Funny (political, religious) pictures

Reactions
200 21 0
Most Trump supporters argue now that most of the 35k were "overflow outside", and that the El Paso Police was wrong when it says Beto had a minimum 10k, "all the photos look like a few hundred tops, the police are lying".

It's funny how everything is "blue lives matter" till those blue lives don't support your side in something huh?
 
Reactions
4,446 1,022 19
Tell ya what, we can try Norway's economic models, if we also try their immigration policies.
IE, no, you can't even get a visa unless you already have a job waiting for you.
Only 30-50k immigrants allowed per year.
You must speak the official language of the country (Norweigan for them, English for us obvs) and pass a test demonstrating it.
Must maintain your temporary visa for 3 years (IE be continuously employed) to gain residency.
Any crime means you are deported, end of story. And cultural diversity be damned, you will adopt your host country's majority (read: white) culture values and like it.

So, think on that sort of thing (and their dealings with refugees) before you lionize them as an example we should strive to emulate.
 
Tell ya what, we can try Norway's economic models, if we also try their immigration policies.
IE, no, you can't even get a visa unless you already have a job waiting for you.
Only 30-50k immigrants allowed per year.
You must speak the official language of the country (Norweigan for them, English for us obvs) and pass a test demonstrating it.
Must maintain your temporary visa for 3 years (IE be continuously employed) to gain residency.
Any crime means you are deported, end of story. And cultural diversity be damned, you will adopt your host country's majority (read: white) culture values and like it.

So, think on that sort of thing (and their dealings with refugees) before you lionize them as an example we should strive to emulate.
They have about 3% more foreign-born population than you do, immigrant's overall employment rate is 10% lower than their citizenry's, and they do family reunification, refugee, and education visas.

Though, for a line-by-line:
That's how all H and E visas work in the U.S. as far as I know.
The U.S. has residency immigration quotas too, the only unlimited categories I know of are emergency ones and family reunification.
English? Get an official language first. Regardless, the hurdles to overcome if you want American citizenship without speaking fluent English are fuckiwucky.
Oh wow 3 years! Depending on your work visa, the U.S.' wait time is 1-35 years.
Most severe crimes will get U.S. immigrants deported and/or barred for 3, 10 or lifetime years. I fail to see what benefit your country derives from deporting someone from jaywalking, other than reinforcing that immigrants are a population to be preyed upon.

TBH though, I would support a policy of mass deportation of all legal immigrants (hi!) if it guaranteed you people got a nordic-style government out of it.
 
Reactions
4,446 1,022 19
They have about 3% more foreign-born population than you do
Are you counting the current temporary (and massive) refugee population they've taken in in that figure?
The U.S. has residency immigration quotas too, the only unlimited categories I know of are emergency ones and family reunification.
The US has about 1 million/year. The highest Norway's ever taken was 50k in one year. And it's on the way back down now that the syrian refugee thing is on the way out.
English? Get an official language first.
That'd be part of becoming more like Norway, obviously.
Most severe crimes will get U.S. immigrants deported and/or barred for 3, 10 or lifetime years. I fail to see what benefit your country derives from deporting someone from jaywalking, other than reinforcing that immigrants are a population to be preyed upon.
That's kind of speaking to my point - that Norway, if it had its way, would not have *any* (non-super-skilled) immigration. Because it knows its socialist system can only support so many people, even with its massive state-owned oil reserves and the US basically covering the lion's share of its defense via NATO.

Long story short, it's a little easier to be a socialist utopia when you're an insular, culturally-homogenous nation of 8 million people that floats on a giant oil reserve that has little to no interest in immigration that doesn't immediately and tangibly benefit the state.
 
Reactions
1,614 225 3
The Republican call for stricter immigration laws is just a dog and pony show. The fact is that US businesses rely on illegal immigrants for labor, and the real reason conservatives (read: big buisness) want strict laws is so they have big stick to threaten laborers with. They don't care about making the nation safer, and they certainly don't care about helping legal immigrants. They know that making it more difficult to get into the country legally won't stop do anything to stop illegal immigration, and there's too much financial incentive for businesses to keep hiring undocumented workers (and no significant financial disincentive). The Republican stance on immigration is about the exploitation of labor, period.
 
Are you counting the current temporary (and massive) refugee population they've taken in in that figure?

The US has about 1 million/year. The highest Norway's ever taken was 50k in one year. And it's on the way back down now that the syrian refugee thing is on the way out.

That'd be part of becoming more like Norway, obviously.

That's kind of speaking to my point - that Norway, if it had its way, would not have *any* (non-super-skilled) immigration. Because it knows its socialist system can only support so many people, even with its massive state-owned oil reserves and the US basically covering the lion's share of its defense via NATO.

Long story short, it's a little easier to be a socialist utopia when you're an insular, culturally-homogenous nation of 8 million people that floats on a giant oil reserve that has little to no interest in immigration that doesn't immediately and tangibly benefit the state.
Yes, I am. Should we dice off random segments of the U.S. immigrant population when discussing it?
50k/8M ~= 0.006; 1M/325M ~= 0.003.
I have no problem with official languages, but I will remit you to my second sentence in that line about the current use of English as a de-facto official language in naturalization proceedings. You're already like Norway <3
Yeah, lefty parties and nanny states are usually not pro-immigration. It's part of why I lean more towards open borders than I do border control, even though I strongly suspect it would depress my personal standard of living.

Long story short, though, you could've started with your last paragraph since it reads as though you don't think the two countries can be compared.
 
