Page 71 of 89

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:02 pm
by HybridAmbassador
mem wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 3:30 pm
fraggle092 wrote:
Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:38 am
I suspect the main reason that Chile abstained from signing the treaty is down to this guy:
.
images.jpg
Was it the guy or the guys haircut? Even a Simon cowell cut would be an improvement and that is saying something

Say what you will about Chile, but at least male haircuts are not appalling. I will not mention the dreadlocked crosswalk jugglers...
Evo Morales facial has that unique Mapuche Indian looks. Is he originate from the Incas or the Mapuches?

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:25 pm
by eeuunikkeiexpat
Aymara dude. Study your geography.

Of course, the Mapuches are the only native Americans who were not conquered by the Spanish.

An aside, one time I was wandering around my digs in my usual manner with shades on and I heard a Chilean muttering something about chinos and japoneses appearing very Mapuche-like.

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:30 pm
by mem
I dont see the resemblance between Evo and Mapuche. Maybe it's just me but he as an Aymara is distinct facially from Mapuche.

Not that anyone cares, but I also not a fan of the bowler hats on the females. Surprised that SJW's are not crying "cultural appropriation". But then I am not surprised...at all. Strictly aesthetically, it's a no go.

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:48 am
by admin
i have spent a good deal of time this morning trying to follow the logic, or arguments for "migration" being a human right.

you simply can not get there, without negating all other kinds of rights (e.g. political, property, etc.).

if you start with some sort of assumption about every human has the same right to move around the earth as every other human.

o.k. so far.

freedom of movement.

o.k.

no person has any more right to property, land, territory, than any other, then you start breaking down.

you rapidly run into things like, well how far does that go?

when i think about "rights" in general, i always think of the, "your right to swing your fist, ends where my nose begins".

which would be exactly what would happen with a universal right to migration.

they seem to at every turn be conflating migrant possesing human rights (e.g. to not be killed, torchered, due process, etc), with migration IS a human natural right in itself; that usurps all other rights, such as state, association, property, etc. at the least it is not an inalienable or natural right, but that sure seems what they are trying to make out of it

that leap of logic i simply can get to.

now, with legal immigration, i am all for, once country extends an invitation to an individual, that they have an obligation to provide for similar rights to other residents and humans in general; but, the right to be a perment resident or a citizen of a country in the first place is a super stretched definition.

that means i can wake up in the morning, declare myself a swiss citizen (having never been there before, and no immidiate plans to go), and switzerland needs to hand over to me all the rights and benfits of a swiss citizen living outside of switzerland. if i get to the boarder, they owe me a job, a house, food, health care, etc... and have no authority to stop me from entering the territory.

it just so easily leads to a reductio ad absurdum in short order.

does that make any sense at all?

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:45 pm
by mem
admin wrote:
Thu Dec 13, 2018 10:48 am
i have spent a good deal of time this morning trying to follow the logic, or arguments for "migration" being a human right.

you simply can not get there, without negating all other kinds of rights (e.g. political, property, etc.).

if you start with some sort of assumption about every human has the same right to move around the earth as every other human.

o.k. so far.

freedom of movement.

o.k.

no person has any more right to property, land, territory, than any other, then you start breaking down.

you rapidly run into things like, well how far does that go?

when i think about "rights" in general, i always think of the, "your right to swing your fist, ends where my nose begins".

which would be exactly what would happen with a universal right to migration.

they seem to at every turn be conflating migrant possesing human rights (e.g. to not be killed, torchered, due process, etc), with migration IS a human natural right in itself; that usurps all other rights, such as state, association, property, etc. at the least it is not an inalienable or natural right, but that sure seems what they are trying to make out of it

that leap of logic i simply can get to.

now, with legal immigration, i am all for, once country extends an invitation to an individual, that they have an obligation to provide for similar rights to other residents and humans in general; but, the right to be a perment resident or a citizen of a country in the first place is a super stretched definition.

that means i can wake up in the morning, declare myself a swiss citizen (having never been there before, and no immidiate plans to go), and switzerland needs to hand over to me all the rights and benfits of a swiss citizen living outside of switzerland. if i get to the boarder, they owe me a job, a house, food, health care, etc... and have no authority to stop me from entering the territory.

