Civil War in Texas Say Chinese Media

a reply to: Astyanax

Couldn’t it be said that all of the riots happening around the country several years before this Texas situation (a situation where nothing has been burn and nobody has been shot) was the actual start of a civil war?

If someone really knows their history they would understand that World War Two started the day the First World War ended and not twenty years later.

originally posted by: Astyanax

So you're not convinced either. Yes, it does seem a bit far-fetched, doesn't it? I wouldn't give it a moment's credence myself, except for all the angry American conservatives (on this thread and elsewhere) who seem to be absolutely gagging for it. Makes you think a bit.

So it makes one think about why would Biden push back anyway. He says he doesn't have enough resources and if the border states step up he should be cheering them on. Massively liberal cities like Chicago and NYC are screaming that they can't handle even the trickle of illegals into their city, so why isn't everybody not cheering Texas and 20+ our states want to do?

Where is the civil war part as we are being flooded with illegals and states want to step up where the feds are failing... Pretty damn simple, I would say.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: FlyersFan

Trying to equate a stream of economic refugees seeking to integrate themselves into the US economy and society with a hostile invading force seems to be stretching metaphor awfully thin. But that's all right – I'm all in favour of tight, revealing outfits on ladies. Well, some ladies.

Economic refugees do not qualify for asylum. They have a legal path they can follow rather than just walking in. That's the difference. It took my BIL the process to get in from England. He wasn't just walking in. There is a very different thing between legally and illegally entering, and being poor is not grounds for the asylum path (which also has a very strict legal process).

I really don't know where you stand on this because I don't follow a lot of people, but I am just speaking in a general sense. I feel like so many people just ignore over and over over the difference in acceptability between the legal path and the illegal path. If 100k/month of french people started walking in from Canada and ignoring the legal path, I'm not so sure people would be so nonchalant about it all.

Most first world countries have far stricter rules and generally require you have a degree an job lined up in an "approved" field.

a reply to: Astyanax

The COVID vax was totally different at the beginning. The early 2020 vax had hardly any side effects. That all changed in late 2020 and early 2021 when the formulas changed drastically. And of course, the people vaxxed at any time were getting COVID anyway!! 😃

The real "Civil" War is the fact that The DOJ only has 650 Immigration Judges with 10 million open cases. The whole problem gets solved if they simply have thousands more judges and then hear the cases within a few days. Then deport or allow asylum. But no that would eliminate the political football game of poverty! 😀

a reply to: Astyanax

Except as per the Orlando article the 1000 troops didnt go anywhere

But Florida law says the State Guard, which reports directly to the governor, is to be used “exclusively within the state,” and a proposed bill to allow out-of-state deployments has not been passed by the Legislature.

www.orlandosentinel.com...


I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would give the Chinese govt or media machine any credence.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

State rights vs federal power is nothing new. It’s a balance act that often doesn’t turn out in our favor, but alas I’m sure the average citizen of many countries envy the fact this is somewhat normal here.

If you did this in China or Russia, you’d quickly find yourself in a far different circumstance.

They don't understand it all. As you said, if a province told Beijing they were not going to follow them we would see millions put into reeducation camps along with many killed in the process.

I think the Feds will likely back off of Texas on this one.

If they don’t it will just be egg on their face. Most states side with Texas and if this started escalating more I think the courts would side with Texas, and rightfully so.

That’s far different than an authoritarian country like China as you pointed out.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

State rights vs federal power is nothing new. It’s a balance act that often doesn’t turn out in our favor, but alas I’m sure the average citizen of many countries envy the fact this is somewhat normal here.

If you did this in China or Russia, you’d quickly find yourself in a far different circumstance.

They don't understand it all. As you said, if a province told Beijing they were not going to follow them we would see millions put into reeducation camps along with many killed in the process.

Yep, and we would NOT see provincial troops opposing the actions of Chinese officials.

I can only imagine how RocketBoy in PingPong-Yang is viewing this ...

