Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "How to Illegally Cross the Mexico-US Border" video.

@syltonn Why is it so bad? The system works as intended and lets in 1,000,000 people in every year; there's just so many to begin with. What right do outsiders have to demand that the US opens its doors to them? I get it; want a better life, but what your mother did was wrong. Regardless, if you were born here, you are a US citizen -so nothing can fix that, I guess.
22
@syltonn USA is a political entity that existed without any Native American input, its original inhabitants were Caucasians and Africans and had zero relationship with the Native Americans outside of treaty obligation or conflict. It conquered Native American land much like most of the colonial nations that now exist in the Americas. That has literally nothing to do with today in this subject; the USA exists as its own entity and has its own laws and everyone has to respect that within its controlled borders. So cut the "Hurduuur USA is technically Native American" crap. There is no "making immigration processes better" that will help stop illegal immigration since legal immigration is meant to bring the best and brightest; and people crossing the border are the desperate, not that. So no, "improving" the system won't do jack despite what Wendover claims.
18
@Elendrian Then you'd be disingenuous since that was in the past, not current policy. Fact is that the US lets in a LOT of legal immigrants; period. So acting like "the system is the problem" is beyond disingenuous. It's straight propaganda. OP's mother SHOULD be castigated for breaking the law, even if we understand her perspective -much like I'd castigate someone for stealing even if its to help their family. Either you're naïve, or you're disingenuous. I hope it's the latter, because you're currently victim-blaming right now.
10
@Elendrian What, you think its fair that someone can break the law and cross a border illegally and then give birth to make an anchor baby? You think that's just or fair at all? I respect with that law, even if I don't agree with all of it. OP is a legal citizen even if it was done in such a dishonest way. If you think that's A-OK then be aware that most countries do not have something as archaic as birthright citizenship. The US is among the few countries that has that, and its being abused. But it's there, so I accept it.
8
@Elendrian I assume you're talking about the lottery? Because only 50k are per year, and it allows anyone regardless of sex/race/wealth to come to the US, I believe. But it is reserved for places where there isn't as much US immigration.
6
@Elendrian >Doesn't have time to explain opinion. >Still responding. Okay.
5
@Elendrian Then I don't know what you mean, apologies
4
@raulmedinahernandez1503 The only one spending their life's savings would be those that are at the border which wouldn't get into the US legally in the first place. All immigration tries to focus on getting the best and brightest, not random people on the street. Unless you open immigration and remove the component which focuses on that best and brightest, no, it won't mend anything. "then there wouldn't be so many people waiting" There's a massive backlog. Too many people want to join in the first place. I'm open to increasing the amount, but it will still take years.
4
@cameosix7077 None of the European countries are Socialist, Denmark's government literally went out of their way to explain that to the world. And the Trump Administration, even with their stupidity, is nowhere near as corrupt as the vast majority of countries on Earth. You only really need to look at a corruption index to prove that. "Capitalism is failing" Bruh, all of the world's biggest economies are capitalist. Most of the world is capitalist. Only the poorest nations of the world aren't capitalist. What are you even talking about?
3
@Elendrian How about you explain why that matters in this conversation? Or can't you?
3
@Elendrian To put it blandly, I seriously doubt you're more educated than me on the overall subject considering your overall opinions. No matter how you argue you it, legal immigration has to open up far more than what a nation should to seriously curb illegal immigration due to the source of low-wage earners. Grow up, dude.
3
@Elendrian I know the quota within the visa lottery, but not the specific quota in reference to legal immigration access to the US; basically I don't know what you're referring to and have asked what you meant but you chose to not elucidate. Thus its difficult to tell whether I DO know what you're talking about and you're just being deliberately vague -or I really just am ignorant about this specific subject. I don't mind being wrong, but I was curious for information. I can see that bigotry is alive and well though, since you refuse to engage rather than learn. After this last comment, I see I'm wasting my time. Uh, considering that you were replying to comments earlier complaining about OP's mother cutting in line; at the very least its obvious you don't particularly care about the issue of illegal immigration enough to not also call out the unfairness of such an act. If you can't follow that simple A-to-B, then yeah, I'm done. Have a nice life, dude.
