while we're at it, let's lock up paramedics who revive someone when they're on death's door due to a drug overdose.  After all: taking illicit drugs is illegal.

Giving aid isn't what I'm disagreeing with.

Follow the law.  Its pretty simple, really.

 

DON'T CROSS THE BORDER ILLEGALLY - then 911 won't have to be called.

They illegal border crossers are the one to blame here.

It was their choice.

 

7 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

It's ok to admit you're wrong on this point. 

I will say that I am wrong, when you admit, without reservation, that you advocate breaking the laws of this country.

[yobnoc 142]

5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

 

I will say that I am wrong, when you admit, without reservation, that you advocate breaking the laws of this country.

That's a strawman, but I'll give you this: If giving mortal aid like water or shelter to a person that otherwise has a high chance of dying without it is against the law, then yes.  I absolutely am for breaking that law. 

Is your argument that legality=morality? 

[turtlespeed 212]

18 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

That's a strawman, but I'll give you this: If giving mortal aid like water or shelter to a person that otherwise has a high chance of dying without it is against the law, then yes.  I absolutely am for breaking that law. 

Is your argument that legality=morality? 

Not necessarily, but in some cases it is.

ARE there laws against helping people?  They should be changed.  

What was your reference?

The real straw man here is where you tried to say my arguments are different than they are.

My argument in its most simple form is this - perhaps you have seen me write it  here:

DON'T CROSS THE BORDER ILLEGALLY

That has nothing whatsoever to do with water in the desert, or Paramedics being called.

My argument is that if they don't illegally cross the border, or even start on the quest to do so - then the other things logically are not an issue.

 

[lippy 771]

26 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Not necessarily, but in some cases it is.

ARE there laws against helping people?  They should be changed.  

What was your reference?

The real straw man here is where you tried to say my arguments are different than they are.

My argument in its most simple form is this - perhaps you have seen me write it  here:

DON'T CROSS THE BORDER ILLEGALLY

That has nothing whatsoever to do with water in the desert, or Paramedics being called.

My argument is that if they don't illegally cross the border, or even start on the quest to do so - then the other things logically are not an issue.

 

Is it illegal to walk across in the middle of the desert with the intent of requesting asylum?  Honest question.