Single Issue Voter: Controlling The Borders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do think a lot of the people trying to come here are being misled, and I believe that a lot of the advocacy groups are complicit in misleading them. I was listening to a story on the radio the other day about a woman who fled Venezuela. She went to Chile with her daughter but then decided to leave Chile because she was a lawyer in Venezuela, but with Chile's paperwork and process, she couldn't work as a lawyer there. So then she was told she should go to the US because she would have an opportunity there.

How could someone in good faith suggest that you could just show up in the US as a migrant from Venezuela, automatically be accepted, and be allowed to go right to practicing law? And particularly when you can't even speak English? That's advice that's just plain wrong.

And why leave a country where you've already been accepted as a refugee, and where they at least speak your language and where you are far more compatible with the culture?

I think we need answers from migrants, "Oh, so you came by land, that means you passed through Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico before you got here. Why didn't you stay there? And while you consider your answer, "better economic situation in the US" is not a legitimate reason to seek asylum."

And, we should also find out who in these advocacy groups is coaching these migrants and advising them to come to the US for asylum when 80% plus are just economic migrants and are not eligible for asylum. Anyone giving bogus advice should be prosecuted for fraud, at the very least. Along with being called out for flooding and overwhelming our system which ends up HURTING ACTUAL, ELIGIBLE ASYLUM SEEKERS.

Look, the reasonable Locke (or is it Demosthenes? Valentine or Peter?) is launching their counter argument.

Well, first off, I'm not sure why you think we shouldn't welcome an intelligent woman and her offspring who are fleeing a ravaged socialist nightmare, and, being from a professional, educated class who has both studied history and felt the effects of a totalitarian regime, no doubt hate socialism just as much as you do.

But I get it. You're trying to make the argument that there's some ineffable "Spanish" culture that stops at the Rio Grande and surely she'd be happier among her own kind? That's what you implied, I believe quite deliberately.

The thing is, you're bad at this. Such a woman would probably vote Republican. Shed also probably speak at least some English and be quite capable of mastering more, which is more than I can say for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do think a lot of the people trying to come here are being misled, and I believe that a lot of the advocacy groups are complicit in misleading them. I was listening to a story on the radio the other day about a woman who fled Venezuela. She went to Chile with her daughter but then decided to leave Chile because she was a lawyer in Venezuela, but with Chile's paperwork and process, she couldn't work as a lawyer there. So then she was told she should go to the US because she would have an opportunity there.

How could someone in good faith suggest that you could just show up in the US as a migrant from Venezuela, automatically be accepted, and be allowed to go right to practicing law? And particularly when you can't even speak English? That's advice that's just plain wrong.

And why leave a country where you've already been accepted as a refugee, and where they at least speak your language and where you are far more compatible with the culture?

I think we need answers from migrants, "Oh, so you came by land, that means you passed through Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico before you got here. Why didn't you stay there? And while you consider your answer, "better economic situation in the US" is not a legitimate reason to seek asylum."

And, we should also find out who in these advocacy groups is coaching these migrants and advising them to come to the US for asylum when 80% plus are just economic migrants and are not eligible for asylum. Anyone giving bogus advice should be prosecuted for fraud, at the very least. Along with being called out for flooding and overwhelming our system which ends up HURTING ACTUAL, ELIGIBLE ASYLUM SEEKERS.

Very well said. Especially the first safe country issue - which is something Republicans have included in their proposals.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is awesome! I love to see Americans go into bankruptcy and losing their homes while we receive free medical care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is awesome! I love to see Americans go into bankruptcy and losing their homes while we receive free medical care.

and we get to see Democrats lose at the next election!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think a lot of the people trying to come here are being misled, and I believe that a lot of the advocacy groups are complicit in misleading them. I was listening to a story on the radio the other day about a woman who fled Venezuela. She went to Chile with her daughter but then decided to leave Chile because she was a lawyer in Venezuela, but with Chile's paperwork and process, she couldn't work as a lawyer there. So then she was told she should go to the US because she would have an opportunity there.

