So to clarify, my news I get them from bbc.com, not some facebook stuff....Anyway my dislike of him is the sum of all things he does/tweets/says...
Just to be clear: You do not read the original text from the original source. You read/hear about the source and opinions on the source from a third party, repeatedly. Correct? I'm reminded of a fairly recent Dr. Jordan Peterson interview with Cathy Newman here. I think watching that and thinking back to this context might make a better mental link with what I'm saying re: perceptions about when taken out of context.
Ok this is a thing where we just have to disagree, I try to understand people (not implying that I condone their actions) and then decide whether I trust them.
You say I moved the goalpost: not really it is in the discussion of illeagl immigrants and your previous reply about that they should clean up their own mess --> so relates to the boarder wall;).
One followed the other though, You've needed to continuously expand scope and keep throwing on more and more appeals to emotion to try and outweigh the cold logic and law, effectively moving the goalposts. I think I've been trying to do the opposite: reduce scope to simplify things to a component level as much as is possible and show judgement process from the component to maintain case invariance.
Immigration : Country->single house, Illegal/immigrants->trespassers though the window, standard immigration -> The front door.
Charlottsville : Pro/anti history revisionism -> two people arguing/fighting, city -> house, the "damning racist tweet" -> "Who's the asshole?"
I've only very recently made a "clean up their own mess" talking point, so what about the 3 before that? Linear chain of event man, you can read back though them if you like.
What are you referring to with "established methods"? I see what you mean though with being a burden, but they are that only until the system integrated them in the worklife.
Standard immigration and refugee practice, those are established methods. Those methods have been put in place and refined to have the maximum BURDEN let though without being "the straw that breaks the camel's back." Let me spell out a couple of the important ones:
-There is only so much language education available. Established methods test immigrants/refugess and trains them to be able to communicate. Any more than capacity and you end up with people who cannot function in society. The ones who already know get let though faster, benefits of self education.
-There is only so much law education available. Established methods test immigrants/refugess and trains them to understand common law and history of that law. Any more than capacity and you end up with people who think it's ok to cut the hand off someone who eats a grape before buying the bunch, or that a house is yours if you kill the current owners and set up camp. (in extreme, but quite realistic examples)
-Useful skills are regulated, any more than testing capacity and you end up with people who know electrical engineering who can't get a job doing it cause they're not acredited. Inversely, you can end up with someone who "Is electrician back in Iraq" but doesn't know colour code and dangerously mis-wires an apartment block with "live neutrals".
-Are they criminals escaping prosecution? Probably a good idea to check that.
-Where are they going to live? Will they be homeless and on the street in weather that can kill them? Will they have to hunt and cook stray cats and mice to eat?
There's a capacity to these things, it's generally based off of the country's excess. There are systems to regulate it (The "front door") and if they bypass those systems (The window) not only did they screw over at least 1 other person who is using the front door, but they create more broad issues beyond that.
Ok this now you can say is a digression from the original post:
Your rational chain of help make sense exactly like comunism does: without the human factor-->people want more. The real chain is more like:
self first(so you have excess) ->self first(so you have more excess) ->self first(so you have even more excess) -> family(so you as a group have excess) --> [repeat family a few times]-> friends(excess, group, common goals) -> repeat-> neighbors (excess, group, common area) ->repeat-->country (excess, group, common area, infrastructure) -> repeat-> others(excess, trade, common goals), but maaking sure we keep our excess^100.
Eventually we got so used to have waaay more than we need thaat it becomes our new normal and if in the process we exploit the rest of the world we see it just as normal and say stuff like "hei, we fixed our problems on our own why don't they fix theirs on their own?" and forget all the exploitation which got us here. And when they do stuff like we did in the early industrialization era (eg. child-labour) we go on and play the angels and say how wrong it is forgetting that we did it too (nb.: not a defense of child-labour, but to show that the same way we did it is not gonna work).
I see your point with giving away everything: but our new normal in the west consist of a way too high standard of living (too high because of the cost the rest of the world has to pay, eg. see cobalt etc for our smartphones and electric cars), so yeah it should either go down (remember our grandparents had meat once a week if at all) or we find a way to keep it at this level but with a better conscience. Taking the human factor, of course only the latter is a realistic option.
Looking at thread title...yup, bit of a digression. Tangentially related because people use boarder control and trade policy to say he's a racist and all in all bad character though.
My grandparents had more meat and eggs in their diet than I do, actually. It's an economy thing, but I understand your point. That point about giving away everything also directly applies: at what point of you handing away things YOU worked for and gained YOURSELF to others is it "enough" ? At what point is there enough excess that others are justified to just walk up and take something from you because "they have less" ? You seem to be walking a very dangerous line of marxism class-guilt there, and AFAIK every single historical example of that kind ends in ruin and mass-murder...I could be wrong.
Coming onto your middle point about new standards vs exploiting other countries. Should my country just freely give away grain and wood and minerals (our primary exports) without asking for a return? Do we tell our workers "sorry, all that work you did got given away, no pay check for you" ? Seriously, consider that viewpoint. Lithium and cobalt and other rare metals are rare, sure. But that is "trade" and you are from my perspective attributing malice unto the practice. Allow me to return that malice unto the only other option: theft/slavery.