Social Question

seawulf575's avatar

What is the driving force for the conservative election wins across the world?

Asked by seawulf575 (10800points) June 3rd, 2019

Across the world, right wing parties have been winning elections. So many have won that the EU ruling coalition has lost their majority for the first time ever. What is the driver for this trend?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

111 Answers

Response moderated (Writing Standards)
ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Economics. People in less affluent areas are being ignored, getting angry and casting votes away from those who only focus on issues where the most GDP is located. Urban centers with high tech buisiness and an educated population get the attention. Here in the states we are talking the deeply blue coasts with good jobs, fancy restaurants, Mcmansions shopping and flashy cars. People in economically depressed areas like the rust belt are making themselves heard by doing this. To a degree it needs to happen because we should not ignore the economic disparity. It’s not propaganda doing this, it’s the laborer who can’t feed their family after the only factory left in town closed. Nothing is mentioned about their situation but they hear all the PC stuff like who gets to use which bathroom. Not surprising Trump won. It’ll probably happen again too.

LostInParadise's avatar

Neoliberal meritocracy has created a second class of non-college educated blue collar workers. The are open to right wing populists preaching against educated elites. These populists are not going to do any good. After they fail then maybe we can do some serious thinking on how to overhaul neoliberalism. Link

gondwanalon's avatar

Perhaps people like less taxes, less regulation and more personal freedom.

gorillapaws's avatar

It’s been an abandonment of the left’s pro-worker position in favor of pro-corporate policies. Workers feel betrayed and instead of blaming fauxgressives for abandoning them. They’re turning to xenophobic and racist messaging. It’s not a new strategy btw.

ragingloli's avatar

Right wing propaganda fuelling xenophobia.

zenvelo's avatar

It’s the first large political reaction to the disruption of climate change.

Climate change is causing civil disturbances, which in turn increases migration and a backlash to migrants leads to things like Brexit and the rise of the right in Italy, France, and Germany.

ragingloli's avatar

The main cause of the current refugee issue, is the destabilisation of the Middle East, which is a direct result of the military interventionism perpetrated by the colonies and their lackeys in the last 2 decades.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@ragingloli – get serious. Six decades. Not two.

KNOWITALL's avatar

People are tired of the constant blathering of liberals and the faux outrage, ready to move forward even if it takes a few tries to get there.

stanleybmanly's avatar

People attribute their declining well being to others with EXACTLY the same desires and aspirations as THEMSELVES. The rise of right wing authoritarianism and the catastrophic deterioration of social democracy go hand in hand. Putin, Trump, Kim, these are kindred people with the avowed selfsame views on the world and its inhabitants. Who do YOU suppose is going to pay the price for the realization of those views. Who ALWAYS pays? So I ask the op (once again) why would Putin prefer Trump over Hillary as President of the United States?

MrGrimm888's avatar

Fear of change. Nationalism. Racism. Xenophobia. Greed. Hate. Intolerance. Homophobia. Religion…

Essentially, all of humanity’s worst traits…

Zaku's avatar

Maybe it’s the same answer as the question about rats and lab experiments where conditions get more and more intolerable until they eat each other.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly You need to expand your list of leaders. Putin wasn’t even recently elected, nor was Trump, and Kim stepped into daddy’s shoes. But now we have to add Le Pen, Farage, Salvini, Orban, Maurer, and several more. But interestingly, the “right-wing authoritarianism” and “deterioration of social democracy” had nothing to do with these elections. It appears that one of the driving forces in all these elections was that the people were tired of the left-wing policies and authoritarianism that were flooding their lands with immigrants…immigrants that were destroying their nations and their cultures. Just an interesting note to think about.

LostInParadise's avatar

We will see how well Trump’s policies work. I don’t think that corporate tax breaks, tariff wars, immigration restrictions, thrashing allies while supporting autocrats, climate change denial, fossil fuel industry promotion and ignoring renewable alternatives are going to make things better. We will see how things stand next year.

stanleybmanly's avatar

“immigrants destroying their nations and their cultures”. Here’s a note to think about—you—an alleged American sympathizing with pleas for ethnic and racial purity while resident in a land founded and sustained on immigrants. If you knew a little more about the history of the world you occupy, you might recognize the implications of the current jingoistic wave encircling the globe. Does Trump’s claim that “America is full” remind you of anyone? How about the harangue of migrants as vermin and depraved criminals? Ring any right wing bells? Putin—elected? We won’t get into that right now. But your list of the “new kids on the block” is just the sort of ideal he dreams about. Meanwhile we have the fool hell bent on the breakup of both Nato and the European Union and I ask you once more: why would Putin prefer the fool as President of the United States?

ragingloli's avatar

”“immigrants destroying their nations and their cultures”.
And that is the right wing propaganda I was referring to.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli I think you have absorbed too much left-wing propaganda. In almost every election where conservatives won (and there were lots), one of the big issues was how the liberals had dealt with immigrants and what those immigrants had done to their land. That isn’t even propaganda…it’s just how it is. But what you can’t seem to see (because of your overload of left-wing propaganda, I suspect) is that most people don’t want open borders with anyone entering the country that wants to. And not just in this country, this is across Europe and Australia.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^“immigrants destroying their nations, and their cultures.”

Well. That proves my response.

I could have written that for you, word for word.