How could someone in good faith suggest that you could just show up in the US as a migrant from Venezuela, automatically be accepted, and be allowed to go right to practicing law? And particularly when you can't even speak English? That's advice that's just plain wrong.

And why leave a country where you've already been accepted as a refugee, and where they at least speak your language and where you are far more compatible with the culture?

I think we need answers from migrants, "Oh, so you came by land, that means you passed through Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico before you got here. Why didn't you stay there? And while you consider your answer, "better economic situation in the US" is not a legitimate reason to seek asylum."

And, we should also find out who in these advocacy groups is coaching these migrants and advising them to come to the US for asylum when 80% plus are just economic migrants and are not eligible for asylum. Anyone giving bogus advice should be prosecuted for fraud, at the very least. Along with being called out for flooding and overwhelming our system which ends up HURTING ACTUAL, ELIGIBLE ASYLUM SEEKERS.

Look, the reasonable Locke (or is it Demosthenes? Valentine or Peter?) is launching their counter argument.

Well, first off, I'm not sure why you think we shouldn't welcome an intelligent woman and her offspring who are fleeing a ravaged socialist nightmare, and, being from a professional, educated class who has both studied history and felt the effects of a totalitarian regime, no doubt hate socialism just as much as you do.

But I get it. You're trying to make the argument that there's some ineffable "Spanish" culture that stops at the Rio Grande and surely she'd be happier among her own kind? That's what you implied, I believe quite deliberately.

The thing is, you're bad at this. Such a woman would probably vote Republican. Shed also probably speak at least some English and be quite capable of mastering more, which is more than I can say for you.

Maybe read what the poster wrote instead of just making things up? Frankly I think they just want rule of law. And anybody who doesn't want rule of law, to me, is a problem. While there are cases where the law does have to be overruled (which is why governers have the right to pardon), in general if you want people to obey the laws you do like, everybody has to obey the laws you don't like. If people can violate laws, they can violate any law they personally don't like.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

A president who is complicit in a literal by-land invasion of the United States is no longer president, and we are already in a functional state of disunion.

If this were a serious country, every lawmaker and government official presiding over the collapse of our southern border would be severely punished and barred from ever holding public office again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A president who is complicit in a literal by-land invasion of the United States is no longer president, and we are already in a functional state of disunion.

If this were a serious country, every lawmaker and government official presiding over the collapse of our southern border would be severely punished and barred from ever holding public office again.

And yet nothing is happening and it continues at unprecedented rates which really makes you start questioning if something more sinister and bigger is at play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think a lot of the people trying to come here are being misled, and I believe that a lot of the advocacy groups are complicit in misleading them. I was listening to a story on the radio the other day about a woman who fled Venezuela. She went to Chile with her daughter but then decided to leave Chile because she was a lawyer in Venezuela, but with Chile's paperwork and process, she couldn't work as a lawyer there. So then she was told she should go to the US because she would have an opportunity there.

How could someone in good faith suggest that you could just show up in the US as a migrant from Venezuela, automatically be accepted, and be allowed to go right to practicing law? And particularly when you can't even speak English? That's advice that's just plain wrong.

And why leave a country where you've already been accepted as a refugee, and where they at least speak your language and where you are far more compatible with the culture?

I think we need answers from migrants, "Oh, so you came by land, that means you passed through Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico before you got here. Why didn't you stay there? And while you consider your answer, "better economic situation in the US" is not a legitimate reason to seek asylum."

And, we should also find out who in these advocacy groups is coaching these migrants and advising them to come to the US for asylum when 80% plus are just economic migrants and are not eligible for asylum. Anyone giving bogus advice should be prosecuted for fraud, at the very least. Along with being called out for flooding and overwhelming our system which ends up HURTING ACTUAL, ELIGIBLE ASYLUM SEEKERS.

Look, the reasonable Locke (or is it Demosthenes? Valentine or Peter?) is launching their counter argument.

