:
|
Are you sure that the Coast Guard of your childhood is the same as the coastguard of today? As you’ve said, anti-illegal immigration measures have vastly improved (certainly enough to be satisfactory, in your eyes). How does today’s Coast Guard factor into this?
(Also, how did that fella manage to do that with a bunch of dogs? People can’t just tell little fuzzy critters to follow them around like that. Sounds like something out of a video game.)
|
I know it's not, I was just using the most ludicrous example of someone that was Really Determined to enter the states that I knew personally. They weren't the only ones I've met that rafted/boated/straight up swam over, and I definitely have met more people who had done the same as them fairly recently, so obviously the coast guard remains 'not shit'. And as far as I remember they only had two dogs when they entered the states and their mom took advantage of how fast they bred to make some quick money off people in the neighborhood that totally ignored the 4-dogs-per-household law and had a thing for tiny dogs you could carry in your pocket. It was... surreal.
And yeah, they're satisfactory to me personally because they're no longer causing any negative impact that I can see. I can't speak for SoCal, but I know for a fact that Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, the other states that get the highest influx of undocumented Mexican immigrants, are not hindered or hurt from having large latino populations. In most of these cases, they assimilated into American culture just fine, and are functioning members of society. Believe it or not, even undocumented immigrants pay taxes. Go figure.
:
|
So we should give up on enforcing rule of law, since crime will always exist?
|
Yeah you totally missed the point of what I was trying to say.
You asked why the same undocumented immigrant could get away with illegally crossing the border time and time again, and used it as an example of our border being too weak and there still being a problem with illegal immigration from Mexico. In response, I told you essentially, that no matter how strong our border is, if that same person who keeps getting detained and deported really
really wants to get back across the border, they will find a way. They would be an outlier, and are likely just as much of a problem to Mexico as they are to the US. Most people who get caught once don't try to make the effort to do it again unless their situation in Mexico is that dire.
:
|
Actually, there’s another aspect to “tyranny of the majority” that concerns me: if we elected our president off of the popular vote, the high-density, high-population urban states would be the only states with any political influence. That’s not a good deal for the rest of the Union. It’s the same reason why we have a legislature with two houses, one with equal representation from every state, and one with representation based on population size; with just the former, small states are given disproportionate power, while with only the latter, well, tyranny of the majority.
|
Except as I said, every district has representatives. Rural districts far outnumber urban districts. Representatives can be spoken to directly by the people in their district, and their jobs are to voice their districts concerns and do everything you seem to think the president is meant to do. They are the ones that represent the will of the people. You can also call your senator to voice the same concerns, as your senator represents the state and is obliged to listen to all the state's residents as well as all the states representatives. Collectively, they all carry the same concerns to direct the president in the right direction. Everyone gets heard, when the system works as it should. Putting so much focus on the executive branch and glossing over the legislative branch breaks the system and turns it into a system where you sit there and defend the electoral college because you're so worried the minority won't get a voice and totally ignore the fact our system already allows for a voice.
Also, with the electoral college abolished, it would open a lot more avenues for elected leaders. Third party candidates would actually stand a chance, and there's less chance for the mass corruption an essentially two-party system creates. I don't think there's anyone here who, in the last several election cycles, looked at the main two candidates presented and said "you know what? this candidate is totally in line with all of my beliefs and there is no contest because I don't have to play the lesser of the two evils game this election". I can also guarantee if they had looked at the third party runners during each election cycle they would have found someone who resonates with them almost to a t. With the electoral college, even if the candidate SOMEHOW got the popular vote, they would have still lost because they'd walk out with maybe 20 electoral votes if they were lucky thanks to how the electoral system works and the bias of the Democratic and Republican parties.
With the electoral college abolished, we might be able to prevent more elections from being so Red and Blue, and actually
allow a chance for real anti establishment candidates and people who are genuinely interested in helping this country as a whole, rather than just thinking about it as a game or trying to use it as a means to squeeze more money out of us, to get into office
:
|
If the Electoral College’s current structure poses a problem, then the solution is a Constitutional Convention when the time comes…Which, if Trump turns out to be a massive failure (as you infer will happen), isn’t too far into the future.
|
You really think the people in power are going to give it up the system skewed in their favour that easily?