Cheers

a reply to: Bluntone22

Couldn’t it be said that all of the riots happening around the country several years before this Texas situation... was the actual start of a civil war?

I'm sure it could be said, but as far as I know, it hasn't. I'm not sure why you think that is relevant, though. No-one on this thread is claiming that the current Texas confrontation actually is the beginning of civil war.

Perhaps you should elaborate your position a little more.

a reply to: Halfswede

I really don't know where you stand on this...

Merely admitting it puts you well ahead of the pack on this thread as far as I’m concerned. I’m not trying to keep my position secret, don’t worry, but before I go into all that, let me just address the legal point you made.

Economic refugees do not qualify for asylum.

Indeed they do not. Nor do I think that they should. However, the question is moot; the problem is far beyond the scope of law. Besides, this thread is not about the rights and wrongs of what is happening on America’s southern border but about a conspiracy theory circulating in Chinese social media. Some posters seem not to have grasped this; they just want to sound off about US party politics and they’re doing their best to drag this conversation into their favourite mud-pit, to rehearse their predictable outrage over and over again until they have bored and disgusted everyone else in the process.

* * *

So you want to know my position. On what? The political posturing of Democrats and Republicans in relation to the border issue? De Santis’s razor wire, Biden’s letter to Congress, Trump’s determined efforts to keep the pot boiling until he can make an overt campaign issue of it? I’m afraid I have no position on any of that, any more than I would take a position in a squabble over deckchairs among first-class passengers on the Titanic.

I know that very few Americans, particularly of the ATS type, take any interest in the world beyond their borders except in cases where their country’s interests or military assets are directly involved. Therefore it may come as a surprise to some of you to learn that, just as much as the US southern border is being overrun by migrants from Latin America, the shores and borders of Western Europe are being besieged by migrants from Africa and Asia. The Europeans are having quite as hard a time keeping incomers away and coping with the ones who make it past their border controls as Americans have dealing with their own intruders (or ‘invaders’ as FlyersFan and a few others like to call them).

This is not a problem that human effort or ingenuity can solve. Not, that is, unless you are willing to try ‘solutions’ of the type the Nazis called ‘final’. Of course, they aren’t solutions at all; they are as destructive of those who implement them as they are of the victims, and besides they can never be fully implemented anyway. Assuming, then, that walling the country’s borders with corpses or depopulating most of the Third World are as repugnant to you as they are impractical to implement, the problem of mass migration is insoluble. It is far from the only such problem facing the world today.

It is futile, I think, to blame anyone ⎻ Republicans, Democrats, Biden, Trump, governments, society, rich world, poor world, people-traffickers, NIMBYs, border-control agencies or, in particular, the migrants themselves ⎻ for any of this. Mass movements of peoples have occurred throughout history; it has never been possible to prevent them, or to reverse the shocking changes they bring in their wake. Neither is it possible to stop people trying to resist them, so very often the immediate consequence of these movements is massacre, or war, or both. From the destruction visited by the Philistines on the Hebrews to Genghis Khan rampaging through Christendom, from the depopulation of Native America to the partition of India, bloodshed seems to be the inevitable consequence of large-scale human migration. And here it comes again, in waves vaster and more widespread, this time, than the world has ever seen before.

You expect an intelligent person to articulate a position on this? Well, all right. As far as I can tell, only two positions are tenable. One is the Nazi position ⎻ eradicate the vermin. Deport them, round them up in camps, gas them, shoot them, broil them in ovens. But even if the appalling human and moral costs of this are acceptable to you, the trouble with final solutions is that they are never truly final, and in due course the implementers of the solution are forced to face a reckoning, not so much with the Wiesenthals of this world, as with themselves.

The only other position is an extremely radical one. In an ideal world, I would embrace it. But not in this world, where things have gone much too far already ⎻ or, you might say, not yet far enough ⎻ for it to be viable. Put simply, it is this: human beings should be able to move as freely as goods and capital do across national boundaries.

