You don't have to accuse them of anything. You can revoke immigration status for whatever reason.
I said that several posts ago...
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I said that several posts ago...
Firstly: a legal immigrant having their status changed overnight is obviously not the same thing as being an illegal immigrant.
Secondly: No. There are specific grounds on which immigration status can be revoked. It cannot legally be done on a whim of the executive, without any judicial review or cause given. This is why the government invoked the AEA, which is one of the few ways in which regular due process can be bypassed.
I'm not surprised you don't remember, but you were originally arguing that habeas didn't apply.
It's abundantly clear you don't have the first clue about how immigration law works in your own country, and you can't be bothered to look into it. You abandon your positions and shift to new ones constantly, never acknowledging that your initial position has fallen through. You're only arguing, at this point, out of some misplaced petulant pride.
These people arrived legally. Never were informed of any status change, never broke the law. And then overnight, they were incarcerated in maximum security indefinitely, at the request of the US government. You are defending this to the hilt.
We need human cloning now. By 2100 99% of nations will have a TFR of less than 2. I don't want an Earth without humans. We don't even need to have couples pop out kids we need human cloning. Even if AI replaces every job due to the complexity of tasks needed to build more advanced technology someone still needs to consume it.
No, we absolutely do not "need human cloning now", and I think you severely misunderstand what TFR translates to.
Humans are by no stretch of the imagination anything even remotely close to an endangered species, and simply having a Total Fertility Rate of <2 is not going to change that overnight. Point of fact, if we were to drop TFR all the way down to 1 (which, mind you, is an extreme assumption) and maintain that level, do you know how long it would take to even get us down to a population of "just" 500 million (as it was in 1500 CE)? In the neighborhood of 120 years. And that's literally if we assume that each generation is half the size of the preceding one.
So no, TFR dropping to "less than 2" is not a cause to ring the alarm bells. Point of fact, as our current population size is more than the planet can healthily sustain, letting the population shrink to something it can more comfortably handle provides more long term benefit.
I wonder whether if the global population dropped significantly, the birth rate would increase anyway.
I wonder if part of the reason the birth rate has dropped is that the world feels crowded, stressful, and resource-scarce. That many people feel they have to grind away at thankless jobs they don't like for not very much, competing in a dog-eat-dog world whilst being bombarded with messages that they should have the latest iPhone, Nike Air Max Ultra, etc.
Maybe having kids just seems like a massive fucking hassle; a drain on the few resources and free time people have. Maybe the only reason humanity was pumping them out 100-150 years ago was a lack of reliable contraception and the fact kids could be shoved into a factory to earn a few extra pennies.
Maybe religion, which by and large demands that women be baby factories, doesn't have the stranglehold on humanity that it used to.
Just have a company, a government entity, or something in between handle it, like in a classroom setting.
Not true for the US, which has plenty of land.
That's only true if the average person on Earth lives like an American, which most don't.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,774
- 3,354
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
So...if you legally enter the country with the knowledge and consent of the government, and then the government decides to revoke your status for an arbitrary reason, doesn't inform you, and you're arrested and then sent to a foreign prison without having been convicted of any crime, you would consider that normal and justified?
No, that's true regardless. To act as if humans are in danger of extinction if our TFR drops below 2 - and therefore that we must immediately act to bolster the numbers - is to ignore the fact that human population is at an all time high, and indeed experienced explosive growth in the last century. In 2024, global population was 8.1 billion. In 1900, it was 1.6 billion. In 1800 it was 1 billion. You know when the last time global population actually shrunk was? The 14th Century, due to the Black Death, which caused the human population of 440 million to drop by roughly 100 million...which put it close to the level it was at in the 11th Century.
Again, we are not even close to being at a point where a drop in population size - even absurdly dramatic ones - represents some existential crisis. And TFR simply dropping below 2 is not even close to representing an aburdly dramatic drop. You're looking at an anthill and pretending that it's Mt. Everest.
Last edited:
Eh, USAID is often used as a front for things where they don't want transparency as to where the money is really going. Set up some aid program somewhere that's innocuous looking if dumb on paper, use it as a cover to get CIA into the country.