You seem to be confusing destruction, with change. Inevitable change…

seawulf575's avatar

^oh, I don’t know. If your government is bringing in loads of immigrants and those immigrants are causing problems and the government does nothing, that isn’t fear, racism, xenophobia or any of the other liberal labels that really mean you have no argument. It is called anger and it comes out at the ballot box. Remember our 2016 election? That’s what that was all about.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Now that you’ve explained that, perhaps you can explain how you aren’t a hypocrite… That’s what you are about.

ragingloli's avatar

It is not “immigrants” that are destroying the environment, and lobbying politicians to prevent any effective action against global warming.
It is not immigrants that are destroying liberties by trying to turn countries into surveillance and police states to “combat terrorism”.
It is not immigrants that combat workers rights and protections and try to shift power from the people to corporations.
It is not immigrants that work their hardest to deny rights to women, gays and other minorities.
It is not immigrants that push for dismantling protections for the poor.
No, funnily enough, all the “destruction of nations” is being perpetrated by your ilk.
And then you sit there and try to scapegoat others.
No, your whole “immigrants are destroying nations” has as much truth to it as this

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I don’t think @seawulf575 knows where you are. It might enlighten him, to know…

ragingloli's avatar

The only thing that will enlighten him is a brain transplant.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I don’t think he has any brain problems. Just a raging case of Trump syndrome. Possibly incurable…

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli Immigrants aren’t destroying the environment…huh. Then maybe you can explain this article
https://cis.org/Feere/GAO-Report-Illegal-Aliens-Start-Forest-Fires

Immigrants are not destroying liberties by trying to turn countries into surveilance and police states. Then how about this article:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones

or this one:

https://cis.org/Cadman/NoGo-Zones-and-Assimilation

It is not immigrants that work their hardest to deny rights to women, gays and other minorities. Huh. Then how about this article:
https://redice.tv/news/paris-no-go-zones-where-migrants-terrorize-women-threaten-its-2024-olympics-bid

Or

http://forms.nomoredeaths.org/support-the-trans-gay-migrant-caravan/ I found this one interesting since they are fleeing from treatment that would kill them in many of the countries where you want us to take immigrants from.

Or

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/norway-has-teach-immigrants-not-rape-women

So effectively, the liberal view on immigration has led to all these problems. And you are in denial. That makes you part of the problem, not the solution. Your solution is to continue to promulgate this sort of behavior. And it is these sort of things that the people are voting against.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Yep. You’re definitely incurable…

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@MrGrimm888
Too many hours of being underwater and not knowing if you’ll seesunshine again, it will cause you to have twisted viewpoint of the real world.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
ragingloli's avatar

Listen, child. We gave you the correct answer to your asked-in-bad-faith question.
Naturally you just dismiss it, because you are already brainwashed by the right wing propaganda that you yourself parrot.
You are so far gone, that you can not even tell the difference between the isolated acts of individuals and the systematic efforts of an entire political class.
But we all know there is nothing that will sway you.
Fucking god and jesus descended from the heavens, told you “they are right, you know”, you would only scoff.
No, this is for anyone else, who reads it, for whom there is still hope.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The rest of you are missing the point that there is more to the op than you can discern from this question. Have you ever noticed that he is consistently on the the side of stupidly warped logic, regardless of the issue? This question, for example is a rather naked and open appeal to xenophobia aimed at people too STUPID to recognize (or pronounce) it for what it is. And that’s true for ALL of his bullshit. I mean just READ the crap he tells us HE believes. I mean the ABSOLUTE absurdity of defining refugees as firebugs intent on burning down our trees. Who legitimately can believe ANYTHING so stupid. The same with attempting to convert the refugee crisis to a matter of drug smuggling—it’s bullshit and he knows it. And by now it is rather plain that no one could possibly be THIS stupid, on EVERY issue, so what IS the motive. What’s his mission & why does he bother? He and the dog aren’t going to make any headway here with anyone who can muster the intellect of a waterbug, so what’s the deal? In truth, when I read the responses of the few here who tolerate his point of view, I find it depressing. It’s like an open admission that “I am stupid”. But It’s pointless arguing with him in the hope that he will see the light. Clearly that is not what he’s being paid for.

LostInParadise's avatar

I did a search on McCain’s claims that immigrants started wildfires and found this. There is no evidence and it doesn’t even make sense. What would illegal immigrants gain from starting a fire? They lose cover and call attention to themselves. Why would they want to do this?

MrGrimm888's avatar

^You may be 100% right. But some of us, are hopelessly optimistic, that some truth will sink in. Especially to those who have the capability to think for themselves…

LostInParadise's avatar

The way to lower the crime rate would be to allow more immigrants. Link

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise the link you gave concerning the immigrants starting wildfires doesn’t really give any evidence at all. It is a propaganda piece at best. As to what would the immigrants gain from starting a fire? Warmth. A place to gather as a group. There are any number of reasons for a fire. No one has said they started these wildfires purposely, but they show extreme lack of concern for their actions…leaving the fire when it can still cause a problem for instance.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Considering their numbers, the claim that undocumented immigrants to even be a moderate factor in wildfires is just plain sensationalist nonsense. If the deluge of people were consistent with the rate of fires there wouldn’t be a tree left west of the Mississippi?

MrGrimm888's avatar

Wildfires, are started by many different ways. A recently running car parked over high grass. A spark from a chain dragging behind a trailer. Even lightning.

Wildfires, in the western part of America, predate any immigration issues… Except for European immigrants. They put out any fires they noticed, leading to a build up of lots of dry, fire vulnerable undergrowth, that naturally occurs, and before European immigrants, burnt itself out. Now… Fires spread faster, because the natural burning process, of the undergrowth, was stopped.

The most current wildfires, with the exception of arson, are started accidentally, by ALL types of people. NOT just immigrants.

It is beyond stupid, to blame ANY specific group of people, for a naturally occurring event… But… Trumpers have to cling to illogical threats, to keep the fear mongering going. Otherwise, they just look like bigoted idiots. Which most are…

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 you, better than most, should know that in today’s world, they are often very capable of identifying where and how a large fire started with a high degree of accuracy. If you bothered to actually read the article I cited (or the GAO report it is based on), you will see it doesn’t say immigrants started all the fires. In fact, if you read, they say that many of these wildfires are never investigated. But of 77 that were investigated along the Arizona border with Mexico, 30 of them could be traced back to illegal border crossers. That’s almost 40 percent.
Now you can argue all day long because you don’t like the facts, but they aren’t my facts…they come from the US Government Accounting Office.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Excellent. 30 fires… Wow! They ARE destroying the country! Since you love digging up stats, how about looking up how many wildfires there are. You’ll find that 30, is a VERY low number. Especially in the western US… While you’re at it, see how many were started by white Christian people.