3
@paulc693 Even having a much better immigration system; many and more of these people wouldn't be able to come in due to their low education. It'd depress wages for lower-earning people in the US, after all. So no, these people would still be risking their lives regardless. And they have no right to come here. Fuck that.
2
@PythdonJC Uh, no he's not. The US as a political entity was started with only white people and black people as the original "Americans". Natives have little and less with its formation other than the owners of the lands the US had defeated. Americans are as "foreigners" as the French are in France. So he has every right to gatekeep.
2
@rhynosouris710 Both countries needs immigrants. It helps keep the population young for the next generation.
2
@rhynosouris710 For now, but they're not going to be okay in the future. What are they gonna do in their highly competitive economies once the young don't have the numbers to support the old? Just because they're not doing it, doesn't mean they're doing "very well" without it. There is no shortage of young people currently, yes. But in the future without immigration? Yes, there will be. Have you not looked at the average age of these countries? Let me give you a hint; the US and Canada are young. Europe is middle-aged. And East Asia's biggest economies are getting pretty old fast.
2
@rhynosouris710 If there are more people, there is more demand for goods. More demand for goods equals more people being hired to meet demand. This "ponzi scheme" is called "an economy". But if the demand is met by a lower base of young people and older people become a majority that can barely work; then that obviously becomes a pretty big issue, doesn't it? Idk what's hard about this. More youth means not only the country has a base to fall back on for military purposes, employment, and general productivity; it means they can support social services like retirement funds and such. By your logic, if there are any youth unemployment (which is low in both the US and Canada btw), then we have too many. That just isn't true; the population size shifts the labor market around, so the youth unemployment will be relatively stable unless too lop-sided. Now if a country is TOO young, like 20 years old average? Then sure, you can make that argument if only because demand won't keep up. I think the age range where people purchase goods the most is in the 30's or so. So a country with this average age is good. Idk how you think a country having an average age of 48 years old (Japan) is a good idea. Like, how do you expect the country to support the elderly that have grown old without the young paying for it?
2
@Elendrian I told you I'm done. I was curious, but you are not, so nothing to gain here.
2
The same way every other border is legitimate, smart one. And since they enter the country without the country's permission, their rights are not protected by the Constitution. Come on, don't be silly.
1
@MyMuse1111 Americans are among the hardest workers among the wealthiest nations, actually. So the "lazy American" meme kinda doesn't work in reality.
1
@botigamer9011 But it lost a war against a people that lost to Vietnamese rice farmers, so...yeah.
1
@archdukefranzferdinand567 I agree there can be more, but even if we accept 3 million, that would only ostensibly bring down that number to 8 years. Much better, but the point is that obviously the issue is that there is a massive line and bitching about the system makes no damn sense. Bitch at the people who keep getting in line.
1
Uh, no. The US cucked Central America sporadically within 100 years -but in reality the few times it did was far and far-between. So its more like it fucked with Central America for 20+ years. Nice try, though. Edit: Also, to be blunt, the US can just be cruel about it and just mine the border. God knows some people suggest it unironically.
1
@Nuhuhlolxd Again, the US did not touch those countries constantly. By this logic, the British fucked with the US for 150+ years since the British did so a few times in-between 1776 and the 1940's when an alliance was finalized. In reality, the US intervened in Central America sparingly within large distances of time between about the mid 19th century and the late 20th century. Also, a lot of countries did so to. So spare me. Everything has a ripple effect. The British forcefully entering homes of Americans and confiscating it has ripple effects today. At some point you can't just use that as an excuse for current issues, bruh. That just becomes a convenient excuse; and most of these countries have not been touched by the US for 30 years. At what point will it be their own fault that they're stuck, or is always gonna be someone else's fault?
1
@john15yt "Glamorizes the US" Television, internet, and social media has done the exact opposite of glamorize the US wtf? That may have been the case in the 2010's, but approaching the 2020's the US has been more akin to a punching bag with every negative aspect of it played up for global clicks and views. All prior to Trump too. Gotta call BS on that one; the US is still one of the better countries to jump up even considering the social benefits of other Western nations. And don't be coy, the situation in many Central American nations are pretty horrific with an abysmally high crime rate and cartels ruling entire sections of countries.