Reactions
4,446 1,022 19
The Republican call for stricter immigration laws is just a dog and pony show. The fact is that US businesses rely on illegal immigrants for labor, and the real reason conservatives (read: big buisness) want strict laws is so they have big stick to threaten laborers with. They don't care about making the nation safer, and they certainly don't care about helping legal immigrants. They know that making it more difficult to get into the country legally won't stop do anything to stop illegal immigration, and there's too much financial incentive for businesses to keep hiring undocumented workers (and no significant financial disincentive). The Republican stance on immigration is about the exploitation of labor, period.
I don't think any of us really disagree with you on this. I know I sure don't.

Yes, I am. Should we dice off random segments of the U.S. immigrant population when discussing it?
My point was, on this particular factor, if you discount the "temporary" refugees, the actual immigration numbers in Norway fall to about 6000/yr. And plus, I think absolute numbers here are more pertinent than percentages.

Long story short, though, you could've started with your last paragraph since it reads as though you don't think the two countries can be compared.
Well, ANY two things "can be compared," even apples and oranges :p I was saying that Norway isn't just "America but with socialism." They do a lot different there that american advocates of socialism would find anathema, and they also have different situational parameters which prop their system up that we do not. The immigration comparison was meant to be illustrative of the former, since previous discussions have already covered the latter.
 
And plus, I think absolute numbers here are more pertinent than percentages.
Why? My intuition says the opposite, but I'm open to good arguments (for/against) here.

Well, ANY two things "can be compared," even apples and oranges :p I was saying that Norway isn't just "America but with socialism." They do a lot different there that american advocates of socialism would find anathema, and they also have different situational parameters which prop their system up that we do not. The immigration comparison was meant to be illustrative of the former, since previous discussions have already covered the latter.
Ah, that I get. I think just stating that instead of jumping into a bad (IMO) parallel would've been clearer.
 
Reactions
1,614 225 3
They do a lot different there that american advocates of socialism would find anathema, and they also have different situational parameters which prop their system up that we do not. The immigration comparison was meant to be illustrative of the former, since previous discussions have already covered the latter.
Yes, but your proposition seems to be that doing these things is necessary to make their socialistic practices possible. I question that premise. Even if we assume those things are necessary, are they necessary, period, or are they necessary in Norway?
 
Tell ya what, we can try Norway's economic models, if we also try their immigration policies.
IE, no, you can't even get a visa unless you already have a job waiting for you.
Only 30-50k immigrants allowed per year.
You must speak the official language of the country (Norweigan for them, English for us obvs) and pass a test demonstrating it.
Must maintain your temporary visa for 3 years (IE be continuously employed) to gain residency.
Any crime means you are deported, end of story. And cultural diversity be damned, you will adopt your host country's majority (read: white) culture values and like it.

So, think on that sort of thing (and their dealings with refugees) before you lionize them as an example we should strive to emulate.
Do we also have to start eating their food and watching their television shows?

I mean so long as we're comparing things that don't relate to each other.
 
Reactions
4,446 1,022 19
Yes, but your proposition seems to be that doing these things is necessary to make their socialistic practices possible. I question that premise. Even if we assume those things are necessary, are they necessary, period, or are they necessary in Norway?
Do we also have to start eating their food and watching their television shows?

I mean so long as we're comparing things that don't relate to each other.
You're completely off the mark. Curtailing immigration - both illegal AND legal - would definitely be required in a system as socialized as Norway's - and that goes also for an America that adopts Norwegian-style socialim. We've already got a million people a year coming *without* the free ride. That number would only increase drastically, and put an even-more unsustainable strain on a system that, frankly, already cannot be borne here.

In fact, to make it work, we'd probably have to actively deport legal immigrants.

This part also answers Den -

Why? My intuition says the opposite, but I'm open to good arguments (for/against) here.
Because we've already got too many people, especially non-productive people, for it to work. As if often noted, even if we had a 100% income tax rate for our top bracket, that wouldn't fund our current government expenditures for more than a handful of days. So, somebody's gonna have to go if the USS Socialism isn't going to sink with all hands on board.

So, we'd have to reduce that number. I'll leave it up to you guys to decide whether we figure out an australia-style solution to deport our non-productive trouble makers, or if we just make everything worse than jaywalking a capital offense.
 
Because we've already got too many people, especially non-productive people, for it to work.

So, we'd have to reduce that number. I'll leave it up to you guys to decide whether we figure out an australia-style solution to deport our non-productive trouble makers, or if we just make everything worse than jaywalking a capital offense.
Is it a sin to be unproductive? Unethical? Is it illegal? What is the crime these people have committed that they should be cursed so? Because I know a shit load of unproductive folks in flyover states who have resisted every attempt to actual give them work and no one seems to think it's okay to get rid of them.
 
You're completely off the mark. Curtailing immigration - both illegal AND legal - would definitely be required in a system as socialized as Norway's - and that goes also for an America that adopts Norwegian-style socialim. We've already got a million people a year coming *without* the free ride. That number would only increase drastically, and put an even-more unsustainable strain on a system that, frankly, already cannot be borne here.

In fact, to make it work, we'd probably have to actively deport legal immigrants.

This part also answers Den -


Because we've already got too many people, especially non-productive people, for it to work. As if often noted, even if we had a 100% income tax rate for our top bracket, that wouldn't fund our current government expenditures for more than a handful of days. So, somebody's gonna have to go if the USS Socialism isn't going to sink with all hands on board.

So, we'd have to reduce that number. I'll leave it up to you guys to decide whether we figure out an australia-style solution to deport our non-productive trouble makers, or if we just make everything worse than jaywalking a capital offense.
So is there some reason why we would increase the amount of people we allow in? Cause America already has one of the most exhaustive immigration systems in the world.

That's of course not to ignore the fact that immigrants start businesses at the highest rates of any group in America. So your belief that immigrants are takers is pretty much without merit.
 
Top