laterallyshaking
Elite
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2021
- Messages
- 668
One of the biggest arguments the liberals try to use against conservatives is that of morality. Granted, their sense of "morality" is skewed, in my opinion, but even still they tend to circumvent addressing hard evidence or facts on a subject by attacking what they present as lack of morality in the other party. The tricky part is, I think most of them believe what they are saying, because they have not researched or logically thought out their talking points. For instance, "Nobody should control what a woman does with her body" is a very agreeable stance. Most of them believe they hold this stance while conservatives oppose it. Nevermind the fact that we are not arguing for control over a woman's body, but for the protection of a human being that is held within that body. Regardless, they frame our argument in their minds as if we oppose the obvious morality of a woman's freedom to do what she chooses with her body.
So when discussing the border wall, one of the main arguments I have come up against is in regards to the crises the illegals are facing that drive them across the border to begin with. You won't have to look hard to see a sad news story about the horrors this father and his daughter were fleeing in Mexico or the terrible conditions this mother and her son had to endure that drove them across the border in the first place.
These crises do, of course, exist and they are sad and worthy of correcting. However the answer is not, and never will be, allowing unchecked immigration into a neighboring country. All that does is rescue a few poor souls that our media can make stories out of so the liberals can all pat themselves on the back for saving little baby Juan from a terrible situation in his native country. Good for Juan. Truly. I'm happy he made it out. But what about the thousands like him that are still trapped in his home country? Some might say the answer is more immigration, but that is obviously flawed. Unless you empty the entire country out, there will be people suffering there, because the actual issue is not being addressed. (Nevermind the logic that unchecked immigration puts a drain on the resources of our country, and the more of it there is the greater that drain becomes. Even with legal immigration, there is only so far you can go before you have more people than resources. But that's a whole other argument)
The actual issue is corruption and poor management of their country. Mexico, for example, is basically run by the cartels. Where do they get their power? Money. Where do they get their money? A large percentage of it seems to be from drug trafficking across the US/Mexico border. How do we depower the cartels? Cut off their money. A border wall would put a serious dent in their operation. Or, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I've grossly overestimated how much they rely on free passage across the border to keep their operations running. Which leads me to my main point.
True change cannot be had by depowering one specific group. Many countries have proven that if you take one corrupt group out of power, it's all too easy for other groups to step up and take their place. The real answer is to empower the people who will stand up against it. So what am I saying here? Send them pallets of food and water? Guns and ammo? No. The corrupt groups will take that and will be further empowered. Send in US troops to establish order and take out the cartels? Not a terrible idea in the short run, but as soon as US troops inevitably leave, it will be back to square one unless the Mexican government actually steps up. Annex Mexico and gain 5-10 new states? Now you're talking! But no... That's not what I'm getting at either.
What I'm saying is, cut them off.
So long as the strong-willed individuals of Mexico take their families and flee (the obvious best choice for them), the country will be left to limp along and create terrible living situations for those who remain. While cutting off their path to "asylum" (and I use that term loosely) does not seem like the most moral choice on the surface, I'd argue that it is by far more moral than facilitating a system that leaves the rest of the population of their country to struggle. I'd argue that, once there is no way to escape, these strong-willed individuals will be forced to find another way to save themselves and their families. How is that? Rise up and make the change that is needed.
Essentially what I'm arguing for is, Make Mexico Great Again. If people are forced to stay and clean up the mess, rather than running away from it, they might just be able to make Mexico (or whatever country they are running away form) a place that nobody wants to flee. Keep in mind, I'm not saying this will happen in a year, and probably not even a decade. This is a long-term fix, but I think it is the only true fix. Everything else is a band-aid.
So the next time somebody tries to attack your sense of morality for supporting a border wall... well probably don't even say all this. It's not worth your time. But you can at least think of it while you call them a twat and go about your day.
TLDR: The border wall and national sovereignty is far more moral than illegal immigration.
So when discussing the border wall, one of the main arguments I have come up against is in regards to the crises the illegals are facing that drive them across the border to begin with. You won't have to look hard to see a sad news story about the horrors this father and his daughter were fleeing in Mexico or the terrible conditions this mother and her son had to endure that drove them across the border in the first place.
These crises do, of course, exist and they are sad and worthy of correcting. However the answer is not, and never will be, allowing unchecked immigration into a neighboring country. All that does is rescue a few poor souls that our media can make stories out of so the liberals can all pat themselves on the back for saving little baby Juan from a terrible situation in his native country. Good for Juan. Truly. I'm happy he made it out. But what about the thousands like him that are still trapped in his home country? Some might say the answer is more immigration, but that is obviously flawed. Unless you empty the entire country out, there will be people suffering there, because the actual issue is not being addressed. (Nevermind the logic that unchecked immigration puts a drain on the resources of our country, and the more of it there is the greater that drain becomes. Even with legal immigration, there is only so far you can go before you have more people than resources. But that's a whole other argument)
The actual issue is corruption and poor management of their country. Mexico, for example, is basically run by the cartels. Where do they get their power? Money. Where do they get their money? A large percentage of it seems to be from drug trafficking across the US/Mexico border. How do we depower the cartels? Cut off their money. A border wall would put a serious dent in their operation. Or, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I've grossly overestimated how much they rely on free passage across the border to keep their operations running. Which leads me to my main point.
True change cannot be had by depowering one specific group. Many countries have proven that if you take one corrupt group out of power, it's all too easy for other groups to step up and take their place. The real answer is to empower the people who will stand up against it. So what am I saying here? Send them pallets of food and water? Guns and ammo? No. The corrupt groups will take that and will be further empowered. Send in US troops to establish order and take out the cartels? Not a terrible idea in the short run, but as soon as US troops inevitably leave, it will be back to square one unless the Mexican government actually steps up. Annex Mexico and gain 5-10 new states? Now you're talking! But no... That's not what I'm getting at either.
What I'm saying is, cut them off.
So long as the strong-willed individuals of Mexico take their families and flee (the obvious best choice for them), the country will be left to limp along and create terrible living situations for those who remain. While cutting off their path to "asylum" (and I use that term loosely) does not seem like the most moral choice on the surface, I'd argue that it is by far more moral than facilitating a system that leaves the rest of the population of their country to struggle. I'd argue that, once there is no way to escape, these strong-willed individuals will be forced to find another way to save themselves and their families. How is that? Rise up and make the change that is needed.
Essentially what I'm arguing for is, Make Mexico Great Again. If people are forced to stay and clean up the mess, rather than running away from it, they might just be able to make Mexico (or whatever country they are running away form) a place that nobody wants to flee. Keep in mind, I'm not saying this will happen in a year, and probably not even a decade. This is a long-term fix, but I think it is the only true fix. Everything else is a band-aid.
So the next time somebody tries to attack your sense of morality for supporting a border wall... well probably don't even say all this. It's not worth your time. But you can at least think of it while you call them a twat and go about your day.
TLDR: The border wall and national sovereignty is far more moral than illegal immigration.
Last edited:
that wall of words. Though you forgot WE CANT READ HEAR.
