Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn


Burgold

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, visionary said:

Um....

This whole mess is because of the CIA overthrowing anyone left of Reagan.

 

I want so badly to just take the 60 million Trump supporters, throw them into a room, and not let them leave until they've gotten an entire education's worth of history courses.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

9/11 radicalized rural America.  These are the fruits it has borne.

Probably at least partly because rural America are the ones that spill the majority of blood percapita in some **** hole jungle or some **** hole sandbox fighting for a way of life.  Getting hit at home stings a little more to those people.

 

https://www.agweb.com/article/rural-recruits-make-up-roughly-half-of-military-naa-ashley-davenport/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

If you had to live outdoors year round, wouldn't you want to be where the temperature never drops below freezing and rarely gets above 90 even in the middle of summer ? 

 

I'd prefer Maui

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Probably at least partly because rural America are the ones that spill the majority of blood percapita in some **** hole jungle or some **** hole sandbox fighting for a way of life.  Getting hit at home stings a little more to those people.

 

https://www.agweb.com/article/rural-recruits-make-up-roughly-half-of-military-naa-ashley-davenport/

 

Someone needs to get to the bottom of these numbers.  I don't know which figure is correct, but there are at least 2 very different numbers floating around.  Does the military not publish these numbers?

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/17/139699631/white-house-overstates-rural-role-in-military

 

Quote

"Although rural residents account for 17 percent of the U.S. population," the White House said in a statement about the veterans' lunch, "they make up 44 percent of the men and women who serve in uniform."

...

"It is little known, perhaps, because there appears to be no way it could possibly be true," writes Bill Bishop, who first reported the disproportionate military service by rural men and women as a reporter for the Austin American Statesman in 2003.

Bishop has continued to write about rural service in the military on a rural news website called The Daily Yonder. "We've known for at least seven years that rural residents are overrepresented in the military," he says. "But why does the White House issue a report and statements that vastly overstate this phenomenon?"

Bishop's analysis of recruiting records for the U.S. Army, the nation's biggest armed force, puts the number of rural recruits at about 20 percent. That's less than half the number reported by the White House.

 

So according to Bill Bishop, the number is rural america makes up 17% of the total population, but makes up 20% of the recruits in the Army (still a disproportionate burden, but obviously not as out of whack as 44%).  Now I suppose it's possible for the number to get so disproportionate with other branches of the Military that the total number of 44% of uniformed service members do come from rural areas though Army only gets 20% from rural areas.  But that seems really unlikely.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Yeah when i spent 2 weeks in Hawaii on two islands my order of first impressionwas was:

1) Wow this airport has no windows, it's just open air, this weather is so awesome their airport is an open air building

2) Wow look at all these homeless people.

 

 

which then spun into a dumb thought exercise on whether people come to hawaii then become homeless, or if homeless people come to hawaii

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@LD0506

 

I fully expect that.

 

And I'll accept it. Our government will deserve its ass whooping in court when that day comes, as will us tax payers. We individually don't support it, but collectively put people in power that obviously were these types of people from the start. 

 

What breaks my heart is the NPR-esque articles we're going to get in 15 years about the long term damage done to countless people because they were removed and permanently lost from their parents. Because I have 0, zero, belief we will reunite all of these people. 

 

This immigration system is easily one of the top things that our leaders have dropped the ball on and it is completely unacceptable. And we, as a people, don't have the decency or the intelligence to stand together as one and make them aware of how badly they have screwed up here.

 

(same with the state of economics, education, and infrastructure of this country. yay team!)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, twa said:

are they using the same definition of rural?

 

kinda like asylum seekers,it matters where/how

Hmm, since they both came up with 17% of overall population as rural, I assume the definition is the same.  Unless one of the tabulation uses different definition for total population and another for military recruits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone doubts the damage of a split like we are/have mandated, I would direct them to the book Primal Wounds.  It goes over the damage to both the mom and the child of separations.  Personally, I think it should be required reading for foster parents and everyone in the system.  It certainly puts a damper on the rescuing white knight role in which we often want to think of ourselves.  Foster care and adoptions can only be the least bad alternative.  Nobody should pretend we have done these kids favors.

 

I still think the two parts of the story that scare me the most are contact instructions for personnel running these mass internment camps for kids separated from their parents and where are the girls?

 

On the first, there was a study quoted to us at a continuing education event for foster parents of kids with disabilities.  The study was from the 1950's, and I have not been able to find a more recent one. It placed the mortality rate for infants placed in group homes at roughly 35% by age 3.  They mostly seemed to suffer from failure to thrive which was attributed to not being held enough.  One of the early reports had kids changing diapers because adults were not to touch the kids.  I would love to see results of a FOIA request for operations guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of  those working there.  I fear what may not be found in the results.

 

My second question is where are the girls?  I keep looking for photos in the articles and videos showing girls.  Where are they?

 

I fear the damage we do in our self righteous insistence we are justified in our actions "defending" our borders.  Are we trading the integrity of our ideals for a feeling we improve the integrity of our borders (regardless of reality). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...