minthulf

Same fuck ya

fuuuck love how colt is pushing our protagonist. can't wait to see how this continues.

Dominant roughass Colt makes me twitch with lust

Forcibly preventing refugees from reaching the northern border would fall onto that. Like central american countries could probably charge our past couple presidents to be in breach of the treaty (but won't bc the USA is supporting us in these violations of human rights) Mexico, unlike the USA, is a signatory to the Rome Statue since 2005 and thus Mexican citizens may be prosecuted within the ICC.

Ooof. So, Mexican here. Well for one, Mexico's southern border is very difficult to secure geographically and politically. Also you have quite the inadequate understanding of how the USA-Mexico relationship functions; from the consequences of following american policy wrt drugs, migrants, etc... to the ways money and goods flow between the two countries. I will simply say: The thing you're suggesting, that's a crime against humanity; and mexico is in fact a signatory to those laws.

So why the word "immigrant" Because that is what they are, they are going to (migrating) into (im) the point of reference (the USA) You show an implicit understanding of this by using the adjective "legal", differentiating on ways migration can be framed. Now, regarding legality; well firstly and obviously Legal is not synonymous with Correct, or Just, or Moral. Legality is an empirical fact, morality is more metaphysical (though most people care more for the latter than for the former, as we tend to understand that laws, even moreso than history, are written by -and for- the powerful) That said, many of these migrants are in fact lawfully seeking entry into the USA by right of refuge; they are refugees from countries that the USA has played a significant role in destabilizing. The resistance to admitting them (and even outright turning away) by the governments of the usa is an illegal act (though no power exists that can compel the governments to follow their own laws). One can tell that they prefer entering lawfully because they are making something of a spectacle of the crossing; those seeking entry through illegal means tend to be quiet about it; these are people demanding justice and asylum. Further "immigration process" is a hazy term. I mean in one way migration is in itself the process; the moving is the process. One emigrates from a country and simmultaneously immigrates into another. Now if one is talking about legal processes... well for one, on what legal basis is the USA constituted; its independence from the United Kingdom was not attained through legal means; it was retroactively granted legality as a result of violence; but as Civil Wars the world throughout show, this legality does not exist a priori. Similarly the original settlement of the territory by Europeans was not lawful by the laws of the people living in the territory itself, and oftentimes nor by the laws of the settlers themselves (cf the many treaties the USA broke during its expansions). The state itself is thus illegal, its laws backed only by the power of the state to do violence. so, taking a strictly legalistic perspective might not be the most honest way to go about things; especially if many of these people are seeking to go through the process legally but are being kept from it by the government, As to Arabic presence in Egypt; Afro-Americans; and immigrating into a country before establishment; Yes you are right, folk cannot immigrate into a state before the state exists; country is a bit more ambiguous because country tends to refer to the intersection of territory (which exists before the establishment of the state) and state (the social structure brought into being for the administration of the land and people). Keeping this distinction between land and state is important and why you aren't calling citizens "natives" though it (and relatives terms such as autochthon) is the technical antonym for "immigrant"; you call them citizens, because you understand there is a difference between those that got here and forced other people out, and the people that were forced oute... which is a form of immigration though does feel severe enough that we tend not to talk about it as merely immigration but rather: Colonization. Honestly talking of european presence in this continent in terms of "immigration" tends to minimize the brutality of the process. which kinda touches on the whataboutism that is Arabs in Egypt, yeah there was a colonization process, though the process also involved a lot of standard migration, and overal is spread out over enough time and changes of state that... well its not honestly a very productive talk to have wrt the situation in the USA-Mexico Border as to immigration of Africans into the continent; yeah we tend not to call kidnapping or the coerced movement of people "immigration"; it technically is but we tend to refer to it as "trafficking" or "kidnapping" and typically seek to redress the harm caused. But in this case "migrant" is not incorrent, though "coloniser" would be (incorrect that is). TLDR: we are not a law forum, heck a lot of us are scofflaws, the conversation is more about hypotheticals and ideals rather than actionable policy. Also the state is a fiction, hierarchies of power ought be abolished, landback, etc...

regarding the question in the title: who pays for them... well they do; the labor they do produces A LOT of value for the USA. Like at the most basic level they act as the backbone for the agricultural business in the usa, without them the crops rot and food becomes scarce. But in truth they generate vast ammounts of wealth beyond just that; thing is the wealth ends up in private hands, those of the big farm owners and big agrobusiness, and thus is untaxed and out of circulation, confined to interest generating vaults. as to blaming the vatican, that misses the mark. Firstly, the Roman Catholicism in the USA and in Latin America are fundamentally different beings. like the conceptualization you present is one that's very... well protestant. Like, for example, Biblical Literalism is unheard of in Lat Am (outside of protestant enclaves) and Tradcaths are not a thing (despite the more interwoven role that catholicism plays in the societies of the continent) Secondly: Religion exerts soft power, it does not compel thoughts nor are the people of the global south some easily misled fools, blindly following the words of priests. (which is not to say that the church has not been used politically, to affect public sentiment, but then the institution is more of an instrument than a player) This ignores the divergence of goals and motives within orders of the church; Liberation Theology was (and is) a pretty big thing in Latin America; and it being denounced by Rome has more to do with which Great Power controlled the Vatican in the aftermath of WW2. (also painting it like its some issue wrt excessive latin american fecundity is verging on some weird eugenics shit that... just no) The RC church was not the primary engine or benefactor of Colonization of the americas, it was a tool FOR colonization, but blaming the RC is like blaming the gavel for the sentencing, not the judge. The benefits from colonialism went to the Spanish crown and the HRE, and later to the various other Great Powers that sought to administrate and control the region. Which brings us to the Monroe Doctrine and what the primary source of instability and violence in Latin America over the past 100+ years. It's been the USA. It has continuously helped overthrow democratically elected governments, provided monetary and material support to counterrevolutionaries, crime syndicates, fascist terrorist groups, and isurrectionists in order to preserve its business's interests in the region (cf Dole), or combat the spread of "communism" (cf Chile), or as a part of its war on drugs (which is ironic as all hell because many of the cartels are the direct result of USA intervention, cf the Iran-Contra affair; also the link between the Zetas and the School of the Americas). And on top of that the gun policies of the USA ensure a steady flow southwards of arms. Blaming the religious institution is nonsensical. Instead one ought turn to either the State that benefits from the crises in Latin America. There are Countries who benefit from having an underclass they can underpay for physical labor, there are Countries whose mining companies are able to move into Lat Am and compell usurous contracts as a result of the relative poverty of the region. There are Countries who field private "security" contractors to the aformentioned companies, benefiting from guvernamental impotence in order to privatize violence. And Countries whose banks demand Austerity from nations that need public spending. Who pays for the migrants, they do; their home countries do. They pay in the work they do, they pay in the wealth extracted from their homes, and the safety stolen from them. And the USA (or rather the economic and political upper crust of the USA) are the ones who recieve those payments. As to why Americans won't take those jobs... well for one, they do; prisioners are still American (and also there are a lot of desperate ppl that end up taking those jobs). But the reason the average american wont is because the job is physically devastating and almost entirely unregulated or even flagrantly violating to their legal rights (which is to say, the farmowners can't treat citizens in the way they treat migrant labor, citizens can fight back)

Last thing i bought was hmm i guess depends on deffinition of "toy" here its either a ball stretcher, a fuck machine, or the tattoo markers