Regardless of the severity of the offense, sovereign nations ultimately have the right to decide who is or is not allowed into their countries.

If someone finds you trespassing in their garden, they make you leave. If you’re drunk in Kroger, once again, they make you leave. This is perfectly in keeping with the nature of the crime - if you’re in a place where you’re not allowed to be, including nations, you have to leave.

I fully agree with a legal path to emigrate to any and all countries, but only if done ahead of time and through the proper legal channels. (And it goes without saying that once those channels have been gone through, resident status should not be revoked without serious reason to do so, followed by due process.)

Breaking a country’s laws by entering illegally is already serious evidence against your being a good citizen; plus, regardless of how good a citizen you are, countries have a right to decide which non-citizens are or are not allowed to enter their countries in the first place, based on any and all conditions they alone deem relevant.

If you break in to my house and then ask me for a job, even if you’d be the best worker in the world, I’m still gonna respond with, “Get the hell out of my house”, and I’d be right to do so.

There shouldn’t be a path to legality - that just incentivizes more illegal immigration, because they know they’ll get residency eventually.

To be clear, I think what’s going on in El Salvador is abhorrent, and that at this point ICE is basically the Gestapo, but that doesn’t mean that countries shouldn’t have the right to decide who is and who isn’t allowed across their borders.

If I illegally crossed the border into Canada because I don’t like what Trump is doing, for example, they have every right to kick me out.

From what the article says, it seems like that should read, “Being in the country illegally has Detroit woman facing deportation”.

Sorry, but I still just do not see how stating the obvious fact that “if you come here illegally you will be arrested and deported” can in any way be seen as “propaganda”.

Thanks for the good-faith discussion. :)

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like in that case the “Visit Mexico!” ads I saw when I was growing up in the US would be Mexican propaganda then, correct? Since they’re advancing a specific political cause, namely increasing tourist revenue and the government’s share of that revenue.

In that case, an ad saying “hey, don’t try to get into our country illegally because we’ll arrest and deport you” feels much less like propaganda to me than “hey, come visit our country so we can get your money!” does.

Edit: So, (aside from the comment that mentioned that this may be a mistranslation), if what you say about the situation is correct, to me it’s starting to sound like this might just be the Mexican government being intentionally incendiary and a bit hyperbolic in their language because they’re pissy about the US government going over their head and speaking directly to their people, which may be due to the (accurate or not) perception that the Mexican government isn’t doing enough to prevent illegal immigration. In that case, it seems like my original comment implying that this isn’t really propaganda is still mostly accurate.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense, thanks for the explanation. It definitely feels discriminatory. That’s a terrible translation if this is the case.

You’ll have to explain who you’re talking about, or how that’s relevant.

In any case, this may help. Let me rephrase: “TIL that if you’re American, buying an ad in Mexico saying ‘if you come to our country illegally, we will arrest and deport you’ is propaganda.”

TIL that saying “if you come to our country illegally, we will arrest and deport you” is propaganda.

Edit: oops, I seem to have accidentally posted a reasonable thought that goes against the circle-jerk. I’ll try to be a bit less objective and a bit more filled with myopic, conformist, unquestioned rage next time I comment here.

Don’t worry, I still believe that disappearing people to El Salvador is a terrible thing, and it makes me really angry, so I think I still pass the tribalist purity test.

I wasn’t talking about a trade surplus - I was talking about the huge amount of extra money that we throw away every year on wasteful, nepotistic military contracts with little to no return.

The country absolutely has an enormous surplus, it’s just that we waste it all on military contracts with little to no return.

Honestly, using the country’s surplus to fund a sovereign wealth fund like Norway instead of throwing it into the black hole of the military industrial complex seems like it would be a pretty good idea.

Too bad they’re stealing taxpayer dollars through tariffs to throw into the additional black hole of crypto market manipulation instead.

Why is babushka a Super Saiyan?

I can’t speak for how their “sexual violence” criterion is defined, but as for the “rape” statistic, most western countries (France probably included) define rape for reporting purposes as “forced penetration”, specifically excluding “forced envelopment” from the statistic, and thereby excluding practically all male rape victims with female perpetrators from crime statistics.

For example, here are the statistics for sexual violence in the year 2011, according to the CDC (note that these are for the US, and may be significantly different for France, though the reporting method is likely the same - there’s also a 2013 CDC report with effectively the same numbers for the US):

an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate.