it just so easily leads to a reductio ad absurdum in short order.

does that make any sense at all?
Yeah, I have found the same when thinking about how this can all shakeout. I watched a debate between someone who was anti-state and believed that borders should be abolished. Basically no government whatsoever and no borders. However, they were staunch supporters of private property

The conundrums that are result of that kind of philosophy is what you do when someone claims "private property" along a coastline. Will that person not allow anyone to pass through their private property in order to go deeper into the continent?
Another issue is how the concept of "private property" is enforced in the absence of a government or state. What is to stop the stronger from expelling the weaker from private property? A little old lady has private propety and then a group of armed men come to take it. There are no police, and even if the old lady has guns she will fail against an armed group of young men. It is la of the jungle at that point.
The notion of private property is only as good as long as you can forcibly repel any takers of your private property, since you have no other authority to appeal to for protection let alone punishment of the offenders.

It is a total non-starter, but plenty of anarchists think the answer is to abolish all governments everywhere, but I have yet to hear a good answer to what is to prevent the law of the jungle and might makes right from taking over when it comes to private property. Not everyone will stay young forever or live with a small militia in the same house. People will age, become vulnerable, live out in rural areas where the nearst neighbor wouldnt even hear a gun going off let alone respond and be helpful if they even care to respond and if they did would they be enough against an armed gang of thugs? What about 2000 migrants...that little old lady on her private property would be decimated along with anything of value she had.

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:23 am
by admin
i am normaly not a big fan of slippery slope arguments, as they tend to be little more than affirming the consequences falacies; however, in the case of eliminating boarders, holy shit everyone buy a bobsled.

europe is the big experiminent with this, and except for the eu beucrats, i think everyone has pretty much come to the conclusion it is not going well. but they just keep doubling down on the free movement of people. if free movement of people in the eu was not sufficient, invite the rest of the world.

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:27 am
by admin
so following the latest regardong the venezuela crisis.

u.n., for the last several years has been pushing basicaly the same numbers, over and over again.

finaly they come out with some updated numbers, that still do not pass the smell test. 3 million venezuelans have left, and it will reach about 5.3 million in 2019.

https://www.bradenton.com/news/business ... 07800.html

beuno.

except a harvard study put the number already above 5 million.

here is a great article on the history of the three waves of migration

https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2018/ ... ion-waves/

i have my suspicions the numbers are way higher. are they even counting second generation venezuelans for instance? 18+ years of exhiles tends to lead to a lot of venezuelans being born abroad, and how do you even count and track them? not to mention it is nearly impossible for people to get identification and passports from venezuela.

so we have the u.n. actively under reporting the scope of the crisis. notice how they like to slip in things like "since 2015" or "since 2014", effectively defining away a large portion of the crisis.

it A) indirectly supports the supporters of maduo (china, cuba, russia) and the extreme left of south america B) stops people from being scarred and shocked, thus not undermining the "boarderless world" push around the world.

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:29 am
by admin
here is an article on the stateless babies of venezuela:

https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2018/ ... nt-crisis/

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:35 am
by admin
the health stats are even more disturbing, or more exactly the lack of health stats.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/11/15/ven ... lth-crisis

we got a full blown epidemic(s) on the move tracking the venezuelan migration.

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:45 pm
by nwdiver
The whole "right to migrate" is a euro liberal thing justifying the migration out of Africa.........something the UN can get the majority of members behind as they are the countries supply the flow of migrants.......

The line between migrant and refugee is often blurred and mixed up.......were all the refugees that left Chile to all parts of the world in the 1970s really refugees? Many I have met were economic migrants taking advantage of the system.....

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:39 pm
by at46
Came across interesting figures, apparently, from the UN: there are 250 mln people in the world today who left their mother/fatherlands to permanently settle in foreign lands in search of better life. That's 3% of the world's population. But what's most poignant is that these 3% produce 10% of the world's output. It's all about brain drain.

Re: chile's migration crisis

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:44 pm
by fraggle092
The sound of chickens coming home to roost......

Europe's migration crisis: Could it finish the EU?

Brussels protest over UN migration pact turns violent

Just part of the reaction against "progressive" thinking as handed down by ivory tower elites in the UN etc.

As is this