Us sending 1500 troops to Mexican border

[Anonymous]

https://t.co/LjZyBavdXn

Imagine 150,000 troops on the border instead.

Ready to show the Russians how you really take over a country

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://t.co/LjZyBavdXn

Imagine 150,000 troops on the border instead.

Ready to show the Russians how you really take over a country

He is sending them to help bring illegals in? Not keep them out?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://t.co/LjZyBavdXn

Imagine 150,000 troops on the border instead.

Ready to show the Russians how you really take over a country

He is sending them to help bring illegals in? Not keep them out?!

Of course. They are there for processing. Biden has no intention of keeping migrants out. They are there to help process migrants more quickly.
I predict that border will be in total chaos come May 11. Worse than it is now, and we are now at a crisis level and have been since Biden entered office.

[Anonymous]

Look what’s happening in NYC, Chicago, DC.

So many illegals in public services. Not enough shelters, costing NYC 4 Billion alone!

Then you have the border states, you have 1000’s of on the streets like in El Paso. Just look at news reports from local news there.

And we went to bring even more in at a faster rate??????!?


Enough.

Can anyone here explains why you support bringing in even more migrants in?

When people fly to Mexico from Europe, Africa, Asia, and then cross the border to the US for “asylum”, that is complete BS.

Once you are out of the country you are fleeing, t you need to make an asylum claim and try e next county you enter. The asylum laws need to be changed,

Sending over 1500 or 200,000 troops won’t help if we just let everyone in and give them a court date in 2 years to show up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look what’s happening in NYC, Chicago, DC.

So many illegals in public services. Not enough shelters, costing NYC 4 Billion alone!

Then you have the border states, you have 1000’s of on the streets like in El Paso. Just look at news reports from local news there.

And we went to bring even more in at a faster rate??????!?


Enough.

Can anyone here explains why you support bringing in even more migrants in?

When people fly to Mexico from Europe, Africa, Asia, and then cross the border to the US for “asylum”, that is complete BS.

Once you are out of the country you are fleeing, t you need to make an asylum claim and try e next county you enter. The asylum laws need to be changed,

Sending over 1500 or 200,000 troops won’t help if we just let everyone in and give them a court date in 2 years to show up.

More like 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anyone actually support letting in 8000 migrants a day??? Or possibly even double that with what our actually capacity it to process, house, or even deport them.

What other country in the world would even allow this? Not even the progressive European countries allow this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone actually support letting in 8000 migrants a day??? Or possibly even double that with what our actually capacity it to process, house, or even deport them.

What other country in the world would even allow this? Not even the progressive European countries allow this?

Yes fine with. We need to add fresh blood to this country. Too many have become dependent on the state.just look at the republicans party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://t.co/LjZyBavdXn

Imagine 150,000 troops on the border instead.

Ready to show the Russians how you really take over a country

He is sending them to help bring illegals in? Not keep them out?!

That's not what the article says. They are there to assist CBP. CBP is still in charge.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully they are armed and will arrest Abbott. That would solve the majority of the problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone actually support letting in 8000 migrants a day??? Or possibly even double that with what our actually capacity it to process, house, or even deport them.

What other country in the world would even allow this? Not even the progressive European countries allow this?

I support immigration. I do think the rate has to be limited. I have no idea what number we can reasonably absorb and support, but I know there is a limiting factor. I can remember the flood of Syrian refugees throwing some European economies into crisis, purely because of their volume, which I think had a destabilizing effect on the EU as a whole.

Once we determine the “correct” number for immigration, then we need to determine how to allot it. I do believe in the Statue of Liberty’s promise. I do believe that most of the people crossing the border sincerely want to build a better life for themselves and their families. I think most of them would eventually make wonderful citizens. Do I think they’d make better citizens than those who follow our immigration procedures, jump through all our hoops, and still wait years for their turn? Would they be better citizens than the Syrian refugees, or the Ukrainian refugees? How about Haitian refugees? Sudan suffered through years of genocide and seems to be destabilizing, I bet there are a lot of desperate people there who would be good citizens. Here’s a crazy idea, how about we make good on our promises to the Afghans who helped us, putting themselves and their while families at risk, because I bet they’d be good citizens too. Maybe we could really go wild and start by granting citizenship to American Samoans - they’ve been good Americans for generations, they’d probably be good citizens too.

The point is, that unless you think we can just open our borders and allow unlimited immigration, hard choices have to be made. There are desperate people all over the world, who would jump at the chance to be good US citizens, because their likely alternative is death. Do we want to limit immigration to Mexican nationals or those coming over our southern border, as a type of good neighbor policy? That’s probably the most racist option available, but from a practical standpoint, it has a certain logic. If that’s going to be our policy, let’s state it and stand behind it. Even if we apportion 100% of our immigration quota to immigration from Mexico, I am dubious that we can accommodate 100% of those wanting to come.

Moreover, we should either enforce our immigration procedures or drop them. It seems like our most common method immigration has become:
1. Sneak over the border.
2. Hide for years from official notice.
3. Wait for an amnesty.
This not only puts the illegal immigrants in tremendous danger, both in coming here and in trying to live here without the safeguards legal residents have, it is a cruel farce to those who are trying to immigrate the way we tell them they should.