1
@alexmcleod8125 It's both in reality, and it helps that the US $ has so much purchasing power to currencies south of the US border.
1
@PythdonJC "Destabilizing the entire Middle East for oil" The US invaded literally 2 countries in the Middle East, and got involved in 2 civil wars of which it didn't cause -and in none of those instances did the US do it to steal oil. Let alone to get richer from it. If you're gonna make a point, then don't be utterly ignorant about it. Speaking of which, many of those countries you hand-waved themselves have bloody hands from their own inter-conflicts with each other. Yet no one expects them to throw away their laws for other peoples. Yet you do for the US? Screw that noise.
1
@Andreas4696 300k per year, I believe.
1
@spazz351 Why is it that any talk of the US in Latin America automatically brings up Cold War policy when the US has been engaging with it peacefully for the last 4 decades or so?
1
@cprow0997 Even then, there was no actual case of Americans fleeing. If anything, Canadians cross into the US far more often than Americans do to Canada.
1
@Lucas-sm2nr Except it doesn't, most of the people coming illegally are low-wage earners which is NOT what any country wants for immigrants. It wants high-wage workers -so any immigration reform would never include them unless the country is feeling particularly generous. And even if it did, it wouldn't include anywhere near enough to satisfy so many trying to come in. Strong borders work perfectly fine, there just isn't enough political will for it atm.
1
@ConstancioRosellini5873 If we're making that argument, then Mexicans were the first illegals in that region since they settled it after stealing it from the Natives. The Apache and Pueblo didn't exactly give it willingly. :D
1
@HardenJID Actually Nicaragua's government was overthrown because the dictator there went too far, so yeah, kinda liberation. The others were more because "can't let the Soviets control this country". Kinda an oversimplification, but yeah.
1
@HardenJID Oh, you're right. I was thinking about Panama. Or was it Grenada? One of the two. Nvm, you're good. Also, yeah, that wasn't a democracy at that point. A Leninist in a democracy is like a Nazi in a democracy. It doesn't work. At all.
1
@тито-к9в Uh, yes. Most countries deal with those "invisible lines" as seriously as they deal with "paper with ink and numbers on them" like currency. It's almost like human concepts are necessary to organize their societies, eh?
1
@SuperChannel253-s7g You mean let an infinite number of low-wage earners into the country who many don't even know how to speak English? Yeah, that won't backfire at all. That's waaaaay more costly than fixing Mexico, I think.
1
Except the US wouldn't want so many low-wage workers, FFS. It's the US' choice, what right does random foreigners have to demand that they be let into the country???
1
@mothballsV In this case, he was very much incorrect though. The point of immigration is to get the best for your country; and the US can do better, but unless it wishes to expand immigration to include low-wage workers there is simply no way legal immigration will ever allow so many low-wage earners into the country. Nor should it since it depresses wages for low-wage earners in the country itself. Basically; Wendover's "solution" isn't a solution since the option is a stupid one. It also supposes that a Canada-US comparison where there are no American illegal immigrants is anywhere comparable is just...wrong. Canada isn't swamped by illegal immigration because Canada isn't bordering a troubled country like Mexico -not because Canada's even more restrictive legal immigration system works tons better.
1
@xalpacazeu1332 Illegal literally pay zero federal taxes outside of those placed on goods -which is usually just considered state taxes. And any wealthy person that doesn't pay federal taxes usually pay some other way like charity, or somesuch. Either way, in absolute terms they are a complete negative for the US economy. Only if you pool them together with legal immigrants can they ever be considered a positive -which is disingenuous.
1
@LordDragox412 Oh boy, gotta love that senseless bigotry lol
1
@Elendrian Slaving away for corporations and depressing low-income wages for the poor isn't making America great whatsoever. Your shilling for the rich is something else.
1
@henrycolestage4249 That could easily translate to officials using that to suppress their population. Nothing the US can do can't be corrupted into something else. Fact is, any action abroad makes the US responsible for the outcome, regardless of how much the US was actually involved.
1