This is, in fact, the classic liberal position (as in eighteenth-century Enlightenment, Jeffersonian liberal, not Socialist, Marxist, Communist or ‘woke’). If it really had been adopted in the eighteenth century, we might have been free of all this trouble today. But you can’t bring it in now; to do so would be to open the floodgates and let tides of migrants from the poor world pour over Fortress Columbia and Festung Europa, swamping them utterly and making everyone, migrant and homesteader alike, the loser.

Nor, as far as I can see, is there any hope of implementing it gradually, which is what, in effect, present-day governments in Europe and North America are trying to do. It’s long past time for any of that; the tsunami is already breaking over their heads.

I noted above that it might ⎻ just might ⎻ be too early, rather than too late, to implement the ‘solution‘ of open borders. What I mean is that when the world has lived with the terrible consequences of mass migration toward the rich world from the poor for long enough, when all attempts at solving the problem through exclusion and negotiation and ‘addressing the root causes’ have failed, when the toll is mounting to catastrophic heights and humanity has sunk to the lowest moral depths that it can plumb, this ‘solution’ will come to pass anyway: a fait accompli.

* * *

You wanted my position. Well, here it is in a nutshell. There is nothing anyone in the world can do to solve the problem of mass immigration. It’s already past solving by any human agency. If you’re religious, you could try praying, or sacrificing a goat or something. But your best bet, I’d say, is to get used to the idea; the third world is coming to your neighbourhood, whether you like it not.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: WingDingLuey

The SCOTUS ruling does not say for TX to stop adding barriers. It says The FEDS have the right to remove it

And that, of course, makes all the difference between civil war and not-civil-war. Thanks for highlighting this, er, vital point.

It is a vital point. Words matter. When the CIC shirks his very first and foremost duty to protect and defend the country from invading foreign forces, it becomes necessary for the individual states to defend their own rights and terrier. That is why we still have states with their own governing bodies.
Perhaps some people have been too steeped in communist totalitarian ideals to appreciate the Constitution.
And it’s not “Desanto’s razor wire”. It is the state of Texas wire and the governor of the State can still keep putting it up. For your information, 25 other states have declared their support for the state of Texas(including the one I live in). The truth here is that the POTUS and his leftist radical deep state handlers are deliberately letting potential foreign terrorists and drug traffickers and America hating people into the country en masse for the purpose of turning us into another banana republic, and also to vote to continue the one-party rule. And some gop are on board with it.
You wrote that a Europe is also dealing with mass immigration from other plscrs( which I certainly have been aware so thanks for the insult) but then you insist that putting up razor wire along the boundaries is sign to the Nazis. I mean what an insult. If we are discussing Chinese communist propaganda about borders, you can at least recognize the role of the Great Wall of China in keeping out the Mongolian invaders. And then of course there’s the Great Firewall of China which is the technological version of keeping control of their population and keeping foreign ideas out while they yet seek to control ours. By the way, China is buying land in the US. It would be good for you to see the whole picture.
I notice that you are unabashedly promoting George Soros Open Borders policy. Maybe Soros and his sons can tear down the Chinese wall. You also seem to be promoting a socialist solution of redistribution of wealth by promoting mass migration of poor people into “ rich countries” as an equitable solution to the world’s problems. Socialism is never a good or even equitable solution,, as what it really does is take from this who work for a living and give to others. It also opens the door to a rogue and self serving government to plunder the people while giving away the reward for their work to ridiculous programs in other countries. Yes our Congress is doing that.

a reply to: Astyanax

Indeed they do not. Nor do I think that they should. However, the question is moot; the problem is far beyond the scope of law. Besides, this thread is not about the rights and wrongs of what is happening on America’s southern border but about a conspiracy theory circulating in Chinese social media. Some posters seem not to have grasped this; they just want to sound off about US party politics and they’re doing their best to drag this conversation into their favourite mud-pit, to rehearse their predictable outrage over and over again until they have bored and disgusted everyone else in the process.

I'm not sure about the claiming economic hardship for asylum part is not a legit claim and China is Latin America's main trading partner in this now global economic world. So the world economy, Latin America and China and asylum seekers from all over the world are all rolled up into one big global economic ball, to me.