Well, first off, I'm not sure why you think we shouldn't welcome an intelligent woman and her offspring who are fleeing a ravaged socialist nightmare, and, being from a professional, educated class who has both studied history and felt the effects of a totalitarian regime, no doubt hate socialism just as much as you do.

But I get it. You're trying to make the argument that there's some ineffable "Spanish" culture that stops at the Rio Grande and surely she'd be happier among her own kind? That's what you implied, I believe quite deliberately.

The thing is, you're bad at this. Such a woman would probably vote Republican. Shed also probably speak at least some English and be quite capable of mastering more, which is more than I can say for you.

DP. You are extremely intent on dismissing any possible reason that we may not be the nation best suited to house every asylum seeker I'm the world. And ironically, you are the person who comes across as a cultural narcissist for believing that the US can be all things to all people.

I interact with immigrants pretty regularly and if you believe their lives are tangibly better in the US (or Central Europe), you are dead wrong. Get in some users and ask the drivers about their lives. A shockingly high number of them are highly educated professionals unable to work in their fields due to lack of reciprocity in credentialing. Their engineering degrees aren't recognized, their law degrees are useless, etc. They are being mislead and working difficult, menial jobs that rob them of financial security and time with their kids.

And culture does matter. The average American would find it easier to emigrate to the UK or Canada than to El Salvador or the Gambia. You have to be engaged in some very magical thinking, or have zero experience with independent foreign travel, to think that every foreign country is the same to everyone (and by your logic, except the US which is different by being perfect for everyone).

People need to grow up. We can't ignore all our laws, ignore people's needs, ignore budget realities, and have a functioning society. Being an adult means making reasonable tradeoffs and being realistic about the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think a lot of the people trying to come here are being misled, and I believe that a lot of the advocacy groups are complicit in misleading them. I was listening to a story on the radio the other day about a woman who fled Venezuela. She went to Chile with her daughter but then decided to leave Chile because she was a lawyer in Venezuela, but with Chile's paperwork and process, she couldn't work as a lawyer there. So then she was told she should go to the US because she would have an opportunity there.

How could someone in good faith suggest that you could just show up in the US as a migrant from Venezuela, automatically be accepted, and be allowed to go right to practicing law? And particularly when you can't even speak English? That's advice that's just plain wrong.

And why leave a country where you've already been accepted as a refugee, and where they at least speak your language and where you are far more compatible with the culture?

I think we need answers from migrants, "Oh, so you came by land, that means you passed through Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico before you got here. Why didn't you stay there? And while you consider your answer, "better economic situation in the US" is not a legitimate reason to seek asylum."

And, we should also find out who in these advocacy groups is coaching these migrants and advising them to come to the US for asylum when 80% plus are just economic migrants and are not eligible for asylum. Anyone giving bogus advice should be prosecuted for fraud, at the very least. Along with being called out for flooding and overwhelming our system which ends up HURTING ACTUAL, ELIGIBLE ASYLUM SEEKERS.

Look, the reasonable Locke (or is it Demosthenes? Valentine or Peter?) is launching their counter argument.

Well, first off, I'm not sure why you think we shouldn't welcome an intelligent woman and her offspring who are fleeing a ravaged socialist nightmare, and, being from a professional, educated class who has both studied history and felt the effects of a totalitarian regime, no doubt hate socialism just as much as you do.

But I get it. You're trying to make the argument that there's some ineffable "Spanish" culture that stops at the Rio Grande and surely she'd be happier among her own kind? That's what you implied, I believe quite deliberately.

The thing is, you're bad at this. Such a woman would probably vote Republican. Shed also probably speak at least some English and be quite capable of mastering more, which is more than I can say for you.

Maybe read what the poster wrote instead of just making things up? Frankly I think they just want rule of law. And anybody who doesn't want rule of law, to me, is a problem. While there are cases where the law does have to be overruled (which is why governers have the right to pardon), in general if you want people to obey the laws you do like, everybody has to obey the laws you don't like. If people can violate laws, they can violate any law they personally don't like.