You’re busy making mountains, out of mole hills, just to justify your bigotry. Same tactic Trump uses, to make immigrants seem more dangerous than they are. If you bothered thinking it through, you’re telling me that you believe that immigrants come thousands of miles, just to set fire to the place where they want to make a new life. Does that sound logical?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 The bulk of the” immigrant started” fires were caused by fires; to call for help, campfires for cooking food and for warmth. NOT INTENTIONAL !

INTENTIONAL
is hating brown-skinned people because of their color!

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Don’t forget culture. Trumpers are scared of losing their precious culture.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@seawulf575 Even after tons of proof, these nuts still don’t believe illegals commit crimes in the US. I’ve posted links to official sites, news articles, etc…they just don’t get it.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I’m going to call you OUT.

Here are the facts from a Fire & Rescue site.

Oh it has McCain quotes so . . . . . Trump followers instantly say it is BS but @seawulf575 quoted from same Federal report.

You hating too @KNOWITALL ! ! ! Bias and bigotory !

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Tropical_Willie You can’t call me out, because you posted above that the campfires “were for cooking food and warmth, not intentional”. So you already know the truth…lol, you make me laugh though! Better luck next time!

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Laughing Ha-Ha when caught is called deflection !

ragingloli's avatar

Numbers.
2500 wild fires between 2006 and 2001.
Of those, 30 were linked to border crossers.
That is 1.2 percent.

1123 fire incident reports.
57 “suspicions” by firefighters that border crossers are responsible.
That is 5%. Again, only suspicions, not confirmed.

Does that sound like “destruction of nations” to you?

And that is in a region that is frequented often by border crossers.
How much less of those fires do you want to blame them for in the rest of the country?

Maybe you should also lobby for all the christians to be kicked out of the country, because of the rampant child rape in churches.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@ragingloli You made me “snort my soda out my nose” !

MrGrimm888's avatar

We could also factor in that white “native born” people in America represent most serial killers, perpetrators of mass killings, arsonists, perpetrators of hate crimes etc… And yet I hear no complaints about white people from the right… I wonder why they cling to things like wildfires caused by immigrants, and ignore intentional acts of “nation destroying” by their own race?...

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie doesn’t go to the official report, he goes to an opinion website and then tries to say that refutes the official report. And the rest of the liberal lemmings go right over the cliff with him. All because they can’t bear to say anything negative about illegal aliens. It is amazing to watch the extent they go to trying to defend their indefensible position.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^What’s indefensible, is that you target specific groups of people as detestable, and ignore the far bigger issues caused by your own kind. You throw way too many stones, for someone living in a glass house…

seawulf575's avatar

Okay, @MrGrimm888 we can play this out. Here’s how it goes. You act like you are high and mighty. I will challenge you with a few questions. You will avoid actually giving direct answers to those questions and will deflect and try changing the topic. Eventually you will give a direct answer to a question I didn’t ask. You will also try ridiculing me for asking such a silly question, entirely ignoring that I never asked it. Wanna play? Okay…..is it your stance that illegal aliens present absolutely no hazard to the US?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Trump is a present and absolute HAZARD to USA. With his bff Putin.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@seawulf575 hahaha, exactly. Not your first day here is it? Have fun kids.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . You just don’t get it… I am not “high, nor mighty,” in regards to such subjects. I am just the same as the rest. THAT’S what you seem incapable of understanding about subjects like immigration. In my mind, I am no different than these people. I have needs, like food, water, medical care. I have preferences, like not living in a warzone, having a chance to build a life for myself, and the desire for my family and I to have a chance to be happy.
And just like those immigrants, and other immigrants (which all jellies grow tired of reminding you that you are a direct descendant of) I am willing to work for my goals/needs, and contribute to whatever community I am a part of. The only difference between these immigrants, and ourselves, is where they were born. It’s just THAT simple. They are either refugees, or people in search of a better life. Both of which, the US is legally obligated to treat as fellow human beings, and offer either asylum, or a vetting process to…

If I come across as “high, and mighty,” it’s probably because I have to constantly call you, and some others, out on your shameful rhetoric regarding subjects like this one. And you DO need to be called out… Because your rhetoric indicates that you feel that you are somehow better than these immigrants. You aren’t… Your rhetoric paints you as a greedy, selfish, self-centered, xenophobic, intolerant, highly ignorant, gullible, whinny, bigot, who doesn’t have the guts to even honestly admit/stand by your fake principles (like caring about national security, when you just care about white security.) You quite often come across as a coward, and a hypocrite. Two of the main traits exhibited by Trump supporters…

As far as me responding to your “challenges,” to your liking, I could care less about such a close minded person’s opinions on my responses. Nothing I could ever say, would change the fact that you try and shape all of your “challenges,” and “facts,” to justify your flawed logic. You dig, and dig, for anything to remotely back up your fear mongering, and ignorance. Then turn around and ignore the far greater problems, that expose your thinly veiled agenda.

Is it my stance that illegal aliens represent absolutely no hazard to the US? Since I cannot get this through your skull, regardless of nail size, nor hammer weight, I will repeat it. This NOT a courtroom, so I am under zero obligation to give my answer in a yes, or no response.