I'm not sure why the richer countries can't or won't give other emerging countries a leg up. With Biden's plan for Latin America, it is met with pushback and we could argue why that would be, but all I am saying is that nothing is being done to address Latin's America's needs which directly affect American needs, which directly affect the global economy.

www.mckinsey.com...

The White House’s efforts to tie the agreement to its own domestic agenda — suggesting better economic integration in the region will help address the root causes of migration from the South — are likely only to deepen Latin American negotiators’ concerns that what was supposed to be an economic package for the region is getting hijacked by U.S. election politics. All the while, China continues to expand its economic reach in the hemisphere.

“There’s been a lot of attention from China, in particular, but we’re fiddling while Rome is burning,” said Eric Farnsworth, vice president at the Council of Americas, a coalition of businesses from the Western Hemisphere.

“The region isn’t necessarily in love with China or the model that they present. They want alternatives. They want the United States to be there, so basically, we need to rethink our approach,” argued Farnsworth.

www.politico.com...

Why shouldn't China have an interest in what's going on at the borders of America because Latin Ameria's working age populations are aging and from the economic downturn from many factors it appears they are recovering very slowly all the while it appears the young working population is trying to get to America for opportunities. Latin America's recovery and growth need a boost - it's good for them - it's good for America - it's good for the global economy.

a reply to: quintessentone

I'm not sure about the claiming economic hardship for asylum part is not a legit claim

'Economic asylum' is not a concept recognised in international law, as far as I know. Starvation at home is not a legally valid reason for wanting to change your nationality.

As for giving poor countries and their economies a helping hand, it's easier said than done. It's been tried since the end of WW2, in every possible way you can think of. The problems are endless, the success of attempted solutions to date very discouraging. I know something about the international aid and development sector from having worked in it for some years. You have no idea.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: quintessentone

I'm not sure about the claiming economic hardship for asylum part is not a legit claim

'Economic asylum' is not a concept recognised in international law, as far as I know. Starvation at home is not a legally valid reason for wanting to change your nationality.

As for giving poor countries and their economies a helping hand, it's easier said than done. It's been tried since the end of WW2, in every possible way you can think of. The problems are endless, the success of attempted solutions to date very discouraging. I know something about the international aid and development sector from having worked in it for some years. You have no idea.

Sure on the international law level, but what about the humanist level?

I am sure you are very learned but so is Biden's Administration and doing something is better than doing nothing.

a reply to: Astyanax

An excellently writtem thread.
Well constructed and thought provoking.

a reply to: quintessentone

Sure on the international law level, but what about the humanist level?

I’m sorry, my friend, but I don’t see any point in discussing what won’t work.

It is no easy task to take a poor country with inadequate administrative, infrastructural and educational capacity, a pre-modern economy, systematic (and often traditionally sanctioned) corruption ⎻ a country, more often than not, riddled with class, religious and ethnic divisions into the bargain ⎻ and turn it into a functioning modern nation-state. In fact, history has shown that the only way to do it is to conquer the place, suppress the natives and take over yourself.

Imperialism, you know (with or without colonialism, depending on the attractiveness of the local climate, scenery and natural resources).

The Romans made it a success of it ⎻ by their standards, which included merciless expropriation by colonial officials in the provinces (what we call graft, they regarded as an official’s just reward for the hardships of a provincial billet in a barbarian country) and, of course, fixed class divisions and endemic slavery. After the Christians started making a nuisance of themselves, there were curbs on religious freedom as well. The Romans didn’t care how badly the locals suffered as long as their interests were served. This, in fact, is the primary object of all empires, ancient or modern.

The British did a bit better. With an empire as big as theirs, you’d expect some former colonies, at least, to thrive. But only the English-speaking colonies ⎻ Australia, Canada, New Zealand, a barely-populated pre-modern United States, Singapore, perhaps Malaysia ⎻ have truly prospered, though Hong Kong did well for as long as it lasted. India succeeded in making the transition to modern statehood and more recently to a thriving economy, but its people remain largely poor and ill-educated, much as they used to be in the days of the Raj. The rest of the former British Empire is an unholy mess.

