The next wave of demographic warfare: thousands from Ebola ravaged Africa on the way

[specsaregood]

What is my recourse when 10,000 migrants living in your home start to affect my property?

You die, just like every other civilization that allowed migrants to overwhelm them.

 

[juleswin]

The exact same as if I personally affect your property. Not more, not less.

And what is the answer?

 

[Superfluous Man]

And what is the answer?

There can't be a one-size-fits all answer for something as vague as "affects my property."

Criminal actions that actually harm a person or property warrant a use of force to stop them or to retaliate, and demanding just compensation. But this doesn't allow us to engage in some kind of pre-crime enforcement where we punish someone preemptively for a crime we think they'll commit in the future on account of prejudices we have against some group they belong to. Nor does it allow for counting something like lowering the resale value of your house without actually damaging anything there just because of who lives on a nearby property.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Cite the sources of Bolsheviks/Leftists/Jacobins that are in favor of tight border control.

I'll wait

Easy.

Stalin! Putin!

———

On the opposite, open borders Bolshevik/leftist side in the US, they are almost all Trotskyites, whether socialists or neoconservatives. Trotsky wanted global socialism, and their belief is that socialism and communism only works when it is global with no competition. Stalin was willing to have borders and a cease fire with the rest of the world. Stalin bad.

Thus, the two prong attack by the Trotskyites. The neoconservatives focus on world conquest, the socialists focus on converting the US to socialism. Borders are anathema to both prongs, as they are all globalists.

Bolsheviks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain

Damn those Stalinist nationalists! Putin! Russia!

 

[phill4paul]

Why imprison them there? Why should all the other American property owners who want to welcome them onto their properties as well not be allowed to?

If you do mean to allow that as well, and you truly don't support any laws that would restrict the rest of us from welcoming immigrants onto our properties, or selling that property to them, then good. I'm glad to see that you've come around.

Imprison? They are getting a better life? No? Just on your property and on your dime. The other property owners can fly them in as well. To their own property. As long as they, too, keep them on their property and do not ask for any taxpayer assistance. No use of a public hospital unless you foot the bill.

How many are you now supporting upon your property? Or are you just farting in the wind with possibilities and "maybe's?"

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What say you?

No shooting of people. And no entry unless properly screened, including common sense disease controls, especially people who may flee quarantine zones. Visitors, vacationers, business visits welcome.

Permanent immigration? Controlled and orderly, up to and including periodic moratoriums.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Imprison? They are getting a better life? No? Just on your property and on your dime. The other property owners can fly them in as well. To their own property. As long as they, too, keep them on their property and do not ask for any taxpayer assistance. No use of a public hospital unless you foot the bill.

How many are you now supporting upon your property? Or are you just farting in the wind with possibilities and "maybe's?"

Why is flying them in necessary? As long as they're not trespassing the properties of people who don't welcome them, they should be able to move freely everywhere else, by air, land, or sea. If you want to keep them off your property, then fine. But everywhere else in the universe is none of your business.

 

[phill4paul]

Why is flying them in necessary? As long as they're not trespassing the properties of people who don't welcome them, they should be able to move freely everywhere else, by air, land, or sea. If you want to keep them off your property, then fine. But everywhere else in the universe is none of your business.

Our transport system is "We" based. I don't want them transported across it. And so here we are.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yea, I am sure why some people develop lesions and others do not. The point is that sand fleas are way more dangerous than ebola and yet nobody is scared of em.

What is their rate of death?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Why is flying them in necessary? As long as they're not trespassing the properties of people who don't welcome them, they should be able to move freely everywhere else, by air, land, or sea. If you want to keep them off your property, then fine. But everywhere else in the universe is none of your business.

No, your fundamental premise ignores their effect on the politics of MY country that leads to the loss of MY rights, I have every right to keep them out of MY country.

 

[phill4paul]

No shooting of people. And no entry unless properly screened, including common sense disease controls, especially people who may flee quarantine zones. Visitors, vacationers, business visits welcome.

Permanent immigration? Controlled and orderly, up to and including periodic moratoriums.

And what if they crossed and just kept walking? Can they be forcefully detained in other ways? Handcuffed and if resistant beaten or tasered?

 

[Swordsmyth]

You are more likely to be killed by lightning.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/10/us/motorcyclist-killed-lightning-florida-trnd/index.html

That was true of the Black Plague and is true currently, but there was a time in between when it wasn't, the same thing can happen with Ebola, it's the same with all plagues.

 

[Swordsmyth]

And what if they crossed and just kept walking? Can they be forcefully detained in other ways? Handcuffed and if resistant beaten or tasered?

You can't afford to rule anything out.

That doesn't mean that shooting people should be your first resort but it might become necessary.

 

[Swordsmyth]

No, not all would die. But a few. Since none have died from Ebola we can be pretty sure they are not bringing Ebola with them. They were checked out at a hospital anyways.

This is just fear mongering.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...mp-immigration-nuevo-laredo-congo/1319996001/

The Ebola outbreak is getting out of control, if it starts to spread we could easily be overwhelmed with more cases than we have the facilities to safely handle.

 

[Swordsmyth]

And what if they crossed and just kept walking? Can they be forcefully detained in other ways? Handcuffed and if resistant beaten or tasered?

If the Ebola outbreak gets out of control then any physical interaction could become dangerous to those enforcing border controls.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Since you do not care about Natural Rights, the NAP, Private Property and Contract Rights, forced Documentation and mandated Government Minimum Wage, I would consider you a more severe threat. I would defend and protect your natural right to speak freely, but once you cross MY line and attempt to restrict MY *all of the above*.... yes, you have indeed shown your true colors.

We have a Natural Right to control our territory and exclude those who would violate our rights or endanger us.

It is YOU who doesn't care about OUR rights or even or lives, YOU are the dangerous one and you continue to demonstrate that ever more clearly.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The Ebola outbreak is getting out of control, if it starts to spread we could easily be overwhelmed with more cases than we have the facilities to safely handle.

So you live in Congo.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yea, I am sure why some people develop lesions and others do not. The point is that sand fleas are way more dangerous than ebola and yet nobody is scared of em.

Can they be transmitted from one person to another through contact?

 

[Swordsmyth]

So you live in Congo.

There is nothing that will keep it contained there, germs don't understand lines on a map.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Can they be transmitted from one person to another through contact?

Requires fluid to fluid contact. https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en/

The Ebola virus is transmitted among humans through close and direct physical contact with infected bodily fluids, the most infectious being blood, faeces and vomit.

The Ebola virus has also been detected in breast milk, urine and semen. In a convalescent male, the virus can persist in semen for at least 70 days; one study suggests persistence for more than 90 days.

Saliva and tears may also carry some risk. However, the studies implicating these additional bodily fluids were extremely limited in sample size and the science is inconclusive. In studies of saliva, the virus was found most frequently in patients at a severe stage of illness. The whole live virus has never been isolated from sweat.

Not an airborne virus

Ebola virus disease is not an airborne infection. Airborne spread among humans implies inhalation of an infectious dose of virus from a suspended cloud of small dried droplets.

This mode of transmission has not been observed during extensive studies of the Ebola virus over several decades.

WHO is not aware of any studies that actually document this mode of transmission. On the contrary, good quality studies from previous Ebola outbreaks show that all cases were infected by direct close contact with symptomatic patients.