+100
The PP has been trolling this thread, apparently after drinking too much. Beyond odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Holy $hit. I do hope Gavin winds up running for president. It would be so satisfying to see him absolutely excoriated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A president who is complicit in a literal by-land invasion of the United States is no longer president, and we are already in a functional state of disunion.

If this were a serious country, every lawmaker and government official presiding over the collapse of our southern border would be severely punished and barred from ever holding public office again.

THIS ^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's just conveniently ignore the fact that the slope on that chart started distinctly upward while Trump was still in office.

Let’s just conveniently ignore the fact that border protocols under Trump were actually working and starting to slow the flow of illegal immigrants. But then Joe, in all his mighty wisdom, decided to revoke those laws on his very first day in office. Had he left them alone, that line would have leveled off or even gone down. As we can all see, it shot straight up right after Joe became president. But do continue gaslighting about exactly who is responsible for the last three years of unprecedented illegal immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think a lot of the people trying to come here are being misled, and I believe that a lot of the advocacy groups are complicit in misleading them. I was listening to a story on the radio the other day about a woman who fled Venezuela. She went to Chile with her daughter but then decided to leave Chile because she was a lawyer in Venezuela, but with Chile's paperwork and process, she couldn't work as a lawyer there. So then she was told she should go to the US because she would have an opportunity there.

How could someone in good faith suggest that you could just show up in the US as a migrant from Venezuela, automatically be accepted, and be allowed to go right to practicing law? And particularly when you can't even speak English? That's advice that's just plain wrong.

And why leave a country where you've already been accepted as a refugee, and where they at least speak your language and where you are far more compatible with the culture?

I think we need answers from migrants, "Oh, so you came by land, that means you passed through Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico before you got here. Why didn't you stay there? And while you consider your answer, "better economic situation in the US" is not a legitimate reason to seek asylum."

And, we should also find out who in these advocacy groups is coaching these migrants and advising them to come to the US for asylum when 80% plus are just economic migrants and are not eligible for asylum. Anyone giving bogus advice should be prosecuted for fraud, at the very least. Along with being called out for flooding and overwhelming our system which ends up HURTING ACTUAL, ELIGIBLE ASYLUM SEEKERS.

Look, the reasonable Locke (or is it Demosthenes? Valentine or Peter?) is launching their counter argument.

Well, first off, I'm not sure why you think we shouldn't welcome an intelligent woman and her offspring who are fleeing a ravaged socialist nightmare, and, being from a professional, educated class who has both studied history and felt the effects of a totalitarian regime, no doubt hate socialism just as much as you do.

But I get it. You're trying to make the argument that there's some ineffable "Spanish" culture that stops at the Rio Grande and surely she'd be happier among her own kind? That's what you implied, I believe quite deliberately.

The thing is, you're bad at this. Such a woman would probably vote Republican. Shed also probably speak at least some English and be quite capable of mastering more, which is more than I can say for you.

DP. You are extremely intent on dismissing any possible reason that we may not be the nation best suited to house every asylum seeker I'm the world. And ironically, you are the person who comes across as a cultural narcissist for believing that the US can be all things to all people.

I interact with immigrants pretty regularly and if you believe their lives are tangibly better in the US (or Central Europe), you are dead wrong. Get in some users and ask the drivers about their lives. A shockingly high number of them are highly educated professionals unable to work in their fields due to lack of reciprocity in credentialing. Their engineering degrees aren't recognized, their law degrees are useless, etc. They are being mislead and working difficult, menial jobs that rob them of financial security and time with their kids.

And culture does matter. The average American would find it easier to emigrate to the UK or Canada than to El Salvador or the Gambia. You have to be engaged in some very magical thinking, or have zero experience with independent foreign travel, to think that every foreign country is the same to everyone (and by your logic, except the US which is different by being perfect for everyone).

People need to grow up. We can't ignore all our laws, ignore people's needs, ignore budget realities, and have a functioning society. Being an adult means making reasonable tradeoffs and being realistic about the world.

Well said!