[Anonymous]

Biden/Harris should resign over this humiliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone actually support letting in 8000 migrants a day??? Or possibly even double that with what our actually capacity it to process, house, or even deport them.

What other country in the world would even allow this? Not even the progressive European countries allow this?

I support immigration. I do think the rate has to be limited. I have no idea what number we can reasonably absorb and support, but I know there is a limiting factor. I can remember the flood of Syrian refugees throwing some European economies into crisis, purely because of their volume, which I think had a destabilizing effect on the EU as a whole.

Once we determine the “correct” number for immigration, then we need to determine how to allot it. I do believe in the Statue of Liberty’s promise. I do believe that most of the people crossing the border sincerely want to build a better life for themselves and their families. I think most of them would eventually make wonderful citizens. Do I think they’d make better citizens than those who follow our immigration procedures, jump through all our hoops, and still wait years for their turn? Would they be better citizens than the Syrian refugees, or the Ukrainian refugees? How about Haitian refugees? Sudan suffered through years of genocide and seems to be destabilizing, I bet there are a lot of desperate people there who would be good citizens. Here’s a crazy idea, how about we make good on our promises to the Afghans who helped us, putting themselves and their while families at risk, because I bet they’d be good citizens too. Maybe we could really go wild and start by granting citizenship to American Samoans - they’ve been good Americans for generations, they’d probably be good citizens too.

The point is, that unless you think we can just open our borders and allow unlimited immigration, hard choices have to be made. There are desperate people all over the world, who would jump at the chance to be good US citizens, because their likely alternative is death. Do we want to limit immigration to Mexican nationals or those coming over our southern border, as a type of good neighbor policy? That’s probably the most racist option available, but from a practical standpoint, it has a certain logic. If that’s going to be our policy, let’s state it and stand behind it. Even if we apportion 100% of our immigration quota to immigration from Mexico, I am dubious that we can accommodate 100% of those wanting to come.

Moreover, we should either enforce our immigration procedures or drop them. It seems like our most common method immigration has become:
1. Sneak over the border.
2. Hide for years from official notice.
3. Wait for an amnesty.
This not only puts the illegal immigrants in tremendous danger, both in coming here and in trying to live here without the safeguards legal residents have, it is a cruel farce to those who are trying to immigrate the way we tell them they should.

Wow,
Well written and thought out post.

Basically if we currently can’t take care of our veterans and can fix the giant homeless issues in NY, LA, San Fran, Portland, and basically everywhere, how can we expect to accommodate millions of migrants?? Yes, eventually many may end up working and contributing, but at the beginning they are on public assistance, public housing, public healthcare paid by the taxpayer. How about we help the people who have served our country and current homeless population first. Heck, I’m sure lots of homeless in NYC would love to be out up in a 4 Star hotel like the migrants are given there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone actually support letting in 8000 migrants a day??? Or possibly even double that with what our actually capacity it to process, house, or even deport them.

What other country in the world would even allow this? Not even the progressive European countries allow this?

Yes fine with. We need to add fresh blood to this country. Too many have become dependent on the state.just look at the republicans party.

Literally every single republican I’ve ever known has been on welfare, disability or some other form of assistance. I’m 33 years old and I have NEVER met a republican who had a job. Not one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone actually support letting in 8000 migrants a day??? Or possibly even double that with what our actually capacity it to process, house, or even deport them.

What other country in the world would even allow this? Not even the progressive European countries allow this?

Yes fine with. We need to add fresh blood to this country. Too many have become dependent on the state.just look at the republicans party.

Literally every single republican I’ve ever known has been on welfare, disability or some other form of assistance. I’m 33 years old and I have NEVER met a republican who had a job. Not one.

This wins the sarcastic post of the day award.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone actually support letting in 8000 migrants a day??? Or possibly even double that with what our actually capacity it to process, house, or even deport them.

What other country in the world would even allow this? Not even the progressive European countries allow this?

Yes fine with. We need to add fresh blood to this country. Too many have become dependent on the state.just look at the republicans party.

Literally every single republican I’ve ever known has been on welfare, disability or some other form of assistance. I’m 33 years old and I have NEVER met a republican who had a job. Not one.

That would seem to indicate that there aren’t many republicans (that you know about) in your social circle. Around here, even before Trump, being a republican was anathema, and most republicans probably kept their political inclinations to themselves. I think it highly likely, that whatever your profession, there is somebody you work with that has voted republican at sone point in the past. I would add that the current republican party has turned away from traditional republican values, and that there may be many people who consider themselves republicans, but no longer support the party.

Saying all republicans are on welfare is like the republicans thinking all democrats are on welfare. Despite the rhetoric, the vast majority of people on both sides work really hard to make a living.

Life is too complex to be neatly boxed up by stereotypes. If you think EVERY member of EITHER party is the same about ANYTHING, then you need to interact with more people and actually listen to them instead of jumping to judgment.