And?
Stereotypes are not
racist. Please learn the difference. People are racist. Stereotypes can be the ignorance of ignorant people, but not exclusively. Many stereotypes exist for good reason. Statistically Mexicans like tacos. This is a stereotype which generally happens to be true, but has nothing to do with racism. That's the thing about these kind of discussions, the definitions of the words and meanings are just stretched a little bit here, a little bit there, and a little more over here until some one discussing an uncomfortable fact becomes "literally Hitler".
You do know that black people are a little touchy about implying that they all like chicken and watermelon. Right? Since I am not Mexican, I am not aware if they would find this disconcerting or not. However, I am certainly not going to go there.
Thanks again for another perfect example of you interpreting and stretching the meaning of words, and then projecting it upon others. I said nothing of black people and watermelons, this is a projection of your own mind, and I am not responsible for your fantasies. Also, watermelons and chicken are not exactly a cultural aspect of the black community as tacos are with Mexicans, but I suppose that is arguable. I forget, are we all equal or are we not? Because if we are equal then Mexicans, blacks, whites, whoever have no special insights on being a human being that the rest of the human beings don't have. Furthermore I have no idea what ethnicity you are. As far as I know, all you have said are comments about "dark skin" that could be basically every ethnicity on Earth, just more proof you are projecting.
Your right. You have no idea what my ethnicity is. None at all. Don't project upon me. I don't care how dark your skin is, you are not the chosen emissary for all brown people, don't speak as if you are the only one to understand these experiences when the fact is there is no way you have any idea what I personally, or many others have experienced, just because they don't completely agree with you.
Your apparent insensitivity to this subject speaks volumes. Also, as a "brown person," I am qualified to speak on such matters, since I happen to be part of the population, and can share my first hand experiences.
More projection. You see it as insensitivity because I don't comply with your politically correct dogmas of ever shifting word bans and definitions. Just because I don't follow your religious brand of "progressivism" and cater to your every personal hangup doesn't mean I don't think human beings should be treated equally until they prove otherwise as individuals. Also, I used the term "brown person" because it includes pretty much everyone on earth. Again I have no idea what ethnicity you are, just a description of skin tone.
As I said before "valid identity documents" is subjective. They may actually be valid documents, but what if they don't belong to the person holding them? What if there are inconsistencies as in this case with a validly issued but technically invalid paperwork? Their job is literally to check these things.
Whether a document is valid or not is an objective matter. There is no subjective gray area. However, I am sure a border patrol agent has to make a quick determination on whether a document may or may not be questionable, and warrants further investigation. I will concede that that part is subjective. However, in the end, it is not an opinion (subjective) but a fact (objective) on whether a certain document is indeed valid or not.
Except to an enforcement officer, as I already explained, it is quite subjective. One might even go as far as to say this is why terms like "subjective" and "objective" exist, so as to differentiate these states of being according to context. Sure if you remove all context and pretend enforcing the border is not an issue, it is objective. To an enforcement officer it is completely subjective until confirmed. Literally their job is to judge, using context, if all of the information involved in the circumstances make sense. Some times that takes time to confirm. Some times when there are exceptional numbers of people flooding over the border, this process takes longer.
Also again, I would suggest that if the processing time bothers you, you support more funding for border enforcement, and stop encouraging people to flood in illegally by taking such a soft stance on illegal immigration. Maintaining a border under these circumstances is logistically difficult, and if it is not done, there will come a point where there will be no border because enforcement becomes impossible. I think you are smart enough to understand why that is not acceptable.
How on Earth am I encouraging people to flood in illegally because I would prefer US citizens should be able to cross the border and remain in the US with minimal hassle? Unless a US citizen is acting as a mule to smuggle across the border, they are not illegal and are definitely not immigrating. Furthermore, I only object to spending 50 billion dollars on a wall. Especially when a wall can be circumvented by both land and by air. If Congress wants to increase the budget for border patrol by 50 billion dollars to become better staffed and have better capability processing people that enter, I am all for it.
No, because you are trying to apply unrealistic standards to the logistical application of border enforcement. You are arguing from a position as if protecting the border has no importance whatsoever, dismissing any logistical conflicts your unrealistic standards create. It is almost as if you wouldn't mind if the process was just sabotaged all together by this process of incremental application of unrealistic standards. By advocating for policies which are destructive to the overall effort of securing the border, meaning more illegal crossings, thus encouraging even more to try is how you are encouraging it. So is your argument a wall would not slow illegal immigration? So because other methods might happen too, we shouldn't stop it in ways we can stop it? So your point is you are fine with the funding as long as it is pushing more people into the country at a faster rate? That kind of sounds like the opposite of restricting illegal immigration by simply lowering the standards, but maybe I am wrong. Again, all you are doing is opposing any border enforcement and not providing any viable solutions. It is just a strategy of obstruction and subversion.