The other European empires were much worse than the British, of course. But all imperialists shirk their responsibilities toward their subjects; some don’t even acknowledge that any such responsibility exists.

As a colonial power (what? you didn’t know it was one?), the USA has done especially badly because its imperialism is purely economic and selfish. It rarely takes on the burden of administration but allows its dependencies to be run by corrupt local satraps who oppress and prey upon their citizens. Among these beauties have been some of the modern world’s most infamous tyrants: Batista, François ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier, Franco of Spain, Idi Amin, Marcos, Mobutu Sese Seko, the Shah of Iran, Suharto of Indonesia, Zia of Pakistan. As long as US interests are protected, kleptocrats and despots can usually rely on active US support, military as well as diplomatic, to keep their own people from their throats. And when the US does take on the burden of government (e.g. the Philippines, Iraq) the result is usually bloodshed and chaos. The only exceptions seem to have been in Western Europe and Japan immediately after WW2. Of course, the more experienced British and French were also involved there, a modest but important influence.

In the West today, among the Left and some members of the liberal intellectual establishment, there is a tendency to blame the current wave of migration on the colonial past. There is much truth in this; the imperialist legacy has definitively influenced the condition of these countries today. In almost every case, it is the most decisive factor in their modern history. But to assert that these countries have a right to compensation or reparations for colonialism is, I think, futile and not at all easy to justify. In the end, we must all make our own way in the world ⎻ nations and individuals alike.

Imperialism apart, no known form of foreign aid, external administration or proxy government has been known to work in any part of the world. But while I agree that the West should do what it can to help poor countries, nothing the rich world can do now will stem or even greatly reduce the flow of refugees. Too complicated to explain why in this thread, I’m afraid, but if you want to talk more about it, send me a U2U.

Justin Trudeau's government worried about a peaceful rally getting out of control. The US media proclaimed 700,000 trucks strong expected to be the Texas and Mexico border. We want our borders back and don’t forget…bring your guns to this peaceful demonstration. That demonstration could have easily gone south and out of control. I think the authorities broke this rally up long before it really got started. Something they should have done in Canada. a reply to: Astyanax

a reply to: Astyanax

Latin America is resource-rich and Biden put forth a plan that could raise them up and who knows? create jobs/opportunities for people there. The people at the border don't want to come to America (well those that were interviewed by reporters) - they have no choice.

Why not try? It's just another outside the box strategy to fix border/migrant problems. If nothing is done, the problems will only get worse.

At this point, Biden is using more and more tax dollars to accommodate them and it will only require more and more money because the problems in their countries might be helped along through trade. Do nothing and this escalates.

Expanding Coordination with and Support for Border Cities, Receiving Communities, and Non-Governmental Organizations. The Biden-Harris Administration is increasing funding available to border cities and those cities receiving an influx of migrants, in addition to strengthening ongoing coordination and collaboration across all levels of government. DHS is also expanding outreach efforts with local jurisdictions to provide coordination of resources and technical assistance support and the Administration has been facilitating coordination between state and local officials and other federal agencies. Additionally, the Administration will continue to mobilize faith-based and non-profit organizations supporting migrants, including those providing temporary shelter, food, and humanitarian assistance before often reuniting with family as they await the outcome of their immigration proceedings.

www.whitehouse.gov... s/

a reply to: quintessentone

Why not try?

Oh, try by all means. No doubt it'll do some good.

It's just another outside the box strategy to fix border problems

It may win some votes on that account, certainly.

Your quote doesn't say anything about fixing systemic problems in poor countries, though. It's just about providing humanitarian aid to refugees.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: quintessentone

Why not try?

Oh, try by all means. No doubt it'll do some good.

It's just another outside the box strategy to fix border problems

It may win some votes on that account, certainly.

It may win votes only if the trade plan works.