Even then I could see a circumcision program in Mozambique reducing HIV transmission, if only because they're doing circumcisions anyways and doing them with sterile tools in a clean environment is going to reduce exposure opportunities while being dirt cheap compared to trying to *checks notes* genetically engineer babies resistant to the disease.
Yeah, they're just cutting off parts of penises, and not necessarily those of babies.
Again, just look at the individual policies and ideas the Trump admin has been pushing under the pretext of deporting illegal immigrants, and then imagine the most straightforward abuse of it. I'll give you a hint, it looks a lot like disappearing people to a max-sec torture prison in El Salvador forever without even charging them with a crime under the thinnest of pretenses.
To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, trying to stop this kind of thing inevitably involves defending terrible people, because that's who it's aimed at first (it's harder to look good defending them and easier to justify mistreatment) and you have to stop it early if you're going to stop it at all.
To be frank, if "did the CIA abuse this program to extend domestic and foreign influence, and interfere with sovereign states' politics?" is our litmus test as to whether a US foreign policy program should continue...we'd better build those mega-walls at the Mexican and Canadian border, mine our shores, and decommission all our radio broadcast towers and satellites to turn ourselves into a first-world North Korea sooner than later. I mean hell, those motherfuckers put spy-cams on pigeons and used them to surveil US citizens for chrissake.
Need I remind you that right now liberals are so brainwormed they're actively defending VoA because Trump threatened to defund it?
That's where things get considerably more "grey area".
I'm sure Agema would have more to say about this particular point than me, but do you know what else is dirt cheap? Pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis. There are a mountain of logistic and cultural issues atop this -- distrust for Western medicine among indigenous African folks (for good reason), supply chain issues including transportation, storage, and distribution, production chokepoints -- but those extend to practically any form of medical care. The bottom line is it's simply not as profitable as other options for HIV prevention and treatment in Africa. Westerners get the good shit, because we're the ones who pony up the cash and make already-disgustingly wealthy people wealthier in exchange for getting to live.
It also needs be said circumcision is only documented to lower HIV transmission in a single, specific case: female-to-male during PIV sex. As far as anal sex regardless of partner, or any sort of same-sex male activity, there's just not enough information to make a strong claim as most of it is based on extrapolation and assumption. However, it is also documented to lower transmission of certain STI's -- HSV, HPV, BV, trich being the big ones, jury's out on gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia -- from males to females. Those are also more easily treated/cured than HIV of course, but again look to what I said in the last paragraph.
It's a little sus to hyper-focus on the one specific case in which the sexual health of exclusively straight men get protected, while ignoring documented evidence for protecting women's sexual health with the same procedure. Especially when, as you pointed out, complications from that same procedure resulting from substandard tools, methods, and environmental factors are the far bigger problem.
Yep. Once you actually get into sub-Saharan Africa where it's plurality or majority traditional African religion and culture, or Christian-TAR syncretic, circumcision trends towards voluntary and adult as it's considered a rite of passage to adulthood. Which is even more problematic than neonatal circumcision in a lot of ways, not the least is being performed in...considerably less than medically-optimal ways.
Of course, those cultural procedures may or may not involve a lot more than foreskin removal, but that's neither here nor there. Google at your own peril.
This conversation begins and ends with "non-citizens are entitled to due process". That's the plain language of the Constitution, that's the plain language of every relevant amendment to the Constitution, that was the framers' clear and unambiguous intent, and that's the finding of the judiciary in every case since the country's exception. The one and only exception was slavery, and that being the one and only exception should tell you a whole lot about the worldview of the neo-Nazi shitbags defending Trump's bullshit. Due process is so deeply-ingrained into American policy and jurisdiction even fucking Roger Taney had to bullshit his way around it authoring Dred Scott.
people don't want to have kids because it's expensive and people are generally struggling even without kids. who would take care of the clones? they wouldn't even have proper parents; the economics against raising them hits even harder. but if you did something that would allow vast numbers of clones to be taken care of, you could also do something that would make it easier to raise children. a somewhat diminishing population is not a particular problem, but even if it was clones are a laughably bad solution to it.