And

The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively.

Added together, we see that 7.1% of women and 5.1% of men reported being victims of sexual violence in 2011. That is, 58% of victims of all sexual violence in 2011 were women, and 42% were men. For every 3 female victims, there were 2 male victims.

Now on to the frequently cited claim that more than 95% of perpetrators are men. From the “Characteristics of Sexual Violence Perpetrators” section about a third of the way down, keeping in mind the percentages above:

For female rape victims, an estimated 99.0% had only male perpetrators (more on this later…). In addition, an estimated 94.7% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape had only male perpetrators.

And

For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (an estimated 79.3%) had only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims had only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (an estimated 82.6%), sexual coercion (an estimated 80.0%), and unwanted sexual contact (an estimated 54.7%). For noncontact unwanted sexual experiences, nearly half of male victims (an estimated 46.0%) had only male perpetrators and an estimated 43.6% had only female perpetrators.

To help us with the breakdowns of these numbers, earlier in the report we find that:

1.7% of men were made to penetrate a perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey [and] an estimated 1.3% of men experienced sexual coercion in the 12 months before taking the survey [and] an estimated 1.6% of men having experienced unwanted sexual contact in the 12 months before taking the survey [and] an estimated 2.5% of men experienced this type of victimization (noncontact unwanted sexual experiences) in the previous 12 months

So, of the 1.7% of made to penetrate male victims, 82.6% of perpetrators were female. Of the 1.3% sexual coercion, 80% of perpetrators were female. Of the 1.6% unwanted sexual contact, 54.7% were female, and of the 2.5% noncontact, 43.6% were female.

So, 1.4% of the 1.7% made to penetrate, 1% of the 1.3% sexual coercion, .9% of the 1.6% unwanted sexual contact, and 1.1% of the 2.5% noncontact.

So, 4.4% of the 7.1% of men reporting sexual violence had female perpetrators. That is, 62% of sexual violence against men is committed by women (in 2011).

So, going back to our numbers above, we see that 62% of the 42% of sexual violence with men as victims was committed by women.

Our final numbers are: 74% of sexual violence in total in the US is committed by men, and 26% is committed by women. Which ain’t great, but that feels a lot more realistic than “95%”, and it’s a far cry from the intentionally misleading numbers you’re citing.

BUT IT GETS WORSE…

What happens when we look at just rape? Note that first we have to figure out what the CDC means by “rape”, because at first “99% of rape is committed by men” looks pretty damning.

Well, “rape” is defined by the CDC for the purposes of this study as “completed or attempted forced penetration or alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration”. That is, only being penetrated counts as rape.

Men, on the other hand, get the completely separate category “made to penetrate”, that is, “being forced to have sex with someone, just doing the penetrating instead of being penetrated.”

So, 99% of rapists are men because rape is intentionally defined as “being penetrated” to exclude male victims of rape from the statistics. I wonder why…

Well, what happens when we actually look at those numbers, counting “made to penetrate” as, y’know, rape, because it is rape?

an estimated 1.6% of women (or approximately 1.9 million women) were raped in the 12 months before taking the survey

And

The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate.

Which is, again, because male rape victims are effectively excluded from this definition. Also, we have this:

an estimated 1.7% of men were made to penetrate a perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey

And

Characteristics of Sexual Violence Perpetrators For female rape victims, an estimated 99.0% had only male perpetrators. In addition, an estimated 94.7% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape had only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (an estimated 79.3%) had only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims had only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (an estimated 82.6%), sexual coercion (an estimated 80.0%),

Note that these numbers clearly show that made to penetrate happens just as much each year as “rape”. This means that fully half of rape victims are men (in 2011 - the number fluctuates in the other years of the study, but not more than 5%).

Finally, if 99% of rapists are men and 83% of an equal number of “made to penetrators” are women … then an estimated 42% of the perpetrators of nonconsensual sex (that is, rape) in 2011 were women.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I think it’s important to debunk this sort of misandrist misinformation.

Edit: Here’s a Time article that confirms these numbers. They also mention that boys under 15 are more likely to be sexually assaulted than women over 40, and are more than twice as likely to be assaulted as girls under 15. Again, this may be different for France, but it’s pretty damning for the US.