We don't talk about Fight Club.

"Resist" and "resistance" have been used by many, MANY causes, some good, some bad, usually some of both. There's no reason to let the words be ruined by the current... uh... situation, however one feels about it.

Agreed. Let's please leave real world politics out of our escapism.

While I certainly wouldn't tell anyone not to read, i'm also not shy or obtuse about my political views, and the comic inevitably leans to match my outlook.
Straight up : I don't support Donald Trump.

Jay is obviously all about "Doing the morally right thing, even if it means accepting risks." which is pretty much the opposite of Trump's plan for the Mexico wall, Refugee shut downs, etc (which are, for better or worse, all pretty much "There is too much of a risk to help others")

Alice is pretty much the antithesis to "Make America Great Again" as in, her whole existence is centered around a philosophy of there being no objective "Great" and, *MOST* importantly, certainly she would never strive for a "great" that an authority figure decided upon.

So yeah, I won't pretend politics and opinions don't/won't seep into my work - and apologies if anyone doesn't like it, or doesn't agree.
In truth, a lot of the philosophical thoughts I tread on tend to be more "What IS the right thing to do?" instead of "THIS IS THE BEST THING."
Ie. do heavy handed methods have a place, do the ends justify the means, should the greater good count more than the individual, etc.
So I dunno. Take it for what it is ;)
But I certainly wouldn't tell anyone not to read it - and if anyone has another opinion, feel free to pipe up.

And that's my 2 cents on that ;)

"Jay is obviously all about "Doing the morally right thing, even if it means accepting risks." which is pretty much the opposite of Trump's plan for the Mexico wall, Refugee shut downs, etc (which are, for better or worse, all pretty much "There is too much of a risk to help others")"

So, you're saying every other country in the world is morally wrong for their stance on their own borders? Because every other country in the world that has the means to control their border does so. Including Mexico, actually (see how THEY treat "undocumented migrants" and how they handle their southern border...).

And you're saying international law on borders is also morally wrong?

Do you have locks on your door? Do you keep people out of your house who want to come into it without your permission? That is morally equivalent to border control - the people that own it and pay for it have the moral and ethical authority to control who comes in.

Understand that I don't "support" Donald Trump, either, but some of his official policy positions (as much as he has them) are pretty good (and some are terrible), and the border issue, in particular, is probably the single biggest "winning" issue he had. It's a winning issue with almost every demographic group in the US, on BOTH sides of the aisle, and he had it almost entirely to himself.

First up - you make very good points, and they're very well presented.

I don't disagree with the abstract concept of border control - but I do disagree with Trump's plan and methods.
Practically, I see the wall as a costly, symbolic effort that won't actually address the problem he claims exists.
The vast majority of "illegal" immigrants are simply people who overstay visas. The few who sneak across the land border of the US can be divided further into two groups : criminals, and people who, for their own reasons, are desperately seeking some sort of refuge or help.
So for billions upon billions of dollars, you're stopping a very small amount of criminals, and hampering an equal number of people who do need help. Not a win in my books.

Combine this with other initiatives like the increase in ICE raids and deportations, and you have a situation that I feel hurts innocent people at a rate that far outweighs the good you're doing.

Keep in mind a large amount of so-called "illigals" have also been living peacefully in America for a decade, with a family, working a steady job, etc.
Trump's initiatives are a broad stroke in an area that requires finesse. He's black and white in an area that, like it or not, requires the grey areas that have tentatively come to be (that is, it's ok to turn a blind eye to those families, or grant amnesty, etc, even if this allows a small amount of criminals to come into the country)

But it's a matter of opinion if the small amount of crime, or non-tax paying freeloaders is worth it. There's certainly no definitive answer, or objective truth.

I argue we can find ways to fight the bad without crippling the good - and that's Jay's stance as well.

"Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon!"


But I know that's not an opinion everyone shares - which is why, even in the comic, there's plenty of people who view Jay, maybe rightfully so, as in the wrong for what he's done, and how he does things.

So that's what I meant, haha. Hopefully it kind of makes sense. The whole point of Jay, and Yesterdaybound, is a debate about what is right and wrong. What we should be doing, and how we should do it, etc etc etc.

Thanks actually reading and thinking about what I wrote - that's rare, these days, and I can often come off as caustic, so I'm glad you could get past that.

I had a big reply, touching lots of topics, but there's apparently a 1000 character limit, and it was... nearly 6000. Oops. So here's the short version (sorry, by necessity, not as polite and thorough as I like).

Cost: concrete is cheap. There's no reason for it to be billions of dollars, other than the usual government waste.

However, it's WORTH billions of dollars. There are HUGE effects of having a large "off the books" population, and those effects are all BAD.

But upfront amnesty is actually worse... getting them to "come out of the shadows" sounds all great and stuff, until you realize that the shadows will fill right back up again, nearly instantly, and, for some parties (not meaning D/R "parties"), intentionally. We tried that about 30 years ago, amnesty first, and the rest... NEVER happened.

Crap, that's 1000.

Part 2:

Yes, this situation is actually somewhat intentional by some parts of our governing bodies and those who financially back them, and yes, there are people who have been here illegally for basically their whole life because of it. That is a serious problem, and ones that deserves a real solution with "finesse", and many of the people that want real border control will be willing (and in at least a good may cases, happy) to support it... AFTER the source of the problem is dealt with. No sense bailing out the water until the leak is plugged. (And see that bit about 30 years ago...)

The size of what needs to be done requires broad action. When I need to get from New York City to some place out near LA, first I take plane to LA, THEN I worry about the fine adjustments. I don't walk from NYC to LA and call it "finesse". The finesse comes after.

Grr... too short! One more.

Part 3:

Don't go by how it feels. We are in such a mess that every action has terrible effects (including doing nothing) - people's lives will be ruined, and all we can do is try to minimize how many and/or somewhat which people get it (preferably those least undeserving of it - note that construction).

Border control exists for many, many reasons, most of them very good, and most of the reasons given for how bad it would be to enforce our borders now come from... not enforcing them before. That's not a good argument for not enforcing them now - in fact, it's a great argument for getting it cleaned up as fast as possible!

Get it cleaned up, prove you CAN keep people out when necessary, and then, when you want to let in large numbers, you can credibly claim the ability to control the flow and keep out criminals and such. Build big doors if you like, but make sure you can actually close them if you want to (even 24 hour convenience stores that never close have doors and locks!).