Remember when I call you out, on why the US shouldn’t have a wall on the Canadian border, if national security (not racism ) is indeed your driving motivation for the wall? Your answer (though not verbatim) has been that you consider the southern border an exponentially greater threat, due to higher numbers of illegal crossings.
Now. Using this logic, I will respond in kind.
It is my stance, that illegal aliens are no more hazardous than our own legal population. In fact, they seem exponentially less hazardous than our legal population. But really, that’s never been an issue that I have chosen to defend. I have long ago given up trying to explain the fact that I do not support illegal aliens. I do however, fully support the vast majority of people coming here from south of the border, and most of them are seeking legal entry to the US. The caravans, for instance (or as you call them, “hordes of invaders”) are asylum seekers. As are the vast majority of others who make the treacherous journey.

“Wanna play?” Perhaps you can enlighten me, as to why I’ve never seen you voice concerns about legal, white, Christian citizens, and their tangible, very real hazards to the US?..

As is ALWAYS the case with you, your claimed concerns are only relevant to you, if they involve negative representations of people of color. You have provided Fluther, with a great deal of one sided concerns, questions, and “facts.” It is pointless, for you to deny this, and pointless to continue constantly attacking brown people, under the guise of issues with national security.

To recap. I think people like YOU, are far more hazardous to the US, than illegal aliens.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I agree Trump is despicable. He is a man absolutely without honor. The unseemly spectacle of this fool slandering these desperate raggedy people as arsonists, drug smugglers, terrorists, degrades all of us. I understand the requirement to maintain our borders. Turning these people away is close enough to cowardice for our country. But making shit up as a defense for stiff arming the defenseless and desperate is unconscionable. The fool is so morally bankrupt that he fails to appreciate that there is no honor in kicking the weak and defenseless. He is a perpetual embarrassment to common decency.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 9 paragraphs and only one that came close to answering the challenge. So your stance is that illegals are no more of a threat than our domestic criminals. Okay. So on to the next question. Do we have a handle on stopping our home-grown criminals?

MrGrimm888's avatar

My stance, is that the very small criminal element of the illegals, is less of a threat, than the US’s criminal elements. Also a small percentage of the population, but with sheer numbers alone, they are a much greater threat.

We (the US) do not have a handle on stopping our home-grown criminals. But we do know that there are steps that could reduce the threats. Such as better mental health care, fighting poverty, affordable housing, livable wages, improved gun control, better police training, better schools, more emphasis on education, changes in a litany of drug laws, reducing prison sentences for non-violent offenders, in fact a complete overhaul of the “justice system” would greatly benefit everyone. I could go on.

It would also be nice to have people in government lead by example, and be held accountable for their actions.

Something needs to be done about social media. Maybe at least, more monitoring of public online behavior.

Tracking bullet sales, instead of just background checks for firearms sales. California tried it briefly, and found that lots of people buying ammo, weren’t supposed to be able to possess firearms…

There are lots of ways to decrease crime rates. But sweeping changes would need to be mulled over, and followed though on…

seawulf575's avatar

Okay, so we don’t have a handle on our domestic criminals. You are downplaying the criminal element that comes across our border because there are drugs and human trafficking coming across all the time. And our weak border control doesn’t stop that so you have to count those as illegal aliens as well. So we are introducing more criminals into a nation that can’t deal with the current crop.
You bring up some interesting points…points I don’t think you considered with respect to our conversation. There are steps needed to combat the criminal element. Let’s go through a few of them. Fighting poverty. That could help. But all the illegals that march to our southern border…aren’t they mainly poor? So would an influx of poor people be more likely to help or hurt our criminal behaviors in this country? If you say “help”, your claim of fighting poverty to battle crime is total hogwash. If you stick with fighting poverty, then your answer has to be “hurt” and your stance on illegals falls apart. But let’s go on.
Affordable Housing. We don’t have enough affordable housing now…you said it yourself. So will the influx of illegals entering our country without proper procedures…will that help or hurt the housing issue? Again…if you say it will help, your claim of affordable housing being an issue falls apart….if you say it will hurt, you stance on illegals falls apart.
Livable wages. Your consider that we don’t have liveable wages now and that is contributing to crime. So will more people battling for the same jobs help or hurt the situation? Also, if the market is flooded with workers and jobs don’t go up, then wages would likely go down.
Improved Gun Control. Not sure what this has to do with the conversation about illegal aliens, but okay. What gun control laws would stop criminals from using guns? We already have laws that say discharging a firearm in certain areas is illegal. We have laws that say using a gun in the commission of a crime is illegal. We have laws against assault, threatening, murder….all sorts of laws. And they don’t stop the criminals. So which law are you going to pass that will stop those pesky criminals…that they will actually obey?
Better police training. As a former LEO, you should know that cops in many places are already stretched thin. They are treated as the bad guys all the time. So if you continue to bring in more and more people illegally, wouldn’t that make their jobs even harder? And what training would enable them to overcome this issue? Wouldn’t more illegals cause more crime as the cops get more overloaded?
Better Schools. Most schools are over-crowded. There aren’t enough good teachers to deal with the students we currently have. Allowing illegals into this country will only exacerbate this problem. So wouldn’t that hurt the crime rate?

You see the problem. Every thing you mentioned that you say could help combat the threats of existing crime, would be hurt by allowing more illegals into this country. So the next question is…if adding more illegals would actually add more criminals, and we can’t deal with what we have now, why would adding more make any sense at all?

MrGrimm888's avatar

^All of my suggestions, were based on making these illegals legal.

Yes. Many are poor, but that doesn’t mean that they are useless, or going to stay poor.
Currently, there are more jobs available, than legal citizens. Not great jobs, but a starting point.
Plus. If given legal status, they would be contributing, like paying income taxes. And they would have to buy stuff, so that would be good for the economy, and they would also be paying sales taxes.

Gun control. I specifically mentioned vetting/tracking who buys, or is allowed to buy ammo. It is indeed not challenging to acquire guns illegally. But making it harder to buy ammo, like say similar background checks to puchase ammo, as required to purchase a gun, would decrease the ability to use illegally obtained firearms. Currently, you just have to be 18 to buy long gin ammo, and 21 to buy handgun ammo. At least in my state.
Yes. Some ammo can also be acquired illegally, but such laws would certainly help. Not entirely prevent gun violence.

There is also no special attention garnered when someone buys a large amount of ammunition. If someone buys 20,000 rounds of say .223 cal/5.56, some agency should be made aware of it. Same with people who purchase multiple weapons. It would require more resources to do these things, but we could just add more taxes to guns/ammo.

You get flagged for buying lots of say fertilizer, because you may be trying to build a bomb. The same attention should be paid to ordinary people buying lots of guns and ammo, all at once, or within a certain amount of time.
Again, this won’t prevent all mass shootings, but maybe it might stop a few. As a gun enthusiast, I would have no problems paying a bit more for guns/ammo, if it meant society could be safer.

Police are currently, well mostly trained, to fire multiple rounds into potential threats. That was originally taught, to make sure officers survive a potential weapon exchange. But it is overkill, in most cases, and can also lead to bystanders being accidentally shot, or putting 14 rounds on a guy who just has a knife, or no weapons at all.
Police typically chamber hollow points/defense rounds, to decrease the amount of collateral damage caused by ricochets. A hollow point breaks up, when it doesn’t hit soft tissue, so fragments of bullets flying around, are better than an FMJ round bouncing around.
Training officers to fire less bullets, is (to me) following similar logic.

Not shooting an unarmed man 15 times, would greatly decrease the “bad guy image” cops have gotten.

Police are stretched thin, in many places. Are we to assume that these now legal immigrants, would not pursue jobs as cops? No. In fact, many legal immigrants join the US military. So. They already have a history of being people we trust with firearms, and protecting the nation.

Same with overcrowded schools. Are we to assume that no new citizens would pursue teaching jobs?

Adding people to a work force, any work force, should increase competition, and result in higher quality workers… Simple…Proven…

More people in the country, would require more people to work, to keep up with increased demands of all products.

Affordable housing. We just need to build more. Again, there would be an increased need in construction, increasing the number of people needed to be construction workers. Legal ones, who pay income tax, and buy cars to get to work, and buy more products of all types. Whichmeans more increased demand, and therefore more jobs.

Let me repeat. I’m not supporting a massive influx of illegal immigrants. I’m supporting making more legal. Again, another increase in demand for the jobs needed to properly vet the incoming, and more people paying taxes…

ALL of my suggestions would help, over time. The only thing is that there would be more brown people, who would dilute the right-wing’s desired culture. A culture that would inevitably change with time anyway.

So. The only real argument then becomes; some people are afraid of change.

Drug laws. We, as a country, need to entertain the idea of legalizing most drugs. Not the most popular idea, but it would stop the trafficking of drugs from all borders, because they could be made in the US. Stop the illegal sales of drugs, which is what leads to the majority of drug crime. And force illegal drug dealers, to get legal jobs. It would reduce prison populations, and add billions of tax revenue, that is produced by taxes on the now legal substances. A portion of this new tax money, could go into treatment facilities. The government already provides such services, so I don’t see why we wouldn’t at least be able to pour more funding into them.
It would likely reduce overdoses, and pathogens spread by dirty needles etc…

The bottom line, is that the drug war, was a complete failure, and is realistically an unwinnable fight. Legalizing drugs, would be the lesser of two evils, by a great stretch.

The way I see it. Immigrants are a resource. Obviously, after being vetted, and made legal…

If race, xenophobia, and nationalism, are not the true motivations for keeping these people out. Then let them in…

The US, was built on immigrants, and it is beyond ridiculous to deny that it cannot continue to be improved, in the same way…

seawulf575's avatar

^ “All of my suggestions, were based on making these illegals legal.” Funny that you couched ALL those suggestions with this statement:

“We (the US) do not have a handle on stopping our home-grown criminals. But we do know that there are steps that could reduce the threats.”

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that say you are making those suggestions to deal with the domestic crime and doesn’t mention illegals at all?

You did make a statement with which I agree, sort of: “I’m not supporting a massive influx of illegal immigrants. I’m supporting making more legal. ” But I find it funny. My stance is and has been all along that illegal immigration should be punished, but legal immigration is okay. Yet every time I make comments like that, I’m branded a racist, a xenophobe, I’m told I hate brown people…the list of epithets goes on.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That little bit about immigrants destroying European nations and cultures is straight up xenophobia and there’s no getting around it. You are a xenophobe whether you know
It or not. You claim your stance is that illegal immigration should be punished. This is clearly a position you share with the fool and it marks you as simplistic and bereft of intellect as the dummy himself. To begin with, your “stance” implies that illegal immigration is either NOT being punished or somehow not being punished ENOUGH. The shortfall in this premise is with its failure to extend the thought process toward answering the question: punishment to what purpose? Is the goal to punish immigrants or to reduce the influx of people? The fool’s answer is that we will reduce the influx of people THROUGH the punishment of immigrants. But the flaw in such reasoning is that it fails COMPLETELY to consider the motivations for the mass of people assaulting our borders. I agree that you and the fool’s simplistic reasoning is correct if you can arrange punishment at levels which surpass the motivation driving the exodus. The question then becomes—how much punishment is enough? Clearly you could kill them all. That might do the trick. But public sensibilities are not (yet) ready to tolerate measures quite so severe. How about kidnapping their kids and scattering them around the country without a trace? Well the fool tried that one and the courts handed him his ass.

Here’s your problem. Neither you or the fool is going to solve our immigrant flood through repressive measures while ignoring the factors driving the flood this way. The patently dishonest vilification of desperate people as drug smugglers, rapists and arsonists is contemptible and unworthy of this country, just another character flaw in the fool’s panoply of aberrations proving him unfit for office. But we as a people are not going to stem the flow through punishing our way out of it. Lying about the victims isn’t going to enable us to be more vicious than whatever is driving them here. A wall won’t save us and the jails are already packed with our own economic “refugees” We’re going to have to address the source.

ragingloli's avatar

He is also lying about his stance.
A bit above you can read, word for word, that his stance is that immigrants are destroying nations and cultures, and you will not find a qualifier like “illegal” in that post.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Seawulf Illegal immigration and reforming the process was so difficult Obama chose healthcare instead. Its another issue neither party has made progress on umtil now, with Trumps efforts. Fact is, we all know its broken, so why dont we spend more energy finding a solution than just accepting it. Frankly its our fault its got to thos point and folkz are taking advantage of our broken system.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli if you actually did some research into the recent elections in the EU and Australia, you would find that stance isn’t mine…I’m only reporting it. Of course basic reading comprehension could have given you that information as well, but then what do I expect from you?
As for the illegals, my stance is as I have always stuck with. Legal immigration is good. We can control it and it helps bring good people into this country. Unfortunately, I live in a country were liberal fools, the ones that follow your sort of thinking, will go to full extent to avoid actually enforcing immigration laws. They, in fact, will attack you if you dare speak out against illegal immigration. I give you this thread, and yourself, as a perfect example.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Okay…I’ll play the same game with you that I just played with @MrGrimm888. I will challenge you with a simple question and I predict you will bloviate about all sorts of stuff and will eventually degrade into some attack on Trump. But the key is, it will be a simple question and you will avoid answering it. You will dodge and duck and deflect the live long day and will make some weak attack on me for daring to ask you such a direct, simple question. So here we go:

Do we, in the USA, have immigration laws that describe a process for entering our country?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Yes. How’s that for a dodge?

stanleybmanly's avatar

And far from bloviation, the truth is that you right wing dummies ignore the fact that it is the FOOL who is currently hell bent on subverting said laws and doing his damnedest to insure those seeking LEGAL immigration punitive and repressive treatment at the hands of HIS government. He has shifted the emphasis from concentrating on people jumping the borders to illegally hounding all seeking to exercise their LEGAL right to claim asylum. And what has the fool achieved with his punishment model? Trump’s arrest and deportation record for comparable periods is HALF that achieved by the so called liberal Obama, who managed without violating the laws of the land or lying about the victims.

seawulf575's avatar

No dodge at all. You mis-stated my opinion (as usual) and then tried to make me look foolish for having such an opinion (which I don’t). Nothing there to dodge. But let’s review what I just predicted and see how you did.
1) Did you actually answer the simple question? No…you failed that. So I guess I called that one.
2) Did you bloviate about all sorts of stuff besides the actual question? Yep…I called that one too.
3) Did you degrade into a rant about Trump? Absolutely. I’m 3 for 3.
4) Did you attempt a weak attack on me for daring to ask you that question? Yup. Wow. How good am I? 4 for 4.
So I asked you a simple question, and then predicted that you wouldn’t answer it AND identified exactly what your answer would be. And here’s the kicker….I told you what you would do and you did it anyway. That tells me you are a fanatic and incapable of rational thought.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 I’m glad someone on Fluther is perfect . . . Sorry you don’t get the prize.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie you and I agree on that. I DON’T get the prize…and I don’t want it.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

But you think your answers perfect !

seawulf575's avatar

Well, this time they were! It’s right there…I called out exactly what sort of responses I would get and I got them….100% accuracy. That’s pretty perfect for an answer.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Just a second there shorty! What more direct and definitive answer is there to your “simple” question than the “yes” I provided directly below it? Would you prefer “da”? Remember my other “bloviation” on your apparent difficulty with common English idioms? You completely missed the fact that the “yes” in front of “how’s that for a dodge?” is the answer to your question.

seawulf575's avatar

I apologize, I thought you were saying I dodged. So let’s continue then with the line of questioning. We have laws that describe the process for entering our country. Next simple question: do you believe we should ignore our laws?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Let’s linger for a moment on the mistake, and ask if it is the sort of mistake typical of someone born and reared in the United States? Mull that over while I answer this latest question from you “NYET”.

seawulf575's avatar

Okay, so we have laws, and we shouldn’t ignore them. Then why would you support illegal immigration into this country and rabidly oppose a POTUS that wants to stop it?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Once more. I do NOT support illegal immigration. In point of fact it is the POTUS who is breaking the laws of the land as the courts have CONSISTENTLY decreed. He has been slapped down on every oppressive and blatant violation of the law he attempts. It is the fool who whines incessantly about the legal impediments to his cowardly bullying of refugees seeking asylum. All in all, as with everything else the fool is even in crime a dismal failure. You people should be stuck with such a fool. I bet Putin wouldn’t trust him to take an accurate piss in the Volga.

seawulf575's avatar

So you only oppose measures to stop illegal immigration but you do not support it. Yeah, that makes sense. Okay…you don’t like punishment for those that break our immigration laws. So can you tell me a law that you, personally, could break in this country and, if caught, you would not face some sort of punishment?

seawulf575's avatar

Oh shoot, let’s open it up…can you tell me a law in any country that you can break without facing punishment if you are caught?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Being President Trump, Congress afraid of him and he has a stuffed Supreme Court- – - just an observation. Oh and AG Barr has covered up for Trump’s transgressions.

@seawulf575 I know that is not your point, but of the most of the country 52% think Trump isn’t doing a good job. Only the conservatives that want to poke out the eyes of anyone to the left of Neo-Nazi and think the sixth grader is going to get reelected as God or POTUS forever .

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 No you don’t understand. What I’m saying is this: If the goal is to curb the tide streaming here we are not going to make any headway through beating up on migrants. If the goal is simply to punish them,to make any headway the punishment must be so severe that even YOU would cringe at the mention of it. If we were to jail them all it would bankrupt is, because life in an American jail is luxury living compared to what they are leaving behind. I don’t think anything short of an assured or certain death would deter these people, and such treatment is CLEARLY illegal as the fool continues to discover. As I said before, the Obama you despise had twice the arrest and deportation rate as the fool and tried to keep it quiet that he was deporting more people than any President yet. He understood that the necessity to turn these pitiful people back is something shameful and nothing to be screaming and crowing about as the cowardly uncouth bully does at every opportunity.

Zaku's avatar

@seawulf575 “Oh shoot, let’s open it up…can you tell me a law in any country that you can break without facing punishment if you are caught?”
– It’s not worth the time to look up and give you many examples, but it happens constantly.

It doesn’t just take “getting caught” but getting reported and prosecuted, which involves the workload and discretion of police, investigators, prosecutors, and sometimes people in executive office.

a few examples:
Speeding
Unwarranted police violence
Animal abuse
Drug possession
Various corporate crimes
Various crimes of politicians
All the many laws on the books that have been considered antiquated but are still on the books (e.g. adultery)
etc.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . Please excuse my attempt at giving you the slightest respect, by responding to your series of what you call “challenges.”

As usual, you are acting deliberately obtuse, and of course, lying. Your stance has NEVER been as you posed it, in response to my post. Never once.

Your true colors shine through, in your every breath. Your most recently displayed posts, are pitiful. I wonder what it is you think you have to gain in lying, by claiming different stances in the same thread. You remind me of Trump. Lying, even though he is fully aware that his other lies were recorded on video.

I have articulated my position, and my logic, on the subject to my satisfaction. It is not of my concern whether or not you continue on this thread. My opinions of you have been galvanized, by your own words, plenty. And I take no pleasure in watching you further disrespect yourself, by hiding behind repeated contradiction, hypocrisy, and cowardice.

You can feel free to continue getting shot down, and shamed, by being repeatedly exposed by the other jellies. I am here to debate, not witness your sad execution. I’m out. See you on the next thread…

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie 52% disapproval is not really unusual for a POTUS. If you go back and look at Obama’s at about the same time, he had similar approval ratings. I guess if you want to try finding fault you can word it the way you did. But then, by that standard, Bush II would have been a far better president than either Obama or Trump. At about this point in his presidency, he had about a 63% APPROVAL rating.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly So was that a dodge or can you just not think of a law that you could break without some sort of punishment?

seawulf575's avatar

@Zaku Every one of those crimes, if you were caught, would bear some sort of punishment. Speeding will result in a fine or suspension of driving privileges, depending on how reckless you were. Unwarranted police violence, if it is real (as opposed to hype such as with Darren Wilson) can result in all sorts of punishment for the cop. Animal abuse, drug possession (yes, even marijuana) corporate crime, politician crimes…all of those have some sort of punishment associated with them. With the case of marijuana you cited, what you are seeing is a DA that is trying to change the law without actually changing it. But the crime itself has punishment associated with it. Even some of the antiquated and foolish laws that still remain on the books have punishments associated with them.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I understand…you talked yourself into a corner and are walking away. Have a nice day.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Keep talking to your mirror !

LostInParadise's avatar

Are we talking about a federal law or a local one? There are so called sanctuary cities and states which do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding possible illegal alients. Are they breaking the law? I have never heard of any of these people being indicted. Trump tried to withhold federal funds from states with sanctuary cities, and a federal court blocked him. Link

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575. No. I can’t think of a law you can break that does not threaten “punishment”. But there’s a difference between sneaking into this country and robbing banks. And for me PERSONALLY the difference comes down to this. Entering the country illegally IS a crime. The questions then arise: how do we stop it, how do we prevent it and how do we punish it? So I ask YOU: what punishment do YOU think appropriate? Which punishment do YOU think will shut off the tap?

stanleybmanly's avatar

What’s the appropriate punishment for people fleeing death and starvation?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Good! We agree that when you break a law, there is a punishment associated with it. But your argument has been that I and Trump are fools for wanting to punish those that break our immigration laws. There are any number of ways to punish those that break your laws. Here is an article about China’s new laws:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1272959/under-chinas-new-immigration-law-harsher-fines-illegal-foreigners

Basically, a fine, detention for up to 2 weeks, and immediate deportation. Inhumane? I’d say not. I would add that we take their fingerprints, names etc and track if they show up again. We could also make it known that if you attempt to enter this country illegally, you would forfeit any chance at legal entry later on.
Here’s an article about foreigners committing crimes in Japan, including immigration crimes:

https://www.countryreports.org/travel/Japan/criminalpenalties.htm

Basically, you are incarcerated for several months while the investigation and trial happen. Additionally, for legal immigration into their country, you have to show you have a desirable skill or a means of support….sort of like what it was always like in this country. Remember all those immigrants that came through Ellis Island? They all had to show the ability to support themselves or they were put onto the next boat out.
Here’s one from Spain:
https://www.countryreports.org/travel/Spain/criminalpenalties.htm
And here is one that captures a whole bunch of countries at once:

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/ad-hoc-queries/illegal-immigration/467._emn_ad-hoc_query_on_criminal_penalties_wider_dissemination_en.pdf

Funny thing…they all have far more harsh penalties than we do. We are not even up to par with them. And it really is because people don’t want to consider immigration violations to be crimes or to apply punishment for those violations. Punishment in the form of extended incarceration and/or fines are the norm. Requiring the immigrants to have useful skills is another standard.
Right now, the left is campaigning hard to have open borders, or to “catch and release” illegals. They don’t even want to allow the cops to ask about legal status of individuals. They want to give them driver’s licenses that could be used to scam the system for hiding their status and could be used to allow them to vote. All these efforts are rewards for breaking our laws and are broadcast loud and clear at most of the Central American nations. They are even putting their children at risk by dragging them thousands of miles on a dangerous trek so they can be used as fodder the left can use to push for letting them in.
Until the narrative from the left changes to acknowledge the damage they are doing, the issue will not be solved.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , Let me try again. What happens when an entire city, a sanctuary city, refuses to cooperate with federal immigration authorities? They must not be breaking the law, because no sanctuary city official has ever been indicted. Federal courts even blocked Trump from withholding funds from these cities. There must be a whole bunch of illegal immigrants hiding out in sanctuary cities. It is apparently okay to ignore federal law on a citywide basis.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise I find that one interesting. When gay marriage was the topic, the left went crazy with “It’s a federal law and that supersedes state or local laws!”. When it comes to immigration law, they set up “sanctuary cities” to harbor criminals. Last time I checked, that’s a crime. But their (the left) stance seems to be that local law supersedes federal law.
When you talk about federal courts taking action, you often have to remember that they are leftist judges that aren’t ruling on law, but are ruling on ideology, which is an ethical violation. Regardless, once they “rule” on a topic, it then has to go to an appeal to get past the unethical judge.

Zaku's avatar

@seawulf575 You don’t seem to have understood what I wrote, and I’m sick, so have no energy to try to re-explain it to you.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , If sanctuary city government officials are breaking the law, why have none of them been indicted? If these people are breaking the law, it should be a simple matter, yet none of them have been charged with anything. How come? Link

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I have no problems with your proposed solutions, other than the fact that incarceration for many offenders would swamp our already bulging prison system. Your ideas also ignore the current reality of the fool’s once again extralegal measures. Trump is now emphasizing the denial of access to those seeking their legally mandated right to apply for asylum. But more critical than all other reasons, your remedies ignore the genuine dilemma (just as you do) of the one I ask above. So I ask again: What should the penalty be for those running from death or starvation?

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise I feel they should be. I suspect the problem is that it is a whole city so you would have to charge the city council, the police, and everyone else involved with the decision to break the law. At that point you should probably try what Trump suggested and just find a punishment for the whole city. But charging the Mayor, the City Council (by name) and the Chief of Police with aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice might set a good example to stop the silliness.

seawulf575's avatar

@zaku, I understood what you wrote, but the point I was making was that all crimes have punishments associated with them. Whether the justice system follows through or not is a separate issue. But if they chose to, the punishments would be there for the offenders.

Hope you start feeling better.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly So you have no problem with the proposed solutions? How did you feel about Border Patrol putting illegals into detentions centers then? Were you for it?

stanleybmanly's avatar

You’re going to have to define “illegals”.

seawulf575's avatar

People that enter this country illegally….as we have been discussing for the past 3 days.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Translation for ya @stanleybmanly—- Brown skinned people and ~ ~ ~ ~ “nasties” like Meghan Markle—-

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , The reason why sanctuary city officials are not being arrested is that they are not doing anything illegal, as the article I linked to explains. Local governments are not required to use resources for federal law enforcement. So says the Constitution (specifically the Tenth Amendment). Link States and cities are also not required to pass laws that duplicate federal laws, although they are not allowed to pass specific laws that oppose federal laws. States are allowed to not have laws related to illegal migration. They are also allowed to not have laws prohibiting the use of marijuana. They are not allowed to specifically pass anti-abortion laws, which would contradict the Roe v Wade interpretation of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. You can take issue with that interpretation, but anti-abortion laws are illegal unless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , I am sure you will approve of the source for this link

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise Did you actually read that last link? It says the states don’t need to enforce federal laws they deem to be unconstitutional. Have the states ruled that federal immigration laws are unconstitutional? No. And cities are not states. So when San Francisco starts ignoring federal law, they are effectively breaking the law. But let’s continue. The second point is that “states may not block federal authorities who attempt to enforce a federal law unless a court has held that the law is unconstitutional.” Again…the courts have not held that the immigration laws are unconstitutional, yet these sanctuary cities are blocking federal agents from enforcing the law. THAT is illegal as well. And the last point, “individuals are not exempt from prosecution by the federal government just because the state where they reside has legalized an activity or pronounced that a federal law is unconstitutional” is the nail in the coffin. Illegal aliens are not exempt from prosecution by the federal government just because the state (or city in this case) where they reside has legalized an activity. Just because the Sanctuary Cities don’t like the federal laws, they don’t have the right to block the feds from enforcing federal law and the illegal aliens are still wanted for violating federal laws. In other words, the sanctuary cities are operating outside the law.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Cities are NOT required to enforce FEDERAL laws. There is no Federal law requiring jurisdictions to hunt down undocumented immigrants. San Francisco has no legal obligation to sort out undocumented people nor participate in their apprehension.

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , You make a good point. The article was misleading in implying that a federal law must be locally enforced unless it is deemed unconstitutional. This makes things clearer. Link

Here is a quote from the court decision given in the article explaining why the court decided the state of New York was not required to conduct background checks on gun purchasers:

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

Nothing about states having to declare unconstitutionality.. What is unconstitutional is having the federal government require state enforcement of federal laws.

I don’t know of any case where a state is blocking federal agents. Not providing assistance is not the same as blocking. Can you give an example?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 Your description of corrupt leftist judges is the height of laughable misdirection. In fact NONE of your arguments hold water. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities are NOT blocking Federal agencies from enforcing the law. They simply are not participating in the process. The fool and other right wing zealots are frustrated that municipalities want no part of the sordid business that is the fool’s gestapo approach to immigration. Your position on these matters is untenable because at bottom it is centered on the behaviors of an intractable ignorant fool who understands neither the laws nor anything else. Like you, he ASSUMES that the courts consistently kicking his ignorant ass to be a matter of leftist judges as opposed to the evident and indisputable truth that he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground. The reason that sanctuary cities can stand in defiance of the fool’s stupidities is because they (unlike the fool) understand the law. The courts CANNOT force the cities to cooperate with the fool because the courts (unlike the fool and Yourself